iprayiam3
7d ago
Is Trump supposed to be antisemitic? Who's making that claim and based on what?
iprayiam3
7d ago
I don't want to be uncharitable, and I admit I didn't look hard, but superficially, yes that is the only justification for the comparison I saw. It felt very "Hitler also ate toast!" to me.
iprayiam3
7d ago
But as I said in my other comment, I (perhaps wrongly) don't think of Hitler's defining characteristic as having been a fascist dictator, but has having been a fascist dictator who started WWII and the Holocaust. If the Hitler comparison is just a fascist dictator claim with only a ... following it, I think that's disingenuous.
I'm not defending fascism. But if the argument isn't that he'll use fascism to commit specific atrocities comparable to Hitler's, but only that fascism is the atrocious end in itself, the specific Hitler comparison feels weak to me. There have been other fascists and dictators in history too.
iprayiam3
7d ago
OK that's all very fair. I guess what confuses me (or I understand now) is that Hitler accusation mostly just equals fascist accusation?
Like it seems to me, as a historically ignorant normie, that there have been lot's of fascists and dictators in history and active in the world today. When I think Hitler, sure, it's bad that he was a dictator, but his two biggest sins seem to be WWII and the Holocaust. A lot of what's notably bad about him being a fascist dictator vs. one of lot's of dictators in history is his usage of his fascist dictatation to commit those two sins.
So is the implication that Trump is Hitler tied to the idea that he will do things like the Holocaust and WWII, or just object level being a fascist dictator and Hitler was one also. Because I feel like the former is disingenuous.
So much of the rhetoric right now is that Trump's rally in MSG was or was like a Nazi rally. Only looking superficially at social media, I am not seeing a thesis or high level argument except plain assertion and vague comparison that the Nazi's also held rallies. I don't think it's controversial to say that part of the recent messaging is a renewed "Trump is a Nazi" message, partly sparked by a controversal claim that Trump supposedly said he wanted generals like Hitler had or that he admired them or something.
Campaign rhetoric? sure. But clearly some people really believe Trump is a Nazi? Can somebody help me understand the claim? Not necessarily the veracity, but what the substantative argument is. I am not a Trump fan, nor do I buy into the hype around him, so I'm not here to defend him. Neither am I particularly a student of history. My understanding of WWII is general. I am on the fence about voting Trump. Yet, as a non-TDS sufferer, I really do not understand what the Trump is a Nazi claim is trying to convince me of. Can anyone lay out the argument and why Trump is Hitler sufficiently captures a real claim about the dangers of his presidency. (Again not looking for veracity, I'm trying to understand what the claim means.)
I will start by shooting some low hanging fruit of my low-information confusion.
- Trump is clearly not a 'literal' member of the Nazi party.
- It does not seem like Trump wants to invade or conquer European neighbors.
- Trump does not seem to hate Jews.
- If the claim boils down to white supremacy, why is the better comparison not with America's own racist history (in other words, I would grok what a 'Trump is KKK' argument was getting at better here.)
- Was Hitler particularly and uniquely motivated by closing a broken border?
- Is the argument that any mass deportation rounds up to Holocost level evil?
- Am I supposed to understand it as 'Hitler' is just secular for 'the devil' and it simply means 'Trump is Evil' without any more substantative depth intended than if someone called Obama 'the devil'?
iprayiam3
7d ago
As someone who’s not particularly plugged into a tariff perspective either way, I will summarize what I took away from Trumps perspective on Rogan when talking about chips.
There are certain products we want more made of in America like chips and cars. Today we incentivize it with carrots and end up giving ridiculous subsidies to already rich companies, which further ruins organic domestic competition by picking winners and losers upfront. And it ends up not working to boot because it remains cheaper to produce overseas. So the companies do the minimum to get their subsidies or pull out halfway in leading to tremendous gov waste with little gain.
Since we’ve already agreed we want to market distort these products (I.e incentivize domestic production) tariffs apply a stick instead, making it more expensive to produce overseas to begin with. Thus the government doesn’t have to spend money, it in fact makes money during the transition, it doesn’t have to pick winners (all domestic producers can compete fairly), and it’s harder to cheat.
The other thing Trump mentioned was that this play can work because America is in a negotiating place of power, still very rich, but our advantage won’t last forever and a harsh tariff policy isn’t as effective if you can’t negotiate as well.
Without being able to judge the economic principles of all this, it sounds quite sensical to me, and to get a midwit like myself to disagree, I’ll need more from the other side than ‘experts disagree followed by theoretical jargon’.
iprayiam3
8d ago
This is the key thing. There’s no way to reconcile the presentation on here with any mainstream narratives about him unless he’s also the world’s greatest and most restrained actor as well.
Trumps not hitler. Trumps not a wannabe dictator (sorry @Amadan). Trumps not senile. Trumps not a dimwitted lazy slob whose world view comes from watching cable news all day. Trumps not a paper thin egotist who doesn’t really like America or hold policy positions. Trumps not a phony fake executive who can’t actually think business.
But also Trumps not a genius. Trumps not a conservative. Trumps not a particularly visionary thinker or populist leader.
iprayiam3
8d ago
Whether you liked the story or not (I did not). It was the most rambly part of the interview. It was the only part where Joe got impatient. After this the conversation settled down quite a bit
iprayiam3
8d ago
I’m not Trump fan, or a Rogan guy. I thought the first twenty minutes were pretty tedious. But it gets much much better. It is actually quite enjoyable and insightful. I am saying this as a guy who has only ever sat through 1 other full Rogan show and never listened to a trump speech I. Full outside of a debate.
He does very well, his style works well in this format and once you settle into his ideoayncracies he’s still long winded , but it is very clear that he stays on topic in a particular way. He answers a lot of important questions that reveal his way of thinking. And there’s also a lot of fluff.
My favorite part was trump not really being interested in Joes alien obsession.
iprayiam3
9d ago
The thing about the way trump talks is that, in addition to talking about what he wants to, he opens a lot of nested parentheticals within a thought. When he has room in long form like this, he will usually close most of the parentheticals back up to the main point eventually.
I still think this is frustrating and tedious, and his parentheticals are usually just free association, rather than in service to the thesis.
But it’s clearly not word salad or mental incompetence.
It’s very very far from Kamala’s inability to put together a coherent point of view on the spot
iprayiam3
10d ago
Sorry I was unclear. It was an either question between the two, not whether you'd prefer either two to the current slate. But still, you've kind of answered what I was trying to get out. You go through such a long rant about how uniquely bad these two candidates are; but the next two most likely are 'maybe very slightly' better?
iprayiam3
10d ago
Would you have been happier with Desantis against Kalama, or Trump against Newsom?
iprayiam3
12d ago
The argument that the copyright issue is nonsense is that in almost no other circumstances,
But this is the core of my objection to the objection. LLMs are a novel paradigm and the expectation that previous legal frameworks that were designed for other paradigms should work just as well here without reflection is my objection. It is question begging to answer the question of how copyright out to work around AI to how it worked in non-AI.
That is not to say that it necessary should end up somewhere different. What I am rejecting is the simplistic, predetermined conclusion that it's not different so isn't different. IP protections are not some immutable natural force, and society should have a right to consider refinement in the face of massively disruptive technological innovations. that said...
Realistically nothing can be done anyway. Anything would be impossible to enforce, so I'm not going to lose sleep where you can't do anything anyway.
iprayiam3
12d ago
Ostensibly, it's about the AI 'stealing' public art to train itself. (I agree with you that this argument is nonsense)
FWIW, I think the argument that this argument is nonsense is nonsense. That's not to say, that I think the argument is necessarily correct, but the immediate dismissal, usually with some analogic assertion is too pat.
AI training is a pretty novel category, and while it's 'like' other things, I disagree that it's enough the same that it can be dismissed as an extension of what's come before.
I think the argument that 'copyright laws and IP and automation somewhat breakdown in new territory and are at least worthy of renewed consideration', is valid and not immediately dismissable as nonsense.
iprayiam3
20d ago
"This won't actually happen" is a poor argument. If you don't want to be criticize for your proposals, don't make them.
Oh, don't misunderstand. That's not a defense. I'm saying it's probably even more shitty and weasely than just brazen racism.
iprayiam3
20d ago
Harris-Walz have proposed a 20k forgiveable loan for up to 1 million Black (capital B) entrepreneurs to start a business.
It says 'for Black entrepreneurs and others'. It's not illegal, it's just false advertizing and empty promises. Granted that this even actually happened, this weasel language is certainly there to pretend its something specifically for Blacks, but wouldn't really be.
iprayiam3
21d ago
-though he maintains that it is others who have changed, not him.
That article is not very beleivable. I am thoroughly reminded of the many many 'hate crime' hoaxes that turn out to be just that. Those anecdotes of continuos in-person racism sound so incredibly made up, and exactly what an echo-chambered yankee would think sounded real about 'southern racists'.
A teacher at the school asked my son if we had purchased his sister for a “loaf of bread.”
I guarantee this never happened.
I notice that the accusastions of racism serve as a convenient reason not to engage with actually well made disagreements with him as a panelest. It reads like he's got a victim complex, and a huge sore spot about not being accepted and praised for his wisdom, and he's using made up or exaggerated stories about racism as a shield for his ego.
iprayiam3
21d ago
Can you imagine Ben Franklin telling politicians they don't have to accept the result of a vote because the Pennsylvania Gazette wrote absurd lies about the candidates?
Regardless of the rest of your point, this is a really bad analogy, because it completely misses the salient point that hostile government actors and agencies were putting pressure on this kind of censorship.
iprayiam3
25d ago
Aren’t you the poster who spent two years denying inflation was happening?
iprayiam3
26d ago
I've found (more broadly than just this), that small amounts of self-direction can help over time. Literally tell yourself "I'm happy for him/her" and reject your emotional reactive as not your true opinion. This may not work if you have a very overwhelming emotional reaction, but in most scenarios where you're emotions co-exist with even a seed of a detached cogntive rejection of the emotions, just feed that seed and mentally reenforce it as the true perspective.
iprayiam3
27d ago
Knee-jerk I disagreed. But to test this, I opened up the Lex Fridman interview, which I haven't listened to, and copied a random clip from the transcript without looking at the context:
(00:10:39) So I’ve done a lot of debating, only as a politician. I never debated. My first debate was the Rosie O’Donnell debate, the famous Rosie O’Donnell debate, the answer. But I’ve done well with debates. I became president. Then the second time, I got millions more votes than I got the first time. I was told if I got 63 million, which is what I got the first time, you would win, you can’t not when. And I got millions of more votes on that and lost by a whisker. And look what happened to the world with all of the wars and all of the problems. And look what happened with inflation because inflation is just eating up our country, eating it up. So it’s too bad. But there are a lot of things that could happen. We have to get those wars settled. I’ll tell you, you have to get Ukraine done. That could end up in a third world war. So could the Middle East. So could the Middle East.
So, yeah, without seeing what Lex said to prompt this, I have no fucking clue what the main point or thesis of this rambling is, or what it might be responding to. This bit as bad as anything Kamala says, tbh. Looks like total free assoication. (not word salad).
here's another one just to be fair:
(00:24:09) Nothing. I know nothing about it. And they know that too. Democrats know that. And I purposely haven’t read it, because I want to say to you, I have no idea what it’s all about. It’s easier, than saying I read it and all of the things. No, I purposely haven’t read it and I’ve heard about it. I’ve heard about things that are in there that I don’t like, and there’s some things in there that everybody would like, but there are things that I don’t like at all. And I think it’s unfortunate that they put it out, but it doesn’t mean anything, because it has nothing to do with me. Project 25 has absolutely nothing to do with me.
This one is quite a bit easier, and pretty coherent.
iprayiam3
30d ago
My wife watched it as a kid and tried to get me to watch it with here not long ago. We stopped after the first 2 episodes because it felt pretty kiddy and her pov was that it must have been more childish than she remembered.
The toilet stall is the last place where I will care about sensory manners.
I think there's a misunderstanding. I'm not worried about manners or complaining. This isn't a judgement thing, it was a curiosity. I'm expressing casual surprise that from the sound of it people regularly make loud vocalizations while crapping, because it sounds like a lot of 'straining', which I don't understand.
Is that the real argument, that trump will bring ethnic purges? And is this just extrapolated out of his border views?
More options
Context Copy link