Felagund
1hr ago
Yeah, that's true. It's just a foreign way of looking at the world to me, I guess.
Felagund
1hr ago
"Dissident Right" describes an inertia towards White identity politics.
Ah, I guess you might have a narrower opinion of what Dissident Right refers to than I did, which would explain some of the difference, depending, I suppose, on what exactly you mean by white identity politics. I would have considered HBD-ish views, combined with other edginess (e.g. takes on gender), to be sufficient to be dissident right, even without advocating for a group racial identity.
Personally, I suppose I'm pro-white in the sense that I don't think that we deserve the enmity coming our way, but I do think that the more important unit of opposition isn't really about race but about politics. (In the US. South Africa, for example, may be another story.) I don't think it's healthy to intensify racial division (and Hanania's probably right when he argues that the main impulse behind our current racial tensions is due to black racial grievance), as that leads to more societal dysfunction. That is, I'm in favor of defensive action against anti-white discrimination. I'm neutral about positive racial identity, as a celebration of ancestry, past etc, though I think national pride is probably a healthier way to go about that, if anything. But I'm not in favor of making that anywhere near the key component of identity, nor having tribal-ish racial preferences.
It's not laughable for white people to also adopt an outspoken opposition those who engage in group-motivated political and cultural hostility.
Isn't this already the baseline for politics on the right? Hence the opposition to affirmative action, etc. Can you name a single conservative thinker who is pro-affirmative action?
Again, it would be healthier if this were adopted by being pro-meritocracy, rather than pro-white, although in this case for different reasons. Looking at things in terms of attempting to capture spoils leads to socialism (as the frame is around getting people to give me stuff), whereas we need more of the American focus on excellence and dynamism.
it is incredibly obvious that Jewish political and cultural power is a huge obstacle towards those objectives, perhaps the largest.
Maybe? Although you might rather point to the left in general. But I don't know that I agree with your vision of how society and identity should be shaped anyway, so I suppose I don't see this as a terrible thing.
Jews do not want white people behaving like Jews, and they will flex enormous political, economic, and cultural power to stop it from happening.
When you're obviously racist against Jews, it doesn't surprise me that they're opposed to such behavior. I imagine some events, oh, 80 years ago or so might have had an influence on how they approach such decisions. Do you really think they should be cheering you on as you try to form lines of in-group preference and out-group prejudice with them on the outside?
But in any case, I think your final analogy breaks down somewhat because plenty of people identify as both Jewish and white (indeed, before the recent introduction of the Middle East/North Africa census category, that was the government-approved way for Jews to identify). So then, people having a super-white aesthetic and attracting a white audience using super-white memes could still be Jewish and be doing what they're doing authentically, whereas that isn't possible in your analogy.
Felagund
3hr ago
What do you make of this tweet from Altman, then?
Felagund
3hr ago
It's worth noting that the way that this is put in some places (e.g. follow the logic of Gal. 3:10-14) would also imply that those in the old testament would also need Jesus, which makes that particular datum a little less demonstrative.
That said, the conclusion is still correct: people cannot be saved without faith in Christ, and the church is the continuation of Israel as God's people on earth.
Felagund
3hr ago
Why are racist Jews not part of the dissident right? Unless you make the Jewish Question the single thing that matters? This is rather laughable to me.
I don't care about the Jewish Question. Sure, Jews are overrepresented. Sure, there's probably some mild level of in-group preference or elitism somewhere, although much of the overrepresentation is probably just due to high IQ combined with whatever cultural factors lead to more ambition. But, really, why should I care? Whatever's happening is surely not at the scale that it would have much of a concrete effect on my life. I've liked most of the Jews I've met.
(And since you say that everyone who ignores or countersignals the Jewish Question is automatically coded as Jewish, no, I'm not Jewish, though for full disclosure, I think one of my grandparents said I may have had trace levels of Jewish ancestry.)
Felagund
4hr ago
A few times over the years I've seen people share their lists of their all time favorite Motteposters. Some names are expected, other names make me go "...wait, what? That guy? Why?".
Now I'm interested: who are your top three? (And, anyone else who reads this, yours too.)
I'll go with:
@faul_sname (often does detailed or technical work to figure out what's actually true, which we can always use more of, while still staying easy to read)
@Soriek (for those international posts, once upon a time)
And, ehh, I'll throw in @hydroacetylene because of the high volume of (generally decent) comments and being on the more wholesome Christian side of the forum.
Felagund
4hr ago
I don't think so. I think the threads drive engagement, as people have to scroll past things instead of just skim the titles (To echo @Fruck). I personally am more likely to give things in the megathread a chance than top level posts already, I think, so the effect is real.
It seems risky to change the core of how the site runs, in any case.
Felagund
5hr ago
I'm going to get accused of being a "Putinist" surely, but Russia is not waging a war of annihilation.
Well, except that they're both losing much of their youth to combat and emigration.
Felagund
1d ago
So it could be an attractive short term play for a certain "Pay me now" segment of the population.
And a terrible long term one. This does not belong in the Overton window.
What I've been saying here all along that within this new landscape of worldwide fiat currencies MMT is the only way to play.
Let me try to understand your model. You are saying something like: the US prints money to buy foreign goods. (Or alternatively, buys loans which it expects to finance by printing money later.) The net effect of this is that we have more goods in the US.
Two thoughts on this:
High inflation is risky, because that could affect how desirable dollars are, which could be bad for trade.
Inflating currency doesn't increase purchasing power, if ownership of it is distributed the same way as before. So if I understood your model rightly, that you want to use it buy foreign goods and services, then the inflating part isn't relevant so much as the spend a lot of money on foreign goods part. But I don't think there's really any reason to spend more resources (Yes, resources. They'll use those dollars, or at least, many of them, if they're not sitting in a foreign exchange reserve or something. And if in a foreign exchange reserve, it's only in expectation of future value, that is, resources.) on foreign goods rather than on development of US resources and investment into our own economy. So why not just let the price system allocate things efficiently, as it will tend to, rather than attempt to force things with government spending funded by a tax on dollars?
What do you think of all the places that decided to hyperinflate their currency? Did it work out well for them?
You don't go back to a gold or crypto deflationary hoarding mentality where the economy is constrained by tokens of wealth.(This caused a few major problems in the past if you recall)
Namely?
You treat money like what it is, an idea to be experimented and played with for the betterment of your country, to get the most real resources for the least value in return.
Sure. That's just not what your policy does, I don't think.
Felagund
1d ago
But in order to sell promises and get real goods, you need promises to sell. Promises are expectation of future goods. If you don't uphold those, you'll have to stop selling promises. This makes it harder to get the real goods you want, since you can no longer just offer promises and then pay them back.
Promises are better—that is, you can trade them for more—the more trustworthy you are. Being more profligate with your promises than you can afford tanks the value of your promises and makes it harder to keep getting those real goods from them.
Worst case you just inflate the pain away.
This is precisely where the problem lies. Yes, you can always just inflate it away. The problem is that this has harmful effects. Namely, a change in trade balance. A high inflation rate will mean nobody wants their wealth in dollars, worldwide. A lot of dollars are overseas. For the past while, we've been able to get more stuff from importing than we export, because everyone wants dollars. This is great. Just now we're at a spot where if that changes, suddenly the economy will be a lot worse, as everyone tries to shed dollars, making everything more expensive in dollars, beyond just the direct effect of the increased money supply on inflation. Because the whole US runs on dollars, dollars going down relative to the world economy beyond just the direct effect of inflation is bad. It becomes harder to buy anything, especially things made overseas.
A lot of countries have tried "inflate the pain away." How did it work for them? (Hint: pretty disastrously)
Yes, they didn't control the world's reserve currency. But give the US dollar enough inflation, and it will no longer be the world's reserve currency, as everyone drops it.
Felagund
2d ago
How much of current AI work can be traced back to Yudkowsky influencing people to work on AI?
I was trying to explain to friends who the guy is, but I don't quite have a sense of the scope of his influence.
Felagund
3d ago
So you're saying, yes, the move is to pressure others to buy US debt or otherwise prop up the otherwise insolvent US government.
I'm afraid I mostly didn't track what you were saying in that second-to-last sentence.
worthless promises
Promises only have worth because they can be trusted.
Felagund
4d ago
Sure, debt's just a human construct. But it's one that we currently depend on heavily in order to do things. Like, yeah, we can just not pay people (ignoring the constitution for a second), but then we'll have a harder time raising enough money to do things, because they won't trust the US's promises. (And yes, you can do things without money, but money's kind of how our whole economic system runs, and it's hard to have efficient alternatives.)
If we have the raw resources and the might to decide how they get divvied up, the rest is just semantics.
To be clear, you're recommending something like a tribute system, since you've mentioned the military? Or is this just divvying up domestic goods? The US is a net importer, I believe. (And incentivizing new innovation and production is an important role of an economic system beyond just dividing existing goods.)
Felagund
4d ago
No, you're right, you were reasonable in that exchange, and I probably shouldn't have said that. I was the one less able to control my tongue keyboard. I guess I was thinking of other comments of yours. If all your comments were like the ones in that exchange, well, I'd prefer it if you'd get further into the weeds of what precisely was going on, but you were certainly civil enough.
If by extend and pretend, you mean the current policy, doesn't that end up requiring more of the world's resources each time, and is growing at a faster rate than the US's or world's economy?
I think infinite borrowing can be done at a sustainable rate; just not the one we're at. If it's below inflation, or below economic growth, there's not much of a problem. We're just in a much worse situation than that, and I think the way you tell that isn't by looking at who has e.g. the largest military, but at interest rates, amount of government spending spent on debt, rates of economic growth, etc.
Felagund
4d ago
Sorry, I kind of have to agree with ArjinFerman—at least, it would be disastrous for the forum if everyone started adopting your tone and habits of response. You're consistently above-average in antagonism and dismissiveness. And this definitely is one of the factors in you drawing more downvotes—it's often the reason if ever I downvote you. That of course doesn't address the overall problem of voting based on whether people like it driving dissenting views away, but it could make a meaningful difference in your particular case.
So I guess, two.
Felagund
4d ago
Are there any particular current events you'd like hot takes on, at the moment?
Felagund
4d ago
We really need a new poll. Maybe I'll ask Trace what his old questions were and see if I can put a form together.
Felagund
5d ago
Good relationships also exist.
Got any tips for staying sane while single?
What's your life ordered around? Is there anything you care about? How best can you make the world better for your having been here?
Living for something is significantly better than living hedonistically.
(I submit as an option, Pascal's wager, for your consideration.)
What do you do for fun?
Have friends whom I can talk to about the things I care about or take interest in. Play board games. Spend way too much time on the internet.
Quit with the magical thinking.
There is always a mechanism. It might change, be fluid, sure. But somewhere, somehow, if the US wants to do stuff, it needs to get people willing to do stuff. And there always, always, must be some mechanism by which that's happening, some way or ways to motivate people to put labor and materials toward whatever it wants.
What I'm asserting is that the current method (pay for it with dollars, using promises of future dollars in order to get enough dollars to cover what taxation isn't sufficing for) is being done in an unsustainable fashion, and will have to stop, or otherwise be revised eventually.
I was saying that that problem would eventually be remedied by printing money, which should have the effects I discussed (A worldwide shift away from dollars, to some extent).
(Heavy taxation or cutting spending are also possible, but probably harder to get through the political process.)
So what are you suggesting instead? You keep bringing up force. Are you suggesting that we'll impose a tribute on other countries? That's possible. (Though definitely a big departure from now, when we give countries a ton of money, instead of exacting it)
Edit: If innovation in AI or something causes sufficiently large US-centered economic growth to increase tax revenue enough to pay for things, that could also work, provided it's not also accompanied with corresponding spending increases.
Edit 2: If the US does impose tribute, ancient Athens might be a cool comparison.
Felagund
6d ago
You keep saying this, and not addressing what I said about the mechanisms of how the US would end up in a situation of scrambling to avoid default.
Which point in that list was wrong (following "that is:")?
What is the actual mechanism by which the US can keep borrowing? Who, specifically, wants US dollars, and will keep buying up our debt indefinitely, even as it continues to grow to be a larger and larger share of US and world GDP?
Instead of just giving a, "we'll be fine, someone will stop it," as you have us sleepwalk into disaster.
Felagund
6d ago
The US will never default, we are in a better place than all other countries, hence the strong dollar.
Okay, the US won't default, but at some point it'll need to start printing money, at least, to avoid it.
That is:
The US wants to pay for stuff.
To raise funds to do so, it sells bonds.
Demand for bonds is not limitless.
US spending keeps growing.
Eventually it will hit the limit of those willing to buy US debt.
At that point, it must either print money to pay for things, or fail to pay for things (that is, default).
Unless you think all other players are totally irrational investing in it?
It wouldn't surprise me. But really, all you need to buy a bond is just to think that things will be fine within the lifetime of the bond, which is entirely possible even if you think it's going to collapse in a few decades.
If we are defaulting, the rest of the world has already fallen apart and it doesn't matter. Like people who buy gold for the apocalypse...when what you really need is beans and bullets.
I see no reason to think the former is true. And the latter depends heavily on what kind of apocalypse you're in.
Well, presumably something more nebulous than that: perhaps trust that God would forgive them, by provision of a substitute, and promises of future blessing.
More options
Context Copy link