domain:drrollergator.substack.com?q=domain:drrollergator.substack.com
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22m ago
Because America loves Star Wars.
They want a clear bad guy and a clear good guy and it'd be best if the bad guy's sword was red so they could tell he was bad.
You might like this Substack piece by Librarian of Celaeno (assuming you haven't read it already): "Jedi Brain":
Jedi Brain is a term (I’ve also heard Disney Brain, Marvel Brain, and the like) for a mental state wherein people’s main frame of reference for understanding politics, war, and the interrelationship between them is mass media entertainment products. There are good guys and bad guys, each occupying a respective political identity, and it is the job of the former to seek a more just order by destroying the latter. Narrative coherence tends toward the personification of each side in small groups of heroes on the one hand and one big villain on the other. This latter figure is the wellspring of Team Evil’s grand scheme; if he is destroyed, so goes with him all the bad stuff he represents.
…
This final point is key; Jedi Brain is a form of groupthink that flourishes largely (but not exclusively) among people who expect neither to suffer nor inflict violence themselves. They are secure from it. For them, killing people is an abstract question decided on the basis on whether the good guys will be helped by it, which will in any case occur far away. Negative forces in the world are under the direction of supervillains, who must be destroyed for good to flourish, and upon their destruction peace, harmony, and the sort of personal safety and well-being the Jedi-Brained individual has will simply arise as a kind of emergent property of his noble efforts, or rather the noble efforts of the heroes who will engage in the actual violence, far from the clatter of keyboards. It’s not only neocons who think that every third-world dictator is Adolf Hitler; it’s arguably the default way most of the population now imagines the world, even if only implicitly.
…
Politics- sublimated violence- follows the same trajectory. One can see Jedi Brain on full display deployed against Donald Trump and his MAGA storm troopers, right down to the “Resistance” imagery from the terrible new Disney trilogy being circulated among those terrified at his election in 2016. In addition to being Darth Vader, he’s also Hitler, and also Voldemort, because to the people who deploy those allusions, they’re all the same thing. The boundaries between fiction and reality collapse into a media machine that undifferentiates them, blending them into a narrative where the evil on a page or a screen is the same whether it’s a dark wizard, a wrestling heel, a murderous dictator, or a random internet istophobe. The proper response to any evil, which is all evil, is to demonstrate emotion comprehensible and acceptable to others with whom you wish to identify, in much the same way the public expression of consumer choices validates one as a member of a fandom. Zelensky and the latest Dr. Who trailer- liked and reposted, of course- it’s just the right thing to do.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28m ago
I commented above, but it’s nothing so nefarious (probably) - the AP’s influence on news headlines does a lot of heavy lifting. Idiosyncratic phrases and rare synonyms can easily become popular in bursts.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
29m ago
I mean zoom out the graph and the baseline rate sees a very small gradual rise. Part of the issue is that the AP News wording is more viral than you’d think and more news outlets than you’d expect outright copy headlines in some form. (Or plagiarize)
It’s definitely Jan 6, 2021 that is when it starts going. Again, copy and paste I strongly suggest is the issue! This is non representative but contains some front pages on Jan 7: I stopped counting at 30 front pages, but exactly 20 of them mention “lawmakers” in bold headings. Phrases repeat suspiciously: “lawmakers duck for cover” dominates, and variants like “lawmakers hunker down” and even “lawmakers duck to find cover”, “lawmakers are forced into hiding”, etc. and sure enough, AP News article from the evening of J6 (I assume the date is wrong, shows J5 on the website which is clearly impossible) has “forced lawmakers into hiding” in the first paragraph. AP is a news wire service, by the way, deliberately designed for this purpose; and yes, I think it’s harmful to press freedom and true expression because the coordination effect is too large (popular however because it saves $$ since local papers are encouraged to basically paraphrase rather than write fresh copy, meaning fewer man hours and even more so the case when on a time crunch).
To me it’s a somewhat memetic natural process from there among the smallish club of news headline writers, with spikes on particular popular topics or articles. That’s why you see weird patterns, I actually expect such, precisely because of the AP (Reuters also has a similar effect but smaller).
MayorofOysterville
35m ago
I don't mean referencing Paul specifically but but rather the historical scene. Luke tries to give a historical "scene" for his gospels in a way the others don't by bringing up historical evens and timelines. places the census during the reign of Herod the Great. Josephus says the census under Quirinius occurred after Herod Archelaus was deposed, around 6 CE. So about a decade difference Luke also gives a different order for the failed messianic claimants of Theudas, Judas and "the Egyptian." Acts gets many local details right, titles of officials, geography(the sea travel times we mentioned*), Luke definitely tried for as much accuracy as possible. However, when it comes to larger historical events like the census or rebel leaders, Luke’s account diverges from Josephus. Which is why I don't think he used him as a source though they are related. I think the explanation can be Luke writing about widely known historical events or relying on the memory of someone, possibly even himself, who had read the book earlier.
Tretiak
42m ago
Sulla wasn't successful at anything other than enriching his cronies and buying enough breathing room to not have to face revenge for his actions.
By what standard of the ancient world are we judging him according to this? That’s practically how ‘all’ these societies were ran back then. By a modern more objective metric, sure, Sulla was as you describe him. If we’re grading him on a curve and placing him in the context and circumstances he lived with, he was pretty ‘good’ for the most part in governing a system where that kind of nepotism and cronyism went by the rule of law 2,000 years ago.
Part of the problem is looking back on this with the benefit of hindsight. I don’t like Sulla as a leader in virtually any capacity, but he was quite effective when it came to running the show and conducting the orchestra of the power brokers he was a part of.
Tiber727
45m ago
I'm not magicalkittycat.
Though you did get me wondering about how much of historical resistance was lead by hippies (though they're certainly among them!). Some of this was interesting but didn't really get too much into which groups particularly opposed it. The vaccine-autism link started in 1998 but was popularized by lefty celebrities. The furthest back hard data I can find shows that Democrats and Republicans were pretty equal on vaccines from 2002-2015, with Democrats being slightly more trusting.
Sunshine
46m ago
I was also kind of under the impression that by the time he was firmly in control it had been like a century of unrest and many of the big players already had played their hands so the Senate was already weak in practical terms not just because of legal or political maneuvers.
This is correct, but when people say "the Senate was weak" they elide a key factor: Augustus had himself elected consul 13 times. 11 of them were consecutive, meaning that Augustus was consul for 11 straight years (with various cronies as his co-consuls). The Senate was weak, but also, Augustus was monopolizing the power of the Senate.
After his 11-year term Augustus mostly stopped ruling as consul and started ruling with the powers of a tribune instead. This was in large part to free up the other consulship to give to his supporters as a reward, since the consulship was still prestigious even with all the real power stripped out of it. You can identify the exact time the consulship lost its power, because that's when Augustus no longer felt the need to hold it personally.
Tretiak
48m ago
I take issue with the unearned dismissal of feudalism as a system of government that is all too widespread since the modern period.
If you want to live in an anarcho-capitalist society that’s run by corporate feudal lords, have at it. I’m not against the idea of it working, but see it as highly unlike at worst and undesirable by most at best. Some people would do well. No doubt. Just as some people did well in Nazi Germany or Los Zetas does in Tamaulipas. Die hard libertarians may want to live in this society but normal human beings do not.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
53m ago
It's a bad example because the right had nothing to do with his death at all. His death was ironically viewed precisely because the right's preferred policies might actually have saved him.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
1hr ago
Most recent models do really well! Translation is effectively solved since GPT 4, which was ages ago.
DeepL is good, but they're still better.
jkf
1hr ago
Iterated prisoners dilemma absolutely involves knowing your opponent's strategy -- you need to figure it out first is all.
I suspect if you ask Nybbler he will be inclined to frame the American Left (collectively) as playing defectbot; personally I'm not sure that P.D. problems map well to national politics at all.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1hr ago
They did just release a few more details including a few more about his texts with his lover-roommate as well as a few bits from the parents. His mom thought he looked like the shooter and called him to see where he was! She was apparently the source for the quote about a previous expression of dislike for Kirk by name, and allegedly he had tussled with his dad over his Trumpism, plus there was a religious-cultural deal about gay and trans rights (sometimes that’s exclusively religious so I don’t want to read too much into it, but seems to line up) party spurred we assume by his confirmed-transitioning roommate. He’s absolutely left wing and I think that’s pretty clear. What kind of left wing? Very much still TBD. You’re right in the sense that we don’t know how much of a normie Dem he was, or if he was something way more niche.
anon_
1hr ago
The only consistently free speech people have been the centrist democrats (Liberals who want higher taxes) and centrist republicans (Liberals who want lower taxes).
I dunno, Al Gore was a southern democrat and his wife was pretty clear about how she felt about naughty song lyrics.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1hr ago
It’s my eternal disappointment that Romney ran in 2012 and not 2016. He would have been fantastic in that moment in my opinion. Not a realistic hypothetical because he also ran in 2008 primaries, but Obama was a monster and I think Romney would have done pretty well in most other times and against most other candidates (maybe even 2008, ironically! I could see people trusting him more to handle the financial meltdown that was just starting to happen in the middle of election season than McCain was, who didn’t really seem to have a clue)
anon_
1hr ago
The point isn't about the best strategy knowing your opponent's strategy. If you knew your opponents strategy then just copying their move is the best.
The usual metric for rating success is one that works against the success-weighted average set of other strategies.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1hr ago
Sort of? I’m not a super Roman expert so I could be wrong and welcome corrections, but IIRC Augustus himself in practice spent a lot of time fighting in the several civil wars after the assassination. He was also patient and clever and politically savvy not to rush things or look too dictatorial? I was also kind of under the impression that by the time he was firmly in control it had been like a century of unrest and many of the big players already had played their hands so the Senate was already weak in practical terms not just because of legal or political maneuvers. Even then, it took like 40 years of rule to solidify things, so to me it looks more like good timing and skill of one rather than his approach necessarily being better, but again I could be wrong.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1hr ago
Eh, kinda, but mostly not. To me the “hole” in OP’s setup is we aren’t really told how effective the intrinsic presumed bias towards free speech the government itself has. I think that plays a major role in how it all games out: does party A actually and factually use their time in power to effectively muzzle free speech? Is it an attempt but one that usually fails? How complete is their control, and how effectively does it get reversed if party B shows up?
So you can’t really escape some degree of fact and truth that affects the answer. (Also, point 4 is actually a good one that potentially puts a big thumb on the scale, despite the timeframes required for the benefits to mature and deliver)
oats_son
1hr ago
Wow, you too? I find Gemini translates stuff really, really well. Or at least, I think it does, I cross-reference everything I put into it with Google Translate and sometimes it will apparently misunderstand something, or I'll open up a new private tab and have it translate it back to me and it's come out a little differently than I wanted it. I was told DeepL was supposed to be the best, but I somehow doubt it could be better than Gemini. I could be wrong.
The power of AI might shake up the closed nature of different language spheres of the Internet someday, I think. I had the fanciful idea that humans in other cultures would see things significantly differently from me, but I was surprised by how similar the lines of thought run. In almost every non-Arab country in the world, it seems that traditionalism is fighting a bloody battle against liberalism, and mostly losing.
clo
2hr ago
Because America loves Star Wars.
They want a clear bad guy and a clear good guy and it'd be best if the bad guy's sword was red so they could tell he was bad.
Most of the disastrous ME foreign policy of the US has boiled down to a popular misunderstanding of trying to map the Evil Autocrat vs the Oppressed Rebels that unfortunately tracks all the way to the very top. Realpolitik has its own weaknesses and failings, but Americans have the political memories of goldfish and the nostalgic memories of geriatrics.
anti_dan
2hr ago
To this day right wingers on Twitter still bring up the image of him trying to run and tripping on the bench right before he was stabbed as a sort of Always Sunny meme. A lot of them took a similar line that leftists took with Kirk - "I don't agree with this but he did".
If Charlie Kirk was killed by a spray and pray tactic taken up by some switch modified AR-15 this might be a valid comparison along the lines of, "this was his stupid prize for playing the stupid game of supporting the 2nd Amendment," but this was nothing like that. None of the laws Kirk opposed would have saved his life even with perfect implementation.
This is a routine problem of people pretending non-like things are like, or like things are non-like. Its silly.
Skulldrinker
2hr ago
"I'm so glad when I get to meet cool gay guys instead of weird straight guys" -random woman in a bar of unremarkable attractiveness.
Celestial-body-NOS
Supra tumulum tuum, astra nobis.
2hr ago
The Dixie chick's were never censored...Some of their fans didn't buy more CDs.
That's not how I remember it; I recall that 'Clear Channel' radio removed them from the airwaves, many people sent them nasty letters, and one pundit told them to "shut up and sing" (how would that work, even?).
UwU
2hr ago
I don't really understand why we need to tear down Carson some more. He's not a saint but neither was Charlie Kirk. Kirk also has a mountain of quotes that the left can mine to justify celebrating his death, and I believe they are wrong to do so too.
Had Kirk agitated for and supported violence against his opposition -- actual violence, not the child's "you said mean words"
Granted, not extra-judicial violence, so maybe not exactly "living and dying by the sword," but the following is not exactly that either:
The righties criticize Carson for his belief that socioeconomic conditions precipitate the willingness of an 18 year old to wander a city and murder a stranger by repeatedly stabbing him. His beliefs directly related with and contributed to the circumstances of his murder.
That's like arguing Charlie Kirk argued for escalation and turning up the temperature, which produced a political environment that precipitated his assassination. The cause and effect between Carson's beliefs and his murder are just as far removed.
I feel like you may be projecting a lot of meaning into it. To some extent all groups do this. I work in data science and boy let me tell you, buzzwords come into vogue so fast it makes your head spin. Famously kids often invent new vocab or participate in language trends on purpose to signal ingroup status and awareness, but adults do it too, and not exclusively politically. It’s not usually deliberate, it’s life.
It’s also inconsistent that you think that re-introducing a previously more rare word dumbs down language. Isn’t an expanded vocabulary usually a sign of higher level language, not lower? It’s not as if “legislator” or “senator” or what have you are less popular or obsolete, much less low status to say.
Don’t get me wrong: focus group messaging firms do impact political word choice. I can even name drop one (though a Republican): Frank Luntz. But they don’t always work, and don’t always show up. He pushed for energy exploration instead of oil drilling in a 2003 memo, and climate change instead of global warming in a 2002 memo, but as far as I can see, neither actually wholly replaced the other and although the choice might signal something, it’s not so obvious. In fact climate change actually got adopted by the left!
A sort-of peer of his on the left, the don’t think about an elephant guy George Lakoff, pushed stuff like climate crisis/emergency instead, and public option vs government healthcare, and stuff like that. Not all were so enduring. Yes, the 2016-2023 era had a decent amount of leftist word policing of “bad” words, but that’s not related or analogous to this objection at all. Your radar is misfiring.
More options
Context Copy link