Goodguy
4hr ago
Well, they're not a monolith. Some of them wanted such radical actions, some were opposed, some indifferent.
My overall point is that, even though Jews in Western countries have been moving a bit to the right recently, white-dominated right-wing populist movements probably have, to a Jewish perspective, so much historical baggage that I don't expect 80% of Jews to support them any time in the near future. They might do it if Muslims rise to make up like 20% of Western populations or something. Even then I'm not sure.
Goodguy
5hr ago
How so? They're the ones doing all the "antisemitic" protests that they were complaining so much about.
That's very recent and mostly confined to a small subset of Blue tribe. So far it's not much compared to hundreds of years of being pogromed by people who seemed more like Red tribe.
Then why were they complaining so much about all thr people celebrating October 7th?
You can get viscerally upset watching some people celebrate the killing of your co-ethnics without it making you decide that their entire ethnic group is inherently unassimilable to Western civilization. And I think that Jews have been turning more against Muslim immigration recently.
Goodguy
5hr ago
Blue tribe doesn't have the connotations of "stupid angry white hicks who will come to our village and pogrom us".
The Muslim immigration doesn't seem like a viscerally real, tangible problem because so far it has only built up to small minorities in Western countries.
Goodguy
5hr ago
Yeah, and every day that the Iranian government survives is also a day that they can use to kill more of their domestic opponents, which to them probably seems like a really really tempting thing to do right about now. I don't think that the American/Israeli bombing raids can really do much to stop a bunch of government supporters with light weapons from going around and killing unarmed or lightly armed civilians.
It's certainly a litmus test of how much support that government actually has from its population, and how many of its elites and security/military personnel are actually committed as opposed to being opportunists. I wouldn't be surprised if the government fell tomorrow, and I would be surprised but not totally shocked if it was still around a year from now.
Goodguy
5hr ago
Maybe Jews as a group have too many ancestral memories in their culture to ever end up giving 80% of their money to something like MAGA, at least for the foreseeable future. For them, MAGA has too many unpleasant connotations of past cultures that were violent toward Jews.
On a side note, I think that while Jews lean left in American politics, they also happen to be over-represented relative to their population size in American right-wing politics. Unsurprisingly if one believes in the hypothesis that they are influential mainly because of high intelligence, they're basically over-represented relative to their population size in every political movement that does not deliberately exclude Jews.
Mainstream discourse might act like female attraction is meritocratic, but in my experience if one talks to actual women they tend to be quite open about the non-meritocratic nature of their attraction to men. I suppose, however, that the majority of straight men who have little sexual experience don't talk to many women in general, so they are not exposed to this. And if they were, it would likely not make them feel much better just because it's honest.
It's possible that women's attraction to men, despite not being meritocratic, is more meritocratic than men's attraction to women. In any case, I don't think it's less meritocratic. But that, too, is small comfort to straight men who don't have much sexual experience.
One interesting thing about status is, even high status in a small obscure social scene can get men laid. Being a singer in a local band, for example, or a bartender at a popular bar. There's something about just having high status relative to the people immediately around you that seems to sometimes attract women, even if the guy is not at all high status in the context of his society as a whole.
This can sometimes be kind of a trap for some men, I think. Having relative status in a small social scene often isn't really the best thing for a man in the long run. Being a big shot in a small group made up mostly of drunks, drug users, and people with emotional disorders can get you laid, but it's probably not what you want to spend your life doing.
Another interesting thing I've noticed about attraction is the huge importance that being in a good mood can have. I've sometimes been approached by women (or, at other times, had women make it extremely easy for me to start a conversation with them, which amounts to almost the same thing) when I was in a good mood or just relatively uninhibited. Whereas I don't think I've ever been approached by a woman when I was in a bad mood and/or "stuck in my own head".
Another big one is, not surprisingly, eye contact. It seems to require the engine of mood to drive it, but if that engine is activated then eye contact can convey the energy with remarkable intensity. There have been a handful of times when I felt extremely "on" mood-wise and sexually, just feeling erotically powerful in a relaxed way for whatever reason, and it's like I had a superpower, I could just have fluid sexual "conversations" with women through eyes alone, like one sees in some movies, and so I could very quickly go from zero to making out with some of them, feeling them up, and so on.
It would be awesome if I knew how to put myself into that mood whenever I felt like it, but alas so far I only know that it seems to become more likely if I am genuinely in a good mood and also seems to become more likely if I have been deliberately trying to flirt with women in the recent past thus being I suppose more attuned than usual to that side of existence. One of the interesting things about such experiences is the present-moment awareness. When highly charged like that, you are not seeking a goal of sex, the actual in-the-moment experience of powerful eye contact and the accompanying intense human connection with the woman is so satisfying that everything just feels natural rather than goal-seeking. Unsurprisingly, the natural state feels much better and seems to "work" better (though working better is not the point) than the goal-seeking one. The experience of communicating with intense erotic eye contact is extremely pleasant in its own right. Maybe this is just how naturally sexually uninhibited people normally flirt, but for people like me who started off shy earlier in life and had to work at learning to flirt it's more intermittent.
Goodguy
8hr ago
That's a good point. The Israeli troops not fighting in US wars makes sense. The US doesn't need the help, and I have a sense that when countries like Britain send soldiers to help the US in its modern wars, the main benefit to the US government is just that it makes the wars look less unilateral and gives the allied militaries a bit of very rare combat experience - the US government certainly does not need the military help. Israeli troops, on the other hand, because of how hated Israel is, would be counterproductive to the US government's PR.
When it comes to the sale of technology, however, I have no explanation. Other than, maybe just that Israel does not create enough new technology for it to be worth while for the US to sell it? I don't know.
I don't buy what Rubio said in that quote. He makes it seem like the Israeli action is like some natural phenomenon that cannot be stopped, like an earthquake or volcanic explosion. Whereas the reality, I'm pretty sure, is that if the US government really wanted Israel to not strike, Israel would not strike. Would Israel ignore the US if it was faced with a genuinely existential, immediate threat? Yes, I think so. But this situation was not an immediate existential threat.
On a similar note of "stuff I don't quite believe"... there's now an article in the Financial Times about how Israel tracked Khomeini. Allegedly, with sophisticated data hacking and analysis. Now, was there sophisticated data hacking and analysis? Probably. But I don't quite believe the details presented. It would be stupid of the Israelis to leak the actual details of how they did it, thus educating their enemies. Of course, an unauthorized leak is possible. But I notice that the Financial Times article is another data point in an ongoing pattern: first the info that came out about Stuxnet, then the info that came out about the pager operation in Lebanon, and now this. A series of supposed leaks about tremendous intelligence capability being deployed against Israel's enemies. It's unlikely that the intelligence agencies involved would keep letting such leaks happen over and over again.
I think it's likely that these supposed leaks are actually America + Israel running a deliberate intimidation campaign to make their enemies scared and also to potentially make them waste energy taking wrong precautions. Because if the leaks are part of a deliberate intelligence campaign, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the details are inaccurate: most likely, a combination of accurate details and inaccurate ones put together in such a way as to have enough truth to seem plausible to Israel's enemies, while being inaccurate enough to cause them to take wrong actions in response.
All are US allies and/or host US military installations. Attacking a random country would be, for example, Iran launching a missile against Uganda.
Goodguy
13hr ago
Has Iran attacked any country, during this war, that is not a US protectorate?
Iran's behavior was pretty typical foreign policy. For a country to support various paramilitary proxies and unsavory non-state actors is commonplace in geopolitics. I've never seen any good evidence for the theory that if Iran's religious government got nukes, they would use them offensively.
I have enough theory of mind to understand why the argument that "even a 0.00001% chance that Iran would use nukes offensively is too much, and in any case we should keep them defenseless so we can do whatever we want to them" is appealing to many Israelis and to US hawks. It's not appealing to me, however.
Goodguy
1d ago
A few things that come to mind:
- What's happening with Iran is not surprising, it's been clear for about two years now that this is how such a war would go.
- China is adding more nukes, and could easily increase the pace of nuke-building if they want to. My understanding is that US interceptor tech is nowhere near good enough, and will not be in the near future, to fight a war against a major nuclear power without seriously risking the loss of NYC, LA, SF, and so on.
- If the US pushes too far, it may spur the balancing growth of coalitions against it.
That said, I think that China's big problem is that because the US is leagued with and can base weapons in a bunch of countries close to China, the US can probably do a lot more damage to China in a conventional war than China can do to the US. Being able to build huge numbers of missiles is good for China but not that great if most of them don't have the range and tech to reach targets in the actual US proper.
Goodguy
1d ago
US public support for the Iraq War just before it started, and when the outcome was not known, was much higher (about 50% in favor) than this poll shows for the current Iran war.
Goodguy
1d ago
The mental model that I find predicts things the best so far is that the US is not Israel's slave, and Israel is not the US' slave. Rather, they are one entity.
Goodguy
1d ago
A Reuters/Ipsos poll of Americans held after the strikes began shows:
27% of those polled approve of the strikes, 43% disapprove.
55% of Republicans approve, 13% disapprove.
7% of Democrats approve, 74% disapprove.
19% of Other approve, 44% disapprove.
I haven't been able to find the actual language of the poll, however.
Goodguy
2d ago
There is no world leadership of feminism, no feminist constitution. You are talking about feminism as if it is a monolith. This is simply not an accurate view of reality.
Goodguy
2d ago
No, it's more like an attempt by you to satisfy yourself emotionally. To score points fairly you would have to distinguish between feminists who support fundamentalist Islam and feminists who do not, and you show no signs of wanting to do that even though I am sure you understand the distinction.
Sure, many people are ok with giving Hegseth, Miller and Trump the AI technology. But that doesn't make it a good idea. And even if they think that trusting Trump with the tech is a good idea, as opposed to thinking it's not but wanting the money anyway, that still does not mean that trusting Trump with the tech is a good idea.
I might be misunderstanding your argument, though.
Goodguy
3d ago
I agree. Since I dislike both of the major power groups, I desire to balance them against each other. If I do vote for a Democrat in the midterms, it's very unlikely that this will be the start of some kind of long commitment to the Democrats on my part. And it's possible that I will vote for some Republicans in some local elections. But I do want to give the right a slap that tells them to stop the overreach and the deranged rhetoric, similar as how Trump getting elected in 2024 gave a slap to the woke telling them to cut out their overreach and deranged rhetoric.
I don't need a security clearance to feel very confident, based on following geopolitical events and the overall state of known global technology, that the chance of a significant number of missiles hitting American soil is small, at least as long as the government does not go too far in antagonizing nuclear powers, in which case all bets would be off. But I think the chance of nuclear war is small simply because national leaders are usually more averse to risking their own lives than the lives of soldiers or random civilians.
The humans who control American weapons are elected officials running DoD
Yes, but they want Anthropic to help humans not be in the loop. This is understandable from a military perspective, but it's understandable for Anthropic to be hesitant to help an administration that constantly uses reckless rhetoric with it.
As for TDS, I don't think I have it. I think I've been pretty fair to Trump and his people over the course of the last ten years. I have often defended them from some of the less just accusations that have been made against them. If I had TDS, I probably would have voted for Harris in the last election instead of doing what I did, which was vote for neither Harris nor Trump.
But despite my lack, as far as I can tell, of TDS, people like Hegseth, Miller, and Trump himself are disturbing me more and more lately with their rhetoric.
Goodguy
3d ago
I have never voted for either a Democrat or a Republican either in midterm elections or in Presidential elections, and this recent stuff with Anthropic is making me consider voting for the Democrats in the midterms even though normally I hate the Democrats as much as I hate the Republicans.
Goodguy
3d ago
Well like I said, big capitalist enterprises are sometimes woke when it comes to social issues. But Trump is implying that Anthropic's objections to what the Defense Department wants to do with its technology are based on radical left, woke motivations, and the evidence as far as I can see does not support that implication.
Well, since I'm not a Jew and also to my knowledge I never did anything to support requests for deportation and the like, I'm probably not the person you should be saying this to.
That said, I also don't like the populist right, so it's my hope that they don't end up supporting the populist right. Or supporting crazed college kids. Or supporting Islamists / Arab nationalists / etc.
More options
Context Copy link