zeke5123a
9hr ago
I’ll just pick on the first “rebuttal.” Thiel is making a Type I v Type II error point. Yes WW3 would be unjust. But so too will be the efforts by those saying “be afraid of WW3–give us these powers to prevent it.”
He then points to Thessalonians. In it, Paul is not saying he is proclaiming “peace.” Instead, Paul is quite literally saying TPTB will be saying “peace.” That is, it’s a prophecy. Thiel is saying the Antichrist will use the yearning for peace to usher in a fate worse than war.
zeke5123a
1d ago
I regularly take the train (NYC metro area). I could easily afford to drive. But train is a lot easier and I can work etc.
Most of the people on the commuter train are not poor or college kids. Maybe ant one point they are jurors but I imagine that was a typo.
zeke5123a
2d ago
People want nice stuff—especially housing. Bing that cost down and other things like the above won’t matter
zeke5123a
3d ago
Ha! I told my kids that if they were good, Santa would give them a present. If they were bad, a lump of coal. And if they were really bad, Krampus would pick them up, put them in his sack, and carry them of.
They laughed and responded: you’re joking right?
I played around for a few minutes like it was real but ultimately told them that Krampus isn’t real. They had a fun time with it. And it showed they understood play and could figure out some things were absurd. Notably however they didn’t seem to question Santa haha
zeke5123a
4d ago
No — we know someone else was also guilty. Doesn’t mean the CP5 weren’t concurrently guilty.
zeke5123a
5d ago
I think the CP5 were likely guilty.
Also Trump isn’t unique in his lying. He lies a lot. But so do other politicians. Trump is simply more uncouth.
zeke5123a
5d ago
Proposition 1: it is impossible to deport millions of people by actually catching them and deporting them.
Proposition 2: People who are afraid will self deport.
Proposition 3: We want to deport millions.
Solution: Make illegals afraid they might be caught and disappeared.
zeke5123a
5d ago
One of the posters here (I think his name is Anti Populist now) posted the Seltzer poll. I, among others, pointed out how absurd the cross sectionals were and how inconsistent it was with prior polls. He kept on ignoring it predicting a Harris victory right up until she lost.
I rubbed his nose in it because when people make predictions on vibes while ignoring the obvious holes they should be reminded to improve their thought processes going forward. He then blocked me. So yeah, people here were gung ho on harris until she lost.
zeke5123a
11d ago
OP blocked me so he won’t get my “wisdom” but I’m reminded of a rock band (think it might have been Van Halen) that demanded certain colors and quantities of m&ms. Of course, different color m&ms taste identical so it was a silly, arbitrary request. But the point was to test the people putting the concert together—if they can’t do the little arbitrary things maybe they are failing at the bigger important things.
This strikes me as in line with this. There isn’t a strategic goal. But they want to make sure troops follow orders implicitly.
zeke5123a
11d ago
It seems to me the attempt to civilize war leads to incomplete victory leading to renewed tensions years down the line.
zeke5123a
12d ago
To me, this reads in part like a plea for the Latin mass
Edit: more flippant than I meant. It’s a good post. Just was thinking about the language part
zeke5123a
12d ago
Being a foodie is arguably the sine qua non of pmc membership. Matt doesn’t realize how little it actually matters because it’s the air he breathes.
zeke5123a
12d ago
Superficially sure. They all know who captain America is. But that doesn’t mean they’ve accepted American culture norms about say blasphemy laws.
zeke5123a
13d ago
I’m not saying technology necessarily makes assimilation harder. I’m saying it easily could and thus citing historic immigration assimilation is irrelevant unless you can strongly make the case that tech doesn’t matter or makes it better.
zeke5123a
13d ago
Matt Yglesias posted on X an argument in favor of immigration (having trouble finding it now). The argument was basically “you like lasagna right? Well if we didn’t allow Italians to immigrate no lasagna. And now Italians are pretty indistinguishable from other Americans so clearly that will be the case with others such as Somalians. Think of the future lasagna equivalent you’d get with no cost since the immigrants will assimilate.”
Leave aside the HBD argument. It seems to me that one Matt and those who make this argument miss is the massively different technology that exists today that didn’t exist in yesteryear. If you left Italy in the late 1800s, you couldn’t easily get back routinely to see family (whereas now it’s maybe a days travel). You couldn’t FaceTime them at a whim. You couldn’t text message them. The populations were truly cut off.
It is likely harder to assimilate in the modern world where immigrant populations are not cut off as opposed to the old world. So pointing to historic examples of assimilation do not hold for today because the factors have changed. Now maybe you still think there will be assimilation for different reasons. But you need to make that argument. Comparing like and unlike however cannot be your argument.
I don’t think this is some kind of groundbreaking point but why would presumably smart people like Yglesias make such a sloppy argument? Maybe they aren’t smart. Maybe they don’t encounter enough arguments to the contrary. Or maybe they are propagandists. I can’t help but think repeating a catechism has value to building political unity even (perhaps especially if) it’s fake.
zeke5123a
16d ago
I guess it depends on what “most” means. AOC, Crockett, and Omar all effectively excused it.
Yes, AOC initially decried it. But AOC went on the House floor and basically spent most of her time talking about why Kirk was terrible and why the House shouldn’t vote yes on the non binding resolution.
By the way, a majority of house Dems voted not to pass the resolution.
zeke5123a
16d ago
A father of two was just murdered for his political views. A none insignificant number of leftists cheered his murder. You have members of Congress saying murder bad but “long diatribe about how awful the decedent was” effectively saying “that this murder wasn’t that bad.”
So I don’t have the faith you do.
zeke5123a
18d ago
That’s the opposite of what needs to happen after a terrorist. Don’t legitimize terrorism. Pass a law that defunds any state that passes the mask law.
zeke5123a
20d ago
Relevancy? The government did it. The problem — if you believe in democracy — is that the government did it clearly against the wishes of its elected leader.
zeke5123a
20d ago
Killing Kirk was a direct attack on free speech. The goal was to silence his voice. Celebrating the murder is anti free speech. This is where you actually get into Popper’s tolerance paradox. If we want free speech, the first rule is you don’t support murdering people for speaking and if you do then you aren’t allowed in polite society.
Large patches of the left celebrated the death (ie were anti free speech) and then are claiming to be champions of free speech. Chutzpah to say the least.
Wokeness isn’t insane? Do you want examples?
More options
Context Copy link