netstack
Texas is freedom land
No bio...
User ID: 647
Who exactly is “we”?
Out of the five things you “aren’t permitted to do,” three of them are speech restrictions, one is a resource-allocation problem, and the last is due to the free market. Those are categorically different.
- You can say you wouldn’t want your son to be gay, or worse; large swathes of society will just be very upset with you.
- You can express that drugs are low-class. There aren’t even that many people who will be upset!
- You can’t always arrest the fent zombies, but it’s not because people will be upset with you. More like they’ve set up systems to disincentivize it.
- You can fat-shame. We’re back to things society will complain about, but not imprison you over.
- You can run a subdued gambling business so long as you aren’t trying to compete with the big dogs. If they’re luring people via ESPN and you refuse out of principle, you will never match their reach.
See the different categories? There is a vast gulf between things society will complain about and things it’ll materially punish. The complaints are friction.
Half credit, then.
I don’t believe it becomes a responsibility until he’s actually defending his family or friends.
And I’m telling you that the same reasoning is going to apply to half the protestors at Kenosha. They’re going to say they had a responsibility to protect their not-quite-neighbors from those nasty racist cops. Peacefully, natch, but if someone just so happens to threaten death or serious bodily harm…
If you don’t buy it from them, you shouldn’t buy it from Rittenhouse. He was justified in self-defense, not because he had some responsibility to stand guard.
Right back at you, no?
We can trade lazy whataboutisms all week and never get any closer to a conclusion. Instead, I’ll ask you: what’s something that would actually change your mind about authoritarian tendencies? I’m not asking you to abandon Trump. Just…what would cause you to say “yeah, the Democrats are correct in calling that an unconstitutional power grab?”
Uh, no. I assumed you were correct about the makers’ preference. I was arguing about the bit I quoted: the publication and pushing of this documentary does not imply that SyG is on the rise culturally.
Their homes and communities
That’s the sticking point; it’s the crux of the “shouldn’t have been there” argument. His home would be one thing, his neighborhood, his town, and so on…but he was out guarding a random car dealership in the next town over. Zero personal connection.
Which is why I brought up the BLM comparison. When people show up to the next town over because they heard its police were crooked, can they use their “community” as an excuse?
Again, I think Rittenhouse had a right to be there. But a right is not a responsibility.
Failure of the adults to step up didn’t give him a responsibility. Not any more than a police shooting creates a responsibility for BLM to come to town, or seeing a homeless man gives you a responsibility to go volunteer at a shelter.
I say this despite thinking Rittenhouse was justified. He had a right to be there, not a responsibility.
The publication and pushing of this documentary, to me, shows that SyG is on the rise culturally - otherwise why would Hollywood feel the need to push back against it?
Oooooor it’s on the outs and thus an easy target. Or it was a prominent tribal signifier. Or the studio wanted to bait controversy. Or the writer had a personal stake in a similar case. Or the random number generator demanded it. There are plenty of other explanations.
Applying your reasoning to other cases: Friday Night Lights meant racism was really on the rise. Apocalypse Now was trying to stamp down on anti-war sentiment. The eternal popularity of Nazis as villains, from Inglorious Basterds to Star Wars to *Casablanca, is proof that they hold too much sway over society.
The video on Wikipedia, which I believe is the first strike, is a normal-looking speedboat. I expect those are a lot more common than the crazy submarines. They’re just not as newsworthy.
I’m going to recommend reposting in Fun Friday. It’s not culture war, it’s not a question.
Alright.
I’m sorry for painting with such a broad brush.
I didn’t say noninterventionist. More… disillusioned with the pretense of shortness and sharpness.
Maybe I’m applying too much hindsight. We did get out of Libya pretty fast, and the we didn’t know at the time that it would slump back into civil war. But the Afghanistan slog continued. We waffled on Syria. It’s not entirely pur fault, but it’s just not what I’d call short and sharp.
What for?
I mean that sincerely. I’ve got a lot of respect for you, but I don’t think I violated any rules.
If that happens, users on this board will immediately defend it as not illegal, not partisan, not an advantage, and not as bad as something that happened in the Hillary campaign.
Consider this a sad, sad prediction.
That doesn’t seem right.
Short, sharp interventions have been out of vogue since some time around Iraq. Neoliberal economics survived the dotcom bubble only to become a permanent wedge after 2008. Obama hollowed out the Democrat apparatus; now Trump’s completed his own skin suit. The Tea Party was completely suborned. Identity politics got a second, third and fourth wind. American exceptionalism shares space with a multipolar model.
Whatever we’re in, it’s not the same paradigm as Reagan.
I’m generally inclined to say no, since by default, I assume Substack thinkpieces are hysterical grifts.
But the arguments in this thread are. Uh. Not reassuring.
My model of Trump is that he would very much like to have dictatorial powers, and will not turn down any scheme that would bring them closer, even if it is never one of his personal initiatives. He really, really likes that sort of decentralized strategy—see the voter fraud investigations or the Musk RIFs. The natural result is lots of tiny power grabs. His attention serves as a strategic reserve.
With that in mind, I guess I wouldn’t expect an explicit claim to funding authority. Not unless the current advance stalls out. But I’m not even sure how Congress or the courts could stall this approach without openly opposing an executive order.
I really should call my Congressman, if nothing else.
Oh God. It’s My Brilliant Friend? My girlfriend found it very compelling, explained the premise to me, and I had a very similar reaction to yours. I’m sure it’s deeply compelling and literary, but I do not want to inhabit those situations.
I figured 2. was referring to the Haitian dog thing.
None of these are really new phenomena. There was no shortage of tribalism in the last two centuries. What makes it “post-truth” is how deep you can go. In 1898, your ability to fact-check basically bottomed out at the newspapers. Today, you can research your way into whatever corner you want. There’ll already be a newly created Substack arguing your exact theory with links to compelling video evidence. You can do this for wildly contradictory positions and still see what looks like high-quality evidence. Hence: post-truth.
As usual, surplus breeds specialization. When building credibility is easier, contrarianism naturally gets more popular. We’ve reached a point where a fundamentally contrarian movement dominates one of the main political parties. I don’t think that happens without cheap and easy access to alternative facts.
It was the motte for a bailey of election interference and (sigh) cybercrime claims, yes.
I’ve read a couple books like that and. Ugh.
Not going to judge if you don’t finish it. Time is the most precious commodity.
I have a gmail.
The web experience is fine. The mobile web experience always asks me to use their app. I am profoundly disinterested in adding another piece of shit to my phone for something I check once a week or less; Google does not care. Now even logging in on my desktop occasionally reminds me to put their app on my phone.
As much as I hate the term “enshittification,” this is as good an example as any.
Maybe Texas is just full of skinny-jeans reactionaries?
Sure, that’s a great example of bizarre double-standards racism, but…
progressive institutions
Lockheed Martin
Entities like Lockheed are not publishing racist screeds, progressive or otherwise. They are subscribing to them. The publishers are usually small, interchangeable consultants. In aggregate, they might count as an institution; individually, they’re effectively free to dance on the bleeding edge.
Lockheed and friends want that +1 to saves against cancellation, but they can’t commit as hard as the consultants, since they have lots of competing interests. So they pay whoever is currently atop the pile. It doesn’t matter if that consultant gets exposed and torn to shreds because they’re fungible.
That’s part of the reason the Smithsonian infographic was so insane. They’re not supposed to be fungible! They’re not supposed to be testing new and exciting frontiers for racism!
Damn. You hate to see it.
If I had to come up with a theory, I’d expect something about 90s revival. Or, as @Crowstep put it, the millennials were big on skinny jeans, so the fashion barber pole has turned back towards loose ones. This fits the timeline better since there was a definite 80s revival in the last few years.
Or maybe people just put on weight during COVID.
- Prev
- Next

You were just getting ahead on the Butlerian jihad.
More options
Context Copy link