FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
For what it's worth, I also don't think you violated any rules.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
The same way I defend Trump's failure to fire the generals who admitted to lying to him to prevent his lawful orders from being carried out. My assessment is that the Bureaucratic layer is out of control, and I'm much more worried about getting it back under control than I am about ensuring that the Executive is giving maximally-good orders. Given the choice between assigning blame to the bureaucratic layer and assigning it to the executive for failing to punish the bureaucratic layer... If we punish the executive, how does this translate to the bureaucratic layer receiving accountability for their fuckups?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
Arguably Biden's pull out from Afghanistan was a move against that paradigm...and it was roundly panned by everyone, sometimes on dishonest technical ground, but really for spiritual reasons.
Your general point is correct, but every time this comes up I feel compelled to point out that it's the one thing I have and will always unequivocally praise Biden for. I've had some interesting debates with @Dean on the subject.
It has already happened, and other than the last item, they already did.
Now it appears that what Brennan told congressional investigators was false. The current CIA director, John Ratcliffe, who used to be one of the House investigators looking into the Russia matter, has declassified documents from Brennan’s time at the agency which show that, far from keeping the dossier at arm’s reach, Brennan actually forced CIA analysts to use it and overruled the analysts who wanted to leave the dossier out of the Intelligence Community Assessment.
Ratcliffe asked the CIA’s Directorate of Analysis (DA) to review the tradecraft used in producing the assessment. First of all, the DA found what it called “multiple procedural anomalies” in the CIA’s preparation of the assessment. There was “a highly compressed production timeline,” too much “compartmentalization,” and “excessive involvement of agency heads,” which led to “departures from standard practices in the drafting, coordination, and reviewing” of the assessment. Together, all of the “anomalies” “impeded efforts to apply rigorous tradecraft,” the DA concluded.
There was no doubt the FBI wanted to include the dossier in the Intelligence Community Assessment; the CIA self-investigation found that “FBI leadership made it clear that their participation in the assessment hinged on the dossier’s inclusion.” FBI officials “repeatedly pushed” to include the dossier in the assessment.
But career CIA analysts did not want to include the dossier. The CIA’s deputy director for analysis sent Brennan an email saying that including the dossier’s information in any form would threaten “the credibility of the entire document.” That was when Brennan made the decision to overrule his experts. From the CIA’s Directorate of Analysis:
Despite these objections, Brennan showed a preference for narrative consistency over analytical soundness. When confronted with specific flaws in the dossier by the two mission center leaders — one with extensive operational experience and the other with a strong analytic background — he appeared more swayed by the dossier’s general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns. Brennan ultimately formalized his position in writing, stating that “my bottomline is that I believe that the information warrants inclusion in the report.” [Bolding mine.]
Director Ratcliffe has also declassified a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, which the CIA had kept under wraps, that outlined Brennan’s involvement in the dossier. The report, based on the committee’s interviews with CIA staff, said that “two senior CIA officers,” both with extensive Russia experience, “argued with [Brennan] that the dossier should not be included at all in the Intelligence Community Assessment, because it failed to meet basic tradecraft standards, according to a senior officer present at the meeting. The same officer said that [Brennan] refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier’s many flaws responded, ‘Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?’”
...For what it's worth, I think your prediction is probably accurate in the sense that you intend it. Buy as I asked last week,
Several of the effort-posts I don't have time to write any more are simple surveys of old discussions with links to the evidence answering the questions since. I have a pretty strong impression of how this has gone on balance, but it'd be better to have hard data to make the case.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
Use of the federal security agencies to illegally gain partisan political advantage against the opposition seems like a fairly bright line.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
I got I think two and a half books in. I enjoyed it greatly; I dunno, the (relatively low-key) yuri didn't bother me that much, and it seems to me that the term "mary sue" doesn't really apply to a doomsday-weapon superintelligent AI warship.
There will always be scissor cases, but if there is video evidence of a suspect pulling a gun or raising his hands in the air, then both sides of the culture war are somewhat more likely to agree on what really happened compared to when they just have to rely on eyewitness testimony.
Rittenhouse is the disproof of this claim. "somewhat more likely" offers some wiggle room, but we can see that it just isn't enough in practice.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
I meant more your present retrospective. I've been told my whole life by the authorities that he's a solid contender for best president of all time, only marginally edged out by Lincoln.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
But I am saying "two wrongs don't make a right", and I'm going to fight Trump just as hard on constitutional principles as I would've fought FDR back in the day had I been alive.
Do you believe that "Constitutional Principles" protect you or anything you care about now, or will at any point in the forseeable future? Do you perceive your position to be one of enlightened self-interest, or is it more a terminal values thing?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
I agree, but the general consensus does not impress.
I actually think Trump running again would be an extremely bad idea for a number of practical reasons. But more and more, I'm flatly unwilling to engage in the pretense that there's some civic foundation that future norm violations are supposed to be undermining, that even a single stone of those foundations still rests upon another. This perspective doesn't necessarily resolve in endorsement of further violations, but if I'm going to oppose them, I'm going to oppose them for real reasons, not fake ones.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
Government has always been a cow to be milked, and under the old patronage systems the corruption was far worse.
Notably, the old patronage systems often built large things of considerable value. The people being robbed by them often saw significant, tangible improvements in their standard of living as an offset. Can we build a Golden Gate bridge today? Can we build a national highway system? This is a legitimate question, I do not claim to know the answer. I'm worried about what the answer might be, though.
I think you are correct that actual criminals are a much more serious problem than mere fiscal-net-extractors. But as you note, insurance sucks and seems to be unfixable, and a lot of other things do too, and it's not as though the existence of a worse thing makes less worse things better. It is also, quite notably, not like the crime is actually being handled either.
Most of my life, I've operated off the assumption that even if these systems, both the fiscal handouts and the crime, are very wasteful but we're rich and we can probably afford it. The world I see around me seems a lot less rich now. Maybe this is the algorythm feeding me rage-bait, but it's not looking stellar for my actual family's finances either.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
Then again, this level of bad-faith interpretation was completely taboo, Before Trump. I'd hope SCOTUS would rule 9-0 "pfft, no - fuck off," but perhaps it's an Originalist-Textualist schism in the making and I just don't know it...
I think you underestimate the power of the emanations of penumbras. Or to put it another way, I am not kidding around when I say that the Constitution is dead. I do not believe it is capable of protecting me in any meaningful way from any number of bad things. Why should I expend effort to see it afford protections to those who are not me and not particularly like me either? I invite those to cleave to the document to continue sacrificing value in its name. I choose otherwise.
Right, but a third term is in flagrant disregard to the democratic principles the country was built around.
With whom does one submit a ticket to get an action or interaction with the government registered as recognizably, fully-legibly "in flagrant disregard to the democratic principles this country was built on", such that one can then make such appeals here? It seems a very useful imprimatur to have in one's back-pocket when disagreements arise. Note that I am not even necessarily disagreeing with you that Trump running for a third term should be labeled such! The problem is that if others are going to ignore my judgements on what constitutes "flagrant disregard to the democratic principles this country was built on", I am not clear on why I not ignore their judgements in return.
Reciprocity is the basis for most human relationships. There are some that can operate without it: husband and wife, parent and child, brothers, sisters and true friends. But you are not my wife, my parent or my child, nor a brother or a sister, nor a friend. Outside such bonds, even the Rightful Caliph could do no better then advocate coordinating meanness.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
Give me the worst such screed you can find, and I guarantee you that I can give you a MAGA screed that’s just as bad, if not worse.
...By a MAGA institution/figure of similar prominence to the progressive institution in question?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
Nigga, this is just going through the exact motions Amadan outlined.
Actually, no, it wasn't. I raised a general point on the meta level, one that I think is reasonable to ask and really could do with some effort in answering:
If you wish to argue by appealing to a general principle, what is the proper way to rebut such an argument if one disagrees that the principle is generally held?
Or to put it another way for you or @Amadan or @ThomasdelVasto or anyone else interested, if the sort of argument Amadan describes seems bad, what would a better form of argument look like, in your view?
...and then on the object level I raised a separate point about the division of labor model versus the current jack-of-all-trades model. I made no argument that jack-of-all-trades is better, only noted that if one is arguing against it, one should do so honestly.
In any case, if that's a discussion you'd like to have, I'm all for it, but the way it doesn't start is this:
I get it, libtards started it by employing legions of late night comedians and entertainers to metaphorically pour shit on Republicans for years except (duplicitous as always) they his behind a veneer of civility while their Hollywood Jews did the dirty work for them. Trump isn’t doing anything fundamentally different, he’s just more crass and if anything the crassness and directness of it is a virtue, there’s an honesty to the directness of it.
That is not my argument, and I don't appreciate you implying that it is. I am fully capable of speaking for myself, and do not require your assistance in framing my sentences. We actually have a specific rule about this:
Be charitable. Assume the people you're talking to or about have thought through the issues you're discussing, and try to represent their views in a way they would recognize. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly. Beating down strawmen is fun, but it's not productive for you, and it's certainly not productive for anyone attempting to engage you in conversation; it just results in repeated back-and-forths where your debate partner has to say "no, that's not what I think".
I think you can probably find at least one mottezan who would endorse each individual sentence you've offered there. I decline to answer for all of them in aggregate.
My point as always is that there is value to norms.
There is not, however, infinite value in norms, and many people, myself among them, believe the old system was worse for a variety of reasons quite apart from "dirty work" done by "Hollywood jews". The old system insulated our politicians from accountability on a scale that was appallingly unacceptable, because the formalized channels allowed a small set of elites massively disproportionate control over what the public at large knew, understood, and thought about. This had woeful consequences, such that enough of us rebelled to burn the old system down. You may disagree with that decision, but you would do well to engage with why we made it if you want to convince us that we've made a mistake.
Even if the norms seem paper thin or hypocritical I believe they are better than nothing. There are just proper ways a president should behave. I believe there is serious value in having a degree of ritual and civic religion.
But again, the argument is generally not that ritual and civic religion do not have serious value. The argument is that they do not have enough value to offset the abuses the old system enabled and continues to enable.
It has to stop somewhere else escalation begets escalation.
The "somewhere" that it has to stop is the grave. It can stop short of there, if enough people on each side recognize value in doing so. And yet: "give me liberty or give me death".
Many people on both sides believe that the principles at stake here are worth fighting and even killing over. Too many of them concluded this for the old system to survive, and so it has been gutted and is currently bleeding out in a ditch. I am not sorry for that, because I hated the old system with a passion words cannot adequately convey, and wish only that it would die faster.
This is a discussion forum. If you want to discuss why I believe what I believe, I'm happy to discuss that with you. You are certainly correct that many people here disagree with you on the value of the old norms. You are probably correct about the general shape of many of their arguments. But here's the thing: if their arguments don't persuade you, that doesn't mean they aren't persuasive. Maybe they're unreasonable. Alternatively, maybe you're unreasonable. If you want to discuss it, discuss it. If you want to take a "moral stand" and then complain when others object without substantively addressing their objections, it seems to me you've misunderstood what this forum is for.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8d ago
You have not made any argument. You are making claims that are completely unsubstantiated presuming they are true, just because you said so: ipse dixit fallacy.
I disagree. Here is my argument:
When someone waves a rainbow flag or a hammer and sickle flag, Are they not specifically inviting everyone watching to infer their message? If not, why wave the flag?
I'm arguing that this is what flags mean to people. Implicit in the above statement is my evidence for it:
- This is what many people have told me flags are for in general, in both formal education and popular culture.
- This is what many people have told me that the flags they themselves are holding are for, in the specific moment they were holding them.
- This is why I have held and waved flags on all the occasions when I have held and waved them.
None of the above is Ipse Dixit, at least not beyond the tautological sense in which anything I might say is something I have said. I will grant that none of the above evidence is perfect, at least not to the standards of rigorous, committed solipsism. Given that I cannot read minds, I cannot actually be sure that the boringly-consistent data across a lifetime of observing social and political norms is not some elaborate prank being played on me by the rest of the world.
Further, despite the fact that contrary arguments seem facially absurd, I have invited you to offer contrary evidence, or even speculation, on what possible other purpose a flag might serve anyway, because you seem very certain and I'd like to know why.
Stating what people do has no bearing on what people ought to do.
What people do is at least legible. The problem with claims of what they ought to do is that such claims are not necessarily bounded by reality.
I can provide you with a completely different meaning of the rainbow flag that millions of people agree with, but you are going to claim their interpretation is wrong.
Will I? Why would I do that? Whatever meaning is ascribed, I'm going to argue that it needs to actually account for the common behaviors of those waving the flag. I think my definition above does a pretty good job of that, but I wrote it straight off the dome and would not be terribly surprised if a better encapsulation could be offered. By all means show me how it's done.
More generally, it's not clear to me that most people, or even any people, "know what they mean" themselves. Language is necessarily imprecise at the best of times, and often people speak carelessly, even about things they care deeply about. This is not a retreat to infinite subjectivity, just an acceptance that human minds are complicated, and introspection is difficult.
If you wish to argue by appealing to a general principle, what is the proper way to rebut such an argument if one disagrees that the principle is generally held?
I too am saddened when people are so solidified in their opinion that there is really no new argument or event that could change it. I am more saddened, however, when I see people who appear to believe that mountains of evidence they don't like and can't meaningfully respond to should spontaneously evaporate so that it can stop impeding the arguments they would prefer to present unchallenged.
On this subject in particular, a few others have offered the best insight available, and I'll reiterate it in my own words:
People who are upset by this appear to want the old sociopolitical system, wherein there was a strict division of labor between the people who cranked out images of shit being dumped on the hated outgroup by laughing cartoons of tribal champions, and the actual tribal champions who directly benefited from those images while standing solemnly before a podium in a very expensive suit extruding the blandest possible word-product into an array of very official microphones. If one is going to argue for this previous system, one should argue for it as it actually was, not as it might be imagined to be, particularly in the imagination of the side employing a large majority of the old shit-pouring cartoon experts.
In the wake of the Charlie Kirk shooting, there was an article I read that offered an interesting nugget; the author, a professional journalist, had of course heard (and only heard!) about the shooting the day it happened. When her kids got home from school, she went to talk to them about it. By that point, of course, her kids had not only heard about it, but had already spent the day watching close-up slo-mo video of the moment of impact, the spattering fountain of blood, the crimson-soaked security detail struggling to load his body into a vehicle... she described a fundamental generation gap, where the experience of the event was sanitized on her end and far more visceral for her children, simply through their respective approaches to media technology, in a way that she probably should have seen coming, and maybe should have done something to prevent...
Food for thought.
No, it does not. You are stating "these sorts of assumptions" as if they are identical when in fact the sort of assumptions are completely different. Just because an apple assumption and an orange assumption are both assumptions, doesn't mean they are of the same sort. This is a false equivalence fallacy[.]
I agree that not all equivalences are created equal. Things can be similar in some ways and different in other ways, and whether their similarities or differences should be focused on is dependent on the situation.
That being said, while you've made it clear that you strongly disagree, you have given little explanation as to why, and you appear to have ignored the arguments I put forward.
You ask:
How do you propose a flag can defend an idea?
And the answer seems obvious to me: Flags defend ideas by their very existence, because the purpose of a flag is to serve as a physically-tangible token of loyalty to an abstract idea. Again I ask you, if a flag does not exist to support the ideas associated with its symbolic content, for what other purpose do humans make, carry and wave flags?
If I put up a flag, that is obviously a message. I'm putting the flag up because I want to send a message! I'm broadcasting that message because I want other people to receive it! If this were not so, what other purpose does putting the flag up serve?
It doesn't matter what "it seems to you". No one has ever argued in an open debate what a flag is intending to say, because all reasonable people understand that flags don't inherently say anything.
You do not speak for "all reasonable people". I think I am a reasonable person, and I will happily argue in an open debate what messages specific flags intend to say, because I perceive many flags to obviously hold such messages.
-
This flag means "Our willingness to live in peace with you is dependent on your respect for our personal liberties. If you cannot leave us in peace, we will defend ourselves from your encroachment."
-
This flag means "We support sexual minorities in their struggle for recognition and acceptance in society, and we oppose those who object."
Now, you could take the same rainbow flag, and say that to you it represents Christian Theocracy and the need to minimize and punish sin through the powers of the state, since the rainbow was God's symbol of peace with mankind after the flood. But the problem is that you would be the only person using the rainbow flag that way, and everyone else would still be using it to symbolize LGBT pride, and so the message people would actually receive is the pride one. In the same way, you could invent a novel definition for some common word, diametrically opposed to the common definition, and then insist that your definition takes precedence, but that would be stupid and counterproductive and most people would just assume you were trolling.
But even in the case when somebody is quoting a book verbatim, that doesn't mean they are saying anything about the quote. Sometimes they use the quote to criticize it, and argue precisely the opposite is true. Which means just repeating a quote from a book should not be assumed to be an endorsement of all the ideas contained in that book.
And yet, people make such inferences commonly, you will not be able to stop them from doing so, and communication requires accepting this reality and working around it.
What do you actually want here? I'm not even sure I want to argue that you're wrong, but what is your point? You seem to be objecting to the fact that humans in groups naturally coordinate together to create and maintain Overton windows, punishing those who fall outside them. Humans obviously do this, and there are obvious downsides to them doing this. It seems to me that humans generally perceive the upsides of such behavior to outweigh the downsides, and I do not think any meaningful number of them will ever agree to coordinate the opposite behavior in any consistent fashion. You can dislike this fact, but I'm exceedingly skeptical that you can change it, or that I'd even want you to succeed in doing so.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
12d ago
the flair of the person he's asking is "Can Marx explain the used panties market?"
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
14d ago
Lenin and Mao did not do that while building up their movements. Both were always clear that their goals required a violent seizure of power, followed by a violent purge of society.
And yet, both existed and recruited from a far larger ecosystem that, in fact, mostly pretended that the ideology was all about peace and love, the brotherhood of man, and gradual, incremental, painless reform, while turning a blind eye to the radicals in their midst. The Russian Revolution was a coalition effort with numerous moderate voices, and then the small minority of Bolsheviks seized control.
In the same way, we currently have no shortage of Progressive voices arguing in the clearest possible terms that their goals require violent seizure of power and a violent purge of society. And Blue Tribe steadfastly refuses to police them, and has for decades, even as they've made serious attempts to make good on their theory.
It's clear to the camera. It's not clear that the shooter, having just been blindsided, knocked flat, and then advanced on, had time and cognition to process the half-step back.
I opined at the time that I was willing to accept convictions like that one in an edge case for pragmatic reasons of keeping the peace. That willingness has pretty much gone away given subsequent events.
More options
Context Copy link