wemptronics
2mo ago
Nope.
I don't have a lot of sympathy, but it's still not cool. Mobs getting angry and demanding [bad stuff] happens to [petty target] when no real harm has befallen anyone is a human behavior championed by geeks. Not cool, man. Dweebs and dorks chase the dopamine rush from owning the libs and bashing the fash for saying dumb stuff. A political party should adopt a platform that includes the creation of state trained swirly enforcers that replace the democratic moral outrage mob. It will require a constitutional amendment, but after that it's smooth sailing.
More seriously, there's no a path to a détente. People really don't like people that say bad stuff that makes them angry. A good old fashioned lynching is probably one of those God given human rights that the American founders thought were so obvious they didn't write down. Perhaps this pathetic incarnation of the lynching and moral enforcement is the last trace of true humanity we have. There's not much else anyone can do to enforce speech norms in a liberal democracy short of physical harm.
For this reason I'll suggest, in addition to dunking nerds in toilets, the SS (Super Swirlies) could make their way around to the people shit posting after they dunk the pointdexters for being mad at them. Dunk'em all.
There have been rumors circling that the Secret Service counter-snipers may have been directed not to fire first. At first that seems silly to me, but I think it makes sense in such an environment with constantly-changing scenery, civilians prone to doing all sorts of silly things, and new law enforcement organizations to cooperate with every week.
I've seen people (on the internet) saying this, and while I fully understand this policy and the false positives it means to avoid, it still is an unbelievable policy. A USSS sniper team has stricter rules of engagement than a citizen or cop has legal protections/assumptions in a self-defense shooting?
If the USSS is proficient and competent at everything else, then it is justified to centralize the 3-second-decision making in the upper layers of an events chain of command. If communication network at an event is well practiced, well functioning, and efficient. If those in a commanding role are constantly kept in the loop, on top each responsibility with a clear picture of what is going on and familiar with what their subordinates are doing. All the stuff that prevents 3-second-decisions from popping up. Even if all that and more was true, then it still is a major limitation on what sharpshooters can do to succeed in their role.
Apparently, security details are not always proficient and competent at all the things that justify such a policy. It may well be impossible for that to be the case given they frequently work with local officers of unknown ability and experience. If I am under their care I want to empower the highly trained, hopefully veteran counter sniper team to make 3-second-decisions without calling Lieutenant Fuck Up and waiting for his response. I don't know how sniper teams typically operate, but it seems like it has a built in structure that allows for decisions to be checked and calls made by more than one person. The spotter verifies the target and says, "You're good, hit him."
We are not calling in an airstrike. We are potentially trying to shoot man-with-gun before he shoots our VIP. If a sniper kills Joe Shmoe once every 20 years, that sucks, but fine. His career is over, the government writes a check to Mr. Shmoe's family, and the service is smeared and marred. It is still less of a reputational hit than counter snipers staring at an assassin and forcing them to allow the assassin to fire unless they hear back from Lieutenant Fuck Up. Unbelievable or untrue policy that declares POTUS and others under their care are not important enough to take the job seriously.
the supposed martyrdom effect is just a cultural strategy to discourage assassination. When politicians rally behind an assassination victim, they're contributing to a political norm that protects their own behinds.
Agreed. It's a fairly good norm to have. Not just for the politicians avoiding the guillotine.
At some level the average American understands, or believes, that assassinations on important people threaten their comfortable way of life. In addition to that, Americans have a common association with assassinations in history. Lincoln, JFK, the average American is taught about these figures and recalls them in the context of their assassinations. On top of the taboo Americans see assassinations as Big Historical Tragedy. That elicits sympathy and dredges up deep associations found within their educational programming.
I don't think the effect is such that a bunch of D primary voters will swing to Trump. Among undecideds or swing voters, however, if this event is still at the forefront of voter consciousness come November it will have an effect. As an anecdote, a very blue couple I was with yesterday shared the news. This couple had canvassed for Biden in 2020 as I recall. They are less politically engaged this go around, but still very blue. They believed it meant the election was lost. That was one of their first reactions.
Perhaps if Biden was in a stronger position they would have reacted differently. A lot can happen, as we've seen, but this felt like a nail in the coffin to them. This is a barb in the side of avid partisans and accelerationists. Of the, actual real people, group I was with there was one "wouldn't have been so bad if he missed" flippant comment. Which Blue Couple did not appreciate and shamed him for, despite all the the vitriol Blue Wife has directed towards the former president over the years.
Hmm, true. I wouldn't call Biden senile yet. I'd call him old, with a scoop of burgeoning senility*. I'm not going to dig thru 2020 stuff, but he was more capability for sure. I'm also not going to take Mr. Cluchey's account as gospel. His plea for media to "demonstrate the clarity and capacity to do their job" makes my eyes roll. Dan, too, apparently ignored evidence of Biden's ability in the past year or more and laughed at the media as they tried to "do their job." How happy would Dan have been if they did their job, the Whitehouse invited them to do their job, and came to a similar conclusion in, say, November 2023? Do we trust Dan here to spill the beans if he did see something concerning?
The media is building and driving a narrative. They often do so haphazardly, because that's what they do. While a hostile media might be upsetting to Biden administration, perhaps they could do a better job inviting media scrutiny to get to the truth-- if the truth is he's mostly fine, most of the time, for most of the day. We don't know to what extent the narrative is true, beyond what we see.
Age focused political attacks are destined to become true at some point. We can say AOC has cognitive impairment due to age, then cash in on that attack 40 years down the line. When Trump starts avoiding public appearances, events, and gathers a posse to surround him to get to and from Air Force One we will hear about it for days.
wemptronics
2mo ago
There's not enough posts to justify a megathread. This is the megathread. I can collapse chains easily. Browsing thread and yeah, this could have gone in a pinned comment or something.
wemptronics
2mo ago
His outgroup does lie. Frequently and, sometimes, brazenly. That's politics, baby. It's not so reasonable to assume they are baseless smears to the extent that you're surprised by something closer to the truth given the facts in this case. Like the Hunter laptop story. That was a true story. It was even a believable story. But, it was also a timely political smear, which reasonable people are skeptical of. Folks should not take every claim in political attack ads at face value.
Outright shoving them into the Republican propaganda box isn't doing people like Scott any favors. I would not be surprised if Scott hadn't paid attention to or watched any Biden old clips-- certainly not selectively edited ones posted to pwn libs on X.com.
I believe it was Michael Moynihan of the Fifth Column that said, a couple years ago now, what sold him that Biden's age was a real problem was the distinct omission of it as a topic in media. That late night talk shows didn't make jokes about his boomer moments was evidence itself this was not a concern people were interested in even laughing about. Then again, I'm not sure we'll ever really see a late night talk show scene that sees hosts take D-politicians to task for jokes.
Some not-bare links, words, and a Scott watch.
1 a. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prediction-markets-suggest-replacing
First, a Scott post on Biden, debate, and a personal accounting of The Big Reveal. The curtain drawn across the stage to lay bare Biden's cognitive decline for the world to see. This is the common framing and narrative, anyway. He writes:
Many people on Twitter are asking “how could anyone possibly have been stupid enough to not realize that Biden was senile?”
I was that stupid. I didn’t say it openly, because I’m at least smart enough to have a high threshold for giving my opinion on political things I don’t know much about. But I thought it in my heart. So in case the people asking “how could anyone have been that stupid?” actually want an explanation, here’s my former reasoning.
Republicans have been accusing Biden of being senile (and the Democrats of hiding it) for at least five years now. Before the 2020 debates, they were excited that this was when they could finally prove once and for all that Biden was senile. Then Biden did fine, and they retreated to “well he’s senile but”....
Reversed stupidity is not intelligence. Even if liars are saying something for their usual liar reasons, it can still be true. For twenty years, people spread false rumors that Castro was on his deathbed, but this didn’t make Castro immortal. In the same way, I should have figured out that even if I couldn’t trust any particular claim that Biden was senile, the prior for an 81 year old becoming senile was still high.
He then suggests Biden drops out, dropping Kamala as well, and throwing in some "purple-state Governor". Like Scott, this seems rather late in the game to me. There is still plenty of time to the election, as I'm sure the Biden loyalists are also telling themselves, so anything can happen. Who knows, maybe Biden gets a war? Wars are good for incumbents.
1 b. https://eigenrobot.substack.com/p/come-on-man
Eigenrobot, Twitter poaster extraordinaire, has some good thoughts looking at the same theme, but with regards to the media. He lays some groundwork with articles speaking of Biden's potential decline as an elderly gentleman some dating back to 2017.
My tentative conclusion from all of this is just that everyone here was socially or otherwise imprisoned and so prevented from putting two and two together even privately. All of the evidence was plain to see; or at least enough to not be shocked by what happened last Thursday. What was wanting was the capacity to perceive it.
There are some beliefs held for utility, and some load-bearing for survival; if they were to be abandoned, one would have to surrender their convenience, their security, or an identity. These are real costs.
Finishing with something that's been mentioned here many times:
The secret is my God I mean Biden was coming up on eighty years old! Have you ever met or known eighty year olds? Even if they don’t get a diagnosis, even if their minds aren’t totally lost to us, the fact is octogenarians are just in a phase of their lives where they are meaningfully slowing down both mentally and physically.
Biden is old! This reaction with CNN anchors exclaiming, "how could the Whitehouse aides forsake us" is funny. Journalists have gotten worse at their jobs, that's how. There was space and time to talk about Biden's age and its potential impact it may have on the election. All well within the Overton window, even. Some journalists did write about it-- even those in Respectable Publications. That this idea was pushed into right-wing meme territory is an apparent, notable, visible failure for journalists. Not only do they feel lied to, they feel inadequate that they allowed themselves to be lied to. An outrage!
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=_sZU0tQkwnQ&t=3382 - Mistake theory strikes again
I listened to this Q&A with Scott and Nate Silver at the allegedly controversial Manifest conference that happened in June. There's some interesting tidbits in there if you're interested in prediction markets, Nate Silver+election models, AI risk, and so on. Perhaps not anything new for your ears that these two haven't written about.
The time stamp shows Scott answering a question about AI and how that may play into the risk of future wars. He first says that wars between great powers have a good chance of going nuclear and that is bad. However you want to define "good chance", fine. Then he goes on to say how it is his impression that "often [wars between great powers happen because] everybody was trying to do brinksmanship and made a mistake".
Scott is answering questions off the cuff in an informal, impromptu format. He's not some foreign policy wonk and neither am I. Brinkmanship is a thing. Some conflicts may escalate to unwanted, outright hostilities due to brinkmanship, political grandstanding, or get accidentally'd into full blown war. My impression is that escalation is usually not a mistake, though. Ukraine is not some exception as Scott suggests.
Escalation can be a proactive, reactive, or provocative measure to induce war. Escalation can be seen as a deterrent by one side, then used as a provocation to the other, sure, but I don't think it's fair to call these things mistakes. They are realities. Over stepping, going a little to far, these things can happen between states as they do people. Maybe he means a war that led to nuclear exchange would be considered a mistake. Which is probably true if it happens.
Is there a case in the last 15 years where police had the opportunity to suppress a manifesto, but released it anyway? If the option to suppress it is there, then it seems like this is becoming more standard. Most manifestos that make it into the public get directly uploaded somewhere, posted to 4chan, mailed to a newspaper if you're a 20th century terrorist, and so on. Seems like poor form to forget to post your deranged manifesto publicly before committing a heinous act. ** Also, her diary seem less like a philosophical statement, or call to action, than they are the weird doodles and thoughts of a mentally ill individual.
As for the police, Nashville PD, and most police departments, probably don't contain many cops that are too interested in protecting trans ideology. I can buy FBI involvement or pressure decreases the likelihood of a single cop leaking it as it pertains to trans-y ideas versus white nationalist ones. As a counter example, Brenton Tarrant and his manifesto was heavily suppressed in New Zealand and elsewhere following the Christchurch shooting. His manifesto was banned on lots of sites places if I recall. New Zealand also suppressed his name, face, and manifesto, albeit not very effectively.
For media coverage, yes I think it's fair to say there's a bias here. Googling Audrey Hale gets me this which includes a few right wing rags and the Post which may or may not qualify as one. On the flip side, here's one NPR article on Dylann Roof's manifesto. Dylann had his manifesto read out loud in court, but the NPR article predates that. If this was instead white nationalist rage manifesto, then yes it's fair to say there would be American media all over this shouting at the roof tops. Crazy trans radical kills children just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Is there a good argument for police to release every crazy's manifesto? Is there a good argument for media to cover the contents and proliferate the ideas in every manifesto?
Offering free national publicity for each person that gets the bright idea to impose their bullshit on others by killing kids creates a perverse incentive. If the options are coordinate a memory hole or offer them an free publicity-- one seems better than the other. A media ecosystem that could effectively coordinate this would be pretty scary though, wouldn't it?
Appeasement didn’t work in the ‘30’s. Looking weak today increases the risks China or Russia oversteps in the future. You even marginal raise the risks of a Russian/Chinese first strike if they think you are too soft to counter.
Yup. Does the 2022 invasion happen if the West had a more serious response in and after 2014? Depending on what that is, it probably does not. A decade ago it was decided Ukraine was not worth too much. Things were messier then, sure, but only after Putin learns the West's level of commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty does the West decide it actually matters a bit more.
Perhaps Putin still invades thinking the thunder run will be successful before any shift in defense commitments. However, the calculation is very different. The West still does not think that Ukrainian territory and ideas of sovereignty are worth dying for. The West is just paying interest on missed payments in the past to deter further aggression.
wemptronics
3mo ago
My impression is that Zorba et. al would rather the project die than have its mission compromised. The move was a full commitment to make it work or death. A concern beginning back at reddit where the lowest common denominator wandering in and ruining everything was a genuine one that required active management. The project is always in some precarious, delicate state of balance that requires a velvet glove.
I recall a year or two ago there was some shout outs from @ymeskhout and @TracingWoodgrains. They both have larger audiences and could do the same. Maybe they didn't see much effect. Mods are likely older and busier now which makes the idea of managing problems that come with a boom from widescale advertising unappealing.
Putting the vault on substack and having people blast that out seems like a good (safer) idea to filter out some of the troublemakers and attract more wordcels. Entropy, a bitch, etc. Before death, Kulak should put the site on blast to his Twitter followers for maximum going-out-with-a-bang witch gathering.
I read that (great!) thread on the bill. Any other decent long form articles or think pieces on the bill? Some ignorant thots in the mean time. These might be too cynical, or not sufficiently cynical.
If you're a Democrat and see this is as a Genuine National Concern, but it's not a problem you can admit is a problem, then what's the best way to deal with it? If the party has consensus, then maybe you can talk to your more centrist party members to commit to a Blame Manchin strategy. You let the Republicans pass the legislation and then pass blame for addressing the problem-not-problem on your political enemies and useful quislings. This doesn't seem to be necessary and that should worry for the GOP.* This could also be Plan B for 2025.
If you're a Democrat and see this is as a Genuine National Concern, and may lose the Whitehouse to a man you can not be seen as cooperating with for the next 4 years, then now's the time. Get the legislation out there now while you have the chance. That's leverage for your enemy. Although the leverage may be worthwhile if the bill is electorally beneficial or neutral for your party in this election. At worst, it takes some wind out of the opposing party platform.
If you're a Democrat, and this problem-not-problem is more so an electoral concern, but you're constrained by your party's established platform that needs time to change, then what do you do? You put up legislation that doesn't really address the not-problem or help your opponents, but is enough to pass blame off to the other party if it passes or not. Hey, we just passed bipartisan immigration reform or Hey, we tried to address the not-problem.
Thing is, Whitehouse or not, it appears Democrats are willing to start calling this a not-a-problem thing a problem that needs fixing. Reasonably, responsibly, and certainly not due to hatred. CNN isn't running stories on how this bill is a massive betrayal, are they? Does the GOP get away with dumping a lost opportunity?
If you're a Republican senator you might see it as a Genuine National Concern, but the ongoing problem is not really an electoral problem for you. Not so long as you're trying, or so long as your state's governor keeps shipping immigrants to other parts of the country. It might even be a problem that provides more electoral advantages the worse the problem gets. If allowing the opposing party to fix the not-problem doesn't help you electorally, then what's in it for you? Even if it was acceptable legislation you think might work, your party might have consensus to not deal with the problem until your party has a stronger position.
It may no longer be not be politically feasible to reform immigration through Congress. It seems that way. Congress found the one weird trick years ago. Keep the big stuff on the docket for campaigning, keep your seat, and let POTUS take the heat. If he messes up you can yell at him, and even if it works it'll only stay workin' until your team is back up on the plate. This also fits nicely into a case where you, senator, don't consider this a Genuine National Concern, and is instead just another episode of political football.
1/100 encounters resulting in attack sounds like a lot? I looked at the citation for that and the statistic is based one naturalist's observations of his own encounters during a period of study. It's more accurate to say, of this one man's 270 encounters with bears during his study on bears, he was only attacked 1% of the time. I assume this researcher is experienced in the field, knows what to look for, and maintains awareness of his surroundings. Your average person may have different results if they were to stumble upon, rather than seek out, 270 bear encounters in the woods. Even so, 1% still sounds like a lot. There's got to be a few Alaskan bushmen who have had hundreds of encounters without an attacks. Probably because they stay the hell away.
Bear behavior in an encounter relies on a lot of different factors. Distance, whether either part is surprised, what time of the year it is, male or female, whether it has cubs nearby, how hungry it is, etc. The infamous Grizzly Man guy (and his girlfriend) were attacked and eaten by a hungry, sickly, aging bear at the end of feeding season.
A person's behavior will influence the outcome as well. The author of the study aggressively yelled at two bears that attacked him which scared them off of the charge. Do bears do false charges? I know my regional black bears can be pretty responsive to aggression. He doesn't differentiate if so.
In a third instance:
In the second case, a female was defending young. My companion and I disturbed her cub. The cub ran away, but the mother jumped out of the brush, knocking me down, destroying my pack on my back, and then walking away slowly. I played dead; maybe it saved my life.
Lucky guy! Bears are cool. Way cooler than bear vs. bad man discourse.
If they can change the tenor of relations even slightly from "We got your back" to "Reign it in a bit, our support isn't unconditional" they could see that as a win.
They have already done so. POTUS administration has used messaging to suggest support is conditional, begging restraint, etc. For example, the reporting after Iran strike on Israel, it was widely reported afterwards Biden had talked to Bibi and said the US won't participate in any retaliation. "Take the win." Coordinating an impromptu air defense network between several regional partners to down Iranian missiles and drones is not lukewarm support. It is exceptional support. I don't think the general public is aware or cares about these kinds of details. It was also support defensive in nature which I guess makes it less useful to activists to point at.
It is unclear exactly what Biden could do to satisfy this arm of his party without ceasing all financial and military support for Israel. A politically isolated or more desperate Israel is probably not a better Israel for Palestinians to live next to. Nor would it be better for America to have to deal with and it would likely increase domestic pressures on Biden. So signals for restraint and (probably) coordinated public messaging is about all POTUS is willing to do. It is an election year after all!
cared more about the plight of the Palestinians
Well, yeah. Although, I am not without sympathy for Palestinians.
then you have or will care about anything in your entire life
I don't think so. Things and people I care about generally drive my will to survive and provide. I hope this continues to be true, and that I do not ever feel like I am in a position where I have to light myself on fire to mourn the plight of people across the ocean, or demonstrate my levels-of-care about something, or to someone else.
If I'm ever in a position where I need to sacrifice it all to protect people I care about, I hope I have the wisdom to recognize the situation for what it is, and the courage to accept that. I am past the age of dying for convictions that don't have material impact on myself or my family. You might be correct that I never was that age-- I am not so sure about that. If that's amoral, fair enough.
I do hope Bushnell's convictions gave him comfort on his way out. Otherwise, I don't think his convictions did himself or Palestinians any good.
No one lights themselves on fire for The Cause in the privacy of their own homes. Performative is a given.
Efficacy is not always required for self-sacrifice, conviction, and heroism to touch something off in the human imagination. The futile last stand is universal. Does the futility or inevitability of defeat make a sacrifice make it more impactful? People seem to disagree, though every culture elevates stories of both heroic last stands, and futile ones. Of course, even the Jews have their own morbid one.
Still, I have a gut feeling that this act is a perversion of the noble sacrifice. The heroic resistance. Bushnell's display feels like a knock off. Maybe it's just because of my own politics, or because it is a knock-off of a 50 year old protest event. Bushnell was not fighting religious persecution in his homeland. He did not choose death instead of acceptance, or did he? He had options. He did not live in a place or time that would see a brutal war over the following 15 years. No, Bushnell was a safe American. He was as safe as you could be. Like so many Americans, he spent some of his time typing into the void, playing video games, and playing politics online.
Bushnell's act can't be called a LARP, but why does it feel like a LARP?
Maybe the feeling of perversion comes down to my cynicism. There is no Diem to coup here. There is not an Alamo to remember. Insofar as awareness and eyeballs are helpful, it seems like there are maximum eyeballs already. Outside of something wild, like Israel opening up a new front in Lebanon, then everyone is as involved or invested as they're going to be. Maybe America will claim to make the Israelis go home a few weeks early when it happens. There is an Israel filled with Israelis who can not yet say like they will accept living next to a Hamas governed Gaza. Until something in that equation changes, Israel will trudge along accordingly. It is written.
Maybe these things never seem heroic in the moment. The romantic hero aspect has to be earned with time. Although, this doesn't appear to be true in Quang Duc's case. I have to say I cracked an evil smile reading some snide dissident right types. "Yes, of course this man is a hero, my dear leftists. We shall all to aspire to follow in his example." There may be something in that. If this man is a hero, but one we must warn people not to emulate, then why would he a hero at all?
RE: drunk tank story. Nice anecdote. A little loss of freedom with a heavy dose of reality can put things in perspective.
wemptronics
6mo ago
I'm not a huge fan, but I do recall it being lambasted for not meeting expectations or anything alike S1. After reading this thread I looked at the TD sub and it sounds like there's a rehabilitation of Season 2 going on.
From what I saw, it has some more similarities to Season 1 than S2. Season 2 may have had more detective work if not the cultish, supernatural vibes? It has been quite awhile since I've seen S2 and I don't think I will watch again. The shootout was the coolest part.
I recently watched Season 3 and it was enjoyable and interesting. After the noise surrounding S2 it makes sense they try to re-align with S1 vibes. It'd be fine if True Detective didn't follow the S1 formula with each season having its own themes, setting, and tone that aren't all that similar to each other. Big A-list names with acting bonafides, interesting/logical/grounded detective work, some well-written twists, and sure some supernatural flair if they want. Setting aside quality, that sounds neat.
wemptronics
6mo ago
Universal Soldier (1992) was a masterpiece of cinema and the fact it has a 34% RottenTomatoes score is a blight on our culture.
Nobody watched them for the plot.
This is the big issue. From what I did watch, Night Country is not a True Detective series. Had the True Detective name never been attached the critics could sing its praises in peace. They could glorify the importance of its message in a thousand reviews that no one would read. Then, the Prestige TV-cels could have then watched an episode, laughed at it, and never thought about it again.
The studio's decision to attach the True Detective brand cashes in a little HBO credibility with some part of their audience, but apparently the viewership was good? I guess there's a market for bad TV on HBO. It is a shame they pulled a bait-and-switch on a fanbase that I assume really really really wants another good season of True Detective, but alas. It ain't happening. I quickly bailed on the series and have no inclination to watch it.
wemptronics
7mo ago
Yes, framing this as uncontroversially wrong is a strategic decision, but it's the wrong one. Really you're carrying water for the extremists of the Murder Is Okay party by framing this as a surprising outcome of their actions and policies, rather than an inevitable and intended one.
Those dastardly murderers.
People need to know just how far the Overton Window has stretched to the left.
I understand the frustration, but I'm not sure why people need to know this to change their mind. I suspect left-right framing is about the fastest way to not change minds, which is why so many people, even those adjacent dissidents like Freddie deBoer, always take the time to say their not-a-conservative mantras. That this is a requirement to have any sort of movement in a rightward direction for progressives may very well be a flaw of their own making, but I do not blame people for respecting the fact it is a reality.
It was predictable that we'd have racial interest groups engaging in racial spoils when we decided racial preferences were a good thing to institutionalize. I mean hey, if the price for increased diversity is every once in awhile some dirty union takes advantage and gets caught, that's a price worth paying. The fact that the Federal government is actively defending a lawsuit about it is unfortunate, but that's what lawyers do, ya know?
The not a problem to actually a good thing pipeline is a problem. Do you have any examples of more effective aggressive methods of moderating progressive beliefs in the past? Practically speaking, dissidents on the left don't keep reach, influence, or stay on the left. 'That's what a conservative would say' is a powerful antibody. If we go back in time 48 hours, rewrite TracingWoodgrains post for maximum effect how would you change it? Who would be the speaker? I'm not a person out there exists that can deliver what you want to happen.
Apologies this is all I have time to respond to at the moment.*
It's not really a lie. If you, as Trace appears to, believe that most liberals wouldn't disagree with his conclusions -- creating a fake ATC exam for black union to cheat on is bad -- then it's more of a strategic framing. Jesse Singal's Signal Boost had the same sort of framing. "Gee, look how legitimate, uncontroversial, yet juicy and important this story is. Shouldn't Real Journalists be covering this very uncontroversial story?"
People like Singal and TracingWoodgrains use the soft, strategic framing, because they think they can walk some Real Journalists, Real Progressives, and so on back to a more honest(?) space. They, probably correctly, assume that journalists aren't touching it, because of the discourse. If there was no National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees involved in the story, and instead was the National Coalition of Italian-American Aviation Employees that cheated the hiring process for ATC jobs, then this may have been front page on the the New York Times 6 years ago. This is a terrible failure for Affirmative Action advocates, so it is needs to stay hidden, but it doesn't have to be that way
If you believe you can change minds for the better, then using a story few serious people will disagree with is a good way to walk the Overton Window a little closer to your ideal area.* Conservatives see this and, understandably, it makes them angry. Media, progressives, liberals, and the rest of us walked -- or were led -- into the political landscape we live in today. There has to be a way to walk and lead towards another place, right?
wemptronics
7mo ago
Is a Palestinian state going to attack Tel-Aviv?
Why not? In your fantasy, the Palestinian position is better, and much closer to victory than they are today. We know to what extent Europeans will go to disarm Arabs and impose a peace. Europeans are not prepared to trade their lives for peace in Israel, and even if they were, then I don't see why they themselves don't become the "rogue state" destabilizing the Middle East. A European force that is willing to occupy and pacify Gaza/West Bank could very well be even more threatening to a power like Iran than the Jews are today. The devil you know and all that.
I don't even disagree that if lasting peace becomes a desirable goal, then Israel's right should have to come to terms with the reality of a two-state solution. It is possible the West could play a role in making this happen, but it does feel as if we are further from this fantasy than we were 20 years ago.
Yes after making the post I realized we could just be discussing how bad it is to indirectly assist a group like Hamas by simply being present and providing aid. How culpable are these NGOs for providing more "human shield" cover, propping up governance, in order to heal people in need? Not culpable enough to say no more treatment there ever. Journalists would have a harder time convincing me they are doing good by embedding with Boko Haram to cover their atrocities. In that case, I do think coverage is better than no coverage, but doctors in general have a much stronger claim to do gooder status. Even if their involvement is used to the advantage of bad actors.
I do think they probably shouldn't be running cover for Hamas. They don't need to act as spies, but neither do they need to act as propagandists.** The latter is not proven by my post.
Hmm good question. The International Committee of the Red Cross says
In times of armed conflict, the wounded and sick include anyone, whether military or civilian, who needs medical attention and is not, or no longer, taking part in hostilities....
Before carrying out an attack on a medical establishment or unit that has lost its protected status, a warning must be given. Where appropriate, this should include a time limit, which must go unheeded before an attack is permitted. The purpose of issuing a warning is to allow those committing an "act harmful to the enemy" to terminate such act, or – if they persist – to ultimately allow for safe evacuation of the wounded and sick...
An attacking party remains also bound by the obligation to take precautions in attack, in particular to do everything feasible to avoid or at least minimize harm to patients and medical personnel who may have nothing to do with those acts and for whom the humanitarian consequences will be especially dire
So it should not matter who a hospital is treating, so long as it is merely a hospital, and not on an active airbase launching sorties. So a field hospital in the Ardennes that gets artillery'd because it is on the front line does not qualify for a "warning". A field hospital in the Ardennes that is captured by American troops, so long as they aren't resisting, shouldn't be bombed. This seems mostly reasonable. Some of these international law nerds will set us straight.
FWIW above quote they do not provide easy citations near as I can tell from my phone.
Can we merge Israel-Gaza related posts with the main thread now? The last one is 10 days old. At this point, +200 posts in the main thread should not crowd out other topics.
Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza has gotten a lot of attention lately. The brief siege already has a Wikipedia page longer than the First Battle of Fallujah's. It doesn't yet beat the Second Battle of Fallujah's page word count. Yet. There has been plenty of standard internet hemming and hawing, propaganda wars, and some genuine interest with the ethics civilians stuck in the middle of a war. In case you were worried, the premature babies are safe.
The IDF, which has made public claims that the hospital is used as a headquarters for Hamas operations, released a couple segments of footage since successfully occupying the hospital. One is a video with footage of a tunnel that leads to a blast door around, if not under, the hospital. The second video is allegedly from the hospital's security cameras footage on the 7th of October. One person in the footage is an amputee wheeled in on a gurney; the other hustles on his own two feet, herded by armed men although he could be injured still.
Israel is releasing this footage to try to show the hospital was an active part of Hamas operations. Critics retort well, duh, hospitals are where you take injured hostages people, you baby killers. Critics of those critics say, well how come come they didn't just drop off these hostages at one of the other 6 hospitals on the way back from the border, Mr. Smarty Pants Real Baby Killer? If we get something like the truth eventually, then the wrong baby killers will memory hole it, while the right baby killers will throw it in their face. The war wages on.
Within this context, there's questions about the complicity of doctors and NGO's involved in Gaza. People like this guy and other former doctors have denied that there is any Hamas activity in the hospital. The vibe is that NGO's deny their proximity to Hamas in Gaza, and thus are complicit to some degree. This is just some guy but it's a common type of thread.
My question is more general: if you were a doctor in Gaza, and you knew Hamas operated within your hospital, what is the right thing to do? If you alert the Israelis to the presence of their enemy in your building, there is a good chance you are adding yourself, your hospital, and your patients to a target list somewhere. So, aren't you just putting everyone at risk by ratting out Hamas? Does the degree of the operation matter? Say, if Hamas only showed up once every couple of weeks to get medical attention, standard guard, and bring some hostages for treatment every few years, would you trust the IDF to take that into account when determining what kind of response was appropriate? You know Israel is mad, but they probably won't drop a JDAM onto a hospital and say oops, right? But, if you thought they might do that, and Hamas was operating deep in some tunnel system underground, shouldn't you let the IDF know that so they don't just drop a JDAM on the roof?
In this not-so-but-maybe hypothetical, I can't see a good reason why you'd ever talk to the IDF about Hamas being around you. In fact, you might even think it better to deny it and hope the fighters just evacuate before you and your patients get blown to bits. When the IDF shows up to siege you, you try to negotiate the evacuation of the premature babies, but otherwise you keep your mouth shut. When asked, you say you are there to provide medical attention to anyone that walks through the door, but are not responsible for whatever else goes on there. If you talk about Hamas after the fact, then you may get kicked out of the territory and that's just one less doctor around to provide medical treatment. Gun to head, if they find a Vietcong command center under your feet you stick to that story, so you can continue to provide medical treatment to people who need it, at a time when they need it most. This makes you complicit to a degree, but also seems ethical enough for me. What do you guys think?
Example bullet points are convincing and demoralizing. Do you have vast bookmark archives, or is your recall that sharp? I will bump an absolute banger of a post with junk and an AAQC report.
The behavior is better than literally burning witches and heretics. So, in a sort of Pinker-esque perspective it's not so bad. If we can't recognize any useful tools, people, or mechanisms, then hope or acceptance may be better than chasing the dragon.
The left-left? They jettisoned, or were stripped of, any sort of practiced ideological pinning that shares any of the relevant principles. Progressivism consumed liberalism among city dwellers without much resistance.
Left of center people will still recall these principles. Their voices, politicians, and institutions even still give lip service and faithfully repeat the right platitudes. Until challenged by their moral betters with the most tepid amount of heat applied to their feet. Still, if those principles become apparently useful then something will change. Once upon a time, left-leaning Jewish lawyers rallied a hell of coalition to espouse, then enshrine such principles.
I'm not sure what Trace means when he says centrists. Inasmuch as centrists supposedly can mobilize they are not in a position to be a prominent voice, nor equipped to actually do things writ large. Unless we define major institutions as inherently centrist, as a leftist would, then they may as well not exist except for a number of grey tribe weirdos. The moderate liberal does exist. I'd include a hefty slice of the aging center-left and some right of center folks. Powerful folks, even, but not cultural movers. They are cowed all the same when the hot iron is applied.
For as long as centrists are boring and culture warring fun they will remain cultural irrelevant. Politics, partisanship, and being mean to enemies is fun. Having enemies you won't die to is fun. The stakes aren't high enough for enough people to be stripped of fun. How do you compete with fun? You either take power to enforce boring, win a cultural victory via memetics like principles, or-- you wait for a terrible self-afflicted catastrophe that allows moderate temperaments to have their day in the limelight. Take advantage of the aftermath of some awfulness that reminds people why the responsible centrists are so eager to tell you why you're ruining stuff.
The radical, backbone-having centrists needed to start their march through the institutions 15 years ago, but they didn't, because they don't exist. They can't be real until the landscape changes to allow them to exist.
Christians have some good reasons. People in positions of authority have good reasons. Each individual person probably has one or two good reasons. LibsofTikTok has few good reasons.
More options
Context Copy link