domain:cspicenter.com
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
10hr ago
Alright, out with it: Which one of you motherfuckers is J.D. Vance? It’s pretty strange to know that the future Vice President of the United States of America may have personally read my shitposts.
ares
10hr ago
I'm trying to come up with a joke about Trump choosing to go out in a "hyperbolic" chamber/suicide pod, but I can't quite get there. "We really have the best pods, don't we, folks? This isn't just ending, it's ending with a flair, with class."
sapph
10hr ago
60/40 would also easily justify a big bet at 33.3%. I have a long history of uhhhh gambling/speculative investment. I try to only place bets if there is a lot of extra room for me to be wrong and still have positive EV. Harris at 33.3% just seemed like a great buy.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
10hr ago
because their opponent is Trump.
It's probably a little early, but maybe someone should start collecting bets on whether the next Republican candidate gets tarred as uniquely evil in the same way. Seems quite likely to me, but I guess a lot depends on next week there.
KMC
11hr ago
Kenyans are the distance runners. It's west africans, the dominant genetic heritage of Caribbean blacks, that are the sprinters.
TheFooder
11hr ago
I've seen the claim a few times on notes on Substack and shared posts from Twitter. Along with things like, "If Trump is elected we will literally be killed!"
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
11hr ago
but it shouldn't be some impossible feat of man to convict thieves.
It's not, it's just very difficult under the system as shaped and maintained by our ruling elites. (I am once again reminded of a trad-cath friend's argument that pretty much all of the US's problems, this one included, have known and simple solutions — not necessarily easy, but simple — only we're not allowed to enact out any of them, leaving a single political priority.)
TheFooder
11hr ago
He failed to achieve most of his policy goals
This is the best reason to vote for him. I'm being completely serious.
SteveKirk
11hr ago
You definitely need to post this call-out in the thread. Lying about what's in cited papers knowing nobody will read them should be disqualifying, or the spirit of SSC is just another hollowed-out skin-suit for leftist propaganda.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
11hr ago
Sorry in advance that I'm only responding to part of your points (and thanks a lot for writing them; I thought I should be more explicit about appreciating it since you are otherwise just eating downvotes from the lurker gallery) - I have read and thought about everything, but it was a choice between not responding at all and procrastinating way more than I can justify to myself.
So I think the poetic language is a good thing, up to a point (you can always take anything too far, of course).
I don't think "poetic" is the right term for what I see in these writings. A poet, I imagine, is someone who finds new, surprising and accessible ways of expressing a complex or rare sentiment; an obscurantist finds complex and inaccessible ways of circumscribing a common or simple one.
When you have this sort of interaction repeatedly when discussing philosophy, where people say "I don't know what that means, but I know it's bullshit", it starts to wear on you.
Well, it equally wears on you when you repeatedly have an interaction with people who essentially say "I don't know what that means, but I know it's deep". I'm sure you could see some symmetry between those who are serious about philosophy fighting off hordes of foot-soldiers of the tribe that is opposed to the philosophers' coalition and those who are serious about anti-philosophy fighting off hordes of foot-soldiers of Team Philosophers, but the symmetry is broken by the philosophers alone being in the position where they could have chosen to express themselves in a way that forestalls the "I don't know what that means" part.
Relatedly, insofar as it addresses why there are such foot-soldiers on the philosophers' side, and why people like you may underappreciate their number and impact -
I think it's helpful to think of continental philosophy as a sort of 20th century version of TheMotte for French academics. They had their own memeplex, their own points of reference, there was a whole context surrounding it that isn't immediately obvious if you're approaching it for the first time in 2024. These guys all knew each other, they went to the same seminars and published in the same journals; sometimes they were writing "serious" arguments, and sometimes they were just shitposting at each other. A lot of times on TheMotte we'll have someone come along and say "y'know, I've just been thinkin' about this thing" - about leftists and rightists, about men and women, about whatever it is. And then they make some sweeping claim, that may or may not be particularly well supported empirically, but often enough it still makes you go "y'know, I think that guy might be onto something". And that's often the sort of value I get out of continental philosophy. Plainly there's some sort of value in this activity that we do on TheMotte, because we all keep coming here.
I think this is an instance of the Motte of a Motte-and-Bailey that is commonly deployed in defense of every academic discipline that operates according to "humanities rules". Motte: "This is just a bunch of guys shooting the shit. Sometimes they even produce interesting things that I personally enjoy. Why do you, an outsider who doesn't even appreciate any of this, barge in and try to impose rules such as your 'epistemic standards'?" Bailey: "These people are the world authorities on philosophy. We pay them to do philosophy and all philosophers agree that they are the most influential and insightful philosophers, so we should defer to them in matters of philosophy." As a result, there are Lacanians and Deleuzians sitting in IRBs and ethics boards and asking to be persuaded, in their terms, before I am allowed to use my funding to perform scientific experiments (this is mildly overstated for the sake of argument; I have only dabbled in stuff with human subjects and most of my work is mercifully untouched beyond the 60% institutional overhead that is used to subsidise the humanities); we defer to them in questions of what arguments are acceptable in politics and school; and ultimately they are what anchors the chains of trust and authority that we use to determine which political movements are legitimate (at risk of pulling clichés from the bingo board, the argument that the druggie who runs off with five pairs of sneakers as he torches the store is misguided but has his heart in the right place ultimately leads back, via many chains of simplification for political expediency, to some humanities tract full of "poetic language") and which ones are to be treated as threats.
(The most prominent not-obviously-political counterpart of the same dynamic result in cities tiled with brutalist wannabe 1984 film sets. I think people feel the commonalities between a two on a visceral level: it's no accident that Orbán's Budapest is one of the few European capitals that is basically devoid of modern architecture.)
As if something is wrong with us, society, and not them, the criminal.
This gets to a key point in my "disparate impact" effortpost, as well as the Emile DeWeaver "Crime, the Myth" piece I linked and quoted here, particularly the bit:
Then there’s a second myth, that crime is an act committed by an individual. Calling an act a crime is instead a choice we make as a society about how we respond to harms committed in our community.
(Emphasis added).
The criminal laws we have did not descend from the heavens. They are a social construct, a societal choice, and we can always choose differently; laws have varied quite a lot across human history.
It's a matter of where we place the problem. I remember an anti-HBD piece from @ymeskhout, giving the example of a game law limiting shellfish harvesting from a beach, and how everyone caught breaking it was a Cambodian immigrant. One can frame this as a problem with the Cambodians, and ask how we get them to stop over-harvesting shellfish… or we can frame it as a problem with a law that disproportionately punishes Cambodians by labeling behaviors more common among them as "criminal." One could easily eliminate said disparate impact by repealing the limit on shellfish gathering, after all.
If, instead of picking our leaders by elections, we did so by a test of sprinting ability ("There's only one Big Giant Office, and whoever outruns the fireball wins!"), the racial makeup of our government would be rather different, wouldn't it? (A lot more Kenyans, Afro-Caribbeans no?) Similarly with all the "13/50" memes; if you replaced the current US criminal code with that of, say, the Kingdom of Dahomey, would the racial disparities stay nearly as stark?
The position in the Kendi, DeWeaver, etc. space is that to frame the problem as being with people is inherently bigotry, and incompatible with values of tolerance and equity. The problem must be seen as with the system, and to address any problems, we must change who and what our society chooses to label as "criminal," and how we treat those so labeled.
I'm reminded of all the "Positive Action" self-esteem building crap we got in grade school back in the late 80s and early 90s (I thought it was stupid and nonsense back then, and my opinion has only gotten lower). It was full of "you're perfect just the way you are" assertions. Take this idea — the flower of liberal tolerance and the individualist view that "[a]t the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" — and combine the value of "equity," and this seems to follow rather straightforwardly.
There's a core liberal impulse here — a "the laws were made for Man" view, a "that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men… it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it" view — that we must adapt "the system" to fit, and bring equity and fairness to, the people in all their diversity and freedom, rather than force people to adapt to a particular "system" created by one specific culture, reflecting a specific set of values, out of all the many possibilities.
SteveKirk
11hr ago
I suspected mold issues in the ramshackle house I grew up in. Not much of a lead, but if it clears up if you ever spend a few months away from home, it might be a start.
CNN just hot-dropped multiple battleground state polls showing Harris with a +6 lead.
Since polymarket mostly trails polls, it makes sense.
I might have said this before, but there's no way old age is the death Trump would choose. He'd want a death so dramatic Vance would have to commission a 400' gold statue of him on top of Mt Rushmore, standing above all the other presidents in a heroic pose. He'd want a new Trump House built over the smouldering crater where the White House used to be.
More than anything he'd want good television
When I am arguing against the efficacy of individual strategic partisanship, "but then a group following this advice might cause the wrong party to win!" is not a meaningful response. Yes, if one side is collectively strategic and another isn't, then that other will lose the election. But (presumably) you don't have any control of either side, collectively, and your defection or cooperation will basically never make any difference, so you have no compelling reason to behave as if it it would. If everyone could be counted upon to behave as I am suggesting, it would actually be good for our election processes. If they can't be so counted upon, then you lose nothing by behaving better anyway.
cjet79
11hr ago
Multiple companies announced the completion of their vaccines immediately after the election.
This feels like the health equivalent of street racing, motorcycle driving, skydiving, and shooting up heroin. And then worrying about smoking as a health risk. I'd tell someone with those problems to go ahead and smoke if it gets rid of any of their other terrible habits.
I'm also aware that we can basically do massive climate change on the cheap whenever we want. Sulfur dioxide seeding in the upper atmosphere or a massive sun shade in space are orders of magnitude cheaper than carbon emissions reduction.
Magusoflight
11hr ago
I have to say JD Vance would be my favourite pick for a president, ideal situation is Trump gets elected. Dies soon after (of old age), and JD gets a few years to right the ship. It might be the only way we get someone who is rationalist-adjacent into such a influential position.
cjet79
11hr ago
I think they exercise the veto power prior to Trump doing anything, and they exercised it without any serious consequences. There were generals lying to Trump about troop levels in foreign countries, and not only were they not court marshaled for insubordination they were lauded for their efforts. And I'd be pretty happy to with generals that were willing to stand up and defy orders like "shoot american civilians" but they used their "backbone" to defy the president by continuing to wage wars abroad that the president and voters did not want.
I agree that there is a good use case for a veto among the bureaucracy and state agents. But they basically demonstrated the worst level of judgement in exercising it pre-emptively, used it for dumb things, and then suffered no consequences. Theoretically good, but in practice it was awful.
TeknOShEeP
11hr ago
Reagan did some great things, and genuinely had a vision for the future. He also left office more than a third of a century ago. Bush Sr. is notable pretty much only for beating up on a couple of tinpot dictators and largely failing on the domestic front. Bush Jr is notable for being completely eclipsed by his VP, embracing the idiot wing of the GOP, finishing up his daddies work in the most expensive fashion possible, and entangling the nation in a festering quagmire of a war that wouldnt succeed in its objective of killing one guy until the next president and genrally being an enormous suck of lives and treasure; domestically he passed a terrible education bill and a few minor tax cuts while overseeing the regulatory idiocy that led to the 2008 financial crisis.
None of this is worth celebrating- good riddance to it.
TowardsPanna
11hr ago
Trump on polymarket has fallen by around 5 points today. I don't follow US politics closely and I don't know what has changed. Perhaps the accusations of market manipulation had something to them? The needle on polymarket was always higher than on other prediction sites.
I'm not going to bet on polymarket myself. I can't foresee a situation where my advantage in some kind of knowledge/prediction skills would be enough to ever make up for the extant pricing due to others betting, and the cut that the site takes. It seems like a "house (nearly) always wins" situation.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11hr ago
Are you a time traveler from 1975? Do you think teenagers still need to steal “dirty magazines from convenience stores” to be able to see boobs?
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
11hr ago
The problem being that voting for your third parties splits your vote, and that only has a good outcome when everybody on all sides are doing so. If one side defects then they win because their vote isn’t split between several different parties, it’s concentrated in one party. So if conservatives choose between Reform, Constitution, Libertarian, and Republican, each gets 1/4 of the total conservative votes available. If democrats all vote for the Democratic Party, they get all available democratic votes. If you assume that the parties are roughly equal in support, the democrats will win even though the6 don’t have more votes.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
11hr ago
A police finds an item on you. What basis does he have to determine that it was stolen?
He asks the store clerk (with his bodycam on to record the interview) to describe what happens, and then he watches the video the store has of the shoplifting. Do you have any idea how well-surveilled Walmart is? How many cameras they have everywhere? And how advanced their facial recognition technology is?
You’re acting as though getting falsely accused of shoplifting is something that happens to middle-class white people all the time. How likely do you actually think that scenario is? I’ve gone my entire life without ever being accused of shoplifting. I simply assess the probability of the scenario you’re describing as basically nonexistent.
Also remember that we’re talking about a small segment of society who shoplifts over and over and over. If it’s someone’s first time ever being charged, then sure, let’s have some heightened evidentiary standards. If it’s Charlie the Crackhead, caught shoplifting from the same store he’s already shoplifted from 10 previous times, then there is zero reason to go through the whole song and dance. Who are we kidding?
Thanks, fixed. (Like Hakan Rotmwrt said, "High-quality racism is extraordinarily hard work.")
More options
Context Copy link