OT59: Comment Sutra

This is the bi-weekly visible open thread. There are hidden threads every few days here. Post about anything you want, ask random questions, whatever. Also:

1. Comment of the week is JT on presidential life expectancy.

2. Some SSC readers at Princeton encourage you to check out their upcoming Envision Conference on futurology and far-future tech, this December 2-4. Speakers will include Robin Hanson, Anders Sandberg, Andrew Critch, etc, etc, etc. Registration is free but the deadline is October 1, so apply now if you’re interested.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

1,618 Responses to OT59: Comment Sutra

  1. Scott says:

    I’m looking for a post in the wider lesswrong-blog-o-sphere that I remember reading a while ago and would appreciate any help in tracking it down.

    The gist of it was that the bar for people to receive government grants to conduct various experiments and projects in education/healthcare/social services/etc. was very low. For example, many educational grants measure the success of their computer-upgrade program not by positive effect on the students, but just by whether they actually bought computers at all and brought them into schools.

    It then urged members of the wider rationality community to look into this as an alternative to a standard job, because (a) the government wants to give out this money for use, (b) you don’t have to sacrifice and can pay yourself an upper-middle class salary, and (c) pretty much anything can do good better than most of what’s going on right now.

    Does this ring a bell to anyone?

    • bluto says:

      I wonder what their internet usage looked like before and after the change.

      • I wondered why they didn’t add an afternoon shift for better customer service.

      • Matt M says:

        This is probably relevant. Based on my experience in corporate America, the main difference between this company and others is probably just that these people work for five hours and then go home, while others have you work for five and spend three dicking around watching Youtube videos or checking your fantasy football team or whatever.

        • Corey says:

          Indeed, any website operator will tell you traffic is way higher during work days/hours. I only post here from work; no way I’d have this kind of free time at home.

        • John Schilling says:

          In my experience, “work for five and spend three dicking around on the Internet” usually means two hours work, one hour Youtube, two hours work, one hour fantasy football, one hour work, one hour Slate Star Codex, or something like that. Not five consecutive hours of work. The natural tendency will be for a five-hour workday to be two hours work, one hour youtube, one and a half hours work, anything I start now won’t get done so there’s probably something interesting on SSC, so net three-and-a-half hours of work.

          It is not clear that people who can deliver X units of productivity in five hours spread over an eight-hour period will deliver the same X units of productivity in five consecutive hours. It is also not clear that the employment regime that insists and enforces there not be half an hour of non-productive web-browsing on company time ever is preferable to the one that insists three hours of my daily non-productive web-browsing be done in their office rather than at home.

          So I’m betting this scheme isn’t really an improvement for either party, but I could be convinced.

          • Gazeboist says:

            It looks like there were a few extra things going on here:

            1) The company improved their automation, reducing the amount of work that actually needed to be done.

            2) The rule seems to have applied to customer service reps, retail workers, and factory workers. None of these people were sitting at a desk with a project they were working on; the first two groups are “on call”, so their hours were mostly free-unless-called-upon already, and the last group is doing physical production the whole time. It’s not clear that the change applied to anyone not being paid by the hour (or that the company has any salaried employees except at the very top).

            3) They added a profit sharing program as well, which probably improved worker motivation.

    • moridinamael says:

      Casual Googling suggests that the average corporate employee does about 2.5 hours of actual productive work per day, so giving a generous 5 hours for people to get settled in, have meetings, etc. seems reasonable.

      I am always highly suspicious of people who claim to regularly work more than 8 hours a day. I feel like they must be using a different definition of “work”. Even when I was working on my PhD I was probably “at the office” 12 hours a day but the vast majority of that consisted of long coffee breaks and wasting time.

      • Dr Dealgood says:

        Would you count someone waiting for a reaction to run or code to compile as working? Because if not you have a problem: you can’t just compress a “2.5 hour” workday down to an afternoon if the nature of the work demands long waiting times between tasks.

        I’ve never worked in an office myself but I’d guess that there’s a least some element of “I finished my part of the task, let’s see how long it will take before I get the things I need for the next step.”

        • Deiseach says:

          I’ve never worked in an office myself but I’d guess that there’s a least some element of “I finished my part of the task, let’s see how long it will take before I get the things I need for the next step.”

          It depends; some days (when there are returns that need to be done, or near the end of the month, or the days you know are going to be Busy Days because this is the week before the monthly meeting and you have to pull all the figures and have them updated) you could work as long as “how long is a piece of string”, other days you get all your stuff done and you’re sitting around wasting time for the last half an hour because you can’t knock off early because your hours are from A to B and it’s not B yet (it’s stupid, but when you have a clocking-in system, that’s what happens).

          And you’re right about waiting to do the next step, though generally it’s “the files are all down in our City office and they haven’t sent them back up yet so I can’t finish processing them until I get them, which I would have done if I only had the damn files on my desk instead of thirty miles away” 🙂

        • Rosemary7391 says:

          If the tasks are all linear then the waiting does become unavoidable. That seems unlikely though. I have to wait for code to run; I don’t stop working, I do something else in the meantime. Frequently I let code run overnight so I have the results to look at first thing in the morning, although that tends to be with things that take a few hours anyway. I guess experimental work might be more linear, but there’s still scope for doing other things in between times, including attending to another linear experiment.

          • Orphan Wilde says:

            Yeah. If you’re spending more than 50% of your time waiting on your computer to do something, buy a second computer and have more than one thing to work on.

    • onyomi says:

      I definitely like this idea. Concentrated work is always better than spread-out in my experience. While working on my PhD I tried a regimen of beginning work on my dissertation at 7 and working till noon everyday with essentially no breaks to look at facebook, check e-mail, do laundry, or anything procrastinate-y other than, e. g., brew more tea and use the restroom. In exchange, I told myself I didn’t have to feel guilty about not working on my dissertation for the rest of the day, though I inevitably did do more work after noon in many cases.

      I found I generally got more done in those five concentrated hours than in my usual daily routine of “half-working, half-procrastinating 10+ hours a day.”

      I haven’t been able to keep it up, though I may attempt it again.

  2. The original Nazis used images of strength and beauty– healthy blond(e) people, eagles, a striking and memorable swastika. Neo-nazis use…. Pepe the frog. What happened?

    • Sandy says:

      The Nazis had Leni Riefenstahl. The Neo-Nazis have 4chan. There are budgetary constraints.

    • BBA says:

      Sometimes when you can’t tell whether the people you’re arguing with are trolling or sincere, it’s because they can’t tell either.

    • The Nybbler says:

      They also use Taylor Swift, but Hillary’s campaign hasn’t seen fit to take that on yet for some reason.

    • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

      Pepe the frog is used for many things. Pepe is everywhere and nowhere.

      http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-the-frog

      More seriously, its just a meme used by 4chan. As such , its associated with things much more deplorable then neo-nazis. Its use is so widespread online in youth culture, that I actually find it strange that it was linked with neo-nazis.

      • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

        And HOLY SHIT its just been declared an actual hate symbol by the Anti-Defamation league.

        Ok, do neo-nazi sites *actually* use this damned frog? On reddit its just the_donald troll posts, and on less reputable sites its just used ubiquitously for everything.

        Damn, I remember that frog when he was just feels_good_man. What happened pepe?

        • hlynkacg says:

          I have no clue.

          First time I encountered him was as a recurring character in barracks graffiti circa 2007. “Sargent Pepe” wielder of the “green weenie” that fucks you 5 minutes before liberty call on a Friday afternoon. Furthermore our most prolific promulgator of Pepe art/memes was a 6″ 4′ black guy from Naw’lins, so from my perspective the whole white supremacist angle is coming out of left field.

          • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

            Feels bad man…

          • hlynkacg says:

            I understood that reference.

            You know what really feels bad? Being told Friday night you got a Saturday morning working party because some beltway panty-waste wants a photo shoot. #PFCLivesMatter #AirmanLivesMatter

        • Sandy says:

          It was the subject of a lot of 4chan memes, most of them non-political (for a long time a couple of years ago, it was used to indicate smug derision of poor taste on the Television & Film board, which led to a lot of ‘frogposters fuck off back to reddit’ ranting). Come election year, 4chan started making Trump memes with Pepe, some people on 4chan legitimately are neo-Nazis, so some of these memes spread to white nationalist sites.

          • Matt M says:

            I feel like this is too easy. Tell the alt-right “anything you use will be declared unacceptable hate speech” and they’re just going to start using things the left likes.

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            shhhh, don’t interrupt them. Let’s wait until frogs, dancing, and the colour blue are all abominable hate speech.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            “Tell the alt-right “anything you use will be declared unacceptable hate speech” and they’re just going to start using things the left likes.”

            …while simultaneously laughing themselves sick at the spectacle of people clutching their pearls over a cartoon frog. This attempt to denounce Pepe is hands down the stupidest thing I have ever seen in my life. It is beyond parody.

          • hlynkacg says:

            It is beyond parody

            As I said in the previous open thread, The Onion turned into a source of sober and restrained journalism so slowly that many of it’s readers still haven’t noticed. 😉

          • Le Maistre Chat says:

            “Tell the alt-right anything you use will be declared unacceptable hate speech and they’re just going to start using things the left likes.”

            Now I want to see “I’m With Her (arrow pointing right)” symbols for Marine Le Pen.

          • And really, why not? I’m tired of the idea what women automatically make things better.

        • Anon. says:

          Now that pepe is mainstream, le shiggy donatello must be next, right? After all, it’s such a daring synthesis.

        • Deiseach says:

          “Pepe the Frog is a huge favorite white supremacist meme,” Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center told NBC News of the meme.

          While Pepe the Frog may not be a household name, the meme is known to members of the alt-right on the internet.

          “It’s constantly used in those circles,” Beirich said. “The white nationalists are gonna love this because they’re gonna feel like ‘yeah we’re in there with Trump, there’s Pepe the Frog.'”

          Can anybody explain to me what the hell is the Southern Poverty Law Center doing? As far as I can see, it pops up every now and again to declare some group nobody has ever heard of a “hate group” and get itself quoted in the media.

          A bunch of trolls (who may or may not be actual white supremacists/neo-Nazis/ultra-nationalists, they could be yanking the journalists’ chains on that one as well) create and disseminate deliberately offensive versions of a popular meme in order to stir up outrage and get attention, and the next thing anyone knows, the moral arbiters who go looking for microaggressions under the bed fall for it hook, line and sinker, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign even thinks it will do to throw mud at Trump’s campaign.

          I have a strong inclination to yell “Are you all twelve? Grow up and have some sense!” at the lot of them. An anonymous 19 year old says he’s a white nationalist who is in on a scheme to reclaim the meme from mundanes, and our fearless crack investigative journalists quote every word he says as if it is Gospel, never stopping to ask themselves “Is this guy pretending to be a neo-Nazi in order to get maximum outrage mileage out of this whole stunt?”

          • Dr Dealgood says:

            The same thing they always do. Fundraising.

          • jaimeastorga2000 says:

            Can anybody explain to me what the hell is the Southern Poverty Law Center doing? As far as I can see, it pops up every now and again to declare some group nobody has ever heard of a “hate group” and get itself quoted in the media.

            Virtue signalling.

          • Lumifer says:

            @ jaimeastorga2000

            Nah. Their livelihood depends on them being able to whip up outrage on a regular basis, it doesn’t matter much about what. If the outrage stops, the money stops flowing.

          • John Schilling says:

            The Two Minutes Hate is only fun if everybody is hating the same targets. The SPLC makes its living selling an approved target list to a particular group of haters, with the particular irony of calling out its victims for their “hate”.

            And, to be fair, some of them are guilty as charged. Plenty of hate on both sides of the culture war. Probably not so much the cartoon frogs.

          • It wouldn’t be surprising to me that SPLC is about ginning up fear.

            They list number of hate groups rather than number of people involved in hate groups or (better but harder to do well) some sort of threat estimate.

          • sweeneyrod says:

            If the SLPC are just virtue-signalling haters on the left side of the culture war, why do they consider black separatist groups to be hateful?

          • BBA says:

            I honestly don’t know why so few on the left see that the SPLC is a fear-mongering sham. I guess they get some goodwill from their name sounding like SCLC and SNCC, with which they were originally loosely affiliated.

            @sweeneyrod: Even they can’t deny that water is wet.

          • Le Maistre Chat says:

            Can anybody explain to me what the hell is the Southern Poverty Law Center doing? As far as I can see, it pops up every now and again to declare some group nobody has ever heard of a “hate group” and get itself quoted in the media.

            Fundraising. The SPLC has been a money-making scam since at least 1994, when the Montgomery Advertiser did Pulitzer-finalist investigative reporting on its finances.

            Before it became a vegans-only club, I was really interested in Effective Altruism precisely because it’s the antithesis of the cognitive biases that lead to giving money to the SPLC.

          • Le Maistre Chat, could you be more specific about the biases which led to the SPLC?

          • Le Maistre Chat says:

            @Nancy Lebovitz: Sure. The SPLC is a pretty typical charity in that they operate by paying for advertising and packing their purchase with appeals to emotion. The whole purpose of their advertising is to make people fear that “hate groups” are the biggest problem in the world, and fighting them is therefore the best use of your finite charity budget.

            This really doesn’t stand up to logical analysis. Even if racism is the most pressing problem in the world, is it more effective to give more money to an organization with $303 million in investments to fight white supremacists on the internet or to give cash to Kenyans?

          • Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

            Wow … the SSC’s alt*chorus hugely dislikes the SPLC!

            Perhaps by reason of SPLC analyses like this one?

            Stormfront, the leading white supremacist Web forum, has another distinction — murder capital of the Internet.

            A typical murderer drawn to the racist forum Stormfront.org is a frustrated, unemployed, white adult male living with his mother or an estranged spouse or girlfriend. She is the sole provider in the household. Forensic psychologists call him a ‘wound collector.’ Instead of building his resume, seeking employment or further education, he projects his grievances on society and searches the Internet for an excuse or an explanation unrelated to his behavior or the choices he has made in life.

            His escalation follows a predictable trajectory. From right-wing antigovernment websites and conspiracy hatcheries, he migrates to militant hate sites that blame society’s ills on ethnicity and shifting demographics. He soon learns his race is endangered — a target of “white genocide.” After reading and lurking for a while, he needs to talk to someone about it, signing up as a registered user on a racist forum where he commiserates in an echo chamber of angry fellow failures where Jews, gays, minorities and multiculturalism are blamed for everything.

            Assured of the supremacy of his race and frustrated by the inferiority of his achievements, he binges online for hours every day, self-medicating, slowly sipping a cocktail of rage. He gradually gains acceptance in this online birthing den of self-described ‘lone wolves,’ but he gets no relief, no practical remedies, no suggestions to improve his circumstances. He just gets angrier.

            And then he gets a gun …

            A two-year study by the [SPLC] Intelligence Report shows that registered Stormfront users have been disproportionately responsible for some of the most lethal hate crimes and mass killings since the site was put up in 1995.

            In the past five years alone, Stormfront members have murdered close to 100 people.

            The Report’s research shows that Stormfront’s bias-related murder rate began to accelerate rapidly in early 2009, after Barack Obama became the nation’s first black president.

            For domestic Islamic terrorists, the breeding ground for violence is often the Al Qaeda magazine Inspire and its affiliated websites. For the racist, it is Stormfront.

            Evidence-driven? Rational? Outstandingly effective? Publicly audited and rated? Far more so, than any Trump foundation?

            Oh yes. Fair and balanced? You decide.

          • Sandy says:

            ^This is a troll, right?

          • hlynkacg says:

            Perhaps by reason of SPLC analyses like this one?

            Or perhaps it’s for the ample reasons already provided.

            @ Sandy,

            If so, he is very committed to the persona. This is not the first form he has taken nor is this the first name we have known him by.

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            And before anyone goes “don’t call people trolls, it’s not nice!”, I’m pretty sure “evading a perma-ban for annoying trolling so you can troll more” counts as trolling.
            If it doesn’t, the word has no meaning.

          • Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

            Sandy wonders “This [SPLC support] is a troll, right?”

            Within living memory, citizens paid some mighty high tolls to support the SPLC’s principles, didn’t they?

            And William Faulkner was entirely right to remind us: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past”, wasn’t he?

        • ChillyWilly says:

          In fairness to the Anti-Defamation League, the page on Pepe does going into its history and explains, “The majority of uses of Pepe the Frog have been, and continue to be, non-bigoted.” Nevertheless, I think it is silly to consider it a symbol of hate.

          Sometimes I get the impression that anything from a time or place where bigotry existed has been becoming more and more associated with said bigotry, so that any references or appreciation of the past becomes suspect or treated as proof of bigotry. Like watching Leave it to Beaver and seeing only coercive gender norms. Since bigotry will probably always exist in some form or degree, that means everything eventually becomes bigoted. I am entirely open to the idea that this is just something that happens among (my perception of) strong SJ crowds, or that I’m otherwise way off base.

          • Rebel with an Uncaused Cause says:

            In fairness to the Anti-Defamation League, the page on Pepe does going into its history and explains, “The majority of uses of Pepe the Frog have been, and continue to be, non-bigoted.”

            Honestly, that makes it even worse. They acknowledge that most uses aren’t hateful but that some people use it in a hateful way, and then don’t address the point at all. 99.99% of everything is not hateful except for a few people who use it in a hateful way; they need to show their work to justify what makes this frog distinct from everything else. Their acknowledgment makes it impossible for me to write this off as the ADL simply not being exposed to anything other than hateful Pepe memes; it means they produced a bad classification with full knowledge that it was bad.

          • Corey says:

            Post-2008 there was something that went the other direction: usually hating on “international bankers” was an anti-Jewish dog whistle, but after 2008 it was more about hating on actual bankers.

          • Gazeboist says:

            I recall mostly hearing “the finance industry” or a similar formulation, rather than “international bankers”, from people who were actually mad at bankers, Semitic and otherwise. I might just be wrong though.

    • dndnrsn says:

      I’d also argue that the aesthetics of the far left are much diminished as well. Red Army parades – that certain weird sort of brutalist neoclassicism – Socialist Realist art – monumental statues to … punk bands? Of course, this isn’t a new thing for the far right either. Most neo-Nazis seem, from day one, to not care or have cared a great deal about clean lines, military precision, nicely tailored uniforms, and projecting a sort of militarized domestic respectability.

      So basically the “people wear jeans to formal occasions nowadays, kids these days” complaint can be extended to political extremists.

    • Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

      It’s alive: modern realism.

      The artist shock-troops of a 21st century progressivism in which nothing human is alien … their ateliers are everywhere.

    • Homo Iracundus says:

      Photographs suffice to show beauty and truth, and those increasingly rare things shouldn’t be sullied by contrasting them against the spread, shitting anus of modernity.

      You say our art is cheap, ugly, tasteless? Our art is fit for the age and for the fight, and giving it anything more would be a waste.

      Beauty will come to a world that deserves it and cherishes it, and if we’re lucky we’ll live long enough to catch a glimpse of that world.

      • The Nybbler says:

        You really think I’m going to click on that third link?

        • Homo Iracundus says:

          Our taxes paid for it. Surely you want to see the fruits of your labours?
          And yeah, I picked a mild but illustrative example so the contrast didn’t feel too vile to make.

      • Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

        Perhaps nowadays, artistic beauty *IS* accessible to every human being?

        “Like in politics, [in the art-world] you have groups that come together which have nothing in common except that they are oppressed by the same enemy, so you get grand alliance. There’s a lot of justice in that inspiration, but in that, you forget who you really are and you become defined by what you’re against.
            Jacob Collins, “Seceding from
            photographic sensibility”

        In a nutshell, never forget that progressivism’s creative fertility is grounded in cognitive empathy and social diversity. These unleashed progressive forces aren’t readily quelled, are they?

        In contrast, opponents of progressivism too-commonly define themselves by what they’re against, don’t they? Doesn’t this restriction, in the short run, give rise to artistic and creative alt-conformity, and in the long run, risk cultural alt-sterility?

        ————-
        LOL … can’t resist posting a link to the self-portrait that Trump hangs in his Palm Beach mansion. Aye lassies and laddies, now that’s art for yah! 🙂

        • ThirteenthLetter says:

          Speaking of accessibility, your posts are borderline unreadable.

        • Edward Morgan Blake says:

          Didn’t there used to be a rule against more than one link per post?

          I will archive binge a good blog, which I’m doing right now with this one. And I will read some links that give good context in and around the link text as to why I should, but I’m not going to chase a dozen links in a post to a dozen articles that barely have anything to do with what the poster implies in the link text.

    • anon says:

      At a guess, I’d say images of strength and beauty became associated with Nazis.

    • Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

      In reference to Donald Trump’s self-chosen portrait that hangs in his Palm Beach mansion:

      Nancy Lebovitz wonders  “The original Nazis used images of strength and beauty — healthy blond(e) people, eagles, a striking and memorable swastika. Neo-nazis use … Pepe the frog. What happened?”

      For the Donald, not much has changed, has it Nancy? 🙂

      Except that Trump’s self-chosen portrait is far whiter even than the whitest Nazi imagery … Trump’s portrait-choice is maximally, dazzlingly, almost incredibly white.

      It’s the whitest artwork in the world, it’s a property of incredible value, and everyone who sees it loves it! 🙂

      What may be the semiotic significance of Trump’s (likely unconscious) choice of figurative ultra-whiteness, the world wonders?

      • Deiseach says:

        Hillary Clinton has her hair as blonde as The Donald; I think both of them are getting some help from the dye bottle and a good (well, not so much in his case) hair stylist to cover up the grey.

        Equally blond(e), equally white – are we sniffing out neo-Nazi sympathies in the Clinton camp, Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie? Is their warning about Pepe simply a case of sour grapes – you made use of our white supremacist overlord before we could?

        As for Trump’s portrait – it is well within the tradition of flattering society portraits that portray the one who commissioned it as they wish to be seen, not as they really appear. An image of youth, virility and athletic good looks – is anyone surprised by this choice? As for the clothing, he appears to me to be wearing cricket whites but since I doubt Donald ever played cricket, it’s probably a melding of aspirations to what is perceived as being of higher class/higher status and whatever sporting uniform was worn at his university (that was not the football team); I know American universities (some of them) have rowing teams, they must have teams for sports not football or basketball as well.

        Nouveau-riche aping his betters – like buying your books by the yard to equip out a library. There’s nothing strange, new or startling here, and you could read any selection of Edwardian novels or short stories and find a similar character being chaffed for exactly this sort of behaviour and pretensions. It says exactly nothing about Nazism, white supremacism or anything other than the Anglicised upper class culture that Trump tried to get a toehold in by attending the University of Pennsylvania (which appears, upon reading the Wikipedia entry at least, to be of some quality and not just Quis paget entrat so he can’t have been a complete thicko back in his student days).

        • Civilis says:

          Even more, Trump is a born-and-bred New Yorker, and has stood up for his state’s cosmopolitanism against other Republicans decrying ‘New York values’. Hillary, on the other hand, started her political career as the wife of William Jefferson “Slick Willy” “Bubba” Clinton, governor of the great southern state of Arkansas.

          If you’re a major Democratic politician today, you’re almost automatically on the nouveau-riche train, hobnobbing with celebrities in Hollywood and Martha’s Vineyard no matter where you came from. Obama’s the same way; look at who he invites to the White House and who he sees when he fund-raises. Hillary went from ‘wife of southern governor’ to ‘honorary New Yorker’ as part of her Senate makeover, making her… very much in the same social basket as Donald Trump.

          • ThirteenthLetter says:

            …very much in the same social basket as Donald Trump.

            Now that’s a real basket of deplorables!

        • Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

          Isn’t there a big difference between thoughtful conservatives who respect science and who own-up to personal mistakes, versus faux-conservatives who are congenitally incapable of either?

          Hilary’s mighty lucky that Arnold’s an immigrant, isn’t she? An immigrant whose genuine affection for other immigrants is … well … undeniable?

          Arnold Schwarzenegger versus Al Franken … voters can dream about enlightening political debates, can’t they? 🙂

          • Jiro says:

            Isn’t there a big difference between thoughtful conservatives who respect science and who own-up to personal mistakes, versus faux-conservatives who are congenitally incapable of either?

            If there is such a difference, you should ignore it and treat them all as thoughtful. It’s like asking “Isn’t there a big difference between good Mexicans and lazy Mexicans?” or “Isn’t there a difference between generous Jews and greedy Jews?” If you go ranting about greedy Jews, don’t expect people to believe you when you say “Oh, I’m just complaining about the greedy ones, if you’re not greedy I’m not talking about you”.

          • Zombielicious says:

            @Jiro:
            Belief, worldview, and behavior are different from ethnicity. One (belief system and behavior) is a choice that affects the people around you, the other (ethnicity) something you’re born into that doesn’t directly affect anyone (outside of whatever weird internal issues they have with it).

            It starts to sound a lot weirder when you pick a different example than “Mexicans” or “Jews.” Try it on something like “If some pedophiles hurt people, you should ignore it and treat them all as harmless.”

            ETA: The issue is conflating behavior with non-behavioral traits. If your issue is lazy or greedy or adversarial people, there’s no good reason to condemn a non-behavioral trait and claim it’s a proxy for what you’re really against, and doing so just makes your motives look suspicious.

          • Jiro says:

            Belief, worldview, and behavior are different from ethnicity.

            They’re not different enough, unless you think it’s possible to make unsupported mass generalizations about Jews, but you don’t think it’s possible to make unsupported mass generalizations about conservatives.

            (Note that in both cases the generalizations are made under the cover of “I’m not generalizing, I’m just talking about the particular ones with the nasty trait”.)

            If your issue is lazy or greedy or adversarial people, there’s no good reason to condemn a non-behavioral trait and claim it’s a proxy for what you’re really against

            And if your issue is people who are congenitally incapable of respecting science (what does that even mean?), there’s no reason to specifically condemn conservatives who are like that rather than just condemning that directly.

      • Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

        Deiseach remarks  “There’s nothing strange, new or startling here [regarding Trump].”

        And isn’t that Umberto Eco’s overall point (per Eco’s celebrated essay “Eternal fascism“)?

        Trumpish alt-cognition never shows us anything “strange, new or startling”, does it?

        Instead, hasn’t “the Donald” been marvelously providing to politics (via Trump’s ultra-white self-chosen portrait for example) the same deadpan hilarity that Leslie Nielsen so wonderfully provided to police work?

        Which hilarity is itself an art-form, of course. Bingo! 🙂

        • Fahundo says:

          Instead, hasn’t “the Donald” been marvelously providing to politics the same deadpan hilarity that Leslie Nielsen

          I’d say he reminds me more of an obnoxious reality TV star…but, he IS an obnoxious reality TV star.

    • Le Maistre Chat says:

      I first saw Pepe the frog as an avatar on mainstream fora in 2010. So it looks like the small minority of neo-Nazis online are using the same ugly symbols as everyone else.

      • Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

        Isn’t it a plain lesson of history, that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is wise to condemn both Pepe-the-symbol and the racially charged Trumpish demagoguery that has been so closely associated to that symbol?

        The ADL’s Hate-Symbols Database summarizes the evidence, and said evidence is plenty compelling, isn’t it?

        As the ADL says (correctly as it seems to me)

        Because so many Pepe the Frog memes are not bigoted in nature, it is important to examine use of the meme only in context. The mere fact of posting a Pepe meme does not mean that someone is racist or white supremacist. However, if the meme itself is racist or anti-Semitic in nature, or if it appears in a context containing bigoted or offensive language or symbols, then it may have been used for hateful purposes.

        Here’s an (((ADL-provided))) hateful exemplar … and another … and another. In view of which, ongoing Pepe-defense is pure alt-toxic hairsplitting, isn’t it?

        • Le Maistre Chat says:

          Isn’t it a plain lesson of history, that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is wise to condemn both Pepe-the-symbol and the Trumpish demagoguery that has been associated to that symbol?

          I don’t understand this sentence.

          The ADL analysis looks factual and even-handed to me. They’re not calling for a ban on Pepe the frog or directly Trump-bashing

        • Sivaas says:

          Kind of reminds me of the phrase “that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee” (although that phrase is pretty outdated thanks to inflation)

          Pepe in a racist meme gets you a racist meme.

          • lemmy caution says:

            (((name))) is another anti-semetic meme (though I never saw anyone do it until you did.

          • Corey says:

            Most people are doing (((echoes))) in solidarity with Jews these days. Recently some hilarity ensued as Megan McArdle (redheaded Irish Catholic) got some anti-Jew hate come her way as she had done this with her Twitter handle.

          • Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

            No nation whose dog-tags span all faiths — both traditional and otherwise — should tolerate (((alt*toxicity))).

          • Emily says:

            Are the people who are doing this particular Jew-hating OK with Irish Catholics?

          • dndnrsn says:

            Now I’m imagining the alt-right putting different kinds of brackets on different kinds of names.

          • Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

            Emily wonders “Are the people who are doing this particular Jew-hating OK with Irish Catholics?”

            The short alt*answer is “no” … because America’s Irish immigrants came from the wrong side of the Hajnal Line, you see!

          • Dr Dealgood says:

            @Emily,

            I don’t think it matters whether or not they consider the Irish, or Slavs or Southern Europeans or whomever to be Officially WhiteTM. The point of the (((echo))) isn’t a generic tool to highlight anyone they dislike, it’s very specifically about prominent Jews.

            Because of antisemitic conspiracy theories like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Z.O.G., and the like there’s a taboo about mentioning that some influential person is Jewish that doesn’t really apply to any other ethnicity. And the existence of that taboo reinforces the claims of a conspiracy because it makes it look like Jews in particular are trying to hide their role in elite society.

            That’s where this stuff came from, and why the reaction to it is unlikely to work. Anything that looks like a hasty “move along! nothing to see here!” reinforces their narrative.

          • dndnrsn says:

            @Dr Dealgood:

            It’s not as though there didn’t used to be anti-Catholic conspiracy theories. And people believed those before the Supreme Court was 2/3 Catholic.

            I think that the { bracket would be a good signifier for Catholic, because it kind of looks like the Pope’s hat. [ for Puritans, because they’re squares.

        • Matt M says:

          While the word “apple” is not inherently anti-semitic, but one should be watchful for anti-semitic uses of it. Most people may innocently refer to apples simply as a fruit that they enjoy eating, anti-semites have been known to refer to apples in their bigoted screeds, such as “go eat an apple, you filthy jew”

    • Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

      With apologies to William Blake:

      A meme conveyed
          with (((alt*intent)))
      beats all the venom
          you can vent.

      Assuredly the SPLC and the ADL (etc.) are woke to both Blake and Pepe, aren’t they? 🙂

  3. hlynkacg says:

    For those interested SpaceX is unveiling thier BFR/Mars mission plan right now.

    Livecast of the press conference

    • Peter Scott says:

      So: A two-stage Big Fucking Rocket, about 2.2x more payload to LEO than the Saturn V, both stages re-usable. 42 engines on the lower stage plus 9 more on the upper stage. The plan is to get a fleet of ships ready in orbit for each launch window, with several in-orbit refueling flights for each one, then send them on an 80-150 day trip to Mars. They do a propulsive landing with some aerobraking, similar to landing on Earth. They’re refueled using methane and liquid oxygen produced on site, then set off for Earth again. And so on and so forth, hopefully.

      In related news, the first test firing of the engine for this thing was a couple of days ago.

      • Froolow says:

        I can’t really understand how anyone is taking this seriously. I’m not saying its not an amazing goal, but if all it requires to be feted by the media is saying you’re going to do amazing but unrealistic things then I’m going to do exactly what Musk is proposing except I’m going to do it to Europa. No outlet at all is reporting the similar promises about that hyperloop thing which Musk made only a year or two ago and which seem to have gone nowhere.

        I’d probably believe they could put a man on Mars by 2022, and I’d treat it as a bold but unlikely stretch goal if they said they were going to bring him back alive, but 100 people to Mars by 2022 is just entirely implausible without significant technological advances that Musk has absolutely no control over and cannot predict.

        I’m actually pretty annoyed about the fawning reception the tech press have given him; about the best thing you can say about the plan is that it is not quite as stupid as promising to cure all known diseases for $3bn.

        • bean says:

          Doubling all time and initial cost numbers that come out of Musk’s mouth lines up remarkably well with the final numbers. This is known inside SpaceX, too.
          I will agree that Musk’s ability to convince journalists (and through them, the general population) that he walks on water is supremely annoying. If any conventional aerospace company had his record of cost and schedule overruns, they’d be crucified in the press.

          • hlynkacg says:

            Agree on the first part disagree on the second, compared to NASA in particular, or defense procurement in general, SpaceX’s cost and schedule overruns are pretty much par for the course.

            The main difference is that LockMart doesn’t have someone like Musk to act as charismatic front-man.

          • bean says:

            Agree on the first part disagree on the second, compared to NASA in particular, or defense procurement in general, SpaceX’s cost and schedule overruns are pretty much par for the course.

            The main difference is that LockMart doesn’t have someone like Musk to act as charismatic front-man.

            That’s exactly the point, though. SpaceX may be suffering from typical aerospace overruns (although I’d argue that there are quite a few aerospace programs which come in reasonably close to schedule and budget and don’t get noticed), but they’re given a pass, and LockMart gets dragged through the mud every few weeks on the JSF. Note that the F-35s cost/schedule overruns are prominent on its wiki page, and while the initial prices for the Falcon 9 is on the wiki page, there’s no real discussion of them.

          • Robert L says:

            I am always impressed how he has taken the idea of an electric car with rechargeable battery, which dates from the 1880s or earlier, and made it look so far ahead of its time it must have been communicated to him by aliens.

          • John Schilling says:

            Note that the F-35s cost/schedule overruns are prominent on its wiki page, and while the initial prices for the Falcon 9 is on the wiki page, there’s no real discussion of them.

            So let’s discuss.

            When the Falcon 9 was first announced in 2004, the target price was given as $27 million for 3000 kg to geostationary transfer orbit. That’s $33.3E6/launch or $11,100/kg in FY16 dollars. The block 1 vehicle is no longer on the market, but the current advertised price for a commercial F9 FT is $62 million for 4850 kg to GTO, which comes to $12,800/kg. So, over twelve years, an 86% increase in cost per vehicle or a 15% increase in cost per unit payload.

            That looks pretty good by industry standards. Boeing initially priced the 787-8 at $120 million in 2005; it now sells for $225E6; a 52% overrun in inflation-adjusted price for little or no increase in performance. The competing Airbus A350-800 went from $162E6 projected in 2006 to $272E6 actual sale price today, a 40% increase. Or we can look at the A350 Full Thrust, er, -1000, 82% increase in cost for 57% increase in payload, 15% increase in cost per payload.

            The 787 program has been widely criticized on technical grounds but less so on cost; the A350 is I believe considered both a technical and economic success within the industry.

            On the space launch side, Lockheed in 1998 offered the Atlas V for $77E6/launch and Boeing the Delta IV for $72E6/core. The 2013 block buy looks like it came in at $185E6/core, a 73% increase after inflation. The Ariane V looks pretty good, estimated at $125-$155E6 depending on model in 2002, now selling for $165-$220E6, a 7% increase in normalized cost with a ~4% increase in payload.

            SpaceX based its reputation on advertising costs roughly one-half to one-third those of its competitors. Its subsequent overruns seem to have been on par with the industry average, at a modest level which is not normally considered discussion-worthy. Which leaves its current prices at, yep, one-half to one-third of its competitors, and that’s always worth talking about.

            Elon’s probably not going to Mars. But his engineers build a decent and only slightly explodey rocket at a genuine bargain price.

          • bean says:

            When the Falcon 9 was first announced in 2004, the target price was given as $27 million for 3000 kg to geostationary transfer orbit. That’s $33.3E6/launch or $11,100/kg in FY16 dollars. The block 1 vehicle is no longer on the market, but the current advertised price for a commercial F9 FT is $62 million for 4850 kg to GTO, which comes to $12,800/kg. So, over twelve years, an 86% increase in cost per vehicle or a 15% increase in cost per unit payload.

            A fair point, although the same wiki article gives the cost for a v1.0 in 2010 (when the first one flew) as between $49.9 and $56 million, for the same rocket as the original $27 million price. The increase in performance has cancelled out most of the cost overruns, but I suspect if you’d asked what a rocket with the performance of the FT had cost back then, he’d have said something like $36-$37 million.

            Re other aerosapce projects, your point is taken. However, I would like to point out that he’s been consistently off by a factor of 2 on time as well, even in cases where ‘everyone else is doing it’ doesn’t work as an excuse. Boeing has managed to bring the 737 Max in pretty much on time, and SpaceX wasn’t even close with the v1.1.

            Elon’s probably not going to Mars. But his engineers build a decent and only slightly explodey rocket at a genuine bargain price.

            This I will agree with. I admire what SpaceX has done, but I wish they’d update their models, instead of continuing to spout gibberish. And I really wish the press would stop letting them get away with it.

          • gbdub says:

            On rockets, you’re not comparing apples to apples. First off, we have minimal insight into how realistic that $62 million advertised cost for Falcon is. Cost-per-flight for e.g. the Dragon missions is substantially higher. Military customers also demand production to different standards, which Elon himself admitted will add a chunk to the Falcon cost (and contributes to the extra cost of the Atlas V block buy). On the commercial end, e.g. the Iridium contract had an announced value of $492 million for seven rockets (a bit over $70 million each) and that was inked in 2010.

            Price-per-payload-pound is an interesting figure, but a lot less interesting when the minimum unit is 1 rocket (or half a rocket if you can swing a ride share). Lots of upmass is good for really big NRO satellites or multi-launches like Iridium, but Falcon 9 “full thrust” is no better at getting a single GEO bird to orbit than the 1.0 version (and SpaceX is taking back a lot of that extra payload to get reusability).

            SpaceX would appear to be losing (or at least spending) a ton of money – it’s not clear their current pricing is long-term sustainable to make them a profitable company. Elon assures us that they are making money on the fly-away price of each Falcon, but they are doing so much development and NRE it’s not clear what that all would settle out to if they actually decided to go full rate production and just crank out sat launchers instead of constantly tinkering with the thing.

            A lot of aerospace cost comes from chasing the last failure (and the extra cost of the new procedures you need to prevent it from happening again) which tend to accrete over time. Clearly, F9 doesn’t have all the bugs out yet, and getting and keeping them out will add cost. Then again they haven’t yet fully realized the cost savings of full rate production / launch, reusability, and recouping the development costs, so it’s hard to say where final pricing will end up.

            Finally, you only compared F9 to its two most expensive competitors (Atlas and Ariane) – the Russians are cheaper than F9, although lately are at least as explodey.

        • hlynkacg says:

          I also find the fawning press annoying. I’ll be surprised if the first MTS flies before 2022 as schedules are prone to slippage the composite tanks are themselves a huge unknown.

          That said, I find the inverse just as annoying. As recently as 5 years ago composite structures of that scale were considered to be physically impossible but that didn’t stop him from building one. I think that you are seriously underestimating just how much he’s disrupted the industry already.

        • Peter Scott says:

          No outlet at all is reporting the similar promises about that hyperloop thing which Musk made only a year or two ago and which seem to have gone nowhere.

          His lack of progress on building a Hyperloop is easily explained: he hasn’t been working on one. He said right from the start that he wasn’t going to work on it, so this should not come as a surprise.

        • John Schilling says:

          No outlet at all is reporting the similar promises about that hyperloop thing which Musk made.

          Did Musk make any promises about the hyperloop? Possibly; if so I missed them. But the only important promise is the one he explicitly didn’t make – he didn’t promise to build a hyperloop, or try to build one, or even lift a finger or spend a penny towards that end. Hyperloop was specifically something Elon Musk presented as a Nifty Idea that he thought was promising but that he didn’t have the time or money to do anything with and was therefore putting out there for anyone who wanted to take and run with. Unfortunately, that turned out to be these bozos.

          Colonizing Mars is something Elon Musk has promised to devote his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor towards. I think it is reasonable to expect more, and pay more attention, to the latter than the former.

          They’re both neat ideas that get impossibly daffy at the level of implementation; Musk isn’t a hardware guy. And he’s not rich enough to self-finance the colonization of Mars even by an efficient path, never mind the “first we try to do it Elon’s way, then we try the way that works” path. But when he tries to colonize Mars, he’ll do something – probably a lot of things, some of which will be useful to whomever does colonize Mars. Hyperloop is just going to inspire comic daffiness and the occasional lawsuit.

          • Deiseach says:

            Ouch. The second-hand embarrassment from reading that article about Hyperloop One is intense.

            I was never convinced by the idea and did think it was a PR stunt/scam of some kind, but that lot have turned it into a complete pig’s ear. And yet they found people willing to throw money at the project, to the tune of $92 million? Well, I suppose there’s one born every minute!

        • gbdub says:

          Falcon 9 first flew in 2010, and Falcon Heavy was promised by 2013. It will now fly (maybe) in 2017, assuming they can fix whatever blew up the last one by then and catch up on the manifest (which is a nontrivial assumption). So it’s taking 7 years to go from functional Falcon 9 to functional Falcon Heavy (the whole point of which is that it uses mostly existing Falcon 9 hardware).

          Now he’s telling me he can get 100 people to Mars in less than a decade, on a brand new rocket that is oh-by-the-way 4+ times more powerful (in terms of liftoff thrust) than anything we’ve ever launched to orbit? That’s bonkers, and reporting as anything other than bonkers is also bonkers. It’s maybe, just maybe, theoretically possible given unlimited funding and everything going exactly right, but in the real world, no way. And yet I have all sorts of people I know fawning over how cool this is and assuring me that it is real (He used engineering CAD models to make the YouTube video! That means it’s practically ready to go!)

          Technically speaking, the plan to use 5 launches (4 of which are fuelers while the people are in orbit twiddling their thumbs) seems over complex and risky (and probably heavily driven by all the extra mass needed to bring that second stage both up and down). Parking a big disposable fuel tank in orbit and launching the humans as soon as it’s up there makes more sense. Storing that much LOX for that long in space is itself an underrated (and unprecedented) engineering challenge.

        • gbdub says:

          EDIT: posted in wrong spot

  4. dndnrsn says:

    Does anybody here shave with a safety/double edged razor? I’ve decided to make the switch based on cost: for the price of replacing an electric razor head that wears out in one or two years, I could potentially buy razor blades for 5-10 years (I’m not a hirsute guy so can get away with using a razor longer than most). I’ve already got a couple of hand-me-down razors and get a decent shave from them.

    The issue I’m having is that while the thriving online safety razor community (I did not know this was a thing but am unsurprised) promotes safety razors on price it is very much a hobbyist community – guys who can’t stop buying vintage razors on eBay and so on. There seems to be insistence on using a soap or cream over cans of gel/foam and a general adherence to a shaving ritual that looks time-consuming and expensive.

    Is that stuff really relevant for someone just looking to remove a bit of scruff? Is it more cost-effective over just a can of foam? Or is it an aesthetic thing?

    • Anonymous says:

      There’s no question that it is going to take more time and there’s a little bit of a learning curve — during which you will get nicks. But there’s no need to go for some fancy cream and a brush made with the hair of an endangered species. Ordinary shaving cream is fine, and in a pinch you can just take a regular bar soap (dove, etc), lather it up, and use that.

      Your grandfather or great-grandfather probably wasn’t using some special soap made by hand in London. Don’t overthink it.

      • dndnrsn says:

        I seem to have outright escaped nicking myself. Which is weird – because back when I shaved with a multi-blade cartridge razor or disposable, I used to cut myself frequently. It’s the reason I used an electric razor for several years. I was under the impression that the purported advantage of multi-blade razors over double-edged was a safer shave, but I quit using them because I nicked myself a lot.

    • Edward Morgan Blake says:

      I use a safety razor, with a handle that I inherited from my grandfather. (It was, in fact, the very first razor I ever used, and the old man showed me how to do it.)

      The trick I learned later is to completely ignore all the modern foams or the old school brush and soap and instead get your face and hands wet, then put half a dozen drops of olive oil in your hands, rub them together, and then rub them on your face, and then shave. And then don’t try to wash the oil off. In fact, unless you’ve been working on heavy machinery, never put soap on your face.

      Humans have been shaving with oil since the bronze age, with technique that was perfected by the Chinese and the Romans, with soap since the 18th century, and with plastic foam since the wasteful consumerist drive of the 1950s. Use oil. It’s better.

      • anon says:

        As far as I’m aware, leaving oil on my face is the reason I get acne. Hence the face washing.

        • Edward Morgan Blake says:

          The reverse is true. Putting soap on your face is making your acne worse.

          If your acne is really bothering you, get a prescription to clindamycin.

      • Said Achmiz says:

        How does this oil method work when you’ve got a week or two of beard to take off? Is this only for stubble removal or is it a universal method?

        • Edward Morgan Blake says:

          I’ve been able to take off two weeks growth this way. Any longer, and I would probably use wahl electric trimmer with the closest guard on it to cut it down to that length, and then shave.

      • dndnrsn says:

        What does the oil do to the razor, though? Oil is kind of a pain to clean off metal usually.

        • Winfried says:

          It keeps it from rusting, making it stay sharper longer.

          • dndnrsn says:

            I don’t really care about the blades (given how cheap they are) but I’ve got a couple of old twist-to-open razors, and they’re a hassle to clean I hear.

          • Orphan Wilde says:

            dndnrsn –

            It’s the hairs that provide a problem there, not the oil.

            I generally shave with water, and nothing else, and they’re still a pain to clean; I generally have to take the bloody things apart two or three times in the course of shaving. Oil might actually help, there, but I haven’t tried it.

    • Homo Iracundus says:

      Wish I had a better answer than “it depends”.
      Some guys can get away with shaving dry. I’m fair and curly, so that’d leave me with disgusting razor burn and ingrown hairs/razor bumps.

      If you need better care, the most important things to start with are hot water and decent soap.
      For me that’s as simple as shaving in the shower (with a hot sponge) and touching up in the mirror afterwards.

      Best advice is go to a good-but-not-fancy/faggy barber for a shave, and copy what he does. Pretty sure it’ll be less lavender-scented-exfoliating-organic-vitamin-oils, and more “hot towel on face, lather, shave”.

    • Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

      Kirk’s Cocoa Castille. Superior for shaving, economical, and (when applied to eyebrows and eyelashes) helps to control demodex too. Your (formerly) itchy eyelashes will thank you! 🙂

    • Said Achmiz says:

      I shave with a safety razor (an inexpensive but good one). I use the foam gel stuff, the sort that comes in the tall can. Also aftershave cream. Works great. No nicks, no ingrown hairs, smooth shave, feels good. Works well for taking off two weeks of growth, also works well for a couple days’ stubble.

      I don’t see what I could improve about my shaving experience other than for my hair to just magically shave itself instantaneously.

      Edit: But I have been shaving with a safety razor since I started shaving, which was many years ago. (And yep, my first safety razor was a hand-me-down from my grandfather.)

  5. Has anyone else read Underground Airlines— it’s by the same author who wrote The Last Policeman.

    Underground Airlines is an alternate history in which a series of compromises led to slavery existing in the US (in four states) up to the present. The world-building is pretty good. Trigger warnings for just about everything.

    • Two McMillion says:

      I have the audiobook of this, but have only listened to the first two or three chapters. Enjoying it so far.

    • Nancy, your comment was the first I’d heard of this novel. Many thanks for the pointer. I ordered a paper copy, received it, and finished reading it this afternoon. I think I’ll post a review on the next open thread (probably #61).

  6. Gabe says:

    Why do people think IQ measures general thinking ability? IQ tests I’ve taken seem to measure speed more than anything else. Speed is nice, but is there evidence that this determines someone’s ability to solve long, complex problems (ignoring perseverance)?

    Specifically, IQ tests seem to measure the ability to quickly understand a new problem of a known type, reason about it and get the right answer, be confident the answer is right, and then dump the problem to think about another one.

    Confounding everything is that there are a lot of random things that can damage brains, and these things may damage IQ as well as a bunch of other desirable mental qualities, so it’s easy to support a story that IQ is king and drives everything else.

    • Anonymous says:

      Because all other psychology research is terrible and ought to disregarded, but when it comes to IQ low N studies without even an attempt at blinding from the 1970s are as good as anything coming out of CERN.

    • TMB says:

      A few weeks ago someone posted an IQ test: http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf

      I would say that the later questions don’t really measure speed of thought (at least not alone) but the ability to hold different possible conditions in mind simultaneously.

      I don’t think I could have got 37, no matter how long I spent on it, without use of pen and paper to keep track of what might be going on.

    • Two McMillion says:

      Specifically, IQ tests seem to measure the ability to quickly understand a new problem of a known type, reason about it and get the right answer, be confident the answer is right, and then dump the problem to think about another one.

      My impression as a high IQ person is that this is exactly what the difference is between me and other people.

    • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

      Well, there’s lots of tests that call themselves IQ tests and some are more useful then others.

      Early great performance on the SAT predicts future patents in math heavy fields, and this extends to even the extremes.

      The IMO, the international olympiad, you should see a list of perfect scores on the IMO and future fields medal winners and other math awards. Is it an IQ test? Well that depends if you allow tests where someone can train for it an IQ test (and as long-term memory capabilities are included in these types of skill tests, you should. Some people discount IQ tests you can train for but I don’t see a good other way to include long-term memory capabilities)

    • Anon. says:

      Because it correlates with everything that a measure of general thinking ability would correlate with.

      What an IQ test measures directly is completely irrelevant.

    • Vaniver says:

      Because they’ve thought of your objections, and then tested them, and then thought of subtler objections, and tested them, and so on.

      (This is a meta-level answer instead of an object-level answer, but if you want an object-level answer, textbooks on psychometrics are the way to go.)

    • Lumifer says:

      For example, look here. Sample quote:

      The educational, occupational, and creative accomplishments of the profoundly gifted participants (IQs > 160) in the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) are astounding, but are they representative of equally able 12-year-olds? Duke University’s Talent Identification Program (TIP) identified 259 young adolescents who were equally gifted. By age 40, their life accomplishments also were extraordinary: Thirty-seven percent had earned doctorates, 7.5% had achieved academic tenure (4.3% at research-intensive universities), and 9% held patents; many were high level leaders in major organizations.

  7. AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

    Cynical economics question.

    If the terms in the “trade balance” were merely switched around from surplus/deficit into something like negative adjective/positive adjective, with no other significant changes in the textbook definitions, would there be a great political impetus to buy more then we sell from other countries?

    • Lumifer says:

      Since the general public neither knows nor cares about trade balances, I guess the answer is No.

      (the relevant economic theory)

      • AnonBosch says:

        I think that makes the answer yes, to be honest. “Trade balance” is a null semantic value but everyone knows that “deficit” is bad and “surplus” is good. The way most people and most politicians talk about the “trade deficit” as though it were a specific type of budget deficit that needs to be paid off somehow makes me think that free-traders could flip the debate with the right mind-killer (e.g., “death tax”).

        I’m a big fan of Bastiat’s classic argument against Mauguin where he essentially proves that “trade deficit” can really mean “profit,” but it probably needs a concise, snappy update that fits in 140 characters.

        • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

          http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss13.html

          I think that’s a simple way to understand it.

          Businessmen don’t make these transactions unless they believe they will make a profit,a profit they would not make otherwise, and that is a profit the nation can *tax*

          • AnonBosch says:

            Right, that is the argument I was referencing. But while it’s simple from the perspective of your average rationalist-blog commenter, it’s still a little stiff in terms of a campaign argument.

            Ideally, if you’re debating someone like Trump, you would find a transaction your opponent had engaged in that followed this pattern and ask him if he thought he made a good deal.

        • Cerebral Paul Z. says:

          The straightforward way to flip the debate would be to call a trade deficit an “investment surplus” and conversely.

      • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

        Depends… where I live, populists goverments made a big deal out of it, like it signified “Autonomy” or something like that.

        • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

          Oh, that argument is plausible for quite a few goods.

          For food production, I could see that a country would want the capability to feed its entire citizenry without any reliance of trade as an insurance policy against global instability. Like how preppers give great value to having personal farms that can provide 2000 calories a day for an extended period of time.

          • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

            Oh, that argument is plausible for quite a few goods.

            For sure, you don’t want your population to get Great Leap Fowar’d.

            It’s very much not the case here, though. We barely do anything but food.

    • The terms you want are “capital inflow” for “deficit” and “capital outflow” for surplus.

    • Incurian says:

      “If a trade deficit is such a bad thing, let’s export all of our goods to Iran.”

  8. I can’t prove any of this– except that you can see a mysterious lack of online activity for the relevant time– but I missed the debate. I was planning to not listen to it, but probably would have out of sheer weakness, but instead I conked out from around 8 PM till 6 AM. When I woke up, I made a prediction: Trump and Clinton supporters would both be convinced that their candidate did better. I was right.

    • Fahundo says:

      I’ve seen some Trump supporters who think he lost, but in more of a “of course he lost; he’s not a career politician who debates for a living” way.

    • Mr Mind says:

      An easy prediction 😉

      An acquaintance of mine, a Trump supporter, has written that Trump lost the debate, but because he was too focused on exposing facts.

    • Julian says:

      The key of course is not what their supporters think but what undecided voters think.

      My view is that Clinton’s best shot at winning is to take the wind out of Trumps sails. She is such a terrible candidate on paper that I cant see her convincing many more people to support her. But Trump is such a worse person that Clinton should be able to get people to not like him.

      Much of Trump’s support is already from populations that don’t have high voter turn out, historically. Clinton will need to keep it that way.

      Im not a fan of the won/lost idea with these debates. Its all confirmation bias as you say Nancy. But Trump really missed some big opportunities to hit Clinton where she is weak (emails mostly), while Clinton got in some good shots at Trump (equating not paying taxes to not supporting troops, accusing him of not being a rich as he says). Clinton got trump off script and that produced some outbursts. Trump was more controlled in the past, but if she can do that again in a the next debates he may blow up.

      • Matt M says:

        “while Clinton got in some good shots at Trump (equating not paying taxes to not supporting troops, accusing him of not being a rich as he says). ”

        Not that any of them actually will, but I’d love to see the fact checker brigade take on the implication that Trump’s tax avoidance is the reason we have a huge deficit and crumbling infrastructure. I may have misheard, but she did basically say that, didn’t she?

        • The Nybbler says:

          Yes, but if you take that literally you’ll seem as silly as the fact-checkers do when they take Trump’s various bloviations literally.

          Though if you’re a little less literal and take it to mean that rich people and corporations using loopholes is the reason we have a huge deficit and crumbling infrastructure, you’ll still probably come up short.

          • Matt M says:

            I mean, you could run the numbers and produce all sorts of interesting factoids. Things like “Even if Trump is worth $5 billion as he claims, and even if we confiscated all of his assets immediately, that would only reduce the federal deficit by less than 1%” (back of the envelope calculation based on usdebtclock.org)

            Yes, you would be doing the same silly thing you’ve criticized the media for doing – but I think you could play it off as satire. You’re exposing how dumb they are being by taking everything Trump says literally by applying the same spotlight to her obviously-not-meant-to-be-literal claims.

            Or if you don’t like this particular case, do it with the NATO “longest military alliance” thing instead, as others have pointed out. Even if Trump’s campaign doesn’t want to do this, I feel like The Onion or somebody like that probably should.

        • Deiseach says:

          What Trump should do is turn that around and ask her if she’s accusing him of tax-dodging (which is a criminal offence) and if so, why she isn’t informing the IRS that he’s a crook? Most people won’t know (or care) about the difference between perfectly legal tax avoidance and get-you-in-trouble tax evasion.

          If she blusters on that (and she kind of has to, if she hasn’t any hard evidence) all he has to do is hammer on about how the IRS hasn’t any problems with him and this is a smear on her part and she’s falsely accusing him of crimes he hasn’t committed. Also that she’s contradicting herself – either he’s not as rich as he says, or he owes more taxes than he’s paying because he’s under-representing his wealth. Which is it? Not paying as much tax because he hasn’t as much money as he claims, or not paying enough tax because he’s richer than he tells the IRS?

          I have no idea what the state of his taxes is, but I don’t think Hillary would be any too willing to hand over details of her and Bill’s tax affairs either.

          • LHN says:

            “[A]ll he has to do is hammer on about how the IRS hasn’t any problems with him”

            Possibly tricky when his claimed reason for not releasing his tax returns is that he’s being audited.

          • The Nybbler says:

            Not sure if it’s intentional, but that’s a pretty good move on his part. As long as he’s being audited, he refuses to release the tax returns for that. If the audit gets done and no significant problems are found, he trumpets that. If problems are found, he not only doesn’t release his returns (for “legal reasons”), but he claims the Obama IRS is persecuting him.

          • sweeneyrod says:

            “I have no idea what the state of his taxes is, but I don’t think Hillary would be any too willing to hand over details of her and Bill’s tax affairs either.”

            She is perfectly happy to do that — see here. As I understand it, the reason people care about Trump’s failure to reveal his tax return is because all other presidential candidates for the last three elections at least (I’ve not checked previous ones) released theirs.

          • Aegeus says:

            The tradition started with Nixon (IIRC, it was to sell the “I am not a crook” line), and more recently candidates have started to release them during the primaries. Here’s a site with all of them: http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns

            There’s a reason Clinton has been pounding on it – there’s 40 years of precedent for this.

      • Orphan Wilde says:

        So Clinton’s best strategy, in your opinion, is to keep running negative ads against a candidate who has proven exceptionally resilient to them?

    • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

      Well that’s a bold prediction.

      And the answer is of course. As long as each party candidate does not have a gerald ford moment and spouts their lines whoever won was the person you agreed with first.

    • Scott Alexander says:

      Everyone I read said Trump lost; I thought they did about equally.

      I think it depends what you control for. Trump got asked a lot of very hard questions about his birtherism, tax evasion, sexist comments, et cetera. As far as I can tell, there was no good way to explain them away – he was in the wrong, and his only two options were to admit it (haha, no) or bloviate pointlessly about it in a way that didn’t sound too incriminating until he could change the subject. I thought he did a pretty good (in the sense of technically skilled) job of the latter.

      So did Trump lose the debate? I think a neutral Martian observer, upon watching the debate, would become much less likely to want to vote for Trump. But if US voters know all of the bad things Trump did already, I don’t think this debate performance made them any worse.

      If someone thinks Trump was a technically bad debater last night, I’m curious if they have a better idea how to respond to all the questions bringing up his scandals.

      • AnonBosch says:

        From a Machiavellian technical standpoint:

        The best response to birtherism would’ve been to turn it back on Holt. The media is one of the few institutions in the country less popular than you, so you have to take any opportunity to get up on that cross. And there is a grain of truth to it; the media basically started pulling stuff like that off the shelf once Trump stopped shooting himself in the foot every week. I believe that question came after another direct challenge from Holt about his views on Iraq, so you could say something like “Lester, we’re talking about the future here. Does admitting Obama was born in America bring one job back? Would an apology kill one terrorist?” Etc. If Holt keeps pushing, then bring up Blumenthal and Doyle, but only briefly and fold it into your indictment of the media (Hillary and I both questioned his citizenship, but only I’m getting interrogated!)

        With regard to tax evasion, he had the broad tactical idea correct (begging off because of the audit, pivoting to her deleted emails) but his “that makes me smart” was a disastrous interjection. Let Hillary finish and then pivot into an argument about how government wastes money. When she says “nothing for troops” reference the checks you cut this spring from your non-debate fundraising drive. Reference all the money you’ve given to veterans in the past. Nobody can contradict you without your tax returns, so it’s an unfalsifiable counter. Swing LIVs watching the debate aren’t reading David Farenthold!

        For sexism, I can imagine a ton of possible counters and derails (his lack of a ready response really showed his lack of prep, you have to know Hillary will play this card). High road: make a non-apology statement of regret for un-gentlemanly language (similar to his first post-Conway campaign speech) and pivot to your child-care plan and how brave and independent you are breaking from conservative orthodoxy. Low road: go full broadside and “hit her with the husband.” Reference Bill’s “bimbo eruptions” and Hillary’s past statements about Broaddrick and Flowers. He did this in the primary and hinted about doing it before the debate but for some reason backed off (while musing aloud that he was backing off, which is worse). Sexism also provides obvious cheap pivots to Muslim refugees, but even with my Machiavelli hat on I find gaming that out too depressing. I don’t know for sure which if any of these three would’ve worked best (again, this is the sort of brainstorming you refine or discard during debate prep), but they would’ve changed the subject, which is really Job #1 when responding to questions about scandals. Bumbling about Rosie O’Donnell didn’t.

        • dndnrsn says:

          Speaking Machiavellianly –

          He could have responded to the charges of sexism with a backhanded compliment. Example: “all the female executives say I’m tremendous*, I treat them so fairly, equal work for equal pay**, they’re usually harder working and smarter than their male counterparts, this is definitely true of Secretary Clinton, I know her and her husband and she’s definitely the brains, he’s the charm” – shuts down the charge with something that may or may not be true, and then brings in a backhanded compliment that attacks Hillary at one of her weak points.

          *is this true or false? Who cares?
          **either the moderator or Hillary brought up Trump allegedly saying women should only be paid as men if they do as good a job – I’m surprised he didn’t throw that back, given that “equal pay depends on equal quality work” is an easily defensible position.

          • Matt M says:

            “either the moderator or Hillary brought up Trump allegedly saying women should only be paid as men if they do as good a job – I’m surprised he didn’t throw that back, given that “equal pay depends on equal quality work” is an easily defensible position.”

            I actually went back to watch this again. It seems clear that Trump starts objecting, saying “I’ve never said that” before Hillary actually finished her statement and the “for equal quality work” part was at the very end. He clearly didn’t expect her to say the “equal quality work” part, because why would someone say that? Is that really the point of contention here?

          • dndnrsn says:

            Did he start interrupting before the sentence was over? If he did, that looks bad on him. I’m still kind of baffled at her saying that though.

          • Matt M says:

            “Did he start interrupting before the sentence was over? ”

            Here’s a video of the exchange. Watch carefully, it looks like he’s clearly intending to interrupt her as soon as she says “women don’t deserve equal pay” but stops for a second to swallow or something – but by the time he starts saying “I never said that” she’s saying “unless…” and his “I never said that” occurs basically simultaneously with her “they do as good of a job as men.”

          • dndnrsn says:

            So it’s not clear whether he was disagreeing with the first bit or anticipating how she was finishing the second bit.

            Still not sure why she would add the second part. Just accusing him of saying women didn’t deserve equal pay would work better – it’s not like people pay attention to fact checking, and they can probably find some interview from 1989 where he says something like that anyway.

      • sweeneyrod says:

        The best defence is a good offence. There was a moment where I thought he was being clever and letting Clinton blather on avoiding the question about her emails, preparing to come in with “And the 30,000 emails you deleted? Are you ever going to say something about that?”. But he didn’t, so the focus moved onto his scandals again. Clinton has quite a few potential scandals, some of which might even be real, and I think attacking them might have been a good strategy. I don’t think he was particularly technically bad in terms of managing the cut and thrust of the debate, but his points of minimal coherence were really really bad. However, having not listened to him speak before, I was quite impressed with his general coherence.

      • Matt M says:

        “I’m curious if they have a better idea how to respond to all the questions bringing up his scandals.”

        Ignore them and go back to your best argument: “Hillary has been in charge for 20 years and things keep getting worse.” Yeah, the moderator will keep pressing you to “answer the question” but if the question is clearly about his personal qualities and he keeps reframing it as “I’m here to talk about the issues” I think that ends up making the moderator look biased and feeding into his “the press is biased against me” narrative.

        • Zombielicious says:

          I already mentioned it in my reply, but the problem with that tactic is that Clinton is probably far more knowledgeable on policy than Trump is, so diverting it to a discussion for policy wonks isn’t necessarily a better strategy for him.

          • Matt M says:

            I don’t suggest he delve into wonkish things. If I was advising Trump, I would suggest he find a way to tell the following story in EVERY answer.

            1. America has big problems
            2. Hillary has held serious political power for 20+ years
            3. During that time, the problems have gotten worse

            He did this a few times scattered across the debate last night, but he needs to work it into a repeated and coherent narrative. Bring EVERY answer back to this.

      • Zombielicious says:

        He’s pretty screwed either way. Both of them have a “pot calling the kettle black” problem with most everything they say, but Trump has it worse. He can’t effectively attack her character because he has made so many more offensive statements that can easily be brought up against him, and he can’t effectively divert the mudslinging to a discussion of actual policy because that’s also going to be a much stronger area for Clinton.

        But some of his responses still seemed exceptionally poor. The defense of his having “opposed” the Iraq War was completely unconvincing. Attention span for these things is short, most people watching will only remember clever quips and one liners (e.g. “the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back”). Going into a long spiel about a half dozen different talk show hosts and who said what to who just made it look like equivocating. The long and complicated defense based on obscure statements made at one time or another don’t make for an authentic sounding rebuttal. (ETA: Also the stamina thing. It’d be pretty easy to just say something like, “No, it has nothing to do with her gender, she just looks old and tired, and it’s obvious at a glance how unqualified she is.” But instead we get a 30 second rant about how he has STAMINA, you need STAMINA. Wtf?)

        Other parts of his strategy just seemed incomprehensible. Get accused of not paying taxes on a $600+ million dollar income, say “that makes me smart?” Openly describe your economic plan as tax cuts for the rich because it’ll “create jobs?” Maybe I misunderstand the Republican base, but I have trouble seeing even the median conservative voter getting excited about billionaires not paying taxes and focusing tax cuts on their buddies. Sure, everyone likes to hear “create jobs,” but at least dress it up a little beyond “tax cuts for the wealthy! Trickle-down works!” Plus it’s hard to play the more dovish candidate when also claiming you can blow up ships and it’ll be fine because it won’t start a war. I was expecting more of a genuine pivot to a more centrist position, but instead he seems to be doubling down on what those of us not-on-the-right see as Republican crazy.

        I don’t see much point in giving him credit for lack of experience and having to defend decades of stupid remarks and questionable behavior. A debate with Clinton is still relatively civilized and with unspoken norms compared to what the rest of the world is free to think and say about him. So that he spends so much time on the defensive for various things and can’t give convincing rebuttals kind of kills the “master persuader” thesis and makes you realize what a humiliation he would actually be to have in office. Clinton is bad, but bad within the norms of what you expect for a ladder-climbing lifetime politician – i.e. white color crime, cronyism, etc. Trump came off as all that plus genuinely unstable and unprepared. That’s why I came away with a different impression of the debate than I expected to have going in – he looks even worse when forced to directly interact with people outside of the Republican party than he does when he’s on a stage where everyone else is also saying stuff you think is absurd and offensive. For someone not-on-the-right, it’s easy to forget just how low the bar was set for him during the primaries.

    • erenold says:

      Pretty sure our very own E. Harding is going all over Twitter proclaiming loudly that Trump lost. Unless, as is very possible, he is being ironic or sarcastic in some way and I have failed to understand him.

      As you say, it appears to be limited to him, though.

      • E. Harding says:

        Not sarcastic. I am in full agreement with Ross Douthat (#NeverTrump Cruzlim) and A. Karlin (Trump supporter). There seems to be a consensus that Trump underperformed his potential. BTW, I was not expecting Trump to win the debate. The upside: Mitt was at 3% in the FiveThirtyEight NowCast just before the debate and peaked at 43.9% just after the debate (this was his high watermark in 2012). Trump was at 47.9% the day before the debate.

        • erenold says:

          Ah, thanks. Genuinely surprised to hear you predicted a Trump loss before the fact – can you elaborate more on your reasoning there? Does that same reasoning apply to the upcoming “town hall” debate and the last debate? And, to what extent would you say your feelings were typical for the “alt-right” on this point?

          • E. Harding says:

            https://twitter.com/Enopoletus/status/776552764386250752
            https://twitter.com/Enopoletus/status/768659874926526464

            By “effect” I meant polling effect in the FiveThirtyEight NowCast.

            Unlike some people, I actually watched some of the Sanders-Clinton debates, as well as some of the Republican debates. I think Hillary won the one in Flint by a reasonable margin, though it wasn’t anywhere near as decisive as the day before yesterday’s. Bernie looked like a chump (though a well-meaning and dedicated one) relative to Her. Trump in the primaries clearly was not prepared at all, and was just scraping by. He was not a good debater, and clearly stepped up his performance from the primary debates in this debate, by just enough not to be a laughingstock.

            A lot of alt-righters were complaining about opportunities Trump failed to exploit in the chans:
            http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/27/13074158/trump-alt-right-rough-debate

            It’s not that Trump did badly in this debate, it’s that he failed to exploit opportunities and defend himself properly and Clinton overperformed relative to the expectations of those who forget Clinton has solid debate skills. He should see that every bit of his debate performance should be turned into a 1 minute-30 second commercial for him.

            The uncertainty regarding the last two debates is too high for me to even speculate.

          • erenold says:

            Cheers.

    • Rebel with an Uncaused Cause says:

      I thought so too; but I checked the posts on r/the_donald this morning, and they were all about how Lester Holt was biased against Trump and asked him X many questions while he only asked Clinton Y many questions and so on. My takeaway is that they didn’t feel that the debate went well (although they still claim he won).

      This matches my impression of the debate; Clinton won handily by keeping Trump on the defensive throughout. Trump failed to mount a credible counteroffensive, and so the bulk of the air time was devoted to Trump defending himself against a constant stream of issues. There is no doubt in my mind that Clinton won the debate.

      I will say that Clinton did not impress me with her debating skill, either; she rose to Trump’s bait several times in a way that undermined the “collected adult vs. squalling toddler” image, and in pressing the issues she left herself wide open to counterattacks that Trump either failed to make or made too late and too weakly.

      Overall, I don’t expect the debate to significantly affect the polls.

    • jaimeastorga2000 says:

      I like Trump, but I think he lost the debate based on the fact that Betfair was giving him a 35% chance when the debate started and it has gone down to 30% as of right now (I actually had the odds in one tab and the debate in the other so I could see how the prediction market shifted in response to the questions and answer).

      • dndnrsn says:

        Weird that Betfair is giving him a 10% lower chance of winning the election than 538 (which currently has 45%; I’m predicting a drop of about 4%, 60% confidence, once the debate has sunk in).

      • Homo Iracundus says:

        Yes. The expectations were overly high that Trump would stump Hillary, or that she’d simply collapse mentally or physically. He definitely lost by that standard.

        So yeah, going to revise your claim at all Nancy?

        • I might revise my claim (that supporters thought their preferred candidate did better), but I think I’ll wait for more information to come in.

          I didn’t claim (or think) that anyone would think their candidate won by a lot, and if Trump supporters (what proportion of Trump supporteres) were expecting that, they weren’t being sensible.

          • Matt M says:

            I’ve seen quite a few Trump supporters claim he lost, but no Hillary supporters claim she lost.

            Not trying to imply anything with that, just a statement of my observations.

          • Sandy says:

            Michael Moore seems to think Trump won. I personally think Clinton came off better, but James Taranto argued that the night was good for Trump because the debate normalized him as just another candidate rather than the raving far-right psychopath he’s been caricatured as.

          • Matt M says:

            Does Michael Moore actually support Hillary? He strikes me as more of a Bernie/Jill Stein kind of guy.

          • Sandy says:

            He endorsed Bernie and now supports Hillary, but he’s convinced Trump will be President because the angry white men are out for revenge.

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            And “RAWR, EVIL DINOSAURS!” I believe.
            Last year he claimed he was going to make us extinct, but I wonder if he’ll outlast any of us in the shape he’s in…

        • JayT says:

          That is not at all the impression I had going into the debate, Homo Iracundus. Everything I was reading or hearing was that people were expecting Trump to go off on some ridiculous tangent that would hurt him. the fact that he didn’t say anything new that was both outrageous and sound bite worthy makes me think that at the end of the day the debate was a win for him.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Peter Watts is suffering from an unknown illness, if you like him and/or think you could maybe help, go here.

    • Murphy says:

      One of the first comments on that already suggested it but his description of the onset screams “get checked out by a neuro specialist” to me.

  10. Is the image of the “thirteenth century Tantric sculpture” mentioned in “I Remember Babylon” by Arthur C. Clarke?

  11. Coco says:

    I’ve seen some Trump ads on Twitter. Has anyone else wondered if he pays per click on those ads, and maybe on other social media platform? If so, has anyone thought about creating a bot that clicks on those ads, to drain money from his campaign? Level two: let the bot have access to a bunch of email accounts nobody cares about, and after clicking on those ads, sign up for Trump’s email list, so that the campaign concludes the ads must be really successful, and they start putting even more money into them. Anyone want to take this on?

    • Jiro says:

      If you want to commit fraud to drain money from his campaign, why not just ask for people to hack into his bank account instead?

      • Rebel with an Uncaused Cause says:

        Is that fraud? If someone wanted to manually go and click all the Trump links to drain money, I’m pretty sure that’s legal. I don’t think adding a bot to the equation changes it.

        With that said, this idea sounds like the sort of thing that could be flipped around pretty easily, and Trump seems to have a larger base of enthusiastic internet supporters. I could definitely see this turning out worse for Hillary than Trump if it proved to be an effective attack.

    • The Nybbler says:

      I expect they are pay-per-impression.

    • Douglas Knight says:

      No, no one has ever thought of that because no one thinks about elections. But, back in the real world that people care about, there is a ton of automated click fraud and companies like twitter spend a lot of resources fighting it.

  12. AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

    Thoughts on China’s one child policy, anyone?

    It was implemented in the 70’s, where doom and gloom environmentalists where very in vogue. If I was an intellectual at the time with voting capabilities there, I probably would have voted in the affirmative.

    Your thoughts?

    Secondary thoughts on Peter Woit book, “Not Even Wrong”
    namely, that much of theoretical physics, and string theory in particular, has devolved into lovely mathematical nonsense.

    • onyomi says:

      If you think human life is usually a positive good (most people, even poor, unfortunate people, seem, at the end of their lives, to be glad they lived), it’s probably the most evil thing ever done? I don’t have a good philosophical way to count potential lives never had compared to say, murders, however.

      • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

        Well, keep in mind that its still a ? if sufficient renewable energy will be created or deployed in the upcoming century to keep the global population steady, and that endlessly expanding humans may lead to a tragedy of the commons scenario.

        Or maybe I really need to update my infobanks, and its in fact the case that the current population is sustainable with solar, wind, and geothermal, while perhaps getting rid of things like centralized heating, cars, and eating most meats.

        • “and that endlessly expanding humans may lead to a tragedy of the commons scenario.”

          A tragedy of the commons scenario requires a commons. Most of what humans need to survive–food, energy, space to live in–is not owned in common.

          • Shieldfoss says:

            Most of what humans need to survive–food, energy, space to live in–is not owned in common.

            That’s a political statement though.

            The phrase “property is theft” hinges on exactly that – what you term “your property,” is in fact a commons that you have immorally decided to fence off for your own private use.

            Now I happen to be a fan of private property, but at the same time it does, in fact, annoy me when somebody fences off land and puts up “no trespassing” signs. By what right do they deny me? By the violence of the state, and none other.

          • It’s not a political statement. It’s a description of one of two things:

            1. Existing legal institutions and norms. Food is for the most part grown on private property, belongs to the producer, can be transferred by sale.

            2. Institutions that it is practical to enforce whether or not they currently exist. There are societies in which land, at least some land, is a commons. There are social contexts in which some food is a commons. But it is practical to treat both food and land as property and they are often so treated. If treating them as a commons leads to serious problems, it is likely that people will stop treating them as a commons–and they can.

            I am making no moral or political claims. Tragedy of the commons is a result of common ownership, so irrelevant where things are privately owned, less relevant where they can be.

          • sweeneyrod says:

            A tragedy of the people with the most military resources seizing all the food and everyone else starving is still possible though.

          • keranih says:

            Now I happen to be a fan of private property, but at the same time it does, in fact, annoy me when somebody fences off land and puts up “no trespassing” signs. By what right do they deny me? By the violence of the state, and none other.

            The first time you find a sheep tore to bits by a wandering dog who was accompanying a “walker” – or a three year-old fruit tree that had been beaten to pieces by twelve year olds who were “just playing” – or have to haul a dead two year old out of the pond – you might reconsider your resistance to open borders.

            In the USA, most anti-trespassing sentiment comes from two places – concern over vandalism, petty theft, and graffiti; and very justified legal concern over liability for a child, drunk, or thief doing harm to themselves while being someplace they should not be. Make those go away – ie, make humans not be humans – and most of the concern over trespassing would vanish.

          • Matt M says:

            Can confirm. I grew up in a rural environment where virtually every property owner had big “no tresspassing” and “no hunting” signs up on their land, most of which was largely unused pasture or Christmas tree farms (crops you can’t really damage unless you’re really trying hard to).

            This was MOSTLY to deter illegal poaching of deer, which was a huge problem in the community.

            The thing was, if you walked up to a house and knocked on someone’s door and asked if you could walk around on their land and provided even a halfway legitimate reason, there was about a 99% certainty they would allow you to do so. They just wanted to meet you, know who you were, and what you were about.

            So in practical terms, the situation was not really “this land is closed to everyone but me” but rather “look I have to take SOME steps to help secure and maintain this place, the least you can do is come meet me and talk to me and ask permission before you roam around”

          • sohois says:

            You’re being overly literal in your interpretation of that scenario. The Aral sea was not owned in common, or by anyone at all, but that didn’t stop the soviet union and surrounding countries from completely destroying it as a viable water source.

            In fact it seems to be quite consistent that water sources are shrunk by tragedy of the commons scenarios, with multiple countries laying large claims to the water and failing to divide it in a sustainable manner, leading to the aforementioned shrinkage. Heck, even within countries you have rivers suffering large drops in volume due to competing local claims, such as the Colorado in the US.

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            That’s a political statement though.

            No. Look up what public and private goods. If a good is rivalrous (only one person can eat the same banana), it is a private good regardless of if your civilization has rules enforcing private property.

            Declaring a rivalrous, excludable good to be “public” just means political enforcers own it. It doesn’t make it public in the way that gravity and air are public.

            Even if “private ownership” of a survival resource is banned, a tragedy of the commons scenario can’t occur if the People’s Resource Allocation Bureau “owns” the good by controlling access.

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            Or to put it another way, a good being “private” is just reality, not a political statement.
            It doesn’t imply or rely on anything about your culture or political system.

          • “A tragedy of the people with the most military resources seizing all the food and everyone else starving is still possible though.”

            Practically anything is possible. I see no reason to anticipate food shortages.

            As best I can tell, mostly by trying to make sense of Figures 5.5 and 5.7 in the latest IPCC report, studies of the effect of AGW on agricultural output disagree on whether it increases or decreases it, with the median study finding a small decrease–much smaller than the increases over recent decades due to other causes.

            Further, we currently have the ability to feed many more people than exist. Maize, for instance, is the largest agricultural crop (by weight). About 15% of it is consumed by humans, the rest going for either animal feed or biofuels. If people started getting seriously hungry it could easily enough double.

      • Two McMillion says:

        I don’t have a good philosophical way to count potential lives never had compared to say, murders, however.

        The one-child policy has resulted in no shortage of murders.

        • onyomi says:

          Of infant girls, I assume you mean. That is also a good point.

          • sohois says:

            Female infanticide in China was entirely mediated by Chinese cultural norms though. These deaths were caused by a culture that believed in the need for a male heir and the practice for the son and daughter-in-law to care for the son’s parents after marriage.

            If you remove this culture from the equation then you would not have mass female infanticide due to a single child policy.

          • Saint Fiasco says:

            remove this culture from the equation

            The Chinese government tried to do just that and it didn’t work out.

          • onyomi says:

            I’d say if you institute a policy of “force everyone to wear a funny hat” in a culture where it is well-known that the only acceptable response to the humiliation of funny hat-wearing is suicide, then people instituting the policy are at least partially responsible for any deaths resulting, not just the culture itself.

      • I’m always a bit perplexed with the argument that *potential* lives have the same value and weight as *actual* lives, and that therefore preventing a life to exist at all is the same as murder.

        Anytime anyone makes *any* decision, by repercution, butterfly effect, etc, it ultimately impacts many other people’s decision to have children or not. Therefore, anytime you do *anything at all*, you commit genocide.

        Conclusion: the only acceptable moral move is immediate suicide for everyone.

        • Dr Dealgood says:

          Your conclusion doesn’t quite follow. Anything might prevent future lives but extinction does so by definition.

          That said, any workable consequentialist theory of ethics needs to take circles of control into account. You can’t predict or control nth order effects of your actions, so it makes little sense to consider them morally relevant.

          • Granting that, though it doesn’t really adress the initial objection of the supposed equivalence between real lives and potential lives. The reason most people object to murder isn’t because of all the years of potential creativity lost — that’s a rationalization. The reason most people object to murder is because real, existing humans form empathetic bounds together and when someone dies these bounds are brutally terminated, which causes us pain.

            We (normally) form no such bound over (virtually infinite in numbers) hypothetical human beings (whether those are potential humans that may exist some day or could have existed in different circumstances, or whether those are probabilistic humans who do exist but that we aren’t aware of individually and concretely).

            This doesn’t seem to be a bad thing — if the empathic function was boundless, if we felt as much pain for the averted existence of each of the billions of billions of possible humans that could have existed as we did for the death of someone close to us, we would not be able to function, and futhermore, it would be useless; presumably, empathy exists to encourage cooperation between existing humans in the present.

    • E. Harding says:

      China was a very poor country then. If it had been even slightly richer, like Thailand or even Indonesia, there would not have been a one-child policy.

    • onyomi says:

      On a more practical level, I think China and the world are poorer because of it, because I buy Julian Simon’s argument about human creativity being the most valuable resource, though it’s a really hard counterfactual to thoroughly imagine because I don’t think one can just imagine China as it is now plus an extra billion or so people. All those extra people would have changed things tremendously–new cities, new political institutions, new technology? Who knows?

      • Matt M says:

        Strongly recommend Simon’s book for anyone who hasn’t read it. The arguments and evidence presented are very convincing. One of the few books I’ve read that I think has the potential to really change someone’s mind about deeply held philosophical beliefs.

    • Dr Dealgood says:

      This isn’t a thought on the policy exactly, but on the recent abolition of it in favor of a “two child policy.”

      This is all second hand obviously but, judging from how many aunts and uncles my ex had, it seems like the first time the one child policy was relaxed Chinese people jumped at the chance to have large families again. Which explains why one generation later it was back in force.

      Now that the policy is being loosened again, should we expect a repeat of that baby boom? Or will the Chinese emulate their childless neighbors in Japan and Korea? It’s going to be interesting either way. Although personally I’m rooting for the Chinese.

    • keranih says:

      It was implemented in the 70’s, where doom and gloom environmentalists where very in vogue.

      More to the point, it was implemented when the leaders of China were concerned about not being able to feed their population, which had been rebounding quite nicely since Mao’s disastrous policies. China’s been around as a going concern long enough that government over throws due to starving people are an ingrained part of their tradition.

      Looking at the historical birth rate chart in WP, one sees that the policy didn’t seem to have that much of an impact on the birth rate, which was already declining. (Alternatively – without the policy, there would have been an increase which we didn’t see.)

      My problem with the policy was a) making it mandatory, instead of encouraged and b) all the exceptions.

  13. I’m watching the debate. Clinton is a better demagogue than I expected, but not as good a demagogue as Trump. Both of them are mostly talking nonsense, but he’s better at it. If I didn’t know anything about economics I would probably find him convincing.

    Her strongest argument is targeting him–not releasing his taxes, claiming he stiffed lots of people, and the like. His strongest argument is pointing out that she has been running things (loosely speaking) for a long time, so if she thinks there are lots of problems that should be fixed, why hasn’t she fixed them?

    • keranih says:

      I’m watching the debate.

      I don’t have enough booze in the house for that.

      (on edit) Sorry, that was particularly low value, and funnier in my head.

      Hillary should – as a female non-incumbent – be able to play the crusading reformer well. However, it appears that Bernie, Trump, and Cruz all got to pick before her.

      • Lumifer says:

        I *do* have enough booze, but I’m not about to waste it like that.

        (pre-edit) I’m fine with low values : -P

      • LHN says:

        I can attest that High West Rendezvous Rye is a necessary if perhaps not sufficient accompaniment.

      • Deiseach says:

        Hillary should – as a female non-incumbent – be able to play the crusading reformer well.

        Yeah, but she’s been First Lady of a former administration, has held a cabinet position under the current administration, and is tied into the structure of the party. How is she going to be a reformer, when she is so strongly associated with The Man? Bernie, God bless him, is a genuine old-fashioned Leftist (of the Old Labour style over here) so, while he is as much a career politician as any of them, he could point to a Tony Benn-style track record (and had about as much chance of ever getting to be Top Dog for that very reason). Hillary is part and parcel of the party system. I look at her and I don’t see “reform”, I see it’s Buggins’ turn.

    • sweeneyrod says:

      They’re both pretty bad. Does “I’ve got a good economic plan and some experts said it would create 10 million jobs” actually convince anyone? Equally, how did someone who literally says “some bad people have guns and that’s bad” the Republican nominee? I’m sorely tempted to do a Big Yud and become President of the America.

      I feel like both of them should play a little dirtier, especially Clinton. She would benefit a lot from persistent digs and Trump’s competence, and while he could benefit from more personal attacks he also benefits from appearing above that.

      • The Nybbler says:

        I liked the way Clinton had to avoid saying “gun control”, you could almost hear the switch flipping in her brain when she managed to say “gun safety” instead.

    • Matt M says:

      “If I didn’t know anything about economics I would probably find him convincing.”

      One of the best lines I’ve heard about Trump yet!

    • “The longest military alliance in the history of the world.” (Clinton)

      “I have an announcement to make to the House arising out the treaty signed between this country and Portugal in the year 1373 between His Majesty King Edward III and King Ferdinand and Queen Eleanor of Portugal,” declared Winston Churchill in the House of Commons in 1943.

      • tcd says:

        When she said that I turned to my SO and said, “We finally caught her in a lie!”

        Also, I can’t believe Trump gave up on the “400-lb bed-hacker” vote so early in the campaign. Poor politics.

      • Zakharov says:

        At approximately 13000 km between Hawaii and Turkey, NATO is significantly longer than the 1600 km between England and Portugal.

      • BBA says:

        Well, England and Portugal were both charter members of NATO, so you could look at it as an extension of the 1373 treaty…

    • The Nybbler says:

      That was awful. I’d give the win to Hillary, but not by much. Big loser, Lester Holt, who managed to get overrun by Trump on numerous occasions and by Clinton on a few.

      • Odoacer says:

        What would have been a better way to control the debate? I’m not trying to be snarky, but I’ve heard this criticism about many debate moderators.

        • Sandy says:

          There isn’t one. If the moderator tries to stay impartial, he will be condemned for it. If he decides to be an attack dog for Trump, he will be condemned for it. If he decides to be an attack dog for Clinton, Trump will fend him off through sheer obstinacy and he will be condemned for not being fiercer.

          It’s a thankless job, methinks.

        • One way would be binding time constraints. You have two minutes, and at the end of it your mike goes dead. Or the chess clock approach. You have a total of forty minutes, spend it as you like.

          The latter could get interesting from a tactical point of view.

          • keranih says:

            While I am not at all about adopting UK or Euro customs more than we have…I am very found of the Prime Minister’s Questions, and would wish we did more of this.

            The tradition of the US Congress to give speeches to an empty chamber – speeches which they can later revise and extend – is rather weak tea.

          • Brad (The Other One) says:

            The latter could get interesting from a tactical point of view.

            It would also get interesting for those of us who watch the debates with the same disinterested passion as a baseball playoff. I’m all your suggestion.

          • houseboatonstyxb says:

            @ David Friedman
            One way would be binding time constraints. You have two minutes, and at the end of it your mike goes dead.

            Good idea.

          • baconbacon says:

            One way would be binding time constraints. You have two minutes, and at the end of it your mike goes dead.

            Just let them start with dead mikes, and never tell them.

        • Matt M says:

          I feel like you’d have to be an idiot to agree to accept this job. It seems all prestigious and everything, but at the end of the day, both sides are going to end up hating you.

    • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

      Meh. I found Trump to be a bit loud, frightening and angry. That really turned me off of him during the debate. It would be like watching a husband and wife where the wife eventually lets the man yell himself to calmness. Hillary’s biggest problem for me is that her voice cracked a few times and sounded raspy, while Trump’s voice, though loud, was smoother.

      Other then that, the two politicians repeated what they have been saying the last several months. I don’t think this is going to change anyone’s mind, since neither opponent obviously cracked and had a Rick Perry moment.

      But how is our subconscious processing the debate?

    • onyomi says:

      I felt like this debate was an excellent illustration of that joke you said recently about “the stupid party” and “the evil party.” Trump talks in such vague generalities that it’s honestly hard to know how much he really understands, but he certainly talks at about a 4th grade level. Clinton talks in sophisticated, reasonable-sounding platitudes which equally tell you absolutely nothing about what she’d actually do, but you get the impression she knows exactly what she wants to do but isn’t saying.

      Recently we’ve had more than one person come on and say, “are there any rationalists here who can explain why anyone in their right mind would support Trump??”

      Watching the debate makes me wonder “how do you feel about democracy when this is the level of the debate being had by two people competing for its most powerful office?”

      • Deiseach says:

        you get the impression she knows exactly what she wants to do but isn’t saying

        That’s not terribly reassuring: “if I let the morons of the common clay know my intentions, they’ll never vote me in – a tedious necessity of our ridiculous ‘democratic’ process where those who deserve power cannot simply claim it – so I must keep them in ignorance until it is too late”.

        I don’t think that is her genuine attitude, and I rather think President Clinton will not make a huge amount of difference from the guy currently in office (unless, for some reason, she feels the need to be hawkish on foreign policy having talked up her time as Secretary of State and the perceived need to get tough with ISIS), but if she is giving off the impression of “I have Plans but nobody can know them until I’m good and ready to implement them”, that’s not a good impression to give.

        Didn’t see the debate but read the analysis of it online newspaper site, and I must admit, my heart sank when I read “Clinton would increase tax revenue by $1.1tn by taxing the top 1 per cent of earners, increasing the estate tax and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, and by implementing and a more complex tax code, according to the Tax Policy Center.”

        Does America really need a more complex tax code? From what I can see of your system, it’s already complicated enough that I have no idea how you deal with it! Plus, if “eliminating fossil fuel subsidies” means the price of petrol on the forecourt rises, I cannot see this being popular with the public – you like cheap fuel and you need it, from the fact that you routinely drive long distances to and from work and if that cost eats into your disposable income the politicians will feel the anger. I feel that’s one of those “campaign policies” which will be quietly allowed to wither on the vine if she does achieve victory.

    • onyomi says:

      My digest version of the debate:

      Trump: She is the WORST, she has negotiated the WORST deals, but let me deal you, my deals are gonna be GREAT. Greatest deals you’ve ever seen.

      Hillary: I certainly think this is a very serious issue we need to look into very carefully and work closely with all concerned parties to find smart, equitable solutions. And that’s why I’m prepared, from day one, to step into that Oval Office and seriously engage the many challenges which face this great nation.

      (Actual information communicated in either case: 0)

      • Matt M says:

        Hillary was basically a walking caricature of every useless bureaucrat who spouts meaningless platitudes while accomplishing nothing.

        And Trump was basically a walking caricature of himself.

        I’m gonna say that whole exercise this solved nothing and was of no particular use to anybody.

        • onyomi says:

          Yeah, in the end, it feels like it did very little to move the needle in either direction.

          People have been saying, correctly, I think, that a draw is a win for Trump because expectations were lower: all he had to do was not be literally Hitler and he’s start to look more like a plausible president.

          I don’t think it was a draw. I think it was a slight Hillary victory, but he held his own and didn’t seem completely unhinged or ignorant, so that is probably to his advantage, or, at least, won’t slow down any momentum he may currently have. As you say, Trump was basically just Trump; if you could imagine him being president before the debate you still can now; if you couldn’t imagine it before the debate, you probably still can’t?

          • Dániel says:

            Hillary’s numbers have dropped recently specifically because the public perception was that she has something serious to hide about her health. My model before the debate was that if she manages to complete three 90 minutes debates without scary coughing fits or fainting, that’s enough for her numbers to improve.

        • So, is an hour and a half with no advertising on major media, an hour and a half which was lost to advertisers forever a net gain or a net loss?

      • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

        Well, I did remember a few policy bits, and there only seemed to be a few.

        1. trump seemed negative on various regulations for businesses. I know little about pure income taxes, but I lean heavily on environmental taxes.

        2. Hillary seemed to oppose stop and frisk in new york, which both rudy and bloomburg credited for reducing rates of violent crime

        3. Trump wan’ts to bring the BEST jobs to america and bring the BEST deals to America, while Hillary annoyingly pointed out that the US only has 5% of the world population and probably has to trade with countries.

        On free trade, I’m annoyed a green party person isn’t there. It helps to have some person point out a major reason these trinkets are so cheap is in good part due to poor compliance to enviromental laws in some countries, instead of populist TOOK R JERBS crap.

    • Zombielicious says:

      I watched it. That was brutal; Trump did substantially worse than I expected. I’m no fan of Clinton but after that I have to consider that a President Trump would be even more incompetent than I’d thought. Also makes the Republican field look weak and ridiculous by comparison that he’s the best they could offer.

      Opinions will differ, of course.

    • Jordan D. says:

      Policy-wise the whole thing was a bit lacking, but whatever practices Clinton did clearly served her well- she managed to repeatedly put Trump on the defensive, and she rebounded almost instantly from the e-mail serve into a criticism of his failure to pay employees which he flubbed. I’m still not sure whether the decision to let him keep going for so long on his rambling, incoherent defense of his 9/11 position was a tactical error or a masterstroke.

      So basically I’m saying that this whole thing was an enormous disappointment. I get that the presidential debates are circuses and have been for years now, but god in heaven, I do not care which one of them is best at rubbing salt in the wounds of past scandals.

      So, comments on the substance there was:

      1) Not much time was spent on economic and tax plans, which is probably for the best because neither candidate’s plan makes a lot of sense. Also: if you want to impose tariffs, just freaking say so.

      2) A lot of Trump’s proposals boil down to ‘We’ll negotiate better’. Since our government does, by and large, have negotiators, I assume what he’s saying is that I should elect him because he’ll pick better negotiators, or something. If that’s the angle, I’d like some evidence that this will happen.

      3) If you campaign on Law-and-Order while criticizing the judiciary for being too protective of the rights of citizens and stopping your brilliant crime-fighting policies, I start to think you’re actually just the Order candidate. And I’ve played me some Shin Megami Tensei.

      4) I don’t care whether Trump has paid federal income taxes or not, but deflections that artless make me really wonder what the hell is up. I used to think maybe this was a clever ruse to trick his enemies into focusing on his tax returns, then he’d release them at the last minute and get a big boost. Now I think he’s just hiding something.*

      5) Both candidates should be ashamed of agreeing that the No Fly List is anything but a sham and a mockery of due process, but since Trump is immune to shame I’ll focus on the fact that Clinton is a lawyer and well-informed enough to realize how bad this policy would be while proposing it. Barring gun purchases from everyone on the no-fly list would be unconstitutional and stupid, and I don’t believe she doesn’t know it.

      6) I sympathize a bit with Trump for the thing about the Justice Department’s lawsuit- as I recall, that lawsuit was pretty far-ranging against a lot of housing companies, Trump fought the allegations publically at the time and I don’t think people should conflate settlements with verdicts.

      7) Please stop trying to make “Trumped-up Trickle Down” a thing.**

      8) When people are worried that you might start a nuclear war in office, the proper response to “Donald Trump would have fired on these Iranian sailors for insulting us and started a war” is not “That wouldn’t have started a war!” Are you kidding me.

      9) Also, don’t think I missed that confusing digression in place of answering the No First Use question.

      10) I think I’ve blocked out everything that was said about cyber-anything and I’m not about to revisit that wasteland.

      Anyway, I hope none of you were stupid enough to play the drinking games floating around. In retrospect I’m pretty sure at least half of them were deadly.

      *I know I said this segment was about substance, but seriously now.
      **Memes are substantive this election, so I’m justified in posting this one

      • Matt M says:

        “Also: if you want to impose tariffs, just freaking say so.”

        The average watcher (and probably average undecided voter) doesn’t know what a tariff is.

      • Corey says:

        4) I don’t care whether Trump has paid federal income taxes or not, but deflections that artless make me really wonder what the hell is up. I used to think maybe this was a clever ruse to trick his enemies into focusing on his tax returns, then he’d release them at the last minute and get a big boost. Now I think he’s just hiding something.*

        Josh Barro had an interesting theory (of course we’ll probably never know whether it’s correct): maybe what he’s hiding is a *big* tax bill. It would go along with “that makes me smart” – lots of people (rich and otherwise) are proud of their mad tax-avoidance skillz. Maybe he’s not that good at tax avoidance and pays 30% or so.

        /he should try my tax-avoidance strategy: keep income low

        • baconbacon says:

          I don’t understand the confusion/theories about Trump’s taxes.

          1. He is playing a willful candidate, saying he won’t release his taxes and then not releasing them in the face of pressure makes him appear indomitable. The more people cry out for it, the more angry his opponents get about it the stronger he appears when he shrugs it off every time.

          2. Who LIKES taxes? My parents are very liberal, definitely voting Hillary, have a comfortable set of assets and have spent a fair amount of time shifting contributions and assets around to reduce their total tax bill. No one gets angry at someone who pays their actual tax bill, and everyone wishes they had some deduction to take a big chunk of it off. This line of attack doesn’t work with most voters.

          There is no reason For Trump to release his taxes unless he has huge charitable contributions, then he can hang onto it until shortly before the election and dump it out there with lots of false modesty (I didn’t want to advertise myself this way, which is why my contributions are always anonymous, but since everyone keeps screaming about it look at how I have donated 10x Hillary’s net worth to charity over the years).

          Lastly I doubt there is anything there anyway. Trump has accountants and lawyers, he probably has pushed the envelope but stopped short of committing tax fraud (for obvious reasons).

          • LHN says:

            The most widely suspected “something there” I’ve seen is simply that he’s not as rich as he says, which obviously isn’t illegal but runs against his narrative. (And his factual claims, but that’s kind of coals to Newcastle.)

            I’m also not sure he looks particularly indomitable when he’s saying not “no I won’t release my returns, go to hell” but “Oh, I’d love to, but my mean lawyers (who are the boss of me) say I shouldn’t while I’m under audit”.

            That said, I doubt his stance per se will swing many votes. People who don’t like him will complain about it and observe that there’s no particular reason an audit means he can’t publicly release them, people who like him will say it’s a non issue. If the returns might be damaging in some way, it’s probably the right political call to sit on them.

            (Or, sure, it’s a rope-a-dope that will end when he displays his generous charity contributions and even vaster wealth than anyone thought. But that could be true for anything– maybe Clinton fainted in order to lull the other side and be all the more impressive when she pulls an “I am not left handed” and runs a marathon the day before the election. Whether it’s the way to bet is a different question.)

          • “The most widely suspected “something there” I’ve seen is simply that he’s not as rich as he says”

            I don’t think his tax bill would show that. It shows income, not wealth. It might show dividends from which one could deduce holdings, but I expect a lot of his wealth is in real estate.

          • Chalid says:

            I think one embarrassing-but-not-illegal thing the tax returns would show is that Trump has been lying about his charitable donations. He’s transparently tried to wriggle out of a few donations that he made during the campaign. And a guy who tries to shortchange contractors doesn’t seem like the sort of person who gives to charity.

          • Zombielicious says:

            NPR* actually had an interview with a guy who’d been investigating Trump’s charity foundation this morning. I only heard part of it, but the gist was that he’d never given anything out of his own pocket, used it to make donations with other people’s money but in his name, used it for personal and business purchases whenever possible (and sometimes even when not), and was one of the worst run charities with the least controls over where the money went of anyone the guy’d ever investigated.

            *So will inevitably be excused as meaningless lies by the liberal media.

          • John Schilling says:

            but I expect a lot of his wealth is in real estate.

            Which generates rents, in the literal sense of the term, which are income that shows up in a tax return. And this income is arguably a better measure of the real estate’s real value than “It’s got ‘TRUMP’ on the top in giant gold letters, that’s got to be worth at least half a billion!”

      • The Nybbler says:

        My problem with that isn’t so much that he didn’t use the word “tariff” (he said he was going to be taxing products brought into the country by companies who left, which gets the idea across), but that he didn’t answer the question. All he had to do is say “we’ll start taxing the products these companies who have left the country are bringing into the country, and if they don’t like it, they can bring the jobs and the factories and the what-have-you back to America”. This was a softball and Trump missed it.

        (Here I’m ignoring the issue of whether a tariff is good policy; obviously Trump thinks it is and that voters will think it is)

    • Orphan Wilde says:

      From what I watched, Trump appeared to be measuring his attacks, preserving a few for the next debate; there were several lines of attack he could have pursued but didn’t. Clinton, on the other hand, gave me the perception of having a check list of every possible attack, checking them off as she went down them.

      The biggest thing that stood out, before I got bored and went to bed, was Trump clearly and blatantly calling out to black voters, implying he’d represent them, whereas Clinton hadn’t done anything for them. It was one of a number of attacks which played Clinton’s expertise against her, repeatedly implying that, if she had any good ideas, she would have implemented them already.

      On the whole, I think Clinton probably came out slightly ahead in the short term, but used up most of her ammunition to do so; we’re still a ways away from the election. Expecting a short-term (and small) shift towards Clinton, with the long-term advantage going to Trump; his targeted appeals to black and to a lesser extent young millennial voters and other Sanders supporters were probably the most meaningful things to happen.

      ETA, a few more thoughts:

      Hillary’s best attack was pressing the birther line of attack, which Trump handled quite poorly. She didn’t really answer any policy questions at all, spending the opportunity to aggressively go after Trump on every point she could.

      Her biggest issue was her inability to maintain a poker face; she smiled broadly whenever she felt she was winning, which meant you could immediately tell every time she felt he had won one over on her as her face crumpled, making his attacks that much more effective for the audience, as each hit made her look weak.

      I suspect Trump is playing up weaknesses he doesn’t have, such as the tax return thing, to get his opponents to concentrate on something that is going to turn around and make him look good. (A few million dollar donation to help ease the federal deficit would be a relatively cheap campaign expense that could be pulled out whenever he needs a boost.)

      • onyomi says:

        I think this is pretty accurate. As debate qua debate, Trump was clearly the loser yesterday, but he made some key appeals to particular states and demographics, often, I felt, attempting to talk directly to people beyond the beltway in language they could understand. I wouldn’t be surprised if, for many viewers, one week later, the takeaway is “Trump: Great deals! deals, deals, deals!; Clinton: blahblahblah.” In this sense I do still think Trump has a natural talent for that “advertising” skill which takes such things into account.

        Second, one still has to admit he did reasonably well, considering how much experience she has, both in politicy, and in this form of debate, relative to him. He had literally never been in this kind of debate. I think he’ll probably get better at it as time goes on, as he did during the primary. I mean, I, unsurprisingly, think my views on politics, economics, etc. are much closer to the truth than Hillary’s, yet I have no illusion that I could beat her in a debate.

        Ironically, Hillary went into the debate in something of an underdog position last night: momentum seemed to be with Trump, questions swirled about her health. She had to seem smart, on point, energetic, etc. to put that all to bed, and she did. At the same time, Trump just had to prove he could sort of hold his own on the stage with her without descending into total comic-insult territory, and he did that, too.

        • Anonymous says:

          If he wins, are you going to grade his presidency on a curve too?

          • onyomi says:

            Yes, actually.

            I am voting for Johnson and have serious concerns about Trump, but to the extent I prefer him to Hillary, it’s because he represents such a departure from the status quo, which I hate. If he succeeds in disrupting the status quo in long-term productive ways on e. g., the Fed, which I was happy to hear him mention, I will forgive him some clumsiness in execution (not that I’d forgive, e. g. nuclear war, but I’d forgive a lot; for HRC, by contrast, all she even claims to be is a more polished, seasoned, refined version of what we have now. Someone running on competency has a higher bar for smoothness of execution and polish than someone running on change).

        • Orphan Wilde says:

          It looked to me like a pyrrhic victory for Clinton, who appeared more concerned with winning the debate than winning the election.

        • Matt M says:

          “As debate qua debate, Trump was clearly the loser yesterday, but he made some key appeals to particular states and demographics, often, I felt, attempting to talk directly to people beyond the beltway in language they could understand. ”

          Very much agree with this. Towards the beginning, he clearly had Hillary taking the position of “the economy is great and keeps improving” and even going as far as to defend the record of manufacturing jobs post-NAFTA. That argument may be statistically correct for the nation as a whole, but I think you’re going to have a really tough time selling that in Ohio and Pennsylvania…

      • The Nybbler says:

        I’m fairly sure Trump’s overtures towards black voters are simply an attempt to make Clinton spend resources defending her (overwhelming) lead there, rather than a serious attempt to get a substantial proportion of the black vote. But I’m not black, so maybe he’s doing better than I think.

        • onyomi says:

          It seems like a winning strategy, either way. If it actually succeeds in winning over some black voters, then that’s obviously good for Trump. If it doesn’t really win over any significant number of black voters but forces Hillary to talk more about e. g. Black Lives Matter, then it still puts her on territory more comfortable for Trump.

          Hillary wants Trump defending himself against charges of sympathy with the KKK, not accusing her of being against safe urban neighborhoods. Trump wants Hillary defending controversial claims about policing, gun control, etc. rather than calling him a racist.

        • Orphan Wilde says:

          It will work either way; either reduce her turnout, or increase his own.

          On further consideration, Clinton bringing up the Birther stuff was a tactical mistake; while Trump handled it exceptionally poorly (when attempting to imply she started it, he got tangled in the names, making it entirely unclear that it was her staffers who did so; when attempting to imply he’s the one who ended it, his “I made Obama do that” attitude came off rather colonial), he did manage to pull her down into the mud with him.

          Which is pretty much where she stayed; his attacks on race were quite powerful, and when she kind-of apologized over the superpredator thing, she gave Trump “I made her apologize for her racism, I get things done for you, black America” ammo for later.

          He’s definitely going after some new demographics, however; I think he sees the black demographic as a looming and critical weakness for the Democrats, who, after all, are the ones being perceived as fiddling while black America burns, and who the Democrats critically depend upon.

          • Matt M says:

            “On further consideration, Clinton bringing up the Birther stuff was a tactical mistake; ”

            IIRC, she didn’t bring it up – Holt did.

            If you go back and think about it, almost every Trump scandal was brought up by an official moderator question (who would continue to press the issue) whereas Hillary scandals had to be brought up by Trump himself (and the moderator never followed up)

      • Philosophisticat says:

        I thought Trump’s performance might dispel the illusions here of Trump’s underlying thoughtfulness, but it seems I was wrong. Now he’s “measuring his attacks, preserving a few for the next debate” and “playing up weaknesses he doesn’t have”. If Trump had won, it would have been confirmation of his brilliance, now that he lost, it’s because he was cleverly playing the long game.

        • Dr Dealgood says:

          It shouldn’t be too surprising, this is a meme-magic based campaign and one of the big Trump memes is that he’s playing 12th dimensional bocce ball.

          (That said, kudos to everyone with the patience to watch and analyze that debate. I just slept through it and thus have no comments or opinions.)

          • Orphan Wilde says:

            He’s not playing 12th dimensional bocce ball.

            He’s minimally competent at what he’s doing. It’s just that everyone else this election season is such complete and total garbage at it that he looks amazing.

            Polls have demonstrated, over and over and over and over and over again, how completely ineffectual negative ads have been against Trump.

            So what did Clinton do, through the entire debate? Tried to make it a negative ad against Trump. And succeeded.

            Meanwhile Trump – the candidate of hate, remember? – spent the debate reaching out to black voters, reaching out to Michigan, reaching out to Sanders supporters. There was a lot of rambling and bloviating, too, and a moderate amount of mud-flinging back at Clinton, but he kept his cool enough, in a debate largely centering on his awfulness, to make sure key voters knew he had their interests in mind. Ask yourself how most candidates would have composed themselves in that situation.

            So yeah. Minimal competence.

        • Orphan Wilde says:

          So you saw exactly what you expected to see, and are annoyed nobody else saw the same thing?

          How fascinating.

          See, I don’t care who wins, and my expectations were split between Trump being very boring, and Trump being very offensive, and he did neither of those things.

          I saw Trump make a few tactical blunders, but also some great strategic moves; I think he might get Michigan now, for example, between his commentary on the DNC’s treatment of Sanders (who Michigan supported) and his multiple call-outs to the state and the cities within the state. He did worse than he could have, but better than most people expected.

          Clinton, on the other hand, when she wasn’t avoiding a question, spent her time talking about Trump. This made for a great debate for Democrats watching; it was burn after burn after burn, and her tactics were precisely on point. But she didn’t spend the debate building anything; she accomplished absolutely nothing strategic. She didn’t reach for any new voters; at best she attempted to persuade Trump’s supporters he was a terrible person, and, let’s be honest, that’s been going on for more than a year now, and her paltry additions aren’t going to change the calculus.

          Worse, she hit him with the worst she could have, material that would be better applied a little closer to the election. If she pursues the same strategy in the next debate, she’ll have to make do with either repeats or second-class material. I expect her to start shoring up some electoral territory instead, but I expected her to be trying to build bridges in -this- debate, instead of burning them down.

          I’d score Trump a D+ on tactics and a solid B on strategy. Clinton gets an A- on tactics and an F on strategy.

          You’re welcome to your own perspective, of course.

          • Philosophisticat says:

            I don’t think the word “nobody” means what you think it means.

            Anyway, I think that the evidence for Trump being every bit the irrational, ignorant, strategically inept egotist that ‘nobody’ saw this debate is public and overwhelming enough that holdouts are probably incorrigible. Of course, it could be my rational faculties failing me. Anything’s possible.

        • onyomi says:

          My view of Trump is that he’s neither really smart and careful in a conventional sense nor completely haphazard. I don’t think he’s dumb, to be sure, but I don’t think he’s a mastermind plotting out a multi-tiered, elaborate strategy.

          Rather, I think he’s very talented, naturally, as well as experienced, at salesman-ish skills–schmoozing, working a room, subtly taking your competitors down a peg with an off-hand remark at the right moment, that kind of thing.

          I think one can kind of observe this in real time. Notice his reaction to the last, frankly strange, question. He started off completely avoiding it with a bunch of pre-canned blather he had readied as a closing statement. While he was saying all that, I think he was buying time to decide what he should say. Someone with less of this kind of skill might have revealed they were taken aback by the question and weren’t sure how to answer, but I think he mostly avoided giving that impression.

          Yet I also doubt his handlers were like “okay, we need you to practice canned lines as a way to buy thinking time if you are taken off guard by a question.” It’s just something he does, so I do think he’s calculating in that sense.

          • Orphan Wilde says:

            If he was brilliant, he would have finished the “contractor” thing, where, when accused of not paying subcontractors, his argument was that he was working within the laws – that would have been brutally completed by reminding everybody at that moment that Clinton is part of the class that helped create the crony capitalist laws he works within. Likewise, when he fumbled the response to the birther thing.

            So yeah. Not brilliant, no super-elaborate plot, and he didn’t handle the off-the-cuff stuff terribly well, even though it was clear he was leaning heavily on his off-the-cuff responses. But he did play a strong strategy of going after some competitive demographics while Clinton was too busy with her prepared notes on how to attack him to notice or respond effectively; I think the only time she noticed was when he went after the black vote, and there her response was more defending her own guilt vis a vis the superpredator thing, which she was clearly expecting, than it was defending the votes he was attempting to poach from her.

          • Matt M says:

            Agree. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that he spent less than 1/10th the time “preparing” for this stuff than Hillary did. While she can sneer at him for that, what does it say that he can debate her approximately evenly with only 1/10th the amount of effort?

            My guess is that in some weird scenario where you catch them totally unprepared and force them to debate impromptu/off-the-cuff, without any preparation, Trump would destroy virtually all politicians.

          • onyomi says:

            I’ll add to that: all anecdotal evidence I’ve heard points to real estate being a brutal, cut-throat business in which who you know and how you handle/sell yourself are more important than basic competence. Not unlike politics. Look at those weird photos of real estate agents they use to advertise.

            I am ambivalent about the “business acumen can translate to getting things done politically” equivalence candidates like Romney and Trump try to suggest, but it may be that there is an unusual level of overlap between the skills needed for real estate success and political campaigning.

          • Matt M says:

            Didn’t “Our Scott” imply this in his review of Art of the Deal?

          • houseboatonstyxb says:

            @ Matt M
            what does it say that he can debate her approximately evenly with only 1/10th the amount of effort?

            Evenly according to whose judgement? ‘Win’ or ‘lose’ in this kind of contest have no objective meaning. It is just whose supporters get quoted the most (or who the media choose to declare as winner).

            For some objective data, try something like this:

            Find some people who are on record for several weeks as (mildly) supporting Candidate A. Same for Candidate B. After the debate, ask each group to choose a winner of the debate. The A Group people who chose B as winner, and the B Group people who chose A as winner, are the ones whose votes should count as to who ‘won’.

          • Matt M says:

            I said “approximately” because I take no personal position on who “won” and there doesn’t seem to be lots of evidence, or even assertions that she did, say, 10 times better than he did.

        • I don’t think either of them won. My impression, watching it, was that Clinton was better at demagoguery than I expected, but Trump better still.

    • smocc says:

      I could only handle the first 30 minutes. I lost it when Clinton started trying to mug and advertised her website acting as a fact-checker. And then Trump interjected “something something my website too!” I laughed out loud and came away disliking both of them even more.

      My impression was that Clinton was strategically insinuating minor insults against Trump and letting his ego take up all his time responding to them needlessly instead of staying on point. Maybe he got it under control later, but that it worked so well in the first 20 minutes moved me away from the hypothesis that his success is due to political genius that he’s perfectly in control of.

    • AnonBosch says:

      From a strictly tactical standpoint, Trump shat the bed after a strong initial round on trade (I’m anti-tariff, but judging this debate in a vacuum, Hillary didn’t have great answers here). It’s clear that the stories about him not preparing were not mere expectations-setting.

      In the middle third, Holt’s question on cyber-security was an engraved invitation to discuss the emails, and instead he had a bunch of incoherent rambling about how his grandson was good at computers. He could’ve landed some solid punches on Iraq, but instead offered an evidence free appeal to “ask Sean Hannity.” That’s not gonna move the needle.

      He got even worse towards the end. His answer on the housing discrimination charge was an absolute disaster. “No admission of guilt” + “Everyone was doing it” + “I didn’t discriminate at my Florida property” adds up to a whole lot of very conspicuous non-denial. And I don’t know what the hell he was thinking with the whole “I could say something bad about your family but I won’t ” bit at the end. That’s the worst of both worlds; you look like an asshole and a pussy.

      Speaking non-tactically, as a somewhat rational voter, the debate reinforced my perception that Trump lacks mental stamina. He comes off as a guy with a combination of ADD and peridementia, unused to challenge and criticism, and who couldn’t stay on his game for more than a half hour (as an attorney, I’ve encountered this particular species of aging dinosaur a lot).

      Still voting for Gary, but I’d have to look very hard at a lesser-evil tactical vote for Hillary if I were in a swing state.

    • dndnrsn says:

      I watched it live, on PBS. In alphabetical order:

      Clinton came off like the kid in 8th grade who hasn’t realized that “I’m smarter than you and I know things” is a bad pitch for your class president campaign. She seemed more controlled earlier on. When she was annoyed or off-centre, her delivery suffered. She was energetic and lively – if anybody seemed low stamina it was Trump. But early on she came off as “I am calm and in control and there’s going to be a steady hand on the rudder”, and as it went on her attitude revealed increasing flashes of “why am I on stage with this idiot and neck and neck in the polls with him this is ridiculous and annoying and why can’t everyone realize my commands of facts and experience make me the logical choice”.

      She’s much better at not answering questions than Trump is – it’s much less noticeable when she does it. Giving a pseudo-apology for the emails without addressing the deleted ones, or 2/3 of the time she talked about race. Trump’s way of not answering questions is to sort of surf on a wave of word salad back to whatever he wanted to talk about. It’s a lot more obvious.

      Trump came off like a bully. He was talking – almost shouting – over Clinton and over the moderator (who was kinda useless). He came off as petulant and insecure – stuff like repeatedly interjecting “wrong” at Hillary. From the start he seemed like he just couldn’t stand to let other people talk – did it get better as the debate went on? He didn’t seem like he was in control of what he was saying. He’s very clearly ignorant on some major topics. I get the impression that he has had success in life ignoring things he doesn’t want to deal with and just bulling through. I’m surprised he didn’t answer Hillary’s repeated “the experts say my plan is better” with some rhetoric along the lines of “the same experts who are great at predicting the past? How have ordinary Americans done by these experts?” He seems to think that great power negotiation is done leader-to-leader exclusively, as far as I can tell.

      Overall a marginal Clinton victory. I’d rather take the know-it-all than the ignorant bully.

    • neonwattagelimit says:

      What really stood out to me was how much time Trump spent just rambling, more-or-less incoherently. I kind of wish Clinton had pointed out his incoherence more often, but just letting him hang himself was probably a sound strategy. The debate was a solid Clinton win.

      That said, Trump didn’t really embarrass himself, which is what was needed to swing the race decisively back in Clinton’s direction. I predict a modest bounce for Clinton in the coming days, but nothing earth-shattering.

  14. not_from_kyoto says:

    Suppose that we required all laws to contain timed empirical test clauses. These clauses would not automatically trigger some function of the bill, but be purely for measurement. Passing the clauses would require something more than a 50.1% majority vote, just to make sure the ruling party doesn’t automatically fiddle with them to make them say exactly what they want.

    So, for example, if a politician claims that a bill will reduce gun crime or increase employment, they would effectively have to answer “by how much?”

    What do you think would happen? Would it alter the culture, quality of discourse, or quality of legislation at all? Would it start to trim away at programs that spend money without meaningful results?

    Furthermore, what do you think would happen if we combined this with a prediction market, where politicians had to bet on the outcomes of legislation with a non-monetary score system?

    And if we took the percentile rankings in that, used it to sort them on the ballots, and printed it next to their names?

    • Matt M says:

      Nothing would happen. Everyone would just argue that the measure wasn’t fair or that the people doing the measuring were corrupt or some other such thing. Virtually no one admits they’re wrong in politics – even when confronted with overwhelming evidence.

    • Deiseach says:

      Would it start to trim away at programs that spend money without meaningful results?

      Speaking as a minor bureaucratic minion, nah, it would just mean that the administrators of the programmes had to show they were hitting targets of “X number employed at the end of the month” or whatever, which is easy to do if you get people into temporary jobs (e.g. Joe’s Landscaping Service needs people to mow lawns from June to September), voluntary community employment schemes, so on.

      You can set targets and you can get results showing that those targets are being hit, that’s half the paperwork you have to fill in and send off for the end-of-year returns to the Department.

      • Matt M says:

        Didn’t Soviet administrators famously engage in all kinds of creative nonsense with this stuff?

        Not sure if this is a true story but the legend has it that there was a nail factory that was ordered to make X pounds of nails in a year, so to make it easier, rather than make millions of tiny (useful) nails they just made hundreds of really giant ones that served no practical purpose (but fulfilled their plan)

    • Gazeboist says:

      You’d need to grow an analysis office (presumably under the legislature, rather than the executive) for the predictions to be meaningful. That’s probably not too hard; we already have legislative analysis offices (the CBO, CRS, and GAO) that do some of this, but they’d likely need to be expanded and reorganized.

      I suspect you’d also need to give the test clauses consequences in order to make them useful. For that, the right tool is probably sunsets. I would default to “all legal code changes need a sunset and attendant prediction.” The prediction would be checked one year ahead of the sunset, or halfway along if the sunset is less than one year. Congress could choose to keep a law that failed the test, but that choice to keep would need a new prediction and appropriate sunset. I would allow the need for a test clause / sunset to be overridden by a supermajority, on the grounds that supermajorities are rare enough that they indicate genuine consensus that a law should be permanent unless otherwise decided in the future.

      This probably needs fine-tuning to actually function properly (that is, to tie legislation to results), but it’s how I’d do this sort of thing as a first pass.

      As to scoring politicians … I don’t particularly care how closely the legislators are tied with the results, as long as the legislation itself is. I don’t think deterrence has a strong effect on federal politicians; manipulating their means is usually more effective than manipulating their motives.

    • Wrong Species says:

      Prediction markets are a really good idea because of the monetary incentives. If politics gets in the way of making money, then that’s an easy way to lose money. But if you limit the incentives to a score system, then people will choose whatever raises their social status the most.

    • dndnrsn says:

      It would create a huge incentive to mess with statistics, use statistics in misleading ways, go out of your way to pick statistics that are easy to massage, etc.

      It might also create the legislative equivalent of “can crushing”. Just like an up-and-coming boxer will fight a whole bunch of guys paid to lose, you’ll probably see politicians going after the low-hanging fruit to drive the % next to their name up. Conversely, hard issues that are hard to fix might be less likely to get addressed.

  15. daronson says:

    I’m late to the party, and might re-post in a later comment thread. But some friends and I have been looking for ways to help the Hillary campaign (I am pretty apolitical and do not identify as a liberal, but think that of all the global cataclysms people nowadays are concerned about, a potential Trump presidency is by far the most worrisome).

    The problem is that the statistics on what sways voters are terrible. Should we phone bank? Donate money? Contact the Hillary team and offer to run statistical analysis on effectiveness of phone banking conversations?

    Anyone else here have opinions about this?

    • TMB says:

      Pretend to be a trump supporter and say racist things in public.

    • dndnrsn says:

      Do you know any actual Trump supporters? If you do, have one-on-one conversations with them in which you try to express that:

      a. you think Hillary is a better candidate, for [reasons]
      and
      b. you don’t think your interlocutor is a deplorable, in whatever sort of container.

      • Gazeboist says:

        Anyone and anything in a naive binary tree is deplorable.

      • AnonBosch says:

        I don’t actually know any Trump supporters, which is kind of disappointing to me. I’ve interacted with plenty online; I tend to rotate between a few political forums of different stripes for intellectual shadowboxing, but I feel like online interaction especially on “home turf” magnifies the tribalism and is next-to-useless from a persuasion standpoint. (Once Hillary started dropping in the polls, pretty much every attempt at anti-Trump argument was met with “u mad” or variations thereof. And I’m a Johnson voter!)

        I feel somewhat guilty about this, as it wasn’t intentional selection on my part and I used to have conservative friends, but most migrated to moderate/libertarian viewpoints and the remainder are #NeverTrump. For whatever reason, the qualities underpinning support for Trump were something I selected against when forming my social relationships during the Bush/Obama admins.

        • Wrong Species says:

          Internet arguments only seem so bad because they are one-offs. Someone might later be persuaded only after the fact. One nice thing about internet anonymity is that since we don’t necessarily care about our relationships with these strangers, it means we aren’t afraid to hold back on our true beliefs. While this can of course easily dissolve in to flame wars, it is also more likely for someone to make their point forcefully and clearly without worrying about hurting the other persons feelings. Add in the increasing likelihood that they will actually find sources for their claims and the fact that they will continue for far longer than a 20 minute conversation and I think it’s fair to say that internet arguments are far too underrated. We just need to find ways to minimize the negatives while promoting the positives. I think places like this are a step in the right direction.

      • gbdub says:

        Describing a Trump presidency as a “cataclysm” implies a certain amount of pre-existing epistemic closure that makes a believable expression of b. somewhat unlikely. If convincing people (as opposed to merely defeating them) is the goal, it would be best to work on that.

    • brad says:

      I would ask the campaign. They may not be the very best campaign staff in the history of campaign staffs, but they are likely to know what would work better for them than any of us speculating off the cuff.

      If I had to guess, I’d say they’ll tell you 1) give us money or 2) volunteer for GOTV efforts in that order.

      • gbdub says:

        As someone who really dislikes Trump, but finds it hard to support Hillary, I’d really like to see more focus on why Hillary is actually a good candidate. So far her ads are just over the top Trump bashing, and her supporters in my Facebook feed are more of the same. Arguments actually in favor of Hillary are mostly “you should ignore this scandal of hers because…” and “wouldn’t it be nice to have a woman, any woman, as president?” The Obama Hope n’ Change brand grated on my cynical self, but it was miles more appealing than “my opponent is literally Hitler”. Stop wallowing in the mud with a pig – you’re just getting dirty, and he likes it.

        And I do think GOTV is extremely important – lack of enthusiasm for Hillary is her greatest weakness, and if she loses it will be because a lot of people who don’t like Trump just couldn’t be bothered to vote at all.

        • Gazeboist says:

          Epistemic status: I’ve got no dog in this fight and no desire for one; I’m just explaining my thinking as of now.

          I’m having a lot of trouble coming up with positive arguments for anyone in particular to take a federal elected position. Appointed positions are easy; they should generally be filled by promotion from the group they will be in charge of, or pulled from a same-field group of corresponding stature; regular employees should obviously be hired for their specific, task related skills as you would any other employee. Elected positions are extremely general, though; you have to trust that whoever you favor is going to do a good job in a ludicrous number of domains, so there are only a few “skills” that will reliably apply, and these are hard to demonstrate.

          Given that, my strongest argument for Clinton*, as opposed to against Trump or against a Clinton scandal, is that she seems to have demonstrated competence at running a major department of the US federal government. Going through this, of course, will involve arguing against the two major Clinton scandals.

          She’s noteworthy as SecState for introducing specific goals to US diplomatic missions (bringing the notion over from the DoD). Benghazi and the emails are marks against her on this point, but they don’t override my initial assessment.

          Misinformation around Benghazi appears to have come from the CIA, not DoS; Clinton herself appears to have been responsible for the prior security issues only to the extent that, eg, the CEO or relevant VP of Adair Grain is responsible for the West Fertilizer explosion. She appears to have done the appropriate firings and such in the wake of the attack, which is about all I would expect from an upper level executive.

          The emails are more worrying, for two reasons. First, the 113(ish) that were classified at the time obviously should have been kept secure. I can’t figure out what proportion of those came from which of the 52(ish, again) chains the FBI reported, how many originated with Clinton herself (more than 0, fewer than all), or how many actual classified topics that covers (presumably at most 52), but someone in those conversations should have been able to figure out that the information was classified and made moves to protect it, despite the fact that it was apparently not well marked. This obviously never occurred. There also seems to be some infighting between State and the Intelligence community over what should or shouldn’t be classified and how to protect it; that’s probably involved too. In any case, lax security around sensitive information is never good, but Clinton was only indirectly in charge of the information security procedures at State.

          More troubling than any security failures, though, is the fact that she kept the emails on a private server with (apparently) no duplication to State Department records. This is indicative of a problem with administrative record keeping in the executive branch; to the extent that it can be accomplished the systems should be designed such that failure to duplicate is impossible**; relying on humans (especially professional politicians!) on this point is a terrible idea. Still, I think it’s a problem that executive branch IT needs to solve, not the DoS. I’d bet similar things can happen in every executive department and agency outside the USIC, and some inside it.

          All that said, she appears to have demonstrated the administrative skills necessary to keep the government running, which is, as far as I’m concerned, far and away the most important job of the president. She’s also on record setting up a program to make a key segment of the executive branch more goal oriented than it was when she got there. If that attitude*** could be spread to the rest of the branch, I would be quite pleased.

          * I have no intention of voting, but prefer her to Trump in a race where those two are the only option and my vote is the only one.

          ** The reasons for any organization at all, much less a government, to fully record its doings are numerous; they mostly center on accountability and reliability.

          *** There’s more to needed, of course, than just having goals and checking whether they’ve been accomplished. Some programs do need continuous organization, and some don’t; a deeper separation between the continuing tasks of the executive and the finite projects it is currently working on would probably be a good idea.

        • Lumifer says:

          I’d really like to see more focus on why Hillary is actually a good candidate

          Well, yeah, but that’s why the Dems are having all these problems running against Trump. She isn’t.

          • Deiseach says:

            I suppose what can be said is that we already know what she’d be like in office, given how she was part of Bill’s administration.

            But what would she be like ruling in her own name, rather than as unelected but influential spouse (and that’s not being snarky about her, all the First Ladies have done the same because that’s the nature of the job of being wife of the boss) is the question. Do we think she’d put her own spin on things, or would Bill be acting behind the scenes to ameliorate her views and persuade her to do things in a softer or more publicly appealing style?

          • Corey says:

            That was quite a while ago, both chronologically and politically. Both the nation’s politics and Hillary have changed in the meantime. (E.g. don’t-ask-don’t-tell was a positive for gay rights back then, a negative now).

        • brad says:

          As someone who really dislikes Trump, but finds it hard to support Hillary, I’d really like to see more focus on why Hillary is actually a good candidate. So far her ads are just over the top Trump bashing, and her supporters in my Facebook feed are more of the same.

          Seems reasonable to me, but again I haven’t done anything to confirm whether or not this type of ad has a better ROI than the other type of ad. Or maybe is even counterproductive. Daronson could in theory put together a parallel organization with the skills and resource to answer that question, but unless he is looking to spend millions he is probably better off deferring to those that are already working on these questions.

    • Deiseach says:

      Do not reach for the KKK comparison when trying to explain the threat of a Trump presidency. I read an online article where the left-wing pundits were explaining why Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” was actually true since nobody wants to talk about racism in American politics, and linked on the page were (I think) an FDR ad saying his opponent was endorsed by the KKK and then Hillary’s ad saying Trump was endorsed by the KKK. (Wow, the Imperial Wizard of the Rebel Brigade likes The Donald, well that’s about – five dozen? – votes right there! How many members does the Rebel Brigade have?)

      And instead of anyone wondering how easily and readily the “KKK like this guy” is pulled out when attacking an opponent, and if the KKK really are the same force they were back in Roosevelt’s time, everyone was nodding in agreement about intersectional racism and sexism and homophobia.

      But if every opponent gets the “The KKK love this guy” attack, it loses its effectiveness, since the average voter knows damn well that the guys in white bedsheets burning crosses on lawns are not the threat they used to be, so it’s like yelling “fascist” – it begins to sound less like an accurate political label and more like “this guy is a big meanie!”

      • sweeneyrod says:

        The political situation was a bit different in FDR’s time. It is possible that FDR’s opponent (though I’m not sure which one it would have been) was, unlike Trump, closely linked to the KKK, and that that election took place at one of the peaks in the KKK’s power. But as far as I know, none of the more recent Republican candidates have received the “KKK like this guy” attack (other than Trump). The fact that one other candidate had the same accusation (possibly legitimately) aimed at them many decades ago doesn’t mean it is worthless now.

        More relevant in my opinion is the fact that Trump’s closest link with the KKK is briefly having their leader’s endorsement (before disavowing it). That is not one of the major points against him in my view.

        • E. Harding says:

          The ad was a Johnson ad, and was unaired, and was against Goldwater. In FDR’s day, the GOP was the Vermonter party and the Dem nominee would have been nuts to alienate the KKK too harshly, as Al Smith did.

          • Deiseach says:

            Thank you for the correction, that is very useful. I am still surprised that nobody addressed the fact that apparently the first weapon in the arsenal is “Link your opponent to the KKK”. Does that really work nowadays, or is it merely signalling of the “We think he’s a very naughty boy, so naughty he plays with all his naughty little friends” type?

            I’m sure Trump’s campaign would be happy to take votes from the likes of KKK supporters, as Clinton’s campaign would be happy to take votes from the likes of those who think Amanda Marcotte is a guru, and treat them in the same fashion in both cases: thanks for the votes but we’re not going to touch you with a ten-foot barge pole or acknowledge your existence.

          • aitch reasoner says:

            “I’m sure Trump’s campaign would be happy to take votes from the likes of KKK supporters”.

            Sure racists have had 100 years to wise up. Now only the stupidest white supremacists set up Klaverns anymore.

            Is that supposed to be some kind of gotcha?

            Does it make a difference if they’re called Stormfront, American Renaissance, Council of Conservative Citizens or VDare?

            What is your point?

          • Deiseach says:

            What is your point?

            My point is that I don’t think Trump is looking for or courting the KKK vote, but that when it’s dropped into the ballot box (or on the voting machine), a vote is a vote and nobody knows who it came from (that’s the theory, anyway). Both Hillary and Trump have fringe extremists who will vote for them (if they vote) not because of what the candidate actually represents but for what the fringe imagines they might represent and, most importantly, that Their Guy is not The Other Guy.

            Remember the way the John Edwards campaign hired on Amanda Marcotte to run their social media appeal to the young’uns vote (and then came to richly regret it in short order)? I think Amanda Marcotte is a shrieking harpy, and I don’t think Edwards himself was trying to court the shrieking harpy vote, nor anything like it. But his campaign plainly felt “There’s a bunch of young women voters who follow this woman, and we can catch us some of that sweeeeet ballot box action”.

            Hillary’s campaign were going to call any Republican candidate a racist and/or KKK endorsed (though I think they’d have been hard-pressed to do that with Ben Carson) so I discount the attack ad on those grounds alone. But I also think all this media insistence that Trump is the white supremacist/nativist/white nationalist candidate is going to draw the attention of those sections who will think that if they’re going to vote, he’s the guy for them – after all, all the smart educated city folks are saying he is!

          • Matt M says:

            Agreed. Demands that Trump “disavow” certain sections of his support are basically saying, “Hey – go tell these people not to vote for you!” Why on Earth should he feel any particular compulsion to do that?

            A black panther running for office should still want the votes from klan members – after all, if he gets power he will use that power to work against the interests of the klan. It makes no logical sense for him, (or for that matter anyone) to demand they vote for someone else.

          • Corey says:

            @Matt: Support can definitely hurt a campaign, e.g. remember when nobody wanted W’s endorsement in the 2012 GOP primary? Obama also learned this eventually; there’s some stuff he realized he couldn’t endorse because such endorsement creates a focal point for unified Republican opposition.

            It would be weird for a candidate to say “don’t vote for me” but I can see a case for “don’t campaign for me because you’re not helping”.

          • LHN says:

            I don’t know if it really happened much or at all, but in the old days a standard dirty trick people talked about was to get the Communist Party to endorse the other candidate.

          • “in the old days a standard dirty trick people talked about was to get the Communist Party to endorse the other candidate.”

            Not exactly the same thing, but …

            I was a volunteer for Goldwater in 1964. One of the things we did was distribute copies of a Daily Worker (I think) piece attacking Goldwater. It was a real piece but you had to read past the headline to realize that it was being distributed by Goldwater supporters not by communists.

            We were distributing it in a parking garage when we were observed by someone who I am pretty sure was a reporter. He did not read it carefully, assumed we were communists, and was obviously sympathetic to our attempt to stop Goldwater.

        • Former leader. The current leader (Willie Quigg IIRC) endorsed Hillary.
          And don’t link that Snopes article. It’s answer was “This actually happened, but we don’t think it was sincere.”

        • JayT says:

          It’s been a very common attack to link the Republican candidates with the KKK. In like two minutes of googling I came up with this:
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/mitt-romney-is-using-a-kkk-slogan-in-his-speeches/2011/12/14/gIQAXD6OuO_blog.html

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/13/497964/-

          • sweeneyrod says:

            The first one of those articles starts with a long editors’ note saying “This posting contains multiple, serious factual errors that undermine its premise.” The second one starts out assuming that the link between McCain and the KKK is a hoax. Regardless, the purported link between the KKK and Trump has received much more publicity than either of the other two cases. A search for “Donald Trump KKK” gets 5 million results, and the front page contains relatively reputable news sources promoting a link. A search for “John McCain KKK” gets 400,000 results, and the front page contains no reputable sources claiming he has a solid connection to the KKK (although it does have these interesting articles on the black McCains, and white supremacists endorsing Obama).

          • Jiro says:

            A search for “John McCain KKK” gets 400,000 results,

            I’d expect fewer results considering that Trump is the candidate right now and McCain was the candidate many years ago. Not every article from back then is going to still be on the Internet.

          • sweeneyrod says:

            @Jiro

            If there were any vaguely reputable articles about McCain and the KKK, I would expect some of them to still be online. But all I can find are obscure forum posts titled “Top John(KKK)McCain lies”, featuring alleged McCain lies, and then the (rhetorical?) question “Why are the Crakkkas afraid to come out to play???”.

          • JayT says:

            The fact that they issued a retraction doesn’t change the fact that they were quick to jump on a “Romney == KKK” story with little to no fact checking.

            The second article started by talking about a hoax that said the KKK supported Obama, and then it said

            Then yesterday, a video popped up on YouTube which purports to show a Ku Klux Klan spokesman endorsing John McCain for President. Is it a fake? A fraud? A hoax? Take a look:
            /missing video
            Surprisingly, this might not be a hoax at all. There are a number of lines of evidence that suggest that this video could be the real deal.

            I would hardly say that was being presented as a possible hoax.

    • The Most Conservative says:

      Pay to administer a poll on SurveyMonkey. Ask people what candidate they support and whether they supported trump in the past. Ask what changed their mind. Look at people who used to support trump and now support a different candidate–see what changed their mind. Look at people who support Trump–ask what made them support him originally and what their biggest reasons are now. Once you’ve developed hypotheses, run more polls where you present an argument that you think will be effective. See if Trump supporters change their mind in response to the argument or not. Don’t be afraid of using unusual arguments–e.g. citing an instance where Hillary Clinton complained about political correctness is probably a lot more persuasive to the average Trump supporter than calling them a “deplorable”.

      Look at Trump’s polling history. Find the drops. Figure out what news events plausibly caused those drops. Try to create more events like those or at least keep reminding people of the past events. Make a reference to those past events part of a standard counterargument to a standard argument offered by Trump supporters. Repeat the standard counterargument everywhere you see the argument online (use Google Alerts/competing tools to find new instances) to turn it in to a forced meme.

      Post to /r/The_Donald pretending you’re a Trump supporter. Try to get a self post of yours to hit the homepage. When the mods are sleeping, edit in the effective propaganda you discovered using advice in the above two paragraphs.

      Think carefully before attacking people, there’s some evidence that it just makes them dig their heels in harder: http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right

      • Snodgrass says:

        Why is that a more useful thing to do than to give the amount it would otherwise have cost to the Hillary campaign directly? I would presume that, in a place as well-endowed with competent and motivated political logisticians as the United States, they’re the best people to know where marginal money needs allocating.

        SSC is one of the places where people are very happy with the conclusion ‘if you want to donate money to the betterance of humanity, give it to the Gates Foundation’; I’m not sure why you don’t get the same conclusion for the Hillary campaign.

  16. Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

    Ice-core data firmly establish a temperature/insolation correlation of ~3.9 ºC/(W/m^2); thermodynamics and radiation transport theory firmly establish a CO2-induced equivalent insolation of 4 (W/m^2)/(CO2 doubling); a conservative no-modeling Bayesian analysis therefore forecasts 17.6ºC of temperature rise per CO2 doubling.

    Which is a temperature rise great enough to render vast areas of our planet uninhabitable by humans. Yikes.

    So why aren’t model-skeptic libertarians and rationalists — not to mention every Presidential candidate — all over this problem?

    Why are we relying entirely upon fallible climate-models to assure us anthropogenic chimate change is not already globally catastrophic?

    The world wonders!

    • AnonBosch says:

      Pretty sure you’re double-counting on that interpretation of the ice-core data. AFAIK the current interpretation of the ice cores is that CO2 was the mechanism by which temperature and insolation correlated (since the ice cores show orbital forcing and CO2 acting as a feedback, not as a direct forcing). We also had 2x pre-industrial CO2 levels during the Paleogene and the GMST was about 4ºC warmer, not 16ºC.

    • James Picone says:

      For people who are confused: JohnSidles is asking a rhetorical question and then links to a Realclimate post that explains that trying to get climate sensitivity directly from ice-core CO2 changes and temperature tends to overestimate climate sensitivity, which answers his rhetorical question as “Because that calculation is wrong”.

      At least, I think that’s what he’s doing.

      (It’s an interesting blog post, incidentally, aimed at criticising a recent study that proposed a much higher sensitivity than the consensus estimate)

      EDIT: Another Realclimate post on the same topic.

      • AnonBosch says:

        I am actually gratified that my tossed-off thumbnail explanation was basically accurate (I didn’t read the RC post the first time)

        Maximizing exaggerations of AGW tend to grate on me more than minimizing exaggerations, for tribal reasons, which is why I don’t much care for Wadhams, etc.

      • hlynkacg says:

        I agree, but his follow on comment seems to be arguing the exact opposite conclusion. That’s where the confusion comes in.

      • Unfailingly Inamorate Killogie says:

        James Picone, your clear summary is entirely consonant with

        UIK’s earlier summary conclusion, namely “the utter irrationality of rejecting climate-modeling”

        These ideas are extended by Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, and Elisabeth Lloyd in their recent survey article “The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism” (2016)

        People who reject the fact that the Earth’s climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions (or any other body of well-established scientific knowledge) oppose whatever inconvenient finding they are confronting in piece-meal fashion, rather than systematically, and without considering the implications of this rejection to the rest of the relevant scientific theory and findings. … Coherence between these mutually contradictory opinions can only be achieved at a highly abstract level, namely that “something must be wrong” with the scientific evidence in order to justify a political position against climate change mitigation. … This high-level coherence accompanied by contradictory subordinate propositions is a known attribute of conspiracist ideation, and conspiracism may be implicated when people reject well-established scientific propositions.

        To be fair, the counter-worldview has to be acknowledged that (((Pope Francis, the SJWs, and the scientific establishment))) are a four-fold consilient cabal at the beating heart of a covert global-scale mind-control and social-control conspiracy, isn’t this incredibly obvious Mandrake?

        These incompatible cognitive modalities are why the above-mentioned broad-band cognitive-centric forums like SSC, OTF, and SA are destined to remain pretty lively in coming years, isn’t that right?

  17. TomFL says:

    Gallup: Americans’ Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx

    “14% of Republicans express trust, down from 32% last year”

    Probably the most not unexpected revelation this year. This 18% drop is by far the largest change in one year for the last 20 years. Possibly it wasn’t taken well when the media hive mind decided it was obligated and their honor bound duty to stop people from voting for Trump. It’s merely a coincidence Trump was a Republican as they would be just as likely take up that task for an offending Democrat if the existence of one wasn’t entirely theoretical.

    Washington Post responds: We aren’t “the media”, ha ha.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/dear-readers-please-stop-calling-us-the-media-there-is-no-such-thing/2016/09/23/37972a32-7932-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

    • suntzuanime says:

      Dear readers: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

      • Kind of Anonymous says:

        Readers don’t have to be your audience. Readers are over.

        Also, this whole thing was undermined by WP’s habit of putting links to other stories in the text, in case I got bored:

        There is no media in the sense of a conspiracy to tilt perception.

        [I stood up for the national anthem by sitting down for it]

    • Matt M says:

      One thing from this that’s noteworthy is that the media is one of the very few things that has a lower net approval rating than Trump.

      So every time Trump is able to frame the narrative not as “Trump vs X” (even if X is Hillary) but as “Trump vs Media” that’s a winner for him.

      I think this goes a LONG way in explaining his success. His primary antagonist is one of the small handful of things in America even more hated than he is.

      • Matt M says:

        Hate to reply to myself, but just want to add as an addendum to the above that under this reasoning, I would suggest that Hillary would benefit from actually talking about herself and her record more, and talking about Trump and running negative ads against him less.

        If people see the election as Trump vs Hillary, she will win (because hated though she is, he is hated more).

        If people see the election as Trump vs the political and media class, he will win (because hated though he is, they are hated more).

        An attack ad that is nothing but 30 seconds of vilifying Trump plays into his hand in this regard. Getting the moderators of debates to fact-check him on the fly does as well. Even though she’s disliked, she needs to talk about herself and draw attention to her name and remind everyone that SHE is Trump’s opponent, not the Washington Post.

        • Orphan Wilde says:

          I’m bemused watching people jump from explanation to explanation of Trump’s continuing success.

        • ThirteenthLetter says:

          It’s been a little dismaying seeing everyone decide they need to meet Trump on the battlefield of insults, distortion, off-the-cuff nonsense, and dank memes. Those are his strengths. You don’t attack an opponent at his strongest point.

      • The Most Conservative says:

        +1 Trump is basically the anti-media candidate.

    • AnonBosch says:

      I’ve grown increasingly pessimistic about the viability of democracy in an epistemically closed world where everyone surrounds themselves with agreement bubbles and there are no generally trusted information sources.

      • Corey says:

        Yeah, this ties in with something onyomi said upthread somewhere: there really are no “objective facts” in politically-relevant areas, it’s spin all the way down, basically.

        Not that I have any ideas how to improve it. Trying to bridge the bubbles, or even just expose oneself to different ones, usually just results in heartache.

      • Urstoff says:

        The world has always been like that, hasn’t it?

        • AnonBosch says:

          I do not think it was as easy in the past to avoid opposing viewpoints to the extent it is now, no.

          • To the extent that views were segregated by geography or social class, I think it was easier.

            The one clear difference is that you can have very small bubbles online, since they are not geographical.

          • Corey says:

            There’s also more variety in online bubbles, probably for the same reason (analogy: AFAIK no terrestrial radio market is big enough to support a reggae station, but nationwide satellite radio is).

          • The Most Conservative says:

            It’s not that you avoid the other side. It’s that your teammates selectively expose you to their arguments that are most easily refuted or most thoroughly enrage you.

      • TomFL says:

        The 20 year trend does seem to match my opinion of the media as well. I was fully supportive 30 years ago and things started to go south about 15 years ago and dived in 2008 and hit rock bottom this year. My own view is they stopped reporting facts and started going way too hard on convincing us what to think instead of giving us information to make that decision ourselves. This only applies to certain topics, mostly the culture wars. They have been rationalizing taking sides as avoiding false equivalence. I much prefer false equivalence to them deciding for me.

        • Orphan Wilde says:

          They used to control what you thought by controlling what information, what facts, they gave you. They’re less able to do that every year.

          • DrBeat says:

            Now they control what facts you are willing to notice. A fact that someone does not want to notice doesn’t need to be kept away from them, it can be shoved in their face and nothing will happen.

    • Patrick Merchant says:

      Washington Post responds: We aren’t “the media”, ha ha.

      PLEASE DO NOT CALL ME AN ELDRITCH ABOMINATION, THERE IS NO SUCH THING. ALSO PLEASE DISREGARD MY MANY TENTACLES AND PERPETUALLY SCREAMING MOUTHS

    • Garrett says:

      I went to read that article. The top half of the “page” was a “I’m with her” Hillary add. The irony.

  18. Brad (The Other One) says:

    Can any serious theologians please explain Romans 1:18-20, at least as it related to proof for God? In what way may we see “his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature,” … “in the things that have been made.”? Further, is the witness of such things in anyways sufficient to act as a defeater for competing hypotheses which would attempt to disprove a god hypothesis?

    Also, how is that supposed to interact with verses like this, this and this? These verses, combined with the Romans verses, makes it sound a whole lot like there is abundant evidence… that is nevertheless, totally inaccessible to most people and that the whole exercise in the Christianity is less about apprehending data and more about coming to terms with our inability to apprehend data.

    • dndnrsn says:

      Reposting from OT58.75L

      I can’t really answer your question because I’m not a serious theologian – but I do have the secular scholarship side covered. Christian theology traditionally holds, based on stuff like this, that knowledge of God was available in some form short of revelation to everyone.

      However, at the time it was written, atheism in the modern sense seems to have been pretty unheard of: an early Christian theologian would not be trying to convince people of the existence of a higher power – they would, in the historical context, be seeking to convince people that the higher power was one God instead of whatever the local pagan tradition was.

    • bluto says:

      In Romans 1:17 Paul lays down a statement “The righteous will live by faith.” Following this statement he spends Romans 1:18 through Romans 2:16 making the case that Gentiles need faith. After that, Paul switches to make the case that Jewish law isn’t enough either (Romans 2:17-3:31).

      Those verses serve as the case against agnosticism. If God created the world everyone can see even if God’s divinity and power are invisible to mortal eyes, mortals should be able to clearly see their effects and their exploration and understanding of the effects should clearly point them toward the creator. In glib modern terms, “there’s no section on the table for “no bet” in Pascal’s wager”.

      For context, Paul continues with his case against all Gentile religions in Romans 1:21-23 and the result of said religions on their followers Romans 1:24-31, then finishing his case in 2:16.

      It interacts with the other three verses, in that they either refer to the inability to see the divine nature of God, or use sight as a metaphor for understanding. In other word’s Paul is making the case that no one can credibly claim, “I had no idea there could be a God”, while those three verses are about the process people have arrived at their unbelief.

    • Two McMillion says:

      The answer is to notice very carefully what those verses actually teach. Romans 1:20 is often taken to mean “See, unbelievers secretly know God exists and are lying about thinking otherwise.” That isn’t quite what the verses say. Verse 18 says “that which can be known about God is plain to them”, implying there are things about God that nature cannot teach. And this fact is very important! If nature could teach us everything about God, we wouldn’t need the Bible.

      So what can nature teach us, if it isn’t everything? Verse 20 lists two things: eternal power, and what the translation you’ve linked calls deity but which is probably better put by the ESV’s “divine nature”. Nature does not proclaim the existence of a Triune God who redeems his people, but according to these verses it reveals an eternal power and divine nature. Does the evidence indicate that humans have an innate knowledge of these things?

      I think it does. Eternal power seems to carry the idea of a purposive force in the universe, while divine nature carries the idea of an existence beyond the merely physical. And somehow or other humans always seem to have ideas about both of those things, even many professed atheists. Eliazar is not lying when he talks about how incredibly difficult it is to strike the notion that certain terrible things can’t happen from your head. Though we can change it with an effort, the fact is that the default state for humans appears to be thinking in terms of purposive forces and things beyond the physical. What these verses say is that while a person could deliberately choose not to believe in those things (and it does have to be a deliberate choice), it would be stupid of them to do so.

      I must add here that the degree to which humans think in these terms, including those who have shaken off a great many commonly recognized forms of them, should not be easily dismissed. In a sense, any sort of moral outrage is an invocation of both of these things. Certainly any moral outrage more substantive than, “I wish I was stronger so I could stop those people” is. Our enjoyment of stories and narratives appears to be tied to this as well- as has been pointed out many times, in stories we expect the moral qualities of the characters to determine their eventual fate, and we feel cheated if that does not happen. That feeling of being cheated is also a form of having knowledge of eternal power and divine nature.

      Verses 21 and onward in Romans 1 discuss a third thing that all humans know innately- moral standards. And they help provide the answer to your other question as well. God is the source of all right thinking, both moral and logical thinking. Since in God right logic and right morals are one, the abandonment of right morals almost always leads to the loss of right thinking. This, in a very real sense, is why there are so many “stupid criminal” stories. But the problem is that people enjoy doing wrong, usually more than they enjoy being right. Remember what Scott said in the consequentialism FAQ- most moral acts are not attempts to do good; they are attempts to not feel guilty. To avoid the feeling of guilt, people explain away, ignore, or pacify their moral senses with moral bargaining. But of course you cannot lie to yourself without consequence. Every lie told needs other lies to cover it up. So a cascade effect occurs- a person’s intellect growing worse and worse as the volume of required lies to cover their own guilt expands.

      For most people, this never becomes as bad as it possibly could, because God in his mercy creates inconsistencies in a person’s thinking. Any inconsistency in person’s thinking that prevents them from acting out a horrible aspect of their philosophy is a gift from God to that person. But if a person stubbornly insists upon having their way, God may remove this mercy; Romans 1 calls this “giving them over”. Alternatively, the Devil may work to make their state worse- for example, by taking hold of a strain of anger in a person and making it stronger and less controlled. Remember the parable of the sower. The Devil takes the word away, but only because the hard ground keeps the seed from landing. The Devil never makes anyone evil; he takes the evil already in them and makes it worse. That’s what the last three verses you linked are referring to.

    • Deiseach says:

      I am interested in is, if we presume Christianity is true, how it is supposed to work, and the internal logic thereof.

      Sounds like what you may be asking is this:

      Question 2. The existence of God

      Is the proposition “God exists” self-evident?
      Is it demonstrable?
      Does God exist?

      Article 3. Whether God exists?

      Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

      Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.

      Answer here (to start off with, good luck with the wodges of text!)

      • Brad (The Other One) says:

        Thank you for this, too… although I don’t know how far I’ll get through the lots and lots of text!

  19. ChetC3 says:

    Scott Adams became a celebrity for his work in the entertainment industry, so his political writing represents a dire threat to America’s cultural unity and I hope we can all agree that we must deplore it, or, at the very least, never speak of it again. Who’s with me?

    • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

      Depends, can I still read Dilbert?

    • Rebel with an Uncaused Cause says:

      I’m not sure I follow the “he was entertaining but now he’s political -> threat to cultural unity” jump. I’ll agree that his political writing is largely low-quality, though, mostly because he’s not at all impartial and his analysis is hindered by his agenda. That doesn’t seem to be uncommon in political media, although Adams is remarkable in being a pro-Trump pundit.

    • Orphan Wilde says:

      The Left has spent the last twenty years systemically attacking the culture of the Right. It’s not cultural unity under threat – there was never any cultural unity – it’s the illusion of superiority and inherent victory.

      The shattering of the sense of unity is in fact the abused party fighting back.

      • HircumSaeculorum says:

        >culture of the Right

        Ah yes, the “abused party” that, throughout the past half-century, has championed segregation, opposed equal rights for women, led the charge on foreign-policy debacles from Bangladesh to Chile to Iraq, tried consistently to erode secularism, hated gays with a burning passion, and fought any attempt to deal with global warming tooth and nail.

        >fighting back

        Sure, through racist memes and beating up immigrants. Very brave.

        • Anonymous says:

          Troll harder. You’re not registering.

          • HircumSaeculorum says:

            What’s your disagreement with what I said? As far as I can tell, it was all factually correct. Do you assume that SSC readers all agree with your right-wing ideas, just because they don’t generally have the energy to challenge them?

          • Anonymous says:

            I expressed zero right-wing ideas. The troll tilts at the windmill. More news at 11.

          • The Most Conservative says:

            Do you assume that SSC readers all agree with your right-wing ideas, just because they don’t generally have the energy to challenge them?

            Is there a left wing site out there that has discussion as high quality as SSC does?

          • ADifferentAnonymous says:

            @Hircum
            I’m a liberal SSC reader, and while I wouldn’t wholly endorse Orphan Wilde’s comment, I think there are worthwhile ideas in it that you haven’t refuted. Specifically, being a harmful and even abusive ideology doesn’t mean the right isn’t an abused culture.

            @TMC
            Is there a right wing site out there that has discussion as high quality as SSC does?

      • HeelBearCub says:

        OK, read the right way, this is hilarious. Read the other way it’s depressing.

        Conservatives and liberals have been attacking each others “cultures” since the dawn of time, or thereabouts. In other news old man yells “get off my lawn”.

        • TheAncientGeek says:

          Yeah, i’m not seeing an asymmetry. Both dogs try to eat the other, surely.

        • Orphan Wilde says:

          They fight, yes.

          The conservatives, however, have been fighting a defensive battle for the past twenty years.

          This is starting to change. The difference will become apparent soon enough.

      • ChetC3 says:

        The Left has spent the last twenty years systemically attacking the culture of the Right. It’s not cultural unity under threat – there was never any cultural unity – it’s the illusion of superiority and inherent victory.

        I got the idea of entertainers voicing political opinions being a threat to our “cultural unity” from one of onyomi’s posts in the last open thread, take it up with him if you’ve got a problem with it.

    • Simon says:

      Scott Adams has always simultaneously done things his own way, and been shameless about his goal of achieving recognition and success.

      I think his current blog is fucking brilliant and not necessarily because it’s right.

      His political punditry is unlike any other pundit, but appears to me to have the same level of scientific validity, which is not much. Still, based on his evidence he provides it’s not as though he’s “clearly wrong” and some left/right policy wonks blog is “clearly right.” Providing models of the world that are as self-consistent as others, but come to totally different conclusions, is a great way to illustrate the incredible noise/variance in political analysis.

      His focus on persuasion is fascinating. I’m sure he’s not the first person to note this, but it does appear true that a leader who persuades and shapes our preferences is more effective than one who simply builds policies that match 50%+e of existing preferences. If you can shape preferences you can essentially do anything, for better or worse. And some people have the ability to shape other peoples preferences through extraordinary charisma. Clinton obviously doesn’t. Trump obviously does. It’s an interesting dynamic to explore.

      • “If you can shape preferences you can essentially do anything, for better or worse. ”

        I’m not sure to what extent this is primarily done by politicians. Consider Ayn Rand or George Bernard Shaw.

        The related point I sometimes make is that our political system has a fine control mechanism and a coarse control mechanism. The fine control mechanism is special interest lobbying. The coarse control mechanism is majority vote by ignorant voters acting on free information–what everyone knows, whether or not it’s true.

        One way of changing the world is by changing the mix of free information out there.

  20. Sandy says:

    Polls suggest Gary Johnson is taking more voters from Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. Anyone else surprised by this? I would have thought Johnson’s primary audience would be right-leaning voters averse to Trump.

    • hlynkacg says:

      Yes, I’m surprised. I would have though the same thing.

    • Matt M says:

      Well the standard (dumb) libertarian cliche is socially liberal, economically conservative. But over the last several years (and I would suggest, during this cycle as well) GJ has really emphasized the socially liberal part over the economically conservative part. Double that with the fact that it’s social conservatives who are generally much more anti-Trump than economic conservatives.

      There’s really no logical reason for disaffected red tribe voters to support Johnson, because on the things that turned the red tribe off to Trump, it just so happens that Johnson is even worse on…

      Edit: The Aleppo thing is sort of a “non-partisan gaffe” but the other biggest Johnson related stories have been things like his referring to religious liberty as a “black hole” and calling Hillary a “wonderful public servant”.

      Most of the attacks on GJ coming from the left (like Krugman’s column last week) don’t even actually attack GJ personally but rely on attacking the inherent ideas of libertarianism in general (or in Krugman’s case, the official LP party platform). As far as I’m aware, there has yet to be any big sort of controversy regarding Gary Johnson that would be seen as something that would help him with red tribe voters at the cost of alienating blue tribe ones…

      • AnonBosch says:

        Well, after briefly stepping to the precipice of sensibility by endorsing a Pigouvian approach to CO2 emissions in a few editorial board interviews, he beat a hasty retreat and is now answering questions on global warming with a dorm-room lecture on stellar evolution (the Sun’s gonna swallow the Earth eventually anyway maaaaaaaaan) and planetary colonization.

        Which, those things are cool too, but answering global warming questions with them makes him look kind of foolish, especially to the blue tribe.

        • Matt M says:

          Fair enough. But I would offer his views on climate as even on net, given that I’m pretty sure the red tribe simply saw him support a carbon tax and isn’t really forgiving him when he quickly reverses course and says “actually I meant it was just a carbon FEE and it would be like, voluntary or whatever”

          In this case all he managed to do is alienate both sides at once – a real political feat.

      • Immanentizing Eschatons says:

        Hes right about the black hole thing. “Religious freedom” of the good kind is just a standard extension of freedom of speech/expression stuff, having it as a separate category only serves to give politically influential religions special privileges or even permission to violate the rights of others (generally their children).

        • Matt M says:

          I fully agree that he’s right.

          But saying that is very likely to enrage the right and appeal to the left, which explains why he is attracting more Hillary supporters than was expected.

      • Deiseach says:

        But if we allow for discrimination — if we pass a law that allows for discrimination on the basis of religion — literally, we’re gonna open up a can of worms when it come stop discrimination of all forms, starting with Muslims … who knows.

        The problem is I don’t think you can cut out a little chunk there. I think what you’re going to end up doing is open up a plethora of discrimination that you never dreamed could even exist. And it’ll start with Muslims.

        That religious liberty question was gloriously incoherent. Was he trying to say that, if religious liberty exceptions are allowed, Muslims will be discriminated against or they will be doing the discriminating? Because I’m blessed if I can tell what he means. Would President Johnson institute a burqa ban or not? is now the question I’d love somebody to ask him, just to see the smoke coming out of the top of his head.

        And it’s kind of like the death penalty. Do I favor the death penalty? Theoretically I do, but when you realize that there’s a 4 percent error rate, you end up putting guilty people to death.

        Also the death penalty question – er, yes, Gary, it’s the guilty people you want to execute, if you’re going to execute them.

        And this is the interview that has been “edited for clarity, and reorganized thematically”! Honestly, remember what I said about a chain of little slips? He keeps making them and while individually they’re not bad in themselves, drip by drip wears away the stone and he sounds like a weird geek obsessed with certain policies but out of touch with real world concerns.

      • JayT says:

        I think you are mistaken that economic Republicans are more pro-Trump than social ones. My impression is that the free-trade Republicans are the most vocal anti-Trump Republicans.

        • sweeneyrod says:

          My impression is that there are two anti-Trump blocs: the libertarian Republicans and the ones who are socially conservative in their religious beliefs. He gets support from the ones who are socially conservative in their cultural beliefs (on immigration etc.) but lukewarm on religious matters (e.g. abortion).

        • Matt M says:

          Just my experience, but I feel like economic freedom types (of which I am one) are much more pragmatic and are like “well he sucks on economics but whatever” while social conservatives are much more militant/strict in their beliefs and more likely to be deliberately ANTI-Trump. Could be wrong.

    • suntzuanime says:

      I feel like most people who support Johnson are not voting for his policies specifically but are rather voting for the third-party candidate with the greatest prominence. After the way the Democratic Party handled the primary, it’s not surprising that Democrats feel less loyalty to their party than Republicans.

      • Nope says:

        Johnson’s also running a more competent campaign than Stein, or … whoever the Constitution Party’s guy (guessing it’s a guy) is this time round.

        If I thought Jill Stein had any serious interest in doing anything besides “running for President” over and over on donors’ dimes, I’d offer her a rebranding package centered around green=cannabis legalization. Pot leaves as the path logo, etc. Young ears perk up when they hear that message.

        After the way the Democratic Party handled the primary, it’s not surprising that Democrats feel less loyalty to their party than Republicans.

        I don’t think that Clinton does worse among Dems than Trump does among Pubs. See for instance the favorability ratings on page 8 here: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/q8r0rkibs1/econTabReport.pdf
        That’s a breakout of primary voters, so of course there are Dem-leaners who dislike Clinton that aren’t counted there. But someone who didn’t vote in the Dem primary is unlikely to be swayed by … what’d you say – “the way the Democratic Party handled the primary.”

        • LHN says:

          Johnson’s also running a more competent campaign than Stein, or … whoever the Constitution Party’s guy (guessing it’s a guy) is this time round.

          Though it still feels as if Johnson’s getting less media attention than e.g., Nader did in 2000, despite polling at three times what Nader ever managed and having a resume as credible as a third-party candidate’s gets this side of Teddy Roosevelt.

          • Douglas Knight says:

            Nader’s polling peaked at about 6%. 3rd party candidates usually underperform the polls. It’s cheap talk.

          • LHN says:

            Peaked, but was mostly at 3-4% vs Johnson’s 9-12%.

            I don’t expect Johnson to get as many votes as he’s polled, but Nader was (at least to my fallible memory) much more heavily covered in the press with a numerically much weaker backing.

          • Douglas Knight says:

            Moving the goalposts.

          • LHN says:

            So replace “three times what Nader ever managed” with “three times Nader’s average” or “twice what Nader ever managed” as you prefer, for greater precision. It doesn’t really change the question.

          • Douglas Knight says:

            Not more precise, but more accurate (though still false). If you don’t care about precision, don’t make precise statements. If you make precise statements, you imply that they matter, so expect corrections. If you don’t know the difference between precision and accuracy…

    • Irishdude7 says:

      I’ve seen Bernie democrats move to Gary instead of Hillary when their primary concern is an aversion to foreign intervention.

    • Two McMillion says:

      My impression is that most Republicans I know who don’t like Trump don’t like Johnson either. I haven’t seen a consensus candidate among those people.

    • ThirteenthLetter says:

      The Libertarians in general and Johnson in particular come off as flaky. Republicans who are turned off by Trump’s flakiness are not going to be real excited by someone else who has the same flaws.

      In addition, Johnson almost seems to have gone out of his way to push away the “conservatarian” types (your Kevin Williamsons and Charles C. W. Cookes, that sort of person), who mostly get exercised about religious liberty, freedom of speech, and economic issues. They aren’t a huge chunk of the GOP, but they’re some of the most eager to look elsewhere with Trump the nominee, and could certainly have boosted the Libertarian Party’s numbers quite a bit.

    • Aegeus says:

      My interpretation is that the “Clinton voters” he’s stealing are NeverTrump Republicans. In a four-way poll, they’d vote Johnson, but in a two-way poll, they say they’ll vote for Clinton over Trump. So while he’s technically taking votes from Clinton, they aren’t coming from traditionally Democratic voters.

      Although other people here have pointed out some plausible reasons that he’d also steal Democratic voters.

    • neonwattagelimit says:

      I read an analysis* once which found that Johnson draws about evenly from Clinton and Trump** and that the perception he takes votes from Clinton is due to the inclusion of Stein in these polls. Basically, that polls are either Clinton-Trump or Clinton-Trump-Johnson-Stein and if you adjust for Stein, then Johnson doesn’t move the needle that much.

      *The analysis was on a website called “bleeding heart Libertarians,” which I’d imagine is favorable towards Johnson. Still, it was pretty thorough and the conclusion makes sense.

      **That’s still a lot of Johnson voters who would take Clinton over Trump. I’d many of these are NeverTrump Republicans who would vote for Clinton if they absolutely had to. Some of them might also be people who, Republican or Democrat or independent, really hate Clinton but find Trump uniquely horrifying.

  21. dndnrsn says:

    Article in Slate which discusses the possibility that the rise in Chicago’s murder rate currently is a side effect of going after big gangs early in the 90s.

    • Douglas Knight says:

      No comparison to other cities? Why are you bothering to read this?

      • dndnrsn says:

        I was looking for people’s opinions of it. That it doesn’t havea any sort of control is a clear issue.

        • Douglas Knight says:

          There are hundreds of idiotic theories of crime floating around. Why pick out this one to read? Because it was published last week? That should be a strike against it. My opinion: just ignore it.

          If you must read something about crime rates, try this from the Brennan Center. The analysis is hackish, but it asks better questions: large scope of time and of place; and many hypotheses. But all three are way too small. Its main value is to inoculate you against journalists.

          • dndnrsn says:

            Oh, not picking it for any particular reason, just happened across it. I’m not that familiar with how criminologists do statistics, etc. Thanks for pointing out it’s tripe.

            The bit that interested me was the notion that there’s a tendency to think of gang violence as instrumental – being predictable and rational based on turf, the price of drugs xyz, etc – when it is more likely just that young men (esp. of the kind who join gangs) tend to get into dumb confrontations, and it gets worse when you add guns.

            But I know I’d read that somewhere else before so I’m probably reading some of that in.

          • Douglas Knight says:

            Yes, there are a lot of plausible statements in the article, but it’s all so vague. The Brennan report also talks about gangs — over a longer time frame, though not as long as I’d like. I think gangs are more violent than in 1960 and I think that’s an important factor. But why is that? Such a long-term change is more likely to be explicable than a short-term change. On an intermediate time-frame, fashions in drugs, first cocaine, and then crack, drove gang violence. It doesn’t explain everything, but the question of this article is about the residual after these big changes went away.

  22. Zakharov says:

    Why is Peter Thiel endorsing Trump? I thought Thiel was a libertarian, and Trump’s in most ways on the opposite end of the Republican spectrum.

    • sweeneyrod says:

      My interpretation is that Thiel is a right-leaning contrarian (much like many commenters here) first and principled second. When libertarian gets too mainstream, he leans towards edgy frog meme.

    • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

      Power.

    • Anon. says:

      https://medium.com/soapbox-dc/peter-thiels-plan-to-become-ceo-of-america-715857ceaaa7#.hovpbf320

      Also, Peter “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible” Thiel is not your garden-variety libertarian.

      • The Nybbler says:

        Strikes me as rather death-eaterish.

        • Anon. says:

          IIRC Thiel is an investor in Yarvin’s Urbit.

          • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

            Urbit? That horrible scam?

            I thought Thiel knew code?

          • The Most Conservative says:

            Why do you think Urbit is a scam?

          • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

            A lot of it is obfuscated code nonsense written in some esoteric language. His code fails any reasonable open-source readability test…and people who try looking through his code give up because its terrible on purpose.

            He mentions how great it is that his system is mathematical and deterministic, I guess hoping to catch people who don’t realize all of computing is.

            He renames core concepts like a child putting names in a hat, crossing out definitions in a textbook and replacing the names with that.

            All of his security promises are junk and terrible.

            In some way his posts are like his politics posts. Just..10’s of thousands of words that don’t really go anywhere and try and obsfucate any real point, and hoping to bamboozle people somehow.

          • Mr Mind says:

            Driven by an insane curiosity and being a bit of a language geek myself, I’ve started crawling up from the bottom constituents of Urbit, meaning the virtual machine and the functional language it supports.

            I do have to say that there is a modicum of frustration in the white papers, frequently there is a lack of formal grammar and of a unifying explanatory project. Everything is scattered among many papers and poorly focused. To be honest, unfortunately this is also true of many programming language white papers, when there is one and it’s not just a kludge of historical accidents.
            This pretty much reflects the state of the art in language design, unfortunately there’s very little that is standardized.

            On the other hand I’m not (yet) competent enough to evaluate other Urbit components, although the idea of digital land is interesting, it doesn’t strike me as particularly useful.

      • Fahundo says:

        Also, Peter “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible” Thiel is not your garden-variety libertarian.

        Maybe he’s got a point, considering that libertarians, who are all about personal freedom, never win elections. Democracy and libertarianism do seem to be at odds, at any rate.

      • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

        The china model sounds logical enough.

      • Zakharov says:

        Thiel does not clarify the meaning of “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible” in his essay, but I think he was advocating anarcho-capitalism. He mentions seasteading as a way of achieving freedom, and does not mention any form of absolutism. It’s obvious that freedom and tyranny are not compatible.

      • baconbacon says:

        Sounds pretty garden variety to me. Typical libertarians include Constitutionalists that want a document to restrict the powers of government and allow freedoms.

    • JayT says:

      I think the biggest reason he’s endorsing Trump is because he’s one of the few people in the industry doing so, and if Trump wins he will be in good standing with the administration, and will most likely be able to nudge policy in a direction that he wants. If he backed Clinton, he would just be one more faceless name from Silicon Valley showing up on the donor lists.

      The downsides to his Trump support are low (if Trump loses, I doubt the majority will remember he backed Trump in a few years) and upside is fairly extreme.

      Also, by backing Trump he got to give a very pro-gay speech at the Republican Convention, so at the very least he has moved the Republican Party more towards pro-gay issues by some amount.

    • Soy Lecithin says:

      Thiel might be libertarian, but he has many idiosyncratic ideas beyond this. For example, here is an essay by him that suggests a technologist/futurist reworking of Christian cosmology:
      https://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/06/against-edenism.

      • Deiseach says:

        I’m probably more impressed than I should be that he had an essay in “First Things” 🙂

        I am definitely impressed that he picked out (if he did this himself and didn’t just glom onto something he looked up in Wikipedia) the symbolism in Scripture of the sea as the place of chaos, which does tie-in with the surrounding cultural milieu of Mesopotamian myths of Tiamat and Apsu, and how order and creation are brought out of chaos with the defeat of Tiamat by Marduk and her dismemberment to create the heavens and the earth.

  23. Long discussion of Luthien

    I clearly need to reread the Silmarillion. The tale of Beren and Luthien is much more complex and interesting than I remembered.

    The essay is written in Cracked style– something I used to like, but I’ve gotten tired of it. Also, LOTR is about how being metal is *not* the most important thing. I’m also tired of the habit of only praising a thing if it’s combined with insults to some other thing. I’m especially tired of misandry. It’s possible to praise Luthien without talking about Beren not being reliably up to snuff.

    This being said, the essay is somewhat redeemed because it mentions that Tolkien mostly writes about fights over jewelry. This is true of a lot of his major work. How could I not have noticed this?

    • Homo Iracundus says:

      If you’re tired of all those things, Tor blogs seem like a less than optimal destination for your light reading.

      • LHN says:

        One real problem with the culture war becoming endemic in SF fandom is that it’s getting harder to find writing and criticism about it that isn’t full of applause/boo lights for one side or the other of the culture war.

        I can’t speak for Nancy, but learning to live with some level of it in writers I otherwise like seems like the only solution short of ceasing to read about the field. (Though I admit I read Tor less often than I used to.)

      • I read it because a friend recommended it, and as noted, it wasn’t a complete waste of time.

        The funny thing is, the man who recommended it is also the person who said he’d given up on James Tiptree because she had a theme of all men being rapists. (To be fair, in “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?” and “The Screwfly Solution”, the explicit message was that men are close enough to being rapists that it just takes a slight biological intervention to push them over the edge.) I may ask him if he’s become less sensitve to misandry.

        Correction about the essay: The stuff about Huan, the best dog ever, isnt’ especially blighted by insults to inferior dogs or cats. It’s just praise of Huan.

    • Deiseach says:

      That essay isn’t too bad by its own lights (though I wish people would row back a bit on “badassery” meaning “action hero/ine”) and it’s quite accurate.

      Finrod Felagund is the nicest Elf in Middle-earth 🙂

      But yes, Luthien is the powerful one in the story (which is not to say Beren is weak or not up to snuff, he survived the ruin of Dorthonion and was quite probably the last surviving speaker of Taliska, at least in the recensions where the Haladrin have their own language and the Hadorians speak the forerunner of Adûnaic – so his entire culture pretty much died out with him, which is sad to think about).

      Even in the early versions where Beren is an Elf and instead of werewolves we have Tevildo, Prince of Cats, and poor Beren is made to work as the scullion for the cats’ cook*, Luthien (or Tinuviel as she is) is quite brave and daring:

      Then partly in fear, and part in hope that her clear voice might carry even to Beren, Tinuviel began suddenly to speak very loud and to tell her tale so that the chambers rang; but “Hush, dear maiden,” said Tevildo, “if the matter were secret without it is not one for bawling within.” Then said Tinuviel: “Speak not thus to me, O cat, mighty Lord of Cats though thou be, for am I not Tinuviel Princess of Fairies that have stepped out of my way to do thee a pleasure?” Now at those words, and she had shouted them even louder than before, a great crash was heard in the kitchens as of a number of vessels of metal and earthenware let suddenly fall but Tevildo snarled: “There trippeth that fool Beren the Elf. Melko rid me of such folk” — yet Tinuviel, guessing that Beren had heard and been smitten with astonishment, put aside her fears and repented her daring no longer.

      *

      “As for that cursed Elf, she lies whimpering in the ferns yonder, an my ears mistake not,” said Tevildo, “and Beren methinks is being soundly scratched by Miaule my cook in the kitchens of my castle for his clumsiness there an hour ago.”

  24. M.C. Escherichia says:

    I mentioned a week ago my experiments with Catholicism. Things took an odd turn today when I noticed that Revelation spells out the AI apocalypse.

    Revelation 13:18 tells us that the beast (strictly, the second beast) has a number, which is a person. How can a number be a person? If it’s an AI, of course. From the rest of the chapter we can gather that it’s an AI given total control of the economy. Possibly 666 (0x29a) shows up frequently in its compiled machine code, or something.

    “Let anyone with understanding calculate the number” means we should only let people with understanding (perhaps MIRI, mother of God) compile (calculate) such a thing. Otherwise UFAI.

    (Perhaps nobody has adequate understanding, and the meaning is analogous to “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. In other words, we’re told “let he who has understanding compile an AI”, meaning nobody should compile an AI.)

    So yeah. I am only half joking about this.

    • For a while, I was very weirded out that the number of the beast was a mark on people without which they couldn’t buy and sell. That was remarkably prescient, but I eventually decided it was a satire on Roman bureaucracy rather than brilliant early science fiction or (heaven forbid) clairvoyance.

      • God Damn John Jay says:

        Interestingly enough, there was a small religious film Judgement that portrayed the book of revelations as a sci-fi dystopia. A minor plot element was people getting imitations marks and I remember some controversy amongst them about whether getting one of those marks would disqualify you from Heaven.

    • Brad (The Other One) says:

      Revelation 13:18 tells us that the beast (strictly, the second beast) has a number, which is a person.

      Something to consider:

    • Immanentizing Eschatons says:

      Wait, why is an AI any more “a number that is a person” than a human?

      But anyways (as Unsong demonstrates) it’s not overly difficult to make the Bible (or any text really) predict whatever you want it to. This is real life where things really can be coincidences.

    • Deiseach says:

      I mentioned a week ago my experiments with Catholicism. Things took an odd turn today when I noticed that Revelation spells out the AI apocalypse.

      Well, that was fast, it generally takes longer for the, er, extreme exegetical viewpoint to set in, and generally it takes a Marian twist 🙂

      • M.C. Escherichia says:

        You can take the diaspora out of Less Wrong but you can’t take Less Wrong out of the diaspora.

    • FacelessCraven says:

      M.C. Escherichia – “Revelation 13:18 tells us that the beast (strictly, the second beast) has a number, which is a person. How can a number be a person? ”

      Alternate explanation, from memory:

      The author’s contemporaries had a practice of using the sum of numerical values in the letters of a name to serve as a veiled reference to the person. If I recall correctly, pompeii still has readable graffiti in the general form of “Gaius loves she whose number is 238”, etc. It was a common practice that the original readers would be familiar with. The roman emperors put their faces and names on Roman coinage, and the inscription on IIRC Nero’s coins adds up to 666. Coins were commonly worn as a headdress by contemporary women, and having coins in the hand is obviously part of payment. No one can buy or sell without “the mark of the beast” because the mark is roman money.

      • dndnrsn says:

        I can confirm that this is at least roughly correct. Pagan numerology was definitely a thing, and Judaism had its own numerological tradition by that time.

      • M.C. Escherichia says:

        But these liberal interpretations are no fun. Anyway, what the author thought he was writing about, and what the Spirit was writing about through him, are 2 different things…

        (But yes you shouldn’t take me too seriously right now.)

        • FacelessCraven says:

          Conservative Christian here, actually. Compare Daniel 12:4 and Revelations 22:10. There’s a strong argument that the text is drawing a comparison between the near-future persecution under Nero and Domition and the far-future overthrow of Satan.

          But yeah, Revelation is a fun book. I’m actually gearing up for an in-depth study of it at church.

      • Mr Mind says:

        Also factor in that the most probable Number of the Beast is 616, not 666.

        • The original Mr. X says:

          Apparently in Aramaic the numerological value of Nero’s name is 616, whereas it’s 666 in Greek. So, maybe John originally had 616, because he was after all a Jew and probably spoke Aramaic as his first language, and then somebody changed it to 666 to make sense to the Greeks.

          • dndnrsn says:

            I think the scholarly consensus is that Revelation, along with most of the NT, was written in Greek. Regardless of what language a person spoke day-to-day, if they were literate, it might very well be in Koine Greek, if they were in the Eastern Empire. Similar situation with Latin in medieval Europe.

          • Two McMillion says:

            Yes, it’s far more likely that the 616 is the later addition.

          • Tyrant Overlord Killidia says:

            Even though the NT was written in Greek, there are linguistic signs that a writer probably wasn’t a native speaker of Greek.

            For example, Mark uses the word “Centurion” to describe, well, centurions. However, if he was a native speaking Greek, he would likely have used the literal definition of “centurion” but written in Greek. Which is ἑκατοντάρχης (leader of 100), the word that Matthew/Luke use.

            IIRC the writer of the Revelation isn’t the same writer as the epistles or gospel because of the poor quality of Greek, as though Greek wasn’t his first language.

          • dndnrsn says:

            Revelation was almost certainly not written by the same person (or, community, see below) as the gospel.

            Scholars argue about whether the same person wrote the gospel of John and the Johannine epistles. I think the current default position is that they came out of the same community but were probably not written by one person.

            The Aramaic-Greek comparisons are often made when dealing with Jesus’ parables – on the basis that Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, some scholars try to reverse-engineer Aramaic versions of the parables, on the basis that if something works in Aramaic it’s more likely to be original. But some scholars go really far down the rabbit hole of hypothetical reconstructions.

  25. Emily says:

    Is “all publicity is good publicity” true when it comes to protests bringing an issue to peoples’ attention? Alternatively, if you’re, say, disrupting peoples’ commute by lying in the street, is the hostility you’re creating bad for your cause? I don’t have a great model of the effect of protests in general. It seems like if you can get your opponents to overreact, this could be good for persuading the unaffiliated or making your allies more committed. But what if they don’t overreact? Or no one’s unaffiliated?

    • gbdub says:

      We had an extensive, and I thought productive, discussion on this topic a couple months back. It’s a good question.

    • Nicholas says:

      The general answer is that disruptive protests are justified in one of two models where:
      First Model
      A: Your people have a problem that either can’t be solved without the government doing something, or won’t be solved until the government does something.
      B: There is a body of people not including your people that the government at the appropriate scale cares about.
      C: These people are either ignorant of or indifferent to your problem.
      The idea is that you cannot bribe the group from B to change C, or C would not be true to begin with, and without ongoing pressure from B A will never happen. So you resort to the stick for want of carrots: Your protest is a punishment for allowing A to occur, both to the people in B, and to the government agents that B will soon be annoying.
      The chain of events is supposed to go:
      1. You inconvenience someone from B.
      2. You tell them the cause of the inconvenience is A.
      3. They tell the government to fix A, so that you will shut up and go away.
      Second Model
      Disruptive protests, protests of all kinds, are a hold over from pre-cable democratic processes, where a demonstration was an advertisement of your demographic muscle RE some upcoming election, and also a way to generate viral advertising for your issue by making it news and a big to-do. Changes in media and politics have made this impractical, but for structural reasons most popular movements cannot disseminate the knowledge that protests no longer work, and thus keep doing them anyway.

    • My model is generally that protests are a way of burning support to generate salience. You might have a cause that the majority would embrace if they cared but political ignorance and apathy are dangerous foes. By protesting you annoy some people and turn them to the other side but you also generate pressure for action which might be needed if anything is to get done.

  26. Fctho1e says:

    I believe people who worry about AI risk are boundless optimists.

    CRISPR and related technologies means making a deadly viral pathogen becomes easier than ever. Not having a pandemic is contigent on every honest research team not fucking up, ever, and on there being 0 deep ecologists or other nuts who would create and release a deadly pathogen because of whatever insane ideology or religion they espouse.

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/09/20/the-age-of-designer-plagues/

    • Wrong Species says:

      Pandemics are much more likely to happen but they are also far less likely to kill everyone.

      • Rebel with an Uncaused Cause says:

        I don’t know the numbers, but I imagine that the probability of a pandemic times the probability that that pandemic kills me and everyone I care about is larger than the probability of a lethal AI, in the short-term. Sure, it’s not strictly an “existential risk”, but it’s existential enough for me.

    • The Most Conservative says:

      What can be done about this?

      • Vaniver says:

        Lots! Three main categories:

        1) General reduction in disease vectors and overall hygiene. (Think using gene drive to eliminate mosquitoes, or sterilizing rats.)

        2) Increased detection and response systems. (Think the World Health Organization.)

        3) Intelligence efforts to detect and deter bad actors. (Think nuclear-style anti-proliferation effects, but focused on biotechnology relevant to the creation of superbugs, as well as already existing treaties about the use of bioweapons.)

      • Anonymous says:

        Nothing, but we can send convicts back in time later to get a sample of the designer plague so we can inoculate the few survivors and return to the surface.

    • Vaniver says:

      I believe people who worry about AI risk are boundless optimists.

      On the LessWrong survey, bioengineered pandemic routinely wins as the most likely cause of civilizational collapse.

      But pandemics are already worried about in a big way; the government is well aware that someone else could release a superbug for military or malicious purposes, and does what it can to protect against that eventuality.

      The point of you worrying about AI risk is not that AI risk is the largest cause of x-risk, but that you think the marginal returns to you worrying about AI risk is higher than the marginal returns of you worrying about pandemic risk.

      For example, suppose we knew that there was a 50% chance of a gamma ray burst sterilizing the entire solar system within the next two decades, and a 5% chance of an asteroid impact that would wipe out humans over the same timescale. The right play in that scenario is to focus all of our effects on asteroid detection and deflection, since that’s the risk we can do something about.

  27. Brad (The Other One) says:

    Edit: sorry, forgot this wasn’t an open thread.

  28. Corey says:

    A nice example of facepalm-worthy press dysfunction here, Politico’s #3 is labeled a Clinton lie, that repealing the estate tax would save Trump’s estate $4 billion.

    They call that a lie because it’s based on Trump’s self-declared net worth of $10 billion, which is probably inflated.

    In other words, Clinton “lied” because she took a Trump lie at face value and ran with it.

    Anyone still convinced the press isn’t unusually hostile to Clinton?

    • Fctho1e says:

      Anyone still convinced the press isn’t unusually hostile to Clinton?

      If it was unusually hostile, she’d not be running for president! They sent a guy to slammer for taking a picture of the inside of a submarine. Not sharing it, not tweeting it, not having it on an unsecured server in his fucking bathroom. Just having a picture on his own phone.

      In contrast to that, Clinton and her associates commited giant breaches of security, and no one is going to jail.

      http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-investigation-of-emailgate-was-a-sham/ (<-wasn't written by a journo, but it's a column by a former CI official)

      That and she probably has Parkinson's or some serious brain damage causing her to spazz out.

      If the press was 'unusually hostile', she'd not be a candidate. Instead they were all covering for her until the 9/11.

      • AnonBosch says:

        If it was unusually hostile, she’d not be running for president! They sent a guy to slammer for taking a picture of the inside of a submarine. Not sharing it, not tweeting it, not having it on an unsecured server in his fucking bathroom. Just having a picture on his own phone.

        In contrast to that, Clinton and her associates commited giant breaches of security, and no one is going to jail.

        You seem to be conflating the press and the FBI in this case.

        • Fctho1e says:

          No.

          If the press were hostile, there’d be a serious outcry against Clinton because of the emails and her giant conflict of interests in regards to Clinton foundation. There isn’t.

          • AnonBosch says:

            Define “serious outcry.” I’ve read numerous stories detailing the failures in her email security and the influence peddling of the Foundation, and not just in the conservative press.

    • gbdub says:

      It’s possible that they are more hostile to Clinton than they are to Obama, or a generic mainstream Democrat. But no way in hell are they more hostile to her than they are to Trump, and frankly I highly doubt they are more hostile to her than they are to generic mainstream Republicans.

      EDIT: It seems particularly disingenuous to use that article from Politico to say the press is unusually hostile to Clinton when they ran a basically identical article about Trump! That one includes as a falsehood e.g. Trump saying that Clinton would raise taxes by $1.3 trillion (a real estimate by a conservative tax think tank) instead of ~$400 billion (another estimate by a nonpartisan think tank), with no reason to indicate why the second estimate is better (except for its purportedly nonpartisan source).

    • If I recall correctly, Trump’s self-declared $10 billion net worth included intangible and non-taxable things like estimated value of his brand recognition. I don’t think anyone claimed he could sell off all of his stuff and have $10 billion at the end of it.

  29. Anon. says:

    After the election, are these threads going to be completely dead or will people simply switch to the next controversial political topic?

    • Lambert says:

      It will turn from ‘I like candidate X’ vs ‘I like candidate Y’ to ‘I like president X’ vs ‘I don’t like president X (and I like former candidate Y)’

    • Jordan D. says:

      If the past indicates future practice, you can look forward to discussions of political goings-on instead of political candidates, and in roughly the same proportion.

      I’m very much looking forward to the next round of Supreme Court cases to spark some debate.

    • Corey says:

      There will always be political controversy. Reality bubbles only grow, so we’ll always have plenty to argue about thanks to different underlying facts, while all claiming to be neutral truth-seekers.

    • These threads have been quite lively even without elections. There’s always religion, politics, science, cooking, nutrition, sf, and ai risks to argue about, and I’ve probably missed some topics.

      • I forgot to mention military history. If people get tired of WW2, there’s always the Civil War (American).

        I know I’m going to regret asking this, but what are the most interesting wars that don’t get as much discussion as they deserve?

        • Psmith says:

          War of the Triple Alliance is a common candidate.

          With an estimated 400,000 deaths, the war was the deadliest and bloodiest in Latin America’s history.[7] It particularly devastated Paraguay, which suffered catastrophic losses in population – almost 70% of its adult male population died, according to some counts – and was forced to cede territory to Argentina and Brazil. According to some estimates, Paraguay’s pre-war population of 525,000 was reduced to 221,000 of which only 28,000 were men.[8]

          I’m also partial to the First Anglo-Sikh War and Napier’s expedition to Abyssinia.

        • Corey says:

          Michigan and Ohio went to war over Toledo once. Don’t recall if Ohio got to keep the Toledo area because they won, or because they lost.

          • Gazeboist says:

            If you’re looking for “amusing” rather than “interesting”, I’m partial to the Aroostook War. It is of pretty limited consequence, though.

          • S_J says:

            Well…there was a little mob action, but the “Toledo War” never really lived up to its name. I don’t think there were any fatalities.

            The disputed land was a narrow stretch of the north edge of Toledo. The dispute arouse out of mapping problems and surveying-inaccuracies. The dispute might have threatened control the mouth of the Maumee river, which was (and probably still is) a big port for shipping Ohio-grown agricultural products to other destinations.

            Michigan got a large chunk of Wisconsin Territory as a consolation prize. (Hence that region known as the Upper Peninsula.)

            I think Ohio won in the short-term.

            Don’t know if it counts as a victory in the long term or not…but the State of Michigan became home to a copper-and-iron-mining boom in the U.P. a couple of decades later.

          • LHN says:

            Michigan also has Battle Creek. The “battle” (as I discovered when I looked into whether they had a museum the way Battle Ground, Indiana does) involved four people, and no deaths.

        • S_J says:

          A few years back, I learned a few things about the history of South Africa.

          Not the Boer War, but the Voortrekker movement. And their interactions with the Zulus…first a peace agreement, then an ambush on the emissaries, then a bloody battle in which the Voortrekkers soundly defeated the Zulu.

          Does this struggle even have a name? It predates the First Boer War, but I don’t think it has a common War-name among historians.

          • Leit says:

            The Great Trek. I’ve heard the opinion that “migration is war”. In that sense, you could probably consider the Trek to be the applicable name.

            The Boers’ attempt to get out under the thumb of the British caused a hell of a lot of trouble before they got their settlements sorted, and even then it was pointless – see the Vryheidsoorlog you mentioned and then eventually the Anglo-Boer War. Either way, the Zulus were far from the only natives with whom the Boers ended up in conflict. Then again, the Zulus also pretty much ended up fighting everyone and their pet dog at one point or another as well. Such is life in Africa.

            The Voortrekker monument – an ugly square chunk of rock that resembles nothing so much as a cartoon fortress – was eventually built as a memorial to Afrikaner exceptionalism, having survived basically fighting their way tooth and nail through all of South Africa.

        • keranih says:

          I know I’m going to regret asking this, but what are the most interesting wars that don’t get as much discussion as they deserve?

          I second the Triple Alliance, but my request would be for the military history of Afghanistan, and specifically those events related to the Mongols.

        • James Picone says:

          The Emu War.

        • jaimeastorga2000 says:

          I have a soft spot for the War of the Pacific, but that’s mostly because I grew up hearing about Peruvian war heroes like Miguel Grau and Francisco Bolognesi.

        • sourcreamus says:

          The Heavenly Kingdom War, more commonly known as the Taipang Rebellion. A chinese man gets real sick and goes into a coma. When he awakes he tells of a vision of going to heaven and God telling him he is Jesus’s brother. He then leads a rebellion that ends up in a civil war that comes very close to overthrowing the emperor. In the process more people are killed than in any war before WW2.
          There is a good book about it called God’s Other Son.

    • Rebel with an Uncaused Cause says:

      My impression is that this OT has been exceptionally political, relative to other recent ones. I wouldn’t take this one as representative.

  30. TMB says:

    From Scott Adams:
    http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/09/06/492779594/what-if-evolution-bred-reality-out-of-us

    I don’t really get this.

    Firstly, if perception of reality doesn’t aid fitness, then why have perception at all?
    Secondly, if he’s really just saying “the things that we perceive are not in themselves what we perceive them as being”, you need to make a metaphysical argument. If we accept that the underlying reality doesn’t match our perception, and further that “nor are their relations in themselves such as they appear to us”, surely we have just lost the right to talk with any certainty about what that underlying reality might be.
    You can’t talk about underlying fitness at all unless you’re prepared to use concepts and relations that we’re arguing don’t have any meaning in the sphere in which we are attempting to use them.

    Or is it a reductio ad absurdum?

    • Philosophisticat says:

      As far as I can tell, Hoffman is another example of someone from the sciences obliviously stumbling onto a philosophical topic that has already been discussed at length by people more competent than he is, and clumsily retreading old ground in full confidence that he’s saying something revolutionary. Philosophers like me find this really annoying.

      Anyway, more substantively, take a dog, which does not see in color. Certainly there are physical properties its perception does not distinguish – dark red and dark green objects will look the same to it. According to Hoffman’s reasoning, this means that its perception is inaccurate. But a black and white photo is not inaccurate just because it is in black and white – there’s a real similarity between dark green and dark red objects which is correctly represented by similar shading in a black and white photograph. A representation is inaccurate when it represents objects as having properties that they do not have, not when there are properties that objects have that they do not represent.

      In the extreme consequence of this, he seems to think that perception is inaccurate if its objects and predicates don’t correspond directly to the items of fundamental physics. But just because perception doesn’t carve reality at the joints most natural for a physicist doesn’t mean it doesn’t carve reality.

      Relatedly, the concepts according to which we break up the universe are shaped by our evolutionary and social interests. It is because of our needs that we care about the rough collection of particles that compose a “snake” and not the collection composed of every third carbon atom going from left to right across the united states, or those that compose the top half of bookcases. But that doesn’t mean that snakes aren’t real, or that when we perceive, or talk about snakes we are seeing or speaking inaccurately.

      His experiments, best I can tell from the description, concern organisms that break the universe up in one way versus organisms that break up the universe in some other way, and do not show that being accurate is evolutionarily disadvantageous.

      And examples like animals that misidentify mating partners are exceptions that prove the rule – while of course there are tradeoffs between accuracy and other values that matter for fitness, cases of misidentification are rare, and that is not a coincidence.

      (I won’t even begin to talk about the views about consciousness)

    • M.C. Escherichia says:

      I watched the TED talk. The achievements of science are too specific to be undermined by the generalised skepticism of the speaker; i.e. we couldn’t build lasers and 747’s and gravity wave detectors and hadron colliders and so on if our understanding of reality wasn’t pretty good.

    • fr00t says:

      His argument seems to hinge on the tautological (vacuous) definition of “fitness-tuned” contrasted with “reality-tuned”. This ignores the quite common-sense fact that, all other things being equal, more reality-tuned agents are correspondingly more fitness tuned.

      The fact that it is costly to generate a more finely-tuned reality model and therefore antagonistic with fitness at some point does not imply the two are orthogonal.

    • Deiseach says:

      Yes! Also politics, which tends to get left out 🙂

      • Gazeboist says:

        My understanding of the situation with Galileo is that it was less “he was oppressed” and more “he was an asshole”.

        • LHN says:

          Well, both. Being unnecessarily, publicly rude to a powerful person who had previously shown him favor is part of a pattern of behavior pointing towards the latter. But being put under house arrest for it is still oppression, even if the person being oppressed is a bit of a jerk.

      • caethan says:

        You really have to keep in mind the broader context too. At the beginning of the Galileo affair, there were some comparatively minor religious scuffles between German statelets. At the end of it, when he got pushed back hard, there was a massive Europe-wide religious war – the largest ever on the continent – with every great power entangled in it. Catholics and Italians started getting a little twitchy about laymen trying to interpret the Bible on their own – that sort of thing might bring the massive, decimating war down to them too, and maybe hurt the war effort in Germany.

  31. Gazeboist says:

    Historians especially:

    Suppose for whatever reason Hitler never orders the breaking of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Axis still loses WWII, but the USSR never enters*. How does the world change?

    * Is this reasonable? I recall hearing that it is, but not why.

    • ediguls says:

      I’m not a historian, but as far as I know Stalin had plans on his desk for invading Europe after the war had ended. He might have had a decent chance of success given that the victor of Axis and Allies would have emerged weakened quite a bit.

      • JayT says:

        Except that he wouldn’t have had the A-bomb. Beating Germany without the USSR’s help would most likely have meant the US used the bomb on Germany as well as Japan (or maybe instead of).

    • Slow Learner says:

      The tricky thing is not finding a WAllied path to victory without the USSR, the tricky thing is finding a path to victory that will not leave both Germany and Japan weakly holding territories that Stalin covets as they go down to defeat, giving the Vozhd an irresistible opportunity to rebuild Russia’s Near Abroad.

      Is this reasonable? I recall hearing that it is, but not why.

      Put it this way: defeating Japan without Soviet involvement is straightforward, Japan was on the verge of defeat when the Soviets got involved. We can accept that it might be delayed by (1) resources being diverted to the European theatre, and (2) the need for further starvation, bombing, or even invasion of the Home Islands to have the same effect on Japanese decisionmaking as the rapid defeat of the Kwantung Army by the Red Army.

      So, all we need to consider is the European theatre. First, defensively (from the perspective of the Western Allies); both the war at sea and the defence of friendly skies are largely solved problems. The German naval threat is handled; more easily, with no Soviet involvement, as the Murmansk convoys were the toughest to escort. The German air threat is handled; V2s might be rough, but existing defences are able to deal with both conventional bombers and V1s.
      Land threat – German involvement in North Africa was constrained not by resources being used elsewhere, but by logistical access to the theatre. They were unable to increase this logistical access significantly, so despite Germany not being preoccupied with the Eastern front, North Africa should go approximately as OTL. Possibly better for the Allies, depending on what happens in the Balkans/Greece.
      Italy is a tossup – it’s possible that the Germans can send more, and heavier forces down the boot to face off against Allied landings, but it’s also possible that with no Italian forces in Russia there are *no* German troops in Italy to start with. Sicily definitely goes Allied, again the logistics and balance of forces are very much in the Allies favour. My guess would be stable lines somewhere around the level of Rome; more Allied forces committed than German, but a basically static front. Allied air superiority and naval superiority, balanced by the fact that high quality German troops are on the defensive in rough terrain.

      It seems safe to assume that Franco remains neutral – his real concerns were food supplies and loss of colonial territory, both things the Allied fleets could deal with, not anything to do with the Soviet Union. So the options for invading Occupied Europe, once Italy bogs down, will come back down to the Pas-de-Calais or the Normandy beaches. Assuming more German garrison and reaction forces – because the Eastern Front is only covered against Stalin playing silly-buggers, not fighting desperately – distractions/expansions of effort like Operation Dragoon (invading southern France some weeks after D-Day in Normandy) are likely to be off the table.
      Normandy will be a tougher fight, taking higher casualties, but I don’t think the ultimate result will be any different, and once Allied forces are established on the continent it’s a long hard slog to the finish line.

      A quick note to justify my claims that allied air and naval superiority will be the same as OTL:
      1) the German system for training pilots and flight crew was inadequate both in scale and capability. Their transport pilots were also their multi-engine instructors, so every loss of a transport plane is also a loss of ability to train new transport/bomber pilots. Expert pilots never rotated out of the line, so they racked up incredible scores of enemy planes shot down, then burnt out or their luck ran out, without ever passing on their skills.
      2) German access to rare elements and high-quality steels was limited. Due to things like the Allies carefully bidding up the price of Spanish tungsten to a point Germany, with limited foreign exchange, couldn’t match (more limited if they’re paying the Russians for materiel rather than looting it!). As a result of these materials shortages, German engines had shorter service lives and lower power than Allied ones, and there’s limited ability to expand production.
      3) Linking to the above, limited access to high octane petrol. Even if Germany as a whole can get enough POL, they’ll struggle to refine the really good stuff, and that impacts on aircraft performance.
      4) The fact that the Western Allies faced the heart of the German air effort as it was…and ground it into dust.
      5) U-boats? What u-boats? Once the Allies have the combination of Liberty Ship production lines to replace losses, long-range patrol aircraft to keep the uboats submerged much of the time, and escort carriers to go with convoys, the u-boat threat has gone from being a huge problem to being a nuisance. They’re being sunk as fast as the Germans can make more, and uboats are a lot more expensive than merchant ships or air-dropped torpedoes.
      6) Kriegsmarine surface fleet – what surface fleet? Assuming Hitler decides in late 1940 that war with the Soviet Union is off the table, and lays down some more surface ships to fight the war he’s already in:
      Well, put it this way. Bismarck and Tirpitz were laid down in 1936, and only complete in 1940 and 1941 respectively. Battleships laid down in 1940 *might* be ready to fight by the time the Allies are ready to invade Europe, then again they might not. Alternatively, the Germans can continue work on their aircraft carriers…oh, whoops, they already broke one up on the slips to focus on u-boats. I guess they could finish Graf Zeppelin, so they might have one aircraft carrier; a poorly designed aircraft carrier at that, with few available escorts. Again, any new keels laid down in 1940 are unlikely to be in service in time to be of much use.

      To attempt an answer to your actual question, of how the world changes if the Western Allies defeat the Axis alone:
      I think the United Nations will remain, effectively, the Allied-club. The Soviet Union still existing – hell, being more powerful without having lost so many millions to the Great Patriotic War – means we’re likely to have a Cold War anyway, so it will be the UN vs the USSR.
      Where the Iron Curtain falls is an interesting question that will depend on too many aspects of how we get from A to B (if the Germans, not needing to clear their flank before fighting the Soviets, never go into Yugoslavia, never drag other Balkan states into an alliance, leave Italy flailing in Greece, even if Stalin does attack when the war ends, will he just attack in Poland or attack everywhere?)
      De-colonisation is still going to be a thing – I don’t think US policy towards colonial empires will be changed by the different war experience, and the imperial powers have still been embarrassed and shown up in the eyes of too many of their colonial subjects to hold on indefinitely. Details could be very different, however.
      For example, if no Barbarossa, then Singapore and Malaya would have had more aircraft, more equipment and possibly a better commander; so might never have fallen to the Japanese. Obviously this would affect immediate postwar decisionmaking in those areas, based on concerns like “how effective is a British security guarantee, and what price is it worth paying to have such a guarantee?”
      A lot of this is going to depend on exactly how the war maps out, of course.
      If the Soviets never attack Japan, Korea will be united under a pro-Western strongman much as South Korea was OTL. Does it develop similarly to OTL? I don’t know enough about Korea to be sure.
      China could get very ugly; the Chinese Communists will be weaker without the secure base of Russian-controlled Manchuria and Russian-donated equipment, but Chiang is still hella corrupt and widely disliked. I could see either a Civil War that drags on longer before the Communists win, or a Nationalist victory, depending on how everything shakes out.

      • Stefan Drinic says:

        This is not a bad comment, and I may not even disagree with most/all of it.. But how confident are you that the UK would have held out against the Germans for long enough that the US should get involved?

        Without Barbarossa, the Germans are able to pay much more attention to Britain, and I’m not entirely certain it would’ve held out in a world where it gets sustainably attacked for two more years. It is very hard to gauge this, since one would assume that the German production as it was would have shifted; they’d have to manufacture much more armaments for a proper fight over the sea and air, rather than overland, as they did against the Russians.

        Suppose, however, the UK’s mainland gets breached, and the Wehrmacht touches down on it. What, then, does the US even do? Where from do they launch their airplanes? Where do they begin naval invasions? It would become a technological and logistical nightmare for the US to get involved in the European theatre without the UK being safe and sound even still.

        The thing about Malaysia and Singapore somehow having better equipment without Barbarossa seems.. Curious. How does USSR being invaded draw equipment away from those areas? I’m genuinely confused here. Am I missing something painfully obvious?

        More nitpicky-ish, I don’t think anything at all could have saved the Nationalists in China. It appears to be the fate of middle-class lacking, agrarian empires to turn communist, and it’d take more than the USSR getting involved by the sidelines to avert that kind of force.

        • God Damn John Jay says:

          An amphibious assault on Britain is unlikely, Germany did not have much of a surface army, while the UK had a massive one. And even during the Battle of Britain when things looked the worst they had a stronger air force. You mention the war lasting two more years and that wearing down the British, but as time went on they were able to rebuild the weapons they lost at Dunkirk (massive amounts of equipment and vehicles). Finally, amphibious invasions are incredibly hard, Crete was able to inflict heavy losses against a larger force and the UK was willing to literally set their beaches ablaze with crude oil to turn back an invasion.

        • Slow Learner says:

          Re: the UK.

          Even in 1940, only months after the fall of France and evacuation of Dunkirk, the UK was functionally immune from invasion by any realistic German attempt; it’s been wargamed out repeatedly, including in the 70s by surviving officers from both sides.

          Germany was already effectively 100% focussed, in naval and air terms, on fighting the UK OTL. In naval terms, up until 1945; in air terms merely until Barbarossa kicked off.

          And remember that ships take time. Even if you ignore heavy units (“the Luftwaffe will deal with them”) and contest with the Royal Navy from light cruisers on down, you need to build say 20-25 cruisers and 50+ destroyers; train their crews; work them up into formed units…and then you’re maybe at parity with RN forces available to cut up invasion forces in summer of 1940. And it’s somewhere in 1942 or 1943, the RN has grown, so has the RAF, so have Army units available in the UK to defend the beaches.

          Basically if you want Germany to be making successful opposed landings in the UK in the 1940s, you need to start a long way back, not merely far enough back to cancel Barbarossa.

          Re: materiel in Malaya, there’s a direct link…in the mind of Winston Churchill. He could see that, as long as Russia was in the fight, huge parts of Germany’s efforts would have to be against Russia. So almost as soon as Barbarossa kicked off, he directed that hundreds of aircraft, hundreds of tanks, and large stocks of other equipment be shipped to the Soviets to make use of. Some of this equipment was specifically earmarked for equipping British and Commonwealth forces elsewhere around the world, but most of it would have ended up being issued somewhere – and any that was obsolescent in European terms would have most likely ended up in the Far East, where in 1941 it was both a) better than what the forces posted there were equipped with, and b) in terms of tanks generally better than what Japan had available to their own troops.

        • John Schilling says:

          But how confident are you that the UK would have held out against the Germans for long enough that the US should get involved?

          Without Barbarossa, the Germans are able to pay much more attention to Britain, and I’m not entirely certain it would’ve held out in a world where it gets sustainably attacked for two more years.

          How are you getting “two more years”?

          Barbarossa to Pearl Harbor is six months, not two years, and the path to US involvement was largely independent of anything happening on the Eastern Front. And Barbarossa happened after almost all of the crisis events on the Western Front had passed. France had fallen, but the narrow window where a German invasion of the British Isles would have been conceivable had closed, the Battle of Britain had been decided, the Battle of the Atlantic was a bloody stalemate. Germany can free up some additional resources if they decide not to invade Russia, but I’m not seeing the opportunity for them to do Britain any decisive harm in those six months.

          • Slow Learner says:

            I was assuming Barbarossa was cancelled in favour of Sealion 2: the Sealioning sometime in late 1940 rather than the day before, so there’s a year and a bit – still not enough to build major warships, or substantially change the strategic situation, IMO.

          • bean says:

            I was assuming Barbarossa was cancelled in favour of Sealion 2: the Sealioning sometime in late 1940 rather than the day before, so there’s a year and a bit – still not enough to build major warships, or substantially change the strategic situation, IMO.

            But Sealion 2 would have the same problems as Sealion, namely that there’s no way the Germans are getting across the channel, and everyone serious knows it. Notably ignorant are Hitler, whose Generals are producing paperwork to distract him while they enjoy Paris, and the British Public, who WSC is scaring to keep morale up. The RN outgunned the KM by an absurd margin, and the Luftwaffe wasn’t getting stronger relative to the RAF, either.

          • Slow Learner says:

            I know that, bean, and you know that; I was trying to be maximally generous to the commenters above trying to suggest it.

          • God Damn John Jay says:

            Sea Lion 2 would face the fact that by that time the UK would have rebuilt their forces after Dunkirk. Plus by the time German could build a surface fleet Britain could build their own version of the Atlantic Wall.

          • Slow Learner says:

            @God Damn John Jay
            Quite. The various kriegspielen that have worked on this were mostly conducted before the British government ever released documentation talking about most of the fortifications, pillboxes and defences prepared in 1939-40. There were some 28,000 of them, which were barely considered in the 70s exercise, which even so saw the German landings thoroughly crushed. In 1940. Seelowe is a joke in Alternate History because every time you look at it more closely it gets even more impossible.

          • LHN says:

            At least back in the days of soc.history.what-if on Usenet, this essay by the late Alison Brooks was the go-to summation:

            “I do not say they cannot come, only that they cannot come by Sealion.”

          • LHN says:

            And then just today, I saw the following review of We March Against England: Operation Sea Lion, 1940-1941 by Robert Forczyk:

            Forczyk doesn’t quite manage to overturn the consensus opinion on Hitler’s mooted invasion of England: that it was doomed to fail, if not a bluff. However, his fully researched history does integrate Sea Lion far more fully into the whole story of the UK-Hitler strategic war, emphasizes that it would have been a closer-run thing than we think, and provides one or two roads-not-taken that could have made it the basis of a forced armistice if not a “swastika over the Tower” moment.

            I haven’t read the book, so I don’t know how persuasive the case is, but the reviewer, Kenneth Hite, generally knows his stuff.

          • Cerebral Paul Z. says:

            And to think that all this time I thought Operation Sealion involved Hitler turning up repeatedly in Churchill’s house to remind him that he still hadn’t apologized for calling Hitler a “Narrzi”.

          • dndnrsn says:

            @Cerebral Paul Z

            I’ve been trying to work in a “sealioning” joke but you beat me to it.

            @LHN: Kenneth Hite, the game designer?

          • Cerebral Paul Z, that’s the funniest thing I’ve seen lately.

          • LHN says:

            @dndnrsn Yes– the review’s from the “Ken and Robin Consume Media” feature that’s been introduced ancillary to the weekly podcast he does with Robin Laws.

          • bean says:

            emphasizes that it would have been a closer-run thing than we think, and provides one or two roads-not-taken that could have made it the basis of a forced armistice if not a “swastika over the Tower” moment.

            It appears that the idea was to land on the Isle of Wight. Of course, there is a small problem with that. Does anyone know what is on the other side of the Solent?
            Yes, that’s right. Portsmouth, and probably more naval firepower than Germany could muster with all of its ships. The author suggests that this made a German landing on the Isle of Wight particularly dangerous, as German artillery could have closed Portsmouth. I’m pretty sure that the Germans couldn’t have gotten that artillery ashore, let alone supplied it once it was there. (Assuming that any was left to supply, that is. The British cruisers could cover most of the island while tied up alongside.) Has the man never heard of logistics?

      • cassander says:

        >I think the United Nations will remain, effectively, the Allied-club. The Soviet Union still existing – hell, being more powerful without having lost so many millions to the Great Patriotic War

        I disagree completely there. Young men are an easily renewable resource. The USSR lost a lot of them, but it gained a massive military build up, massive infusions of lend lease supplies to build up its industrial base, the conquest of all of eastern europe, and the plundering of the areas it conquered.

      • John Schilling says:

        Possible nit-picking, but:

        2) German access to rare elements and high-quality steels was limited. Due to things like the Allies carefully bidding up the price of Spanish tungsten to a point Germany, with limited foreign exchange, couldn’t match (more limited if they’re paying the Russians for materiel rather than looting it!). As a result of these materials shortages, German engines had shorter service lives and lower power than Allied ones, and there’s limited ability to expand production.

        I’m going to guess that paying Russians for e.g. tungsten is going to be cheaper than paying for the wear and tear on an army capable of looting Russia. I think the AH where Molotov-Ribbentrop remains in place is one where the Germans can afford more, rather than less, strategic metals. Which brings us to…

        3) Linking to the above, limited access to high octane petrol. Even if Germany as a whole can get enough POL, they’ll struggle to refine the really good stuff, and that impacts on aircraft performance.

        Jet engines run just fine on straight kerosene, and aren’t too picky about impurities. If you can afford the materials to make good turbine blades, you may not be missing the high-octane petrol.

        • Slow Learner says:

          Probably, though I’m not sure of how much the Soviets would have been prepared to hand over.

          Ultimately fixing those issues would still leave a Reich that was outproduced in airframes by the UK alone (more of those airframes being multi-engine types than German production, to boot) facing off against UK&US production.*

          *I am working on the assumption here that Lend-Lease, the Two Ocean Navy Act & similar are all unaffected by whatever happens (Hitler getting a brain tumour? :P) to make the Germans call off Barbarossa.

          • cassander says:

            You’re absolutely right about the production figures (though it must be noticed that the UK was putting much more emphasis and raw materials into aircraft than germany was), but I think the issue here is more political. Say Germany just relies on browbeating the USSR for materials, building up the U-boats and Luftwaffe, and basically trying to blockade the UK. For how long do the British people keep up this seemingly endless fight for no particular gain, while German pirate radio is blasting generous armistice terms? Churchill can promise blood, toil, tears, and sweat all he wants, but you can only keep that up for so long. After a couple of years of that, after the collapse of the British far east, maybe they give up on hitler.

        • bean says:

          Jet engines run just fine on straight kerosene, and aren’t too picky about impurities. If you can afford the materials to make good turbine blades, you may not be missing the high-octane petrol.

          This assumes the Germans are able to build good turbine blades. I know their metallurgy was generally pretty good, but they had a remarkable ability to screw up technology. Also, I think switching the refineries over is nontrivial.

      • youzicha says:

        once Allied forces are established on the continent it’s a long hard slog to the finish line.

        Would there have been the political will for the long slog, though? If the U.S. is facing the main part of the German army instead of the Soviet, would they not take similar amount of causualties — bigger by a factor of 21 or 28? For the Soviet union this was an existential battle, but America is completely safe from invasion on the other side of an ocean. I would imagine they would settle without an unconditional surrender.

        • Slow Learner says:

          The Allied powers in WW2 showed the will, just as their fathers had in 1918, to see the war through to it’s conclusion.

          I guarantee that the Western Allies, fighting a thoroughly mechanised war against a power they outweigh industrially by 5-6 times, will be taking many fewer casualties than the Soviet Union did, to achieve the same effect.

          The Western Allies already faced off against around half of the armoured vehicles in Germany’s armoury, the vast majority of the modern air forces and almost the entirety of the navy.
          Sure, more leg infantry will up casualties a bit, but not twenty-fold.

        • dndnrsn says:

          A US-and-Commonwealth-only Allies would be extremely unlikely to take the same casualties the Soviets did.

          For one thing, a significant chunk of Soviet casualties came in the German offensives in 1941 and then again in 1942, when the Germans were able to pull off major encirclements during their offensives, which were only possible due to the circumstances of the war in the East at that time.

          For another, one advantage the Germans had over the Soviets was a better supply of radios, allowing more nimble tactical leadership (and amplifying the effects of their generally superior tactical leadership). While the Germans in general had superior tactical leadership to the Western Allies also, they wouldn’t have the same advantage in radios after 1940 (when the British and French didn’t have enough radios to allow radio communication by low-level armoured units, etc).

        • bean says:

          Unlikely, for several reasons. First, the Soviet casualties were at least partially their own fault. This was covered extensively several open threads ago, but it boils down to them having serious leadership problems at most levels during various parts of the war. That’s why they lost so badly during Barbarossa, and why they were outfought man-for-man later.
          Second, there weren’t many good places for the Germans to use their forces. North Africa was ultimately lost because they couldn’t move troops and supplies across the Med, and lack of Barbarossa wouldn’t help that much. I’m not sure exactly what would happen from then on with stronger German land forces. If anything, it might have meant more resources in the Med. But the allies would be a lot more careful with men than the Soviets were in any case.
          Third, the atomic bomb was coming. I’d guess they would have waited a bit to have more to use, but I’d be surprised if that didn’t end the war in late 1945 in any case, and 1946 at the outside.

    • dndnrsn says:

      The important question is why doesn’t Hitler break the M-R pact? Agricultural land in the East was one of Hitler’s obsessions, and one that was not especially uncommon among certain circles in Germany. And in 1941 Hitler became convinced that the reason the UK would settle if the USSR could be knocked out.

      If the US gets involved though – whether it’s lend-lease etc, or whether it’s entering the war (do the Germans declare war on the US in this timeline?) Germany faces a probably-insurmountable material disadvantage. And the US still has a nuclear program – what German cities are analogous to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    • cassander says:

      Stalin and the USSR acquire no vast empire in the eastern Europe, no massive shipments of lend lease goods, no plundering of eastern Europe post-war, no massive military buildup and massive shared sacrifice to bind the society together. As a result, the USSR is far less powerful in the post war era, and probably still something of a pariah state rather than founding member of the UN. The consequences of that are very hard to predict. The absence of a strong USSR gives the US much less interest in remaining in Europe and Europe much less incentive to unify.

      That said, declaring war on Russia was always the point for Hitler. His whole plan was carving out space for a continental sized germany.

    • Ilya Shpitser says:

      The USSR would certainly not have stayed on the side lines had Hitler not attacked. Why would it? It would attack when the time was right.

    • Furslid says:

      I don’t think this is reasonable, because it doesn’t take into account how Stalin’s Russia would react to that war.

      Stalin would still be worried about future conflicts between the USSR and the allies. There had already been conflict between Russia and the allies, and communist doctrine said that the capitalist powers would necessarily oppose a communist state. The US, Britain, and France allying and absorbing the full territory of the Third Reich would be a nightmare scenario. Stalin would act to prevent this from happening.

      If Hitler hadn’t attacked Russia, the allies would have had more trouble in Western Europe. There would have been more troops and material to oppose them. It would take even longer from the attack on Europe to the fall of Berlin than it did.

      There are two ways Stalin could take advantage of this to prevent the nightmare scenario. He could formally ally himself with the allies in exchange for buffer states and a sphere of influence. This would be a tempting deal for allies having more trouble. He could also pounce when the allies were making progress conquering what portions of the weakened Third Reich that he could. It’s a safe bet that the allies wouldn’t start another massive war to protect people they had just been at war with.

  32. Ezra says:

    Here’s something that may be amusing, to those of you with a certain bent:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpk2tdsPh0A
    It’s a guy explaining (with graphs) all the obscure techniques and glitches he used to beat a level of Super Mario 64 without pressing the A button. Basically his strategies get more and more complex ad absurdum. I feel bad for posting something about video games here, I hate video games as much as the next guy, but it’s interesting and amusing apart from that. If this is a bad place for it then I’m sorry.
    To me, it brings to mind an experimental physicist taking apart the laws of reality without caution or concern for the fate of the universe.
    And it’s comforting as an example of somewhat unique high-effort content in an area known for a lot of hum drum repetition.
    I don’t have too much in the way of starting a discussion apart from that, but I think others will have a take as well, if they’re interested.

    • Gazeboist says:

      “… after all, I do build up speed for twelve hours. But to answer that, we need to talk about parallel universes.”

      This is up there with implementing pong in SMW on my list of “favorite things from the TAS community”.

    • Jugemu Chousuke says:

      I enjoyed this more than I expected. It really does feel like the Mario version of an interesting physics lecture (albeit with simpler math).

    • God Damn John Jay says:

      I feel bad for posting something about video games here, I hate video games as much as the next guy, but it’s interesting and amusing apart from that.

      Do you mind if I ask how you stumbled on a video like this then? I mean obviously, you can like whatever you like, but it just seems weird that someone who hates gaming is watching an in depth video of the behind the scenes workings of SM64.

    • Lumifer says:

      I hate video games as much as the next guy

      I have a feeling you’re misjudging your audience :-/

    • Homo Iracundus says:

      Don’t play games, but do love listening to people who are both good at them and who enjoy “colouring outside the lines” like this—playing with the game itself instead of just by the preset rules.
      Thanks for the link!

  33. Chalid says:

    It is common for USians, when they have kids, to move to places that have “good schools.” In a few years my kids will be school age, and I’ll be faced with that sort of decision too.

    What would define a good school? How would one measure it?

    Test scores are the way most school rating websites seem to work. But the problem is obvious to anyone who reads SSC – you can’t know if the test scores are due to the education quality or the student quality. (It’s also not clear how much you should care about test scores of course.)

    One thing that’s pretty well-established, I think, is that your child’s peer group can matter quite a bit – they will tend to pick up the culture of their friends, both in terms of trivial things like musical tastes, and in terms of more important things like the types of career they are likely to choose. So one way to define a “good school” might be that it is a school where the culture is one that you want your child to be exposed to – but how would one determine that, short of moving to the neighborhood and living there for a few years? Neighborhood income and school demographics are lots better than nothing, but don’t take you that far really.

    Someone I know decided to look at college matriculation lists for various high schools – he’s a software engineer, and he wanted to find places where kids were generally going to tech schools and not to liberal arts schools. This is clever but only works if you have a few specific candidates in mind already, and of course is noisy.

    • Incurian says:

      “you can’t know if the test scores are due to the education quality or the student quality”

      Wouldn’t either be acceptable?

    • jaimeastorga2000 says:

      A “good school” is a school without bad students (“a ghetto/barrio/alternative name for low-class-hell-hole isn’t a physical location, its people). Discrimination on the basis of anything except money is illegal, so good schools are either public schools in areas in which it is expensive to live or private schools which cannot be attended without paying expensive tuition.

      Or you can homeschool.

      • Matt M says:

        Right.

        It’s not perfect, but “live in the most expensive neighborhood you can possibly afford” probably gets you 90% of the way there.

        • Corey says:

          McArdle points out a downside of this: if you stretch your budget into a nice neighborhood, there will be big pressure from your kids to keep up with the Joneses (e.g. their friends will do travel soccer, whether you can afford that or not) and that can cause trouble.

          • Matt M says:

            Can it?

            My parents basically did this – sacrificed greatly in order to move to a neighborhood that was well above where we “should” have lived so that my sister and I could be around smart, rich people. Were their occasional moments of insecurity? Sure.

            But all in all I think we both benefited from it immensely and I’m very grateful for them having made this decision. Maybe it helps that my sister and I had no particular desire to fit in with the “cool” crowds and thus never demanded the designer jeans or whatever expensive stuff teenagers are supposed to have. Maybe we just got lucky. But the overall plan worked pretty much to perfection.

          • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

            Can it?

            For sure. Whether it causes them more often than not, or if those problems outweigh the benefits, that’s a lot harder to tell. Especially since those problems usually have an impact on difficult to measure intangibles.

          • Matt M says:

            If it makes you feel better, my sister is completely and totally lock-step in line with the standard respectable blue-tribe beliefs predominant in the area in which we grew up, so there goes your thesis on that one.

        • Anonymous says:

          That isn’t going to keep you out of meth high.

          • The Nybbler says:

            Crudely, it will; you’re looking for places where you have mostly blue and red. Meth high will tend to be almost all-blue.

          • hlynkacg says:

            No, you’re thinking of crack high.

            The Stereotype is that blues do Crack, Reds do Meth, and everybody does Mary-J 😉

          • The Nybbler says:

            Wrong blue and red. But I’m fairly sure the blues you are referring to don’t do crack; cocaine powder, perhaps, but not crack. Blue Tribe does not include the underclass.

            These reds may do amphetamines, but Adderall rather than meth; same for the adjacent blues. Nowadays some of the blues might be doing oxy or heroin.

    • “So one way to define a “good school” might be that it is a school where the culture is one that you want your child to be exposed to – but how would one determine that, short of moving to the neighborhood and living there for a few years? ”

      The culture of my household is more to my taste than that of any school my kids could go to. That’s one argument for home schooling.

      Or, in our case, home unschooling.

      • Tibor says:

        @David: Homeschooling unschooling sounds great. But it is probably easier to do that in a household with 2 academics than in one where the parents don’t have such a flexible work schedule or where they cannot easily work from home.

        At the same time, I’ve heard rather bad stuff about various Montessori schools etc (partly from your own description). I doubt it is worse than traditional schooling but still not quite the best. My hope, when I have children of my own (which probably still won’t happen sooner than in a few years from now and even then it takes a few years until you have to think about schools at all) is to find a group of like-minded people who would put an impromptu unschooling school together, essentially taking shifts in who is doing the homeschooling for a small group of children. This also has the benefit that the kids probably end up less shy than those who are homeschooled (although they can of course always do various free time group activities such as the scouts a sports team or your SCA). Depending on where you live, it might be hard to find such a group of people though.

        • Sounds like a sensible tactic.

        • ChillyWilly says:

          IANAL, but an impromptu unschooling school sounds like something that could be quickly considered an unlicensed school/daycare/etc. and subject to all sorts of regulations if you’re not careful to avoid whatever relevant legal threshold. There may be legal liabilities you wouldn’t have to consider if you’re just dealing with your own kids.

          • Tibor says:

            Depends a lot on the country. Unfortunately this plan of mine wouldn’t work in the Czech republic for very long, there homeschooling is illegal after the primary school. In Germany it is even worse, they ban homeschooling completely. In the region Switzerland is a lot better, homeschooling is not very common but it is legal. I don’t know about other European countries.

            So I guess that I’d have to move to Switzerland or another country with liberal schooling laws (I suspect this will be hard in Europe though). Switzerland does not sound at all bad though, in fact I consistently find it superior to other European (and most other) countries in most respects (e.g. their libertarian-leaning policies, a unique political system which I believe can maintain those policies in the long term better than for example the US constitution, armed neutrality, and last but not least their amazing landscape).

            But of course, man plans and God laughs and I might end up somewhere else entirely.

    • Slow Learner says:

      No matter the student body, a good school is one with a good group of teachers, who have decent leadership and high morale.

      These are best judged by talking to parents of children already at the school, and talking to the teachers themselves.

      Essentially current rating systems for schools are all weak and can’t do more than (at best) supplement personal judgement.

    • sweeneyrod says:

      I think you can judge a school pretty well by visiting it. Failing that, I don’t see why the fact you don’t know the cause of good test scores matters; good education is obviously good, but good students means a good peer group. Although if by “school age” you mean “elementary school age” I think the quality of the school is irrelevant unless it is right at the top or the bottom of the spectrum.

      • I think a lot of conventional schooling teaches despair– the idea that if you can’t learn something in school, you can’t learn it at all. I’m not sure how you avoid that, short of home schooling. One bad teacher can make a huge difference.

        It might be possible to teach children to work on getting the best out of school while not taking the crazy-making aspects seriously, but I’m not sure I’ve heard of anyone managing this.

    • Lumifer says:

      A “good school” is one where most kids are smart (easily estimated by their SAT scores) and where the cultural norms — among the kids — are to succeed via being smart. Unfortunately for you, smart kids usually have smart parents, smart parents are usually richer than dumb parents, and rich people usually set up enclaves gated by price. So a house in a good school district is going to be expensive.

      I think the education quality is mostly irrelevant (unless it gets to be bad enough to the point of being hostile and destructive, but it’s rare outside of ghe very poor neighborhoods).

    • TomFL says:

      Just do what everybody else does. Call for more evenly balanced and diverse school systems for other kids and then make sure your kids go to the good ones anyway. Schools matter. What most people will never admit is that the mixing of social groups is as likely to drag some prospective good students down as they are to make improvements to bad students. Feel free to engage in this social experiment if you wish though. I’m sure someone can respond with a study that given the proper controls this isn’t true at all, but that is total BS.

      Examine standardized test scores, SAT scores, college readiness scores, rates of college graduations, average IB, AP tests taken and passed, local crime rates and they all point to the same thing – certain schools reliably produce better outcomes. It’s irrelevant whether it is the neighborhood, the building, the teachers, the administration, or the peer groups, what matters is results. That being said, it’s not always a good fit for a student to be put through a tough academic grinder with tough competition in their teens if they aren’t ready.

      I put my kids through the local full time IB high school and they both got very good scholarships to the state universities. This has literally saved me $117,000 even though I’m not a financial need recipient. This will allow them to exit undergrad college debt free. Moral of the story – there are also financial payoffs here.

      The best schools are easy to find, they are almost always near the expensive real estate, ha ha. One easy rule of thumb is don’t go to schools with metal detectors and armed security. But the data on performance is easy to find.

      I wouldn’t get too wrapped in making sure an engineering curriculum is available in high school.

    • John Schilling says:

      But the problem is obvious to anyone who reads SSC – you can’t know if the test scores are due to the education quality or the student quality.

      If the students are high quality, the education will follow.

      This objection makes more sense if you are looking at the opposite problem, of identifying the very worst schools (say for government intervention) – there it is a viable strategy for administrators to cherrypick not-the-very-worst students and then just get them past the tests, in hope that busybody reformers will focus on another target. But the really high quality students tend to be associated with high quality parents, and they won’t let you get away with anything less than a high quality education.

      Which is perhaps the metric you should be looking for. Well-educated, economically successful parents. If there’s a local university or tech hub, ask where those people live and where they send their kids to school. If not, look at whatever other demographic data you can find, and whatever local knowledge you can find. The parents who have themselves benefited most from education will have coalesced around the best schools in the area, if necessary by coalescing about the least-worst and then taking over the PTA meetings and school board elections to make them the best.

    • bean says:

      Honestly, ratings via test scores tend to work fairly well. I went to one of the best high schools in the state, as determined by test scores. It was a really good school, helped by both its reputation as a good school (which drew good students and their families), and by hosting the regional gifted program (which drew in the best students and their families). The area was fairly middle class (lower to upper), and we beat the upper-class schools on the tests.
      After I graduated, my family moved to another city, and picked housing based on the district’s test scores. My siblings ended up in probably the best high school in the city, which wasn’t necessarily the one with the highest average income there, either.
      Parents who are really interested in education will move to the best district, and those are (I presume) the smart ones with smart kids you want to be around.

      • JohnDeere says:

        Just have to realize and be okay with the fact that this procedure is going to mean ending up in a neighborhood with a lot of Asians (east and south).

    • Yrro says:

      What are your realistic goals for your kids? Ivy league? State school? Tech school? There’s a much larger *cultural* difference than there is *educational* difference between high schools that have those targets, but the cultural differences matter if that is your goal.

      Just for example, I went to a decent rural school (A- rated, maybe) in a conservative college town. My wife went to one of the top ranked public schools in our state, although still in a “nouveau riche” neighborhood. My school guidance counselor had never had someone take the SAT-II’s before, and I was incredibly unusual in even applying to University of Chicago, let alone being accepted. But when you compare the quality of education my wife and I received, they are practically identical. I was incredibly well set up to go to a good state school and excel, which I ended up doing instead.

      I guess my point is… if you’re past the threshold where a significant chunk of the parents are college-educated and involved, the majority of the difference is going to be what culture your kids are comfortable in, not the quality of education.

  34. Gazeboist says:

    Re-reading the AI experiment thread, I noticed an important question that went unanswered (from Deiseach):

    Do Balrogs have wings?

    I claim that this question, while important, misses the mark slightly. We know that Balrogs are Maiar corrupted by Morgoth. Further, we know that in general Maiar and Valar can change (or at least choose) their forms, and that Morgoth’s corruption, whatever it is, damaged his ability to do so. Further, Gandalf displays no ability to change his form while present in Middle Earth, and Sauron loses access to a one of his forms when he dies (but is not destroyed). Saruman is able to change his form at least a bit, becoming “many colored”, but it costs him. When Gandalf is killed and restored, his form does change (again, only somewhat).

    This suggests that Balrogs do not have a unified “form” that does or does not have wings. Rather, they selected a form in the First Age, either when they were corrupted by Morgoth or when they entered Arda. These forms would have been dependent on their personalities and abilities, and may or may not have included wings. By the time they fought in the great wars of the prior ages, their form was fixed, and they had gained the additional powers over shadow and fire granted by Morgoth.

    • Homo Iracundus says:

      Saruman is able to change his form at least a bit, becoming “many colored”, but it costs him.

      Can you expand on that? I thought he was just calling himself that because he made himself a magic ring and put a Pride Robe on.

      • LHN says:

        Said ring is, incidentally, one of the most spectacularly unfired Chekov’s Guns in fantasy literature. Everything about that scene suggests that Saruman’s ability to craft rings will be somehow important. Instead, the fact never comes up again.

        • Deiseach says:

          Everything about that scene suggests that Saruman’s ability to craft rings will be somehow important. Instead, the fact never comes up again.

          Well, it does in that it reveals Saruman’s corruption and ambition; he has delved deep into Ring-lore, he has tried forging rings himself (and probably succeeded in making minor rings, as he too is a student of Aule as was Sauron) but he has been unable to copy the work of Celebrimbor (who forged the Elven Rings) and Sauron (especially the One Ring, the master ring).

          So he is consumed by trying to find the One Ring, and he is also trying (and failing) to make Rings of Power himself. His boasting of being a Ring-maker shows both that he wants and is trying to be on a par with Sauron, and that he has failed – if he had anything equivalent to the Elven Rings (and remember, Gandalf has one of these – Narya – which plainly Saruman found out someway and in his jealousy of Gandalf has attempted to copy), he wouldn’t be messing around with trying to persuade Gandalf to join him, he’d be using that rival power himself.

          Saruman is trapped: his dabbling with the palantir has left him open to the influence of Sauron, who now knows what he knows; he has failed to make powerful rings of his own; he hasn’t found the One Ring in all his years of searching and now, worst of all, it has been found and is out there somewhere, where Sauron is also aware of it and actively looking for it; his last gamble is to try and persuade Gandalf to come on his side and prop up his resistance to Sauron with his own power, and that fails.

          The fact that we never hear of Saruman’s Ring(s) means that they aren’t Rings of Power, merely one of the “lesser rings [which] were only essays of the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles”, that Gandalf mentions.

          Originally in “The Hobbit”, Gandalf recognises that Bilbo has a magic ring, but (of course, in this story which at the time had no link to the later one) not that it is a Ring of Power, much less the One Ring. So magic rings were common enough to be known, even as matters in legends and tales, and could turn up. That Saruman was able to make one really isn’t that big a deal.

        • cassander says:

          This has always annoyed me. He even calls himself Saruman Ring Maker, and no one ever bothers to mention it. I’m not even aware of Chris Tolkien ever talking about it. I always assumed that Saruman, despairing of a way to combat Sauron (and, somewhat, indulging his own pride), thought could make a ring free of his influence, but it didn’t work and merely brought him under Sauron’s power (similar to Denthor and the palantir). That’s that’s almost pure head canon, though.

          • Deiseach says:

            Calling himself “Saruman Ring-maker” is boasting in his folly. He’s using a lot of titles for himself: The White Hand, as the symbol for his Orcs independent of those created by/under the rule of Sauron and Melkor before him (and the Moria Orcs and Mordor Orcs aren’t any too impressed by that):

            ‘You have spoken more than enough, Uglúk,’ sneered the evil voice. ‘I wonder how they would like it in Lugbúrz. They might think that Uglúk’s shoulders needed relieving of a swollen head. They might ask where his strange ideas came from. Did they come from Saruman, perhaps? Who does he think he is, setting up on his own with his filthy white badges? They might agree with me, with Grishnákh their trusted messenger; and I Grishnákh say this: Saruman is a fool, and a dirty treacherous fool. But the Great Eye is on him.

            ‘Swine is it? How do you folk like being called swine by the muck-rakers of a dirty little wizard? It’s orc-flesh they eat, I’ll warrant.’

          • cassander says:

            I agree he’s boasting in his folly, but it’s the sort of boast that you’d think people would pay attention to, especially given that he’s very visibly wearing a god damned ring. At the very least, you’d have thought that, after his fall, they’d have taken care to make sure some orc or (Rohirrimish? Rohine?) peasant didn’t find it in the ruins of Orthanc, put it on, and make a tenth ring wraith. But no, everyone just forgets about it.

          • Maybe people didn’t bother about Saruman’s ring(s) because magic is going out of the world. The rings won’t work.

          • LHN says:

            @Nancy I think that’s an entirely reasonable possibility. But in terms of storytelling, it seems as if either Gandalf shouldn’t bother mentioning the trivial fact that there was a ring on Saruman’s finger at their confrontation when recounting it at the Council of Elrond, or else someone should at least ask about it and be told.

            And after all, they weren’t sure the other rings would stop working, they just thought it was the most likely outcome. That seems even more in doubt re a ring that was made independently of those the One was forged to control, by someone who knew about the originals’ security vulnerability.

            (That said, continual revising to fix and improve things was a besetting vice of Tolkien’s for the rest of his life. It’s probably just as well that he didn’t niggle with that detail.)

          • Gazeboist says:

            @cassander:

            I think it’s just “Rohirrim”.

          • LHN says:

            Rohirrim is the plural noun, Rohirric the adjective (or at least that’s what Tolkien used for the language). I don’t think we have a singular, but I’m not a big Sindarin maven. In the text it’s usually just “man of Rohan/woman of Rohan” IIRC.

            In their own language– well, the Anglo-Saxon Tolkien “substituted” for their own language– it’s Eorlingas, singular presumably Eorling.

          • Deiseach says:

            they’d have taken care to make sure some orc or (Rohirrimish? Rohine?) peasant didn’t find it in the ruins of Orthanc, put it on, and make a tenth ring wraith

            But Saruman does not have the power to make ring wraiths; he can make the common or garden magic rings that are small enchantments, like the ring Bilbo was thought to have – in “The Hobbit”, when the rest of them find out about the ring, they are more impressed than worried, and even in “The Lord of the Rings”, Gandalf is concerned but not so much that he doesn’t let something like fifty years pass before going “Okay, that Ring? Bad news, need to destroy it now“.

            As a Ring-wearer himself, Gandalf would have been aware if Saruman was wearing a genuine Ring of Power, and he would have brought that up at the Council of Elrond – “Further bad news, guys, Saruman can now make his own Rings of Power”. That he didn’t indicates that Saruman couldn’t make a real Ring himself (and I think one of the reasons he tried to turn his subjugation by Sauron into an alliance was to get the secret of how to make those rings). Only the rings which Sauron had a hand in crafting were able to make Ring-wraiths, or be the foundation of treasure hordes (the Dwarven rings).

            If he was able to make a Ring of Power, Gandalf would not have been able to challenge him or break his staff (and a wizard’s power is in his staff). He would not have been reduced to a beggar slinking along the roads. And he died in the Shire, so Frodo and Sam and Pippin and Merry, who knew all about the peril of magic rings, would have been careful to take any of his possessions and turn them over to Gandalf or get rid of them. If he had a genuine Ring, no way he would have left it behind in Orthanc, and a ring is small enough to wear or hide when getting past the Ent guards.

          • cassander says:

            @Deiseach

            It was always my impression that Gandalf thought that Bilbo had one of the 7 dwarf rings that was lost, not some trinket. That’s why he warned him against it, but was willing to let him keep ity. And the dwarf rings were on a power level with the rings that the humans got, they just affected the dwarves less and differently.

            As for his low level of power, it’s quite clear that the same thing that happened to morgoth and sauron happened to saruman, which is that in making the uruk hai and binding them to his will, his power went into them, and he was lessened. When they were destroyed his power was broken, breaking the staff was largely a formality.

          • LHN says:

            Gandalf’s knew “from the first” that it was a Great Ring rather than a lesser one. And he knew it had “an unwholesome power” over its keeper.

            He knew it wasn’t one of the Three, since those were all accounted for. By implication, that means it would have had to be one of the Seven, the Nine (I don’t think the Nazgul had reappeared yet, so maybe Gollum had found one of theirs) or the One. Though honestly, if he thought it was any of those it seems as if it would be a higher priority.

            (Gandalf says he couldn’t take it from Bilbo without doing greater harm. But if he thought that it was reasonably likely Bilbo was possessed of something that would turn him into a wraith… And then he’s in total denial for years when Bilbo shows no signs of aging.)

            It doesn’t seem as Gandalf narrowed it down further than that till he suddenly remembered (during the search for Gollum) Saruman telling him (all the way back at the White Council) that all the Great Rings other than the One were set with gemstones.

            You’d really think that it wouldn’t take seventy-six years to think of that, especially after bearing a ruby-set Great Ring himself for two millennia. But I guess he had a lot on his mind.

          • dndnrsn says:

            Vaguely related to what cassander said upthread – there’s got to be a fantasy novel, at least one, that begins with a random NPC peasant finding the villain’s body in the aftermath of the battle and stealing said villain’s Mighty Item of Power, then becoming the next big bad, right?

          • Lumifer says:

            A fool and his Ring of Power are soon parted.

          • Saucerhead says:

            @ dndnrsn

            The Silver Spike, by Glen Cook.

        • Homo Iracundus says:

          I think the presence of a magic ring is, at that point in the book with all the backstory hints, a pretty big “oh crap something’s wrong with this guy” indicator all on its own.

          • The Nybbler says:

            Eh, everyone who is anyone has a magic ring. Gandalf, Galadriel, and Elrond all had one, as did Thrain.

    • Saruman does not become multi-colored himself (that’s a pity), it’s just that his robe goes from white to what I imagine is a rainbow shimmer.

      • Gazeboist says:

        My understanding of the situation was that by shifting to “the many-colored”, he opens the position of “the white” to Gandalf, and forfeits the powers he gained as Manwe’s favorite. He gains the powers of being Sauron’s favorite (to an extent), but that’s a losing trade.

        • Deiseach says:

          He doesn’t even gain power from Sauron, Sauron is using him (while Saruman is fooling himself that he is an ally and an equal).

          “For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!’

          I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not so, but were woven of all colours, and if he moved they shimmered and changed hue so that the eye was bewildered.

          ‘I liked white better,’ I said.

          ‘White!’ he sneered. ‘It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken.’

          ‘In which case it is no longer white,’ said I. ‘And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.’ “

          • Pan Narrans says:

            I was less than pleased that the films replaced this dialogue with a playground fight where two powerful wizards stand on opposite sides of the room and pretend to hit one another.

          • Gazeboist says:

            My guess is that he did gain something (if nothing else, he got his Uruk-hai), just that it was a losing bargain. Compare Faust: 24 years of Mephistopheles’s service looks pretty great, but it’s just not enough to beat eternal damnation.

          • Protagoras says:

            @Gazeboist, Not sure which Faust you were thinking of, but Goethe’s Faust escapes eternal damnation.

          • DavidS says:

            I always thought he was gaining more powers top manipulate current bis of the world but losing the purity of power he had as white. Nothing to do with Sauron, just choosing the apparently more useful thing over the older purer one. And creating a vacancy for Gandalf

          • Outis says:

            ‘In which case it is no longer white,’ said I. ‘And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.’

            When I read that passage as a child, I thought: isn’t that what scientists do? I think there was an anti-scientific and/or anti-technological aspect in Saruman’s depiction. He tore down the trees, built great war machines, and IIRC his side sounded like the most technologically advanced.

          • Deiseach says:

            Outis, it depends if you can non-destructively break something (‘breaking’ light into its spectra isn’t making the light useless) or can mend it again. I took it that Saruman destroyed things in trying to find out what they ‘really’ were, and only ended up making bad imitations rather than real new versions (e.g. the Orcs were created by Melkor originally, so Saruman only took the existing ones and interbred them with Men – allegedly – or bred ‘better’ versions rather than creating of his own accord).

            If I kill a cat and cut it asunder to find out what the inside of a cat looks like, afterwards I’ll know what the inside of a cat looks like – but I won’t have the cat, and I can’t make the cat alive again, and I won’t have the vermin-killing/companionship/other benefits of owning a cat, as well as having killed a living thing.

          • Psmith says:

            When I read that passage as a child, I thought: isn’t that what scientists do? I think there was an anti-scientific and/or anti-technological aspect in Saruman’s depiction. He tore down the trees, built great war machines, and IIRC his side sounded like the most technologically advanced.

            If you haven’t read The Last Ringbearer, it’s probably going to be your jam.

          • LHN says:

            @Deiseach But science, from particle accelerators to dissection, really does involve breaking things irreparably to find out what they are. A scientific method that limited itself to nondestructive testing would be vastly more limited in what it can learn.

            That’s one place where Tolkien is expressing a premodern and anti-modern outlook. And while there are certainly any number of instances where I’d agree that “modern” is not necessarily better (or is decidedly worse), the scientific revolution taken as a whole is not something I’d place among them.

            That’s not to say no holds are barred in balancing how much destruction yields how much knowledge, what methods are ethical, etc. (Though there are more concerns in, say, animal biology or archaeology than in physics or chemistry or cell bio.) But a world in which scientists had consistently been limited to observational and/or guaranteed nondestructive experiments isn’t a world I’d want to live in.

          • nimim. k.m. says:

            >If I kill a cat and cut it asunder to find out what the inside of a cat looks like, afterwards I’ll know what the inside of a cat looks like – but I won’t have the cat, and I can’t make the cat alive again, and I won’t have the vermin-killing/companionship/other benefits of owning a cat, as well as having killed a living thing.

            On the other hand, to get to our current level of knowledge how cats and other animals (including members of our own species [1]) work, we did stuff that included precisely cutting them open.

            And then there’s the issue of animal testing of medicine.

            [1] Usually, however, waiting them to die of natural causes first. Though I doubt cats have enjoyed that particular benefit as often as humans.

          • John Schilling says:

            If I kill a cat and cut it asunder to find out what the inside of a cat looks like, afterwards I’ll know what the inside of a cat looks like – but I won’t have the cat, and I can’t make the cat alive again, and I won’t have the vermin-killing/companionship/other benefits of owning a cat,

            If you’re running short of cats over in Ireland, I know people here who can help you with that. It is quite possible to kill a very large number of cats, and still have the benefits of owning a cat.

            And indeed, the benefits of cat ownership are enhanced by possessing the degree of cat-knowledge that comes from having cut up other cats in the past. I can, for example, reasonably expect my current cats to provide me with their companionship for another decade or so, a wholly unnatural prospect but one the thought which pleases me greatly. I am thus disinclined to cast aspersions on the wisdom of the various biologists, veterinarians, etc, who have dissected cats in the past to reach this happy state in the present.

            Breaking up a unique resource to understand how it works is a judgment call, one that should be based on a realistic assessment of the value of the resource and the value of what you can reasonably expect to learn (e.g. the ability to mass-produce copies of that resource).

          • youzicha says:

            And the example of “breaking white into colors” was probably not chosen at random; Newton is famous for inaugurating the age of science, so when the discover of opticks in the novel is a villain, that seems like a deliberate swipe against science.

            It reminds me of Keats’ Lamia, complaining about the “touch of dull philosphy”, and giving as an example understanding the rainbow. Again, Newton is the bad guy! And the complaint about the gnomes deserting the mine seem a bit like the elves deserting middle-earth…

    • Bassicallyboss says:

      That’s a very reasonable view, but it sort of sidesteps the question. It’s all well and good to say that Balrogs might not have all had the same form in the way that all elves had similar forms. But there’s still the question of how many Balrogs, if any, had wings.

    • youzicha says:

      Indeed. I don’t think it’s clear that their current form is fixed either. In emilyenrose’s fanfics, the Balrogs can take any form they like (for example, looking like an elf).

      Or as a compromise, we can imagine that they can change shape voluntarily, but are restricted to being fiery and shadowy. Compare Sauron in the Third Age—we know that he is never again able to assume “a fair form”, but that text still leaves open the possibility that he can change between different forms as long as they are all ugly. (His inner spirit shining through, sortof).

  35. Out there in hypothesis land….

    Suppose that Trump wins and he has a Republican congress. Does this mean he gets what he wants, or is the current opposition that many Republicans have towards Trump strong enough to have a significant effect?

    • My guess is that most of the Republicans will fold, go along with Trump.

      A good deal of the reason I don’t want Trump to win is that if he does he will almost certainly have a Republican House and Senate, which makes him more dangerous than Clinton with a Republican House and Senate. So I’m hoping for a close election won by Clinton.

      Given that Johnson ending up President, while a logical possibility, is very, very unlikely.

      • E. Harding says:

        “A good deal of the reason I don’t want Trump to win is that if he does he will almost certainly have a Republican House and Senate, which makes him more dangerous than Clinton with a Republican House and Senate.”

        -Ryan and McConnell are, for the most part, compromisers: just look at the cyclically-adjusted deficit. As long as the GOP leaders have gotten their way on a few issues, they will do the bidding, for the most part, of the President, whether his name is Trump, Kaine, Baraka, Obama, or Johnson.

        I support Trump based on foreign policy and court appointments.

        • Corey says:

          Ryan and McConnell are, for the most part, compromisers: just look at the cyclically-adjusted deficit

          This is not a sign of compromise – nobody actually cares about the deficit. Mainstream Republicans only care as a club to beat spending lower. This dates back *at least* to Reagan.

      • Matt M says:

        I think this is overrated.

        Bush had an entire GOP Congress and did virtually nothing to make turn the country into a conservative paradise.

        Obama had an entire DNC Congress and pretty much all he got outta that was Obamacare (which took the willing cooperation of plenty of sell-out Republicans, a completely bizarre supreme court ruling that was entirely ‘I don’t want people to call me names so I’m caving to the left on this one’ and is currently on the verge of total collapse)

        The two parties simply aren’t that different. The idea that they can balance each other out by holding power in the executive and legislative branches is a self-serving narrative from the people who hold a vested interest in making you think they’re really different.

        • Paul Goodman says:

          Obamacare (which took the willing cooperation of plenty of sell-out Republicans

          Wait what? Didn’t Obamacare get like one Republican vote? What “sell-out Republicans” are you thinking about here?

          • Matt M says:

            Was it just one? I thought it was a few. I will readily admit to not following congressional goings closely.

          • bluto says:

            Not a single republican voted for it, in either the house or senate.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Healthcare_debate.2C_2008.E2.80.9310

            In the senate the party break down was Yea 58 D 2 Ind (Sanders and Lieberman who was one of the final hold outs and the bill that passed had a filibuster so they needed 60 votes), Nay 39 R, and 1 R no vote. In the House it was Yea 219 D, Nay 212 (34 D and 178 R), and 4 no representative seated.

            The marginal votes appear to have been Democratic house seats in red states, pro-life Democratic house members, and Joe Lieberman.

          • LHN says:

            There were no Republican Congressional votes in favor of Obamacare as passed. The PPACA passsed the Senate 60-39 (1 not voting) with 58 Democrats and 2 Independents in favor, and 39 Republicans opposed.[1] The Senate bill passed in the House 219-212, with 219 Democrats in favor, 178 Republicans and 34 Democrats against.

            The House had passed an earlier version of a health care reform, the Affordable Health Care for America Act[2] 220-215, where the majority in favor included one Republican, freshman (ultimately one-term) representative Joseph Cao. The votes against included 39 Democrats.

            [1] https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/111/senate/1/396

            [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act

          • HeelBearCub says:

            Was it just one? I thought it was a few. I will readily admit to not following congressional goings closely.

            This should cause you to think about your political opinions and how strongly you hold them.

      • Civilis says:

        A good deal of the reason I don’t want Trump to win is that if he does he will almost certainly have a Republican House and Senate, which makes him more dangerous than Clinton with a Republican House and Senate. So I’m hoping for a close election won by Clinton.

        For me, it’s the composition of the executive branch and the media. “Clinton will be more dangerous with a Democratic federal bureaucracy and media than Trump will be with a Democratic federal bureaucracy and media.”

        I don’t know that there’s anything to these scandals, but there’s enough smoke in enough different places that someone should do a serious independent investigation. That’s currently not happening.

    • ThirteenthLetter says:

      I’d see him as more of an Arnold Schwarzenegger type. Elected on a platform of We’re Mad As Hell And We’re Not Going To Take It Any More, gives up at the first sign of pushback and becomes a lapdog of the establishment. The takeaway there would be not that Trump gets what he wants, but that Congress gets what it wants (or at least what it can squeeze past a continuous Democratic filibuster.)

      Expect more Bush-style big-spending “compassionate conservatism” with a few token, feeble, and quickly abandoned swipes at traditional targets like public radio and Obamacare. Do not expect any right-wing culture war victories (anti-abortion legislation or an end to Title IX, for instance) or major foreign policy initiatives of any sort.

      • cassander says:

        Schwarzenegger had to deal with a system that was more hostile to change than the US federal system. Politics in California is, to put it mildly, madness. The Governor and legislator both have, respectfully, less power than the president and congress. Any big changes require ballot initiatives, and the initiative process is overwhelmingly dominated by large special interest groups which can raise the money and get people out to vote for them.

        I’m not saying you’re wrong about trump’s ultimate fate, just that California is not a good comparison to anywhere.

        • JayT says:

          Yeah, Arnold got a few ballot measures up right away that, had they passed, would have accomplished a lot of what he wanted to do. They lost, and after that he was pretty much toothless and couldn’t do much of anything.

          • cassander says:

            it was definitely a mistake to take on all the unions at once. Scott Walker’s approach of divide and conquer was much smarter.

    • Rebel with an Uncaused Cause says:

      My guess is that he’d get what he wants, at least at the outset.

      Trump winning is a strong indicator that popular opinion supports him.
      Trump is very much the sort of person who would “call out” an obstructionist.
      Being called out by someone who holds the mandate of heaven reins of popular opinion is a good way to become very rapidly unpopular.

      With a Democratic congress I’d expect the opposite; opposing Trump is a good way to demonstrate value to your base. The fact that Trump has won in this counterfactual indicates that he holds the bulk of the support; enough that (I’d expect) congressmen would shy away from confrontation.

      • JayT says:

        If Trump wins with something like 45% of the vote then I don’t think that would be enough to convince all the Republicans to go along with him, especially on his economic stances. If he somehow won in a landslide, then he would probably get most of what he wants.

        I think the first option is the more likely.

    • TomFL says:

      Probably about the same effect as with Obama in 2009. Some signature changes in policy but no tsunami of ideological legislation, followed by a Democratic takeover of Congress two years later for doing this. The EPA is very likely to be officially “redirected”. Congress is not made up of pure red and pure blue people.

    • Deiseach says:

      If Trump really is at odds with the party (as distinct from the voters), then having a Republican congress might not work to his advantage; they might fight his proposals just because. In which case, voting in Republicans to temper a Trump presidency might be the best thing to do 🙂

      • Nope says:

        The best way to ensure that congressional Republicans oppose his platform (such as it is) is for him to lose. They’ll oppose Clinton’s platform instead. Much safer all round.

      • LHN says:

        Politicians mostly trim their sails to the prevailing party winds, especially in the face of possibly getting a primary challenge next time round if they don’t. (As witness the increasing cascade of endorsements, most recently and famously Ted Cruz.) The idea that a Republican majority will act as an opposition to a Republican president strikes me as wishful thinking.

  36. Is there any research on whether beauty affects the odds of people staying married and if so, how much?

    (I don’t pay attention to celebrity gossip at all.)

    • I can imagine it going either way, especially for women. The fact that your wife is beautiful is a reason to make efforts to keep her. The fact that she is beautiful may give her opportunities to trade you in on a better alternative.

      • My guess (and it’s only that) is that fairly high levels of beauty (let’s call it 90th percentile) add to people’s pleasure in each other, but extremely high levels (99th percentile?) add a lot of opportunities and pressure to change partners. Or it’s possible that Hollywood is a very weird high-pressure environment which doesn’t tell you much about people who aren’t celebrities.

        • Forlorn Hopes says:

          Or it’s possible that Hollywood is a very weird high-pressure environment which doesn’t tell you much about people who aren’t celebrities.

          I think it’s self evident that Hollywood is a very weird high-pressure environment which doesn’t tell you much about people who aren’t celebrities.

        • Tibor says:

          I’ve never met any Hollywood actors, but I know a few Czech ones (no big stars either) personally. I doubt there is a group of people which is more prone to drama (pun intended) and being difficult in relationships. They tend to be people who get easily interested in something and lose interest just as quickly. Also, their working environment does not help. You end up working with a lot of people of the opposite sex in a very emotional and intimate way. The old cliché is that the good actors become the characters when they play them and I think that it is at least partly true. And part of it probably stays with you even after the show. So it is really easy to fall for someone and because of their prevailing personality type, it is easy to lose interest in someone else.

          They also often tend to be charming and charismatic at a first glance but rather annoying if you spend more time with them (but that might just be me and what I like about people). This does not help either.

          • JayT says:

            That all sounds right, and in addition to that, Hollywood stars tend to have schedules that involve lots of travel and being away from home for extended periods of time. If both people in the relationship are stars, the chances that they will both be in the same place at the same time with any regularity is low, and I would guess it becomes easier to end a relationship with someone you never see.

      • TMB says:

        Yes, and if you marry your wife mainly because she’s beautiful, you might be tempted to trade her in when the beauty fades.

        Personalities/character change more slowly than appearance?

    • Gazeboist says:

      Your desirability as a partner is probably the biggest predictor of your number of romantic partners, assuming (1) you can switch partners after a period of time and (2) you are seeking a “final” partner. These two conditions (which apply to monogamous marriage with a divorce option) approximately reduce the situation to the secretary problem, also helpfully called the marriage problem. A perfectly optimal reasoner will switch partners after dating/marriage about once if they’ve got about five potential alternates, or maybe three times if they’ve got closer to ten (the actual result is a simple linear equation where your number of “relationships” is equal to n/e, where n is the number of relationships you might have if you just keep switching and e is the natural logarithm; you want to stop on the best relationship you can, but don’t control the order).

      Human dating and marriage doesn’t actually quite meet the secretary problem’s conditions for a number of reasons, but it’s close. Humans also aren’t perfect reasoners, of course, but I think people generally tend towards that result, especially since dating pools are usually rather small and we’re talking about averages.

      • Wrong Species says:

        I don’t think men usually think like that. Even the stereotypical Ladies Man who goes around sleeping with his secretary doesn’t usually leave his wife.

        • Gazeboist says:

          No individual man (or woman) thinks like that. But it’s a pattern people fall into on average, especially if they take monogamy seriously but do not believe that marriage is necessarily permanent (at least the first condition is broken by your Ladies’ Man). The specific number of potential partners is ill-defined at best, but I think there’s reason to believe that “number of relationships you participate in” is linear in “number of relationships you have the option to participate in”. It’s dead simple, if nothing else.

      • God Damn John Jay says:

        You know talking about potential romantic partners and then bringing up the “Secretary Problem” makes me think this conversation is going in a whole other direction.

        Also of note I had heard of the Secretary Problem before and variants and have never heard it referred to not being in the context of relationships. The weirdest version was a mathematical analysis of finding what men were sponge-worthy (inspired by an episode of Seinfeld where Elaine has only a finite supply of contaceptive sponges to last her the rest of her life)

      • Deiseach says:

        Okay, looking at the Wikipedia article on that, it would seem to be: your best chance at getting hired is not to be one of the first three applicants interviewed 🙂

        Also, this:

        Experimental psychologists and economists have studied the decision behavior of actual people in secretary problem situations. In large part, this work has shown that people tend to stop searching too soon. This may be explained, at least in part, by the cost of evaluating candidates. In real world settings, this might suggest that people do not search enough whenever they are faced with problems where the decision alternatives are encountered sequentially. For example, when trying to decide at which gas station to stop for gas, people might not search enough before stopping.

        Yeah, but people tend to stop for petrol only when the car is running low on petrol, so they don’t have enough to search for the lowest price amongst X number of petrol stations, depending how far apart those stations are: if you are going to run out of petrol now, you probably don’t have enough to drive ten miles down the road to a cheaper petrol station.

        If we were perfectly rational, we would say “I will drive fifty miles to examine the prices of petrol at every petrol station along the way and find which is the cheapest, and then I will always purchase my petrol there”, but we’re not perfectly rational, we’re “oh crap, I forgot to buy petrol yesterday and now I’m nearly out, quick where’s the nearest station?” 🙂

        • Gazeboist says:

          Oh yeah, in the literal secretary scenario, most of the secretaries aren’t going to get the job just by luck. But then, the vast majority of people you might have enjoyed a relationship with probably live in the future or the past and are thus unavailable. The “fairness” sort of comes back for the relationship case because the “secretaries” are all running the same process on a different set of candidates.

          And yeah, the biggest problem that mathematical theories run into when you try to put them into practice is that most of them abstract away any time component in one way or another. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is painfully difficult, so we mostly stick to quasi-static processes. You can’t reliably know the size of your input, so complexity theory drops constant factors and non-leading terms when comparing algorithms. And of course game theory assumes that choices are instantaneous and discrete.

          Of course if we were perfectly rational, we’d probably check whether going to get cheaper gas was actually worthwhile.

    • US says:

      There are too many variables at play here. David already mentioned a few, I agree with him it could go either way. One approach would be to say that beauty increases the size of the available mating pool and ceteris paribus should thus decrease switching costs for both males and females (easier to find a new mate if you’re beautiful). Another approach would be to claim that it doesn’t increase the *perceived* size of the mating pool, it just shifts it ‘upward’, in the sense that an increasing proportion of the ‘downstream population’ becomes unavailable/unattractive to individual i as i’s beauty goes up, because ‘you can do better than that’. Beauty may increase the probability that the mate will put in more effort, which might increase switching costs (or it might not, because the effort might lead to resentment and relationship dissolution through that mechanism). Environmental insults, such as poor childhood nutrition and disease, results in more fluctuating asymmetry, leading to a less ‘beautiful’ appearance – so parental status/income is correlated with ‘beauty’ of the child (as is a lot of other things…). Fluctuating asymmetry is also interesting on its own – “symmetrical men appear to invest less time in and are less faithful to their primary relationship partners”, Sexual Selection in Primates. I’ve seen a study (n= ~3000, on Add Health) in which both the subgroup ‘rated unattractive’ and the subgroup of overweight females were less likely to have had sex by age 18, by roughly the same amount, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.6-7 of having been sexually active. A finding in the relationship management literature is that partners having regular sex are more likely to stay together, and if likelihood of having sex goes up when partners’ level of beauty increases you’d expect there to be an effect as well (regardless of whether this is a ‘proper’ direct effect or not – whether or not regular sex is a causal variable or just an indicator of relationship health doesn’t matter here). In males some of the components of beauty also impacts income directly; for example taller males earn more money, all else equal, so the income levels of different segments of the beauty distribution may not be comparable. Part of that may be due to education, and highly educated married people are less likely to divorce than are people of low income. They also tend to marry later.

      Beauty differentials are probably important. Here it would make a lot of sense to invoke compensating differentials; if one partner looks a lot better than the other, the other one would probably need to have wealth, earn more, or put in more effort some other way or perhaps possess status-enhancing characteristic X, which is highly valued by the other party, for the relationship to be viable longterm. Previous research has found that probabilistically speaking it may be better for the male to earn more than for the female to do so, as relationships in which the female out-earns the male tend to have a higher probability of relationship dissolution (I can’t remember the effect size, but I don’t think it was all that big).

      Search costs and switching costs are related. So for example if beautiful people are more likely to have social links which might provide them with a means of finding a new partner (a simple version of this would be: ‘beautiful people have more friends’), then this would decrease switching costs and maybe increase the probability of relationship dissolution.

      You need to think very carefully, and control for a lot of stuff, to ever get at what impact ‘beauty’ actually might have.

  37. Wrong Species says:

    It seems very likely that in the mid-to-long term future some kind of “mind-reading” technology will be invented. How will this change our knowledge of the world? Will we finally resolve philosophical questions about consciousness? Will economists start literally focusing on maximizing utility, now that they can directly measure it? What kind of psychological answers will be found?

    • Matt M says:

      “Will economists start literally focusing on maximizing utility, now that they can directly measure it?”

      This seems like quite the leap. We can’t even measure our own utility, so for a mind-reading device to measure it, it would have to be capable of “reading the mind” on a scale beyond human comprehension. And you know how that ends right – a universe of paperclips

    • Homo Iracundus says:

      1) you can already measure utility by seeing what people do when you give them choices.
      2) (David Friedman is going to disagree, but) utility is ordinal, not cardinal. You either have “more” or “less” of it, not “5” of it.

      so 3) interpersonal utility comparisons are meaningless. Which prevents any sort of “society-wide utility maximization”

      • “David Friedman is going to disagree”

        More important, so is John Von Neumann.

        Or would if he were still around.

        • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

          What did Neumann have to say on the topic of happiness?

          His words are always worth reading.

          • Von Neumann demonstrated that if choice under uncertainty meets some fairly simple consistency assumptions it can be described by assigning a utility to each outcome and a utility to any lottery equal to the expected value (sum of value times probability) of its outcomes. Given a choice between two lotteries you choose the one with the higher expected value of utility.

            That utility function is arbitrary up to linear transforms, but otherwise cardinal.

          • Lumifer says:

            The VNM theorem shows that a function which satisfies a particular set of constraints necessarily exists.

            It says nothing about what humans like, value, or pursue.

          • Nisan says:

            The von Neumann–Morgenstern theorem uses “utility functions” to describe the behavior of rational agents, and they have nothing at all to do with happiness. Unfortunately, the term is similar to “utility”, which very much has to do with happiness. Because of this, every conversation about measuring happiness is doomed to end in confusion.

          • Said Achmiz says:

            @Nisan:

            A point on which I feel it’s important to be super-clear:

            There is a relationship between happiness (and/or “utility” in the common-parlance sense), and VNM-utility as a concept. That relationship is that the latter is an attempt at a formalization of the former. The choice of name (“utility”) is not coincidental, after all!

            The problem (if you consider it to be a problem) is that there is no guarantee that any formalism will capture all relevant aspects of the thing to be formalized. Von Neumann and Morgenstern were fully aware of this. Wikipedia summarizes aptly:

            Von Neumann and Morgenstern anticipated surprise at the strength of their conclusion. But according to them, the reason their utility function works is that it is constructed precisely to fill the role of something whose expectation is maximized:

            “Many economists will feel that we are assuming far too much … Have we not shown too much? … As far as we can see, our postulates [are] plausible … We have practically defined numerical utility as being that thing for which the calculus of mathematical expectations is legitimate.”
            – VNM 1953, § 3.1.1 p.16 and § 3.7.1 p. 28[1]

            Thus, the content of the theorem is that the construction of u is possible, and they claim little about its nature.

          • Nisan says:

            I think the VNM theorem is an attempt to formalize decision-making, not happiness. My reading of that quote suggests that von Neumann and Morgenstern thought so too. I’d be happy to see evidence that they thought differently.

            If there’s a colloquial sense of “utility” that encompasses both happiness and decision-making, then it’s facilitating an unhelpful equivocation in this thread.

            Of course, there’s a connection between happiness and rational decision-making. In fact I can think of at least two different ones, and they tend to get confused in discussions like these.

          • Said Achmiz says:

            @Nisan:

            I would say that the link here is this: people generally consider the purpose of human decision-making to be something vaguely like “maximize one’s happiness”.

            In other words — ok, “formalizing decision-making”. Well, what guides decision-making “in real life”? We’re trying to make the best decision; but “best” meaning what? Most (Western) people would say that “best” here certainly has something to do with what will make you happy. And if not (just) happiness, then also other things you value: justice, altruism, the good of one’s family/country/whatever… it’s certainly not just some abstract metric, that you’re basing decisions on.

            So in that sense, the VNM theorem formalizes the attempt to achieve maximum happiness/value/etc.

          • Nisan says:

            Well, sure. But note that the scope has now widened from “happiness” (the way you feel moment-to-moment) to “every outcome you value” (which includes things you have done, the way other people feel, your beliefs, …).

            AoxyMouseOnArgo thought this conversation was about measuring happiness with brain scanners, which sounds like something that could plausibly work. Homo Iracundus thought it was about measuring VNM utility with brain scanners, which they pointed out obviously doesn’t make sense to do in an absolute way. I’m not sure which one the OP was talking about. This is the sort of confusion I wanted to clear up.

            You probably don’t want me to get away with my claim that VNM has “nothing to do” with happiness; that’s fair, I was unfairly exaggerating.

      • Said Achmiz says:

        (@David Friedman: Apologies for the rehash of an earlier discussion, this comment is for third parties)

        Relevant clarification:

        VNM utility is defined only up to positive affine transformation. That doesn’t make it ordinal, but it does prevent interpersonal utility comparisons. (You can do the usual sort of arithmetic on your utility, which you couldn’t do if it were ordinal; but your utility and my utility aren’t comparable at all.)

        • The issue of interpersonal comparison is not the same as the issue of cardinal or ordinal utility.

          My view on interpersonal comparison is that although we don’t have a very good way of doing it, we in fact do it routinely. When you decide where to go for vacation or what to have for family dinner, part of what drives that decision is your opinion of how happy it will make the other members of your family. That involves tradeoffs among their differing utility functions. When you decide to give a gift to a friend who you know is poor and in need of money rather than another friend who is comfortably well off, you are making an implicit utility comparison. Both would enjoy your gift–but you believe one will enjoy it much more than the other.

          Similarly with lots of other routine decisions.

          • Said Achmiz says:

            The issue of interpersonal comparison is not the same as the issue of cardinal or ordinal utility.

            Indeed not, as I thought I had made clear. That said, interpersonal comparison seems like the key issue, despite that Homo Iracundus erred in calling VNM utility ordinal.

            My view on interpersonal comparison is …

            My view is that what we’re doing when we make the sorts of decisions you refer to is not comparing VNM utility. We are perhaps comparing utility in the naive, colloquial sense — that is, we are perhaps comparing the thing (of which we have an intuitive concept) which VNM utility might possibly be an acceptable formalism for; but then again, it might not be (and indeed I would say that it isn’t; I would say that characterizing most humans as “having a utility function” is simply inaccurate). But that is not the same thing as making interpersonal comparisons of VNM utility — which is a formally defined thing, and not at all identical to one or another intuitive notion of “value” or some such.

            (For example, you cite “… how happy it will make the other members of your family…” — but there is no formal requirement that anyone’s happiness be at all involved in computing any person’s utility function. This is not even to mention the fact that humans are, in their great majority, noncompliant with the VNM axioms — and thus no utility function could ever be computed for them!)

        • Homo Iracundus says:

          Just want to say that I appreciate this discussion, even though it’s escalated well above my pay grade. I’m only a BA, and not even qualified to BS on this issue.

          • To come back in …

            It’s true that the economist’s “utility” is a description of preferences and the philosopher’s “utility” is a description of intensity of happiness or something along those lines. But the fact that the word is the same is not an accident. If you try to intuit what underlies your utility function (economist’s sense) you end up with something at least close to the philosopher’s sense. The book that put together neoclassical economics, Marshall’s Principles, was written by a utilitarian.

            Consider the specific case of cardinal utility. If you say “I am indifferent between a certainty of a hundred dollars and a .5 chance of three hundred dollars,” that strongly suggests that you think of three hundred dollars as about twice as good, desirable, making you twice as happy as one hundred.

            Are people bothered by the concept of declining marginal utility? Do they intuit it in terms of what choices people make or how much people value things? Strictly speaking, it’s a meaningless concept if utility is only ordinal.

          • Jiro says:

            “Preferences” seems like it includes blissful ignorance. “Happiness” seems like it does not.

      • Wrong Species says:

        Revealed preferences are a convenient shortcut, not a true barometer of people’s preferences.

  38. Homo Iracundus says:

    Do any medical people here know about burn wounds? Because these vegans branding each other look like they’re leaving melted puddles of fat rather than skin discolouration.
    I know we’re not supposed to talk about virtue signalling any more, but… But wow.

    • CatCube says:

      I guess at the end of the day, I don’t see much daylight between branding and tattoos. Permanent marks on your skin is permanent marks on your skin.

      Either way, you probably want someone who knows what they’re doing, which your video probably doesn’t show.

    • keranih says:

      (WP’s article on 269 Life)

      A third degree burn destroys the tissue burned – and yes, it would melt the adipose tissue. Nerve cells are damaged and do not transmit signals – it’s the blistered (2nd degree) and reddened (1st degree) burns that are generally adjacent to the 3rd degree that really hurt.

      It’s not clear how hot their ‘branding iron’ is getting, but if it was applied properly – well heated, restrained subject, fast-on-fast-off – then actual damage should be limited to 3rd degree burns on the dermis and sub-dermis with minimal secondary damage. In contrast, many burns are at lower levels of heat and/or of unequal application.

      Think, oh – making an incision with a scalpel vs sawing with a dull steak knife.

      My bet is the one gal’s arm is gonna be swollen, pink and painful by morning.

      • hlynkacg says:

        Once again I go to answer a question only to find that keranih beaten me to it and done better than I know I would have.

      • Homo Iracundus says:

        I asked the medical question because all the 269 brands I can find images of look like deep gouges of sizzling fat, rather than the skin-deep burns you see from professional branders.
        I’d certainly worry if I saw a cow with that kind of damage!

      • Lambert says:

        If the iron were above 500C (932F), it would be glowing. The fact that the iron is black suggests it has been at above 400C (700F ish?)at some point. However, the blowtorch looks too small to heat the iron to a decent temperature. (Take this with a pinch of salt. IANAB.)

        Either way, studies show freeze branding to be far more humane than heat branding.

        • keranih says:

          I’m not willing to jump to “the branding iron is black because it was once heated” – to me that looks like paint. I’m not sure at all what temperature the iron is at when it is used.

          (Note: ‘black hot’ iron can be used effectively if it’s hot enough…but it’s hard to tell just how hot it is. Once it glows red, the layman can easily say “yeap, hot enough”)

          Freeze branding is less painful at the time it is used, but is both more expensive and takes considerable more handling than hot branding. (Plus is suboptimal for animals with light colored hair.)

          (Handling time is significant for determining the stress and negative welfare of livestock – not just the hands-on time for each animal, but the accumulated time that all the other critters in that herd are standing in the handling pens, waiting their turn. And every time you add a technical part, you have to allow for that part to break and add to the delay.) (Ag paper here)

          As for tattoos vs brands…eh. Brands are more painful, and have chance for sepsis…but brands don’t tend to spread HIV/HepC/etc. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

    • Deiseach says:

      Rolling my eyes so hard at this:

      (a) Presumably the idea is to show how horribly, terribly, dreadfully awful and abusive branding cattle is. Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. Ear tagging is probably better.

      (b) That being said, there’s a difference between human skin and a cow’s hide. Cattle have a layer of hair and thicker skin.

      (c) Doing amateur unprofessional branding is going to hurt more and cause more damage because you have no idea what you are doing. Using that misinformation to say how painful it is for animals is damn stupidity; it’s like comparing professional tattoo removal to do-it-yourself “sandpaper and bleach” methods*

      *I have no idea how people DIY remove tattoos, if they do, but I’m sure someone has been stupid enough to try it.

      • Matt M says:

        “Doing amateur unprofessional branding is going to hurt more and cause more damage because you have no idea what you are doing.”

        Maybe the red tribe should do a similar stunt: To prove how terrible abortion is, watch as we remove a fetus with a coat-hanger and then stomp on it a bunch of times.

  39. tumteetum says:

    Hi all,
    I’m confused, this is a rationalist blog, Trump is barely coherent when he speaks, if he posted comments here in the same manner he would be roasted, yet I’m seeing a lot of support for him here, what gives? Doesnt it matter that he comes across as a rabid chimp? Do you USA types realise how he looks to the rest of the planet?

    • jaimeastorga2000 says:

      lowqualitybait.jpg

      • tumteetum says:

        Well ok, if you say so, but I am confused he would be roasted if he posted here, he is unintelligble when he speaks. Are you saying he’s not?

        • FacelessCraven says:

          I haven’t had any particular difficulty understanding any of his statements that I’ve seen. Which seemed unclear to you?

          More generally, he’s running for president. Anyone who talks like a presidential candidate here should be roasted. Running for president requires you to communicate in a profoundly anti-rational way if you want any chance of winning.

          @Jaime – bait accusations don’t work any more.

          • tumteetum says:

            >I haven’t had any particular difficulty understanding any of his statements
            >that I’ve seen. Which seemed unclear to you?

            You jest! Try googling “trump unintelligible speaking”, here’s one of the links…

            http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trumps-rambling-90-second-speech-stuns-english-speaking-world_uk_57ab37d7e4b08ab70dc0f646

            >More generally, he’s running for president. Anyone who talks like a
            >presidential candidate here should be roasted.

            Ha! Ok fair point.

            >Running for president requires you to communicate in a profoundly
            >anti-rational way if you want any chance of winning.

            Ok a fair point too, but its not so much the “anti-rational” I have a problem
            with, its more the “complete gibberish”.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            …nothing in that speech was actually unintelligable. He’s running three or four parentheticals, some of which overlap, but nothing bizarre or inexplicable.

            the clip starts with him talking about the Iranian nuclear deal. He cuts away to mention his uncle, establishes his uncle’s expertise in nuclear matters, cuts away again to gloat about how smart his uncle was and by extension how smart he is and how the attacks on his intelligence are based on partisan hatred rather than fact, and reminds his audience that this is how the left treats anyone on the right, comes back to the power of nuclear technology, and comes back to point out that the “Persians” are very good at negotiating, and our current efforts toward them are embarrassingly bad.

            Palin a couple years ago free-styled word salad for like two minutes straight. That was weird. This is just talking.

          • Yes, you wouldn’t judge the intelligence of a company’s CEO by assuming he took literally everything said in the company’s advertisements.

          • anonymous now says:

            “I haven’t had any particular difficulty understanding any of his statements that I’ve seen. Which seemed unclear to you?”

            Here are thirty-one statements from last week
            that are “unclear”:

            http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/24/us/elections/donald-trump-statements.html?_r=0

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @Anon now – TumTeeTum was claiming that Trump talks in an inarticulate manner. Those statements aren’t unarticulate, they’re lies, and several of the ten or so I bothered to read weren’t even that. I’m sure it distresses you greatly that a liar will be president of the united states of america, but unless a meteor kills both of them at the debates this evening, that is certainly what will happen. No one cares. Not even a little bit.

        • Nadja says:

          I don’t find him unintelligible. Obviously, he speaks a very different language from that of most of my erudite, Ivy League educated friends. He sounds more like a working class person, with his Queens/NYC roots showing.

          I grew up in Europe in a very technocratic culture, believing that people who talk like that are somehow below me. (Not proud of it, but yeah, that’s how I was raised.) Over the years, I have (almost) completely changed that attitude. Mostly because in America, where I now live, I have met people of very many different backgrounds, and I’ve realized that the way people talk is usually mostly a function of their background. (Duh, I know.) I also stopped liking some elements of the culture represented by the well-spoken Ivy League types, so I can see why people might actually choose to speak differently.

          Moreover, I’ve observed that the Fat Tonies of this world are not any less intelligent or clued in than the Dr. Johns. In fact, I often prefer the Fat Tonies for their lack of affectation.

          Now, if you genuinely find Trump unintelligible, it’s probably just a language barrier. (That’s my best guess, anyway.) Or perhaps your linguistic “error correction” unit doesn’t work very well? As in, if someone uses shaky grammar or their pronunciation is funny, you tend to focus on these problems so much that the larger point starts to escape you? (I’ve got a bit of that problem myself.)

          Anyway, I think Trump is incredibly good at communicating his ideas to a very wide audience. But, obviously, there are also many people like you who are either completely turned off by his way of speaking or who find him unintelligible. Now, if he spoke in a way that appeals to you and that you find clear, he’d probably lose a different, larger chunk of his audience.

          • “and I’ve realized that the way people talk is usually mostly a function of their background.”

            I once heard Feynman give a talk and was struck by the thick Brooklyn accent. Obviously not someone one would take seriously.

            Along related lines, we had a British friend over to dinner last night, an Oxford graduate. In the course of the conversation, the subject of great novelists came up. He asserted that everyone knew that Evelyn Waugh was the greatest novelist of the 20th century and Jane Austen the greatest novelist ever.

            When we mentioned the name of Terry Pratchett his response was that he knew Pratchett was no good. He hadn’t actually read any Pratchett, but he had seen the cover of one.

            It wasn’t clear to what extent he was giving his own views and to what extent parodying the intellectual arrogance of the subculture he came from.

          • Paul Barnsley says:

            It’s revealing, though, that you speak in fully formed, coherent sentences, rather than “authentic” word salad or claiming that Drumpf has the “best words”.

            I think it’s a good deal more contemptuous of the diverse range of speech in American society to suggest that skillful exponents of regional and ethnic dialects talk like Donald Drumpf. Sad. And low-energy, too, I suspect. I’ll call you “sad-Nadja”.

          • “It’s revealing, though, that you speak in fully formed, coherent sentences”

            At a tangent, what you are observing is written English not spoken English. I don’t know if you have ever given a speech and gotten to read a transcript of it, but it’s a humbling experience.

          • Nadja says:

            @ Paul
            With apologies to David Friedman, it is not clear to me to what extent you are giving your own views here and to what extent you’re parodying… various things. Clearly, using Trump-style epithets while bashing Trump’s communication skills is meant to be humorous, which I appreciate. Now, just in case you are actually serious when you say “I think it’s a good deal more contemptuous of the diverse range of speech in American society to suggest that skillful exponents of regional and ethnic dialects talk like Donald Drumpf”, let me address that point.

            I am not suggesting that in order to be a good communicator, one needs to speak like Trump. There *is* a diverse range of speech in the American society, and Trump’s way of talking is representative of just one particular type: a type I loosely associate with Taleb’s Fat Tony.

            What I am saying, however, is that Trump is exceptionally skilled when it comes to various aspects of communication. Certainly more skilled than I am, even with my “fully formed, coherent sentences.”

            Let me give a couple of examples of what I mean. If I tried to write a business book (and were given the choice of any ghost writer I might want), I’m willing to bet that to the average person my book would be much less inspiring and persuasive than Trump’s writing. If I were to run for any sort of office, I’d have next to zero support. Neither my supporters nor my opponents would be copying my speaking style the way we see both Trump supporters and opponents do with “making X great again”, “having the best Y” or “winning so much we’re tired of winning”. There wouldn’t be a huge meme culture inspired by the way I talk.

            If I were to have a TV show, it’d probably get canceled after a couple of episodes given my lack of charisma. If I were to be given the classic interview question of “sell me this pen”, I wouldn’t do as well as Trump would. If I were to negotiate the price of a beautiful estate I’m interested in, I wouldn’t have gotten anywhere close to the sort of a deal Trump got on Mar-a-Lago, even if I had his financial resources. If I were to go to a rally to speak to tens of thousands of people, I wouldn’t be able to inspire and amuse the crowd the way Trump does, especially if I weren’t allowed to use a teleprompter. If I were to talk to the average guy about the weather, that guy wouldn’t end up liking me or respecting me as much as they would end up liking and respecting Trump after similar small talk.

            Anyway, again, I do believe that some folks have problems actually understanding what he means at times, and I do know his style is very off-putting to many. So Trump’s communication skills are not, by any means, perfect. Still, I do think they are exceptional, given how persuasive so many people find him in so many different contexts (business, entertainment, politics, etc.)

          • lemmy caution says:

            Trump is ivy league educated

          • sweeneyrod says:

            @David Friedman
            “It wasn’t clear to what extent he was giving his own views and to what extent parodying the intellectual arrogance of the subculture he came from.”

            My money would be on him having the relatively common English intellectual habit of making hyperbolic statements, and then defending them with obviously flawed arguments. That seems more likely than literally judging a book by its cover.

          • Deiseach says:

            When we mentioned the name of Terry Pratchett his response was that he knew Pratchett was no good. He hadn’t actually read any Pratchett, but he had seen the cover of one.

            Oh, that’s because Pratchett is genre fiction, as you can tell by the book covers (sometimes very witty, as in the Night Watch cover, compare with inspiration). And everyone knows genre fiction is not real writing 🙂

          • Pan Narrans says:

            “And everyone knows genre fiction is not real writing ? ”

            I’ve yet to work out what “genre fiction” means, beyond “an arbitrary category in which I place works that I deem not to be literature, so I can declare that they are by definition not literature by virtue of being in said category”.

            I mean, I’ve seen someone argue – in factual terms, like we were debating whether Paris is in France – that a book didn’t count as a novel because it was genre fiction. I really don’t know what to make of that.

          • Edward Morgan Blake says:

            Drumpf

            Making fun of someone’s name is something that most people outgrew by the time they graduated from junior high.

          • Matt M says:

            “Making fun of someone’s name is something that most people outgrew by the time they graduated from junior high.”

            Making fun of a foreign sounding name is an even more confusing tactic from people who claim Trump’s biggest flaw is racism and xenophobia.

          • jaimeastorga2000 says:

            Oh, that’s because Pratchett is genre fiction, as you can tell by the book covers (sometimes very witty, as in the Night Watch cover, compare with inspiration). And everyone knows genre fiction is not real writing ?

            Ah, the Sci-Fi Ghetto. I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it’s really annoying. On the other hand, attempts to break out of the ghetto result in drivel like “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love” and “The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere”, necessitating the puppies to come in and save the day.

          • LHN says:

            @jaimeastorga2000 Those weren’t really efforts to get out of the ghetto, though: AFAIK they were published in SF venues aimed primarily at SF fans, and made no splash to speak of outside it. (Ditto the Puppies’ picks, which I wish I’d liked better than I did.) The work from within the genre that’s probably made the biggest splash outside it in the last couple of years is probably The Martian, which happily seems to have risen above the culture war thus far.

            But compare Heinlein selling to the Saturday Evening Post and Colliers and Scribner’s juvenile division, or some of the New Wavers getting attention from mainstream reviewers, or former Astounding authors hitting the New York Times best-seller lists in the 80s. Or the push for a while to call it “speculative fiction” (originated by Heinlein in an essay for librarians, IIRC) to reduce the stigma. Or authors like Vonnegut denying they wrote SF at all.

            Whatever problems the field has at the moment, now doesn’t really strike me as the high water mark for aspirations beyond the ghetto walls– especially for the sort of short fiction mentioned.

        • Jaskologist says:

          nydwracu did an excellent writeup on this a while back:

          eoff Pullum, a professional linguist, thinks Trump can’t even form a coherent sentence. Since linguists have known for decades that speech often looks incoherent when written out—and, as a point of historical interest, the main thing that made them realize it was transcripts of the Nixon tapes—something must have happened to confuse Pullum.

          Well, the most unusual thing about Trump’s rhetorical style is that you can’t punctuate it. He’s not reading from a text. He’s not composing a text on the fly. Mark Liberman compares Trump to Elmore Leonard’s lower-class characters, who speak perfectly grammatical vernacular American English that looks wrong when it’s written out in a book. To demonstrate the point, I’ll write the rest of this post in the relevant style.

          the interesting thing about that is
          the way Trump talks comes off as lower-class
          he’s from New York, he can deal with high society
          he can write letters
          we know he can
          he writes letters to the New York Times
          some of them have been published, they’re in the news
          writes letters to the New York Times, has the style down
          but he doesn’t do that on the campaign trail
          he doesn’t speak like he’s reading
          he doesn’t speak like he’s composing a text

          so when Trump talks
          and this is what sets him apart from other politicians
          when they talk, they sound like books
          complete sentences
          complex syntactic structure
          no parentheticals
          I remember reading a paper once
          I can’t find it now
          but there’s a paper somewhere about
          one of those Eskimo languages
          after writing was introduced
          and as writing started to spread
          people started using more complex syntactic structures

          • At a slight tangent …

            I was told that Robert Nozick said Richard Epstein was the only person he knew who spoke in paragraphs.

          • houseboatonstyxb says:

            @ Jaskologist
            > Well, the most unusual thing about Trump’s rhetorical style is that you can’t punctuate it.

            No, it’s not hard to supply punctuation; the transcriber just chose not to. (Palin was treated similarly.)

            The interesting thing about that is, [that]
            the way Trump talks comes off as lower-class.
            He’s from New York, he can deal with high society.
            He can write letters.
            We know he can;
            he writes letters to the New York Times.
            Some of them have been published; they’re in the news.
            [He] writes letters to the New York Times, has the style down.
            But he doesn’t do that on the campaign trail.
            [He] doesn’t speak like he’s reading;
            he doesn’t speak like he’s composing a text.

            If I weren’t too lazy, I’d look up some of the Psalms that use a similar technique — ie parallelism, with a sort of call and response pause between clauses.

        • I listened to the debate a while ago. I had no trouble following what he was saying. Much of it was wrong, but he did a reasonably good job of making it sound as if it was right.

          At only a slight tangent … . Pretending to others that your opponents are stupid may sometimes be a sensible tactic. Believing that they are is usually a serious mistake.

      • keranih says:

        Do you USA types realise how he looks to the rest of the planet?

        In the (oft repeated) immortal words of MSgt Farell, Don’t know, don’t care, never asked.

        OTOH, might have to go answer Unit of Caring, just to reward non-trolling attempts at understanding.

        • tumteetum says:

          >Don’t know, don’t care, never asked.

          Yeah but even the USA has to work with the rest of the world.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usN3rpfFoGA

          Trolling? Not really, just trying to understand why so many of you guys seem to be in his favour. Everything else I read here I can at least see the opposing point even if I dont agree, hell you guys have even managed to raise some doubt in me over AGW but this Trump thing I just do not get.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @tumteetum – “Yeah but even the USA has to work with the rest of the world.”

            Do we? How? Why?

            regarding the rest of the world, my main interest is in how we can stop turning tax dollars into giant mounds of dead foriegners. Beyond that, the rest of the world can figure things out for themselves.

          • keranih says:

            Trolling? Not really, just trying to understand why so many of you guys seem to be in his favour

            Then for fuck’s sake ask that. Don’t state your own assumptions about Trump and then ask us why we don’t agree with you about him.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @keranih – maybe chill a bit? and possibly apologize? I understand the pattern-matching thing, it tweaked me too, but looking over the last several months of these sorts of conversations I really think the “troll” response is a losing one.

            [EDIT] – this is what bubble crossover looks like. We do actually want bubble crossover, right?

          • tumteetum says:

            >Do we? How? Why?

            Well there’s all those international treaties, trade deals and the like. So yes you have to work with the rest of the world.

          • tumteetum says:

            @keranih

            Because thats what I want to know. I want to know why you guys dont agree with my perception of him. I agree with much that goes on here but this consistently does my head in.

          • keranih says:

            @FacelessCraven –

            Well, I buggered off for a few months, so I missed that bit.

            bubblecross over

            Don’t buy that. Not for “your guy talks like a moron why do you even listen to him?”

            For things like, oh, the occasional really dumb stuff that came out of Melissa Harris-Perry’s mouth, where I could see what she meant to say, and that she meant it with good heart, but that she’d just never talked to anyone who used a different…errr…bubble dialect, and so didn’t understand how her words were going to be taken – sure. Yes, cut people slack, explain how that’s a sub-optimal phrasing, ask for a rephrase.

            rabid chimp – that’s not *bubble*, that’s rude name calling, and shit-stirring.

            possibly apologize

            *huffs out breath, making bangs twitch* Serious question. What for?

          • Matt M says:

            “Well there’s all those international treaties, trade deals and the like. ”

            A huge part of Trump’s support is coming from a group of people who think all of these things are destructive and have done a great deal of harm to the country.

            Trump is essentially implying that we’ve been electing nice guys the world respects so much who proceed to roll over and get taken advantage of by shrewd foreign politicians, signing international agreements that favor foreign countries over America.

            Which means that the more other countries cry about how bad Trump is, the more accurate this narrative appears.

          • “but this Trump thing I just do not get.”

            I’m not a Trump supporter, but maybe I can help.

            The term “flyover country” is used by people who live in the central parts of the U.S. to describe their view of the contempt they think the coastal elites hold for them–the only importance of most of the U.S. being that it is what you fly over on your way from New York to San Francisco.

            The coastal elites are the part of American culture most admiring of Europe and most interacted with by Europeans. Trump support is to a considerable degree by people who feel they are despised by the same subset of the American population that you are most likely to interact with–and naturally resent it.

            I am, loosely speaking, part of that same cultural elite–I graduated from Harvard, live in Silicon Valley. But I disagree with large parts of the dominant ideology of my fellow members and so have some sympathy for the reaction to them of the rest of the country.

            Does that help? If a politician is deliberately trying to identify as an enemy of the elite he is likely to say things in a way that offends that elite and people culturally close to them.

          • Possibly another piece: the financial crisis was mostly created and not predicted by smooth-talking, reasonable-sounding, respectable people.

            Reversed stupidity isn’t intelligence, but it’s really, really tempting.

          • “I want to know why you guys dont agree with my perception of him.”

            Is your perception of him consistent with the fact that he comfortably won the Republican primary despite having no background in politics, no history of being a Republican, no support from the party machinery, and opposition by what initially appeared to be a strong field of candidates?

            Isn’t that strong evidence that, whatever else he may be, he isn’t stupid?

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @kerinah – “Don’t buy that. Not for “your guy talks like a moron why do you even listen to him?”

            They hate us. We hate them. That’s how the bubbles form in the first place. You know what the media’s like, you know that the constant message is that all of us are brain-damaged degenerate inbred hatefully violent crazy deplorables. You know that a significant percentage of their side actually believes that stuff is true. What would you expect someone coming from that bubble to sound like?

            “Serious question. What for?”

            For swearing at them and calling them a troll, and generally being ornery. my mom taught me that when there’s conflict, always be willing to apologize for your own part in it. I can’t make you do it, and you’re entirely within your rights to tell me to fuck off. But I am on your side, and I think your approach is counterproductive, short term and long. Take that for what it’s worth.

            …more generally, it seems to me that troll accusations are better made by people on the side of the issue the potential troll is supporting. Shooting across the isles is counterproductive.

          • pku says:

            @David Friedman:

            Would you also use that description for Jeremy Corbyn (who won his primaries in a far larger margin despite lacking many of Trump’s positional advantages)?

            FacelessCraven

            They hate us. We hate them.

            That’s not really true – I’ve met very few coastal liberals that have the contempt for “flyover country” you seem to think they do. The “coastal elitist who turns his nose up at the uncultured masses”, much like the “misogynist who thinks women are beneath him”, seems like a politically convenient stereotype that doesn’t really match reality.

          • keranih says:

            @FacelessCraven –

            Still not buying that “Doesnt it matter that he comes across as a rabid chimp?” is bubble, rather than rude disparagement. “Don’t you care what the rest of the world thinks?” – *that* could be (likely is) bubble – it’s asking a reasonable question based on an assumption of an value that isn’t, after all, shared.

            I sat through 8 years of libs calling Bush “Chimp” and then completely losing their shit when anyone made any sort of primate-related jokes about Obama. Even given that tumteetum evidently ain’t from around here (and I will guess ESL, given the spelling that is worse than mine) I find it extremely hard to believe that “rabid chimp” was meant in an open-minded, non-mocking way.

            Instead of doing as UoC did, and ask questions, wanting answers the impression I got of ttt was that they were strolling in to take this opportunity to say what they thought of those who would not vote for Hillary, and by extension, the whole USA. Not to ask, but to sneer.

            So, troll.

            I’m willing to note that in follow up ttt’s far less troll-like, but I stand by my first impression.

            Having said all that, I’ll take it under consideration calling ttt out on it immediately wasn’t the most productive move.

            (Will not apologize for ornery. I’d be here all damn day.)

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @pku – “That’s not really true – I’ve met very few coastal liberals that have the contempt for “flyover country” you seem to think they do.”

            I’ve met a whole whopping lot of them. I’ve read and watched a number of them. I used to be one of them, for most of Bush’s administration through the early years of Obama. Did you watch Jon Stewart, back in the day? Have you ever read Tim Krieder? He’s probably my favorite political cartoonist, and his essays are excellent. Are you following the current Palmer Lucky situation? I make games for a living, so his purging is actually pretty relevant to me.

            …I don’t mean to imply that liberals are uniquely awful in this matter. Conservatives hate the shit out of liberals just as hard. It’s completely a two-way street. But the hate, on both sides, seems pretty freaking obvious to me, so I’m a bit baffled at how someone could claim it doesn’t exist.

          • tumteetum says:

            @David Friedman

            “Does that help? If a politician is deliberately trying to identify as an enemy of the elite he is likely to say things in a way that offends that elite and people culturally close to them.”

            Yes, this I understand. I get why the people in fly-over country like him. I dont get why so many here do. Most here would seem to be those elites.

          • tumteetum says:

            @David Friedman

            “Isn’t that strong evidence that, whatever else he may be, he isn’t stupid?”

            Its a fair point, but I honestly dont know, all I can say is that whenever I’ve seen him interviewed, the word smart doesn’t spring to mind.

          • “Most here would seem to be those elites.”

            Many of us are class traitors, so to speak.

            A story I’ve probably told here before …

            In 1964 I was a Harvard undergraduate and a Goldwater supporter. I got into a conversation with a friendly stranger, probably due to my having a Goldwater button.

            We ran through a bunch of issues. In each case he wanted to know how I could possibly support Goldwater’s position. In each case I answered with arguments in support of it that were obviously new to him and to which he had no immediate rebuttal.

            At the end he asked me, in a tentative not-wanting-to-offend tone, whether perhaps I was taking all of these positions as a joke. Pretty clearly, it was the intellectual equivalent of “What’s a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?” How could I be smart enough to give apparently legitimate arguments for positions he knew had to be wrong and yet stupid enough to believe them?

            Having spent my life as a libertarian in an academic world that is heavily biased towards the conventional left does not leave me with much sympathy for the intellectual/ideological views of the coastal elite of which I am a member.

            I don’t have any more sympathy for Trump’s views, but the fact that he is speaking heresy isn’t the reason why I don’t.

          • “all I can say is that whenever I’ve seen him interviewed, the word smart doesn’t spring to mind.”

            I’m an economist. I mostly judge people by what they do not what they say.

            Did it occur to you that you were not the audience he was trying to convince?

            Imagine yourself in one of the Republican candidate debates. Do you think you could have done a more effective job than he did?

          • tumteetum says:

            “Did it occur to you that you were not the audience he was trying to convince?”

            Fair point, I’m certainly not his audience.

            “Imagine yourself in one of the Republican candidate debates. Do you think you could have done a more effective job than he did?”

            Ha! Yeah ok, there’s no way I could have but my original question was more about my frustration at not understanding why so many here seem to like him.

          • Fahundo says:

            The term “flyover country” is used by people who live in the central parts of the U.S. to describe their view of the contempt they think the coastal elites hold for them

            Having lived in “flyover country” for the first 20 years of my life, I was actually never exposed to the term until I heard coastals saying it.

          • Lumifer says:

            @ pku

            I’ve met very few coastal liberals that have the contempt for “flyover country” you seem to think they do.

            That holds only until the people from the flyover country get uppity and express a desire to vote for That Monster.

          • Matt M says:

            “Fair point, I’m certainly not his audience.”

            With all due respect, if you concede that you are not his audience, then you have virtually no business commenting on how he “speaks nonsense” because he is not speaking to you.

            It would be like me watching Angela Merkel give a speech in German (I don’t speak German) and then complaining that it was nonsense and I couldn’t even understand what she was saying. Of course not, she wasn’t talking to me.

            Communication is more than just knowing the literal translation of words. I can see how a blue tribe European would see a Trump speech as not very far removed from a completely foreign language. That doesn’t make Trump an idiot – that makes you unqualified to judge his abilities as a communicator.

          • “but my original question was more about my frustration at not understanding why so many here seem to like him.”

            I’m not sure anyone in this discussion has gone as far as “like.” Some here plan to vote for him.

            In any case, I was responding not to your view that he was unlikeable but that he was unintelligent.

          • keranih says:

            @tumteetum –

            I apologize for using profanity in my reply to you. It unnecessarily lowered the tone of the conversation and I shouldn’t have done it. I beg your pardon for this lapse, and resolve to not do so, so quickly, again.

          • tumteetum says:

            @keranih

            No worries mate, and you were kind of right, I could have phrased the question more clearly.

          • tumteetum says:

            @Matt M

            I meant “not his audience” in the sense that I’m not a voter.

            Also, its not that his speech is a foreign language (I have relatives and aquaintances who speak like that) its more that its drivel.

            And whilst I’m here, I am not a euro or a member of the blue tribe.

          • Shieldfoss says:

            @tumteetum

            Yes, this I understand. I get why the people in fly-over country like him. I dont get why so many here do. Most here would seem to be those elites.

            .

            Most here would seem to be those elites.

            Well there’s your mistake then, thinking we’re a representative sample of that community.

            This is a spinoff blog from the Less Wrong community.

            And one of the ways Less Wrong warns you that you can be wrong is this: Agree with things because they are popular with your group, instead of agreeing with things that are true.

            And once you start doing a real analysis of the situation based on avoiding mistakes so you can know things that are true rather than knowing things that are popular, it becomes trivially easy to understand Trump’s almost meteoric rise.

            Now that’s not enough to start rooting for Trump. For that, you also need to hate the things he are running against.

            He’s not running against Hillary. Hillary only has one vote. He’s running against the culture that wants to elect Hillary.

            That is a culture of lies and deceptions, which is why people have such an easy time ignoring Trumps tendency
            towards bullshit. It is a culture of violence, which is why people don’t care when Trump calls for violence.[1] It is a culture of racism, which is why nobody cares that Trump is called a racist.[2]

            I am, culturally, of that elite that Trump is running against. I write these words here, instead of speaking them in public, because in public it would cost me friends, despite every word I’ve written being true. Because, despite their truth, they signal that I’m not one of them. Part of being a member of that elite requires believing, or at least professing, a number of lies. I can swallow my pride and pretend I believe when my name is attached, but here, anonymous? Here you get the truth.

            [1] I have occasionally phrased it: Some people want to vote for Trump because they are one-issue voters. The issue is: “Have you voted for a war” and of the current candidates, Trump hasn’t.

            [2] There’s also a bit of the Boy who cried Wolf about this one. Trump is literally Hitler, huh? Just like Romney was? And McCain? Bush? Come off it. I personally credit it more with Trump than I did with any of the other candidates, but the thing is that if you call every republican candidate Hitler, your conduct loses the ability to transmit information – it’s like a mine sweeper that beebs when there’s a mine, and has a defect so it also beebs when there’s NOT a mine; that doesn’t help me find mines.

          • keranih says:

            In response to the idea that the citizens of the USA should pay heed to what non-citizens think of their poll choices, and the (in my mind linked) notion that SSC represents the “coastal elite” of the USA…

            This is what makes me a federalist – ie, why I am so invested in layered government that pushes power & governance down to the lowest level possible. Because unless everyone buys into the idea that I get to do what I want, you get to do what you want, and Charlie over there gets to do his third thing, we all end up living our lives according to the dictates of some strangers who live someplace else entirely.

            And yes this system is regulatorily inefficient – just as it would be more efficient to have just one kind of sparrow populating all the world. But it is also tremendously more efficient in responding to the local environment – to include the values and needs of the local people.

            Governing large swaths of areas by top level fiat is like trying to feed a flock of sparrows by giving them all seed-eater beaks. It’s not going to make them want to eat seeds instead of bugs, and it’s not going to make seeds plentiful in their local area.

            It does, however, give a bit of a rush to the people who can go about arresting bug eaters, where ever they are. Or if not arresting them, snapping the paper over and ranting about these stupid bug eaters, who won’t go along with the grand plan.

          • Edward Morgan Blake says:

            The term “flyover country” is used by people who live in the central parts of the U.S. to describe their view of the contempt they think the coastal elites hold for them–the only importance of most of the U.S. being that it is what you fly over on your way from New York to San Francisco.

            I am old enough and traveled enough to remember when term first started being used in DC, NYC, and LA. (This was before SF was a cultural powerhouse.)

            I would agree that your definition is somewhat more correct now, but a few decades ago, it was used by rich and connected coasties to signal their contempt for the middlies, in a way that also signaled their wealth and sophistication, in that it implied that were wealthy and connected enough to afford to fly, and had reasons to fly between the coasts (even if they were not actually rich enough to do so, unless on an expense account), and thus were the Right Sort of People.

            The rich and connected coasties, by doing so, made the mistake that you pointed out in a comment above, of assuming that the middles were stupid. They are not stupid. They are just as smart, they are slower to anger, and they are now angry.

          • I have lived in the US my whole life, but I have similar questions to ttt. I am a little surprised at intelligent folks supporting Trump, because he does say some pretty stupid things. It is true that every politician says stupid things. I guess to me the only rationale one could give to support Trump is the old lesser of two evils trope (or lesser of several evils in the Republican primary).

            Yes, Trump is refreshing in his trashing of political correctness, but he is running for President, which is a pretty serious position. The President does have much less power than usually given credit for, but he can send jets and drones and assassins to kill people, and can direct administrative agencies to do some nasty things, and will nominate Supreme Courts judges, which sometimes determine important things. So I don’t think it is a good idea to vote for somebody based on his talk.

            I will be voting based on the parties, not the person, because I think it matters much more which party is in power than the joker who actually inhabits the White House. But ttt is correct that the occupant in the White House will have an effect on the US perception in the rest of the world, so it does matter more than the nay-sayers in this thread. Though admittedly, it won’t much affect my own vote.

          • Tibor says:

            I disagree with the notions that Europeans do not like Trump. In fact, Trump has a lot more to do with socialist right wing (or how should I call them?) of Europe – people like Marine le Pen or Heinz-Christian Strache – than with the average Republican. And exactly the people who vote for Le Pen (or Wilders, Strache, Orbán, partially AfD,…) in Europe are big fans of Trump and for the same reasons they support Le Pen. Both are anti-establishment and people do not like the establishment. Most of the traditional media in Europe and the “elites” are indeed strongly opposed to Trump but that is not the same thing as to say that Europeans are somehow all like that. If anything and with some exceptions (mostly gun laws), Trump is a more “European” nationalist right-winger than the traditional American right wing which, at least in its rhetoric, is still a bit more free market leaning. Particularly in France, Trump would be at home with his political ideas, Le Pen is possibly even more protectionist than him and there is a small but not too small a chance that she becomes the next French president.

            By the way, I find that in the EU in particular the people have, at least in most countries, good reasons to be against the established political parties, even though unfortunately most of the successful anti-establishment people are perhaps even worse – then again if they keep being a constant threat (but never actually quite take over) then it might work a lot better. I find current Austrian government rather reasonable (even though the state is apparently incapable of organizing elections there) compared to the current German government for instance and this is partly because the FPÖ creates a lot of pressure on the government. On the other hand an FPÖ government would probably be pretty bad. I wish people decided to vote for libertarian parties instead, but with the exception of Switzerland where one such party (although they are no anarcho-capitalists, also Switzerland is not an EU member) is actually the second biggest party in the country (and has been for decades), this is not very realistic (although recently a rather libertarian leaning party ended up second in the parliament elections in Slovakia, so that is very good news I think…if they can hold onto that position).

            Unfortunately, this does not work in the US because of the winner takes all two party presidential system.

      • Homo Iracundus says:

        In fairness, it’s a great opportunity to confess that I would take an actual rabid chimp as president over most rationalists.
        The chimp is much less likely to think “aha, I can cleverly outwit Putin with all the tricks I learned from Harry Potter Fanfic—… That’s funny, why is everyone speaking Russian all of a sudden?”

      • HeelBearCub says:

        Seriously what is up with all of the accusation of trolling these days.

        This is the kind of shit that appears regularly from the regular right of center commenters here that does not seem like it is in the intended spirit of the place.

        • Nadja says:

          Well, so I found the original comment amusing/humorous, and I didn’t immediately think it was trolling, but I have to admit that I wasn’t quite sure. I think what made it look like possible trolling was the expression “rabid chimp” used to describe Trump *while* addressing Trump supporters. Also, the question asking if we US types don’t realize how he comes off to the rest of the world: seemed more rhetorical than genuine. So, anyway, I can completely see how people would think it was a troll comment. Especially if you compare it to how a very similar question was asked by the Unit of Caring.

          • pku says:

            I am genuinely curious about the how Trump comes off to the rest of the world question. Is “the rest of the world can go shove it” the real pro-Trump argument? Do Trump supporters think Trump can get foreigners to respect him? Do they just consider the diplomatic/public image loss an acceptable cost?

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @pku – In what way is the respect of foreigners valuable? What does it get us that we really need?

            America is rich, powerful, and at least arguably decent, as empires go. So long as we maintain those three, what respect we receive from the rest of the world will continue. Who our president is doesn’t make any perceptible difference. The rest of the world will always be happier with a Democrat than a Republican, but they will deal with the Republican just the same.

            Trump may or may not be able to get foreigners to respect him. I don’t think it really matters either way. The diplomatic/public image loss is way, way, way, way, way down on the list of things I’m worried about.

          • Matt M says:

            And keep in mind the implication here.

            To whatever extent Americans are supposed to value “public image among other countries” you are essentially suggesting that Americans should subordinate their own interests to those of people living in other countries.

            Why should the British or the French or anyone else get to extort us into electing the candidate they prefer? This is our election, not yours. Don’t threaten us with the supposedly terrible consequences that you might not like us quite as much if we don’t do what you say. Nobody cares. Do your worst.

          • Nadja says:

            @pku – Given that I grew up in Europe, I have many friends there. Some respect and like Trump, some think he’s crazy and dumb. In my experience, the split goes along similar tribal lines as in the US: the contrarians/right-wing libertarians (intentionally vague here) tend to like Trump, others tend not to. There are foreigner public figures who speak well of Trump and there are those who don’t. I just don’t see the possible loss of respect for the US from some foreigners who particularly dislike Trump as a big threat. Its effect is hard to predict or quantify anyway. Especially that there are possibly other things about Trump, like his charisma/persuasion skills that might have a positive effect in dealing with other nations.

          • ThirteenthLetter says:

            I doubt a President Trump would ever gain any respect from the elites of Western European nations, but that’s hardly a new situation. Bush was considered an idiot by them, and Reagan, too.

          • Thomas Jørgensen says:

            Speaking as a EU citizen, my view of Trump is very simple. He’s a knockoff Berlusconi, and if elected he’s going to do to the US what Berlusconi did to Italy. Meaning, loot it.
            … I am somewhat confused what the so-called rationalist contingent of the internet finds appealing about that prospect, but partisan loyalty covers a multitude of sins, and Berlusconi got reelected, so I’m not surprised at Trump having support.

          • My feeling is that Clinton likes money, but isn’t strongly driven by it. She’ll might steal something, but the US can endure a moderate level of corruption.

            Trump is driven by money, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he finds a way to loot the US.

          • Matt M says:

            If you think that the federal government generally does more harm than good, then transferring wealth away from it and to Trump’s bank account is a moral good.

            Trump is less likely to use his personal assets on things like assault drones to blow up weddings in Yemen or security agents to spy on my phone calls or armored personnel carriers to carry out no-knock 3 AM raids based on anonymous tips that someone smelled pot nearby.

            Trump’s personal bank account may not be the BEST place for 35% of my income to go to, but it’s better than the only alternative that I’m being allowed to select.

          • Lumifer says:

            @ Nancy Lebovitz

            My feeling is that Clinton likes money, but isn’t strongly driven by it. She’ll might steal something, but the US can endure a moderate level of corruption.

            Unfortunately, Hillary likes power and the question of whether the US can endure further shifts into the Imperial Presidency direction is an interesting one.

          • Corey says:

            the question of whether the US can endure further shifts into the Imperial Presidency direction is an interesting one.

            It’s probably unavoidable, given coequal but separately-elected legislative/executive branches and coherent political parties. If a party collapses we’ll get a temporary reprieve from gridlock (note that gridlock prevents your chosen policies from being implemented, for any value of “you”, even ancaps). But once the parties get balanced-ish again we’ll be right back there.

            Imperial Presidency seems more likely than Imperial Congress because Congress appears happy to avoid any politically-difficult stances by passing the buck to the President (see: wars).

          • Matt M says:

            “(note that gridlock prevents your chosen policies from being implemented, for any value of “you”, even ancaps).”

            True. But if you know your chosen policies are currently unpopular and have little likelihood of being implemented anyway, gridlock can still be a good thing.

            In other words – I’m a fan of gridlock now because AnCaps only comprise about 1% of the population whereas socialists (depending on how seriously you define the word) may comprise anywhere between 5 and 50% of the population.

            So let me work on moving popular opinion in my preferred direction. Once I get to the 30% range you can bet I won’t prefer gridlock anymore.

          • “Trump is driven by money”

            It’s possible, but how can you tell? My guess is that he is driven by status.

          • ThirteenthLetter says:

            Speaking as a EU citizen, my view of Trump is very simple. He’s a knockoff Berlusconi, and if elected he’s going to do to the US what Berlusconi did to Italy. Meaning, loot it.

            There are certainly parallels to Berlusconi, but I really don’t see it.

            The thing is, the President doesn’t really have as many opportunities as you’d think to be corrupt. As a single point of focus, it’s simple enough for the mouthbreathers in the news media to understand and scrutinize, and he actually doesn’t have that direct power over the money anyway — that’s Congress’s job. Of course, ex-Presidents do very well for themselves with corporate boards and speaking fees and a fat pension and so on, but that’s all aboveboard.

            If you want to be a corrupt SOB in American electoral politics, the Senate’s the place you want to be. That or maybe mayor of a large city, although better than even chances you’ll end up in jail if you push it. Definitely not governor — that’s just as bad as President.

          • nimim. k.m. says:

            @FacelessCraven

            >The rest of the world will always be happier with a Democrat than a Republican, but they will deal with the Republican just the same.

            Untrue. Well, yes, in the scope of this election, and probably in other near-future elections, but one must consider that parties’ lines have not been eternal and could change in future, too. I have no idea which party I’d be more sympathetic towards in 20 years time, even if my personal ideological position would not change.

            You also have to account for the fact that the rest of the world is a large place. I find it unlikely that the rest of the world could agree on whom they’d prefer as president *today*.

            And then there’s this wildest “DnD random encounter table” I’ve ever seen, called the reality of international politics.

          • David Friedman:

            >>Trump is driven by money”

            >It’s possible, but how can you tell? My guess is that he is driven by status.

            You’ve got a point there. When Trump shortchanges contractors, it could be as much that he wants to demonstrate that he can get away with mistreating them as that he’d rather not pay out the money.

          • TheAncientGeek says:

            Why should the British or the French or anyone else get to extort us into electing the candidate they prefer?

            Who said it is extortion? It’s in everyones rational interest not to make mistakes, even if they “your” mistakes, and its in everyone’s interest to adopt good ideas, even when they are somebody elses..

          • Matt M says:

            The guy was basically saying “you have to deal with us in terms of trade deals, therefore do what we say.” The implication is clearly “if you don’t vote for who we want, we will give you a less favorable trade deal.” That’s extortion.

            In fairness, it works both ways. Obama tried to do this over Brexit with his famous “back of the line” comments (which he immediately backed down from when the side he preferred lost, which is also exactly what I’d expect from all the Trump-hating world leaders if Trump wins)

        • hlynkacg says:

          As I said below, the “rabid chimp” makes me think troll, but I’m trying to be charitable (and yes it’s difficult sometimes)

        • Gazeboist says:

          There’s two kinds of trolling:

          1. The trolling where you lie in some way, steadily escalating the degree of falsehood. At some point your target gets it, discards everything you “told” them, and laughs.

          2. The trolling where you go to a place that has a number of combative people on it and say something that pisses at least some of them off. With the right prompting, you can get a full-blown flamewar going and destroy a comments thread.

          (1) is a practice I love and cherish; it is the best kind of joke.

          (2) doesn’t actually require that your motives be hostile, but it does need to be guarded against for the sake of the garden. Accusing someone of trolling will (a) put them on notice that they’ve come across as needlessly hostile and (b) put other people on notice that they aren’t presently under attack and should check whether the person in question is actually hostile.

          • HeelBearCub says:

            Why are you accusing me of trolling?

            Or, are you in fact accusing me of trolling? It’s hard to tell.

      • suntzuanime says:

        I dunno, looking at the length of this thread it seems high enough quality to me. Maybe we’re just low quality fish.

    • pku says:

      Because there are a lot of right-wing contrarians around here, mostly.

      • tumteetum says:

        Yeah I know but usually they’re rational, this just seems completely one-eyed.

        • pku says:

          This is an instance of second level thinking (modeling the people on the other side as people who model you as an idiot), which is somehow so much more frustrating than first-level thinking – If you can understand that the other side has agency, how can you not understand that they might also have intelligence?

          It’s particularly frustrating with a lot of the pro-trumpers here – the ones who use euphemisms like “sneering class” for liberals – since they feel like their understanding that liberals see conservatives in a negative way fills up their “empathy for the day” quota, and proceed to cast said liberals as ridiculously strawmanned sneering morons.

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            I don’t think anyone’s implied that leftists are generally unintelligent.
            In fact, the Unqualified consensus seems to be that liberals will be (on average) more intelligent, in that they have the sense to jump onto the winning bandwagon instead of the shortbus.

            You might be thinking of the word “evil” instead.

          • pku says:

            Aside from abortion (and I guess the SJ movement), I really can’t see how you could see liberals as evil. Wrong and misguided, I can see, but intentionally evil?

          • keranih says:

            PKU –

            re: stupid/evil

            Go back to the last open thread, the one where David Friedman relayed the joke about the two American political parties.

          • Matt M says:

            Well communists murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century. That’s pretty clearly evil.

            The question in play is – to what extent does modern liberalism still want to move us in that direction?

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            @keranih, yeah, I suspected that reference might have been too subtle.

          • keranih says:

            OTOH, the stupid/evil joke is so old, I actually managed to get far enough out of political discourse that I completely forgot it at one time. By this point in the election cycle, I thought everyone had heard it again.

            But someone had to re-explain Plato’s Chicken to me again, in the last week.

            *shrugs* At one end or the other, all our reference pools are shallow.

          • “Aside from abortion (and I guess the SJ movement), I really can’t see how you could see liberals as evil.”

            There is a very depressing book by Thomas Sowell entitled The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. His basic thesis is that liberals are motivated by the desire to feel superior and don’t really care whether the actual result of the policies they advocate in order to do so is good or bad.

            He starts by running through a couple of cases where liberals supported a change, arguing that it would have a good effect, against conservatives who argued it would have a bad effect. The change was made and the problem it was supposed to solve got much worse. That doesn’t, of course, prove causality, but it should at least be a reason for the people who supported the change to seriously consider that they might have been mistaken. Their response instead was to continue congratulating themselves on how wise and virtuous they were while pushing for another change.

            I stopped reading part way through because he was offering a convincing argument for a conclusion I did not wish to be convinced of. But I think it suggest an answer to your question.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @pku – “It’s particularly frustrating with a lot of the pro-trumpers here – the ones who use euphemisms like “sneering class” for liberals – since they feel like their understanding that liberals see conservatives in a negative way fills up their “empathy for the day” quota, and proceed to cast said liberals as ridiculously strawmanned sneering morons.”

            I had a meeting at work recently. At one point, my boss and a coworker had a back-and-forth about how important it was that the company avoid any contact or association with people with political views like mine. I am highly confident if my boss or coworkers knew my views, I would be fired.

            I am not in favor of using terms like “sneering class”. But Palmer Lucky actually is in the process of being purged from my industry right now, and his girlfriend is actually being harassed right now, and a whole lot of liberals really are openly sneering about it and cheering it on right now in a very loud and very public way.

          • Matt M, that’s a really interesting question. My impression is that modern liberals are way too sentimental about communism, but it’s also worth noting that they haven’t tipped any of their countries into communist disaster.

          • CatCube says:

            @pku

            Answer from a right winger: TLDR is that a segment of the right thinks that you *intend* the bad results that we think your policies will cause. (A defect shared by the left about the right–why Jill gets such static here.)

            The dominant part of the narrative holding that “liberals are evil” is that the left knows that its policies are destructive, but pursues them because it increases their power.

            For example (very loosely paraphrasing), increasing the minimum wage will immiserate a large number of people by putting them out of work, destroying their communities, and making them dependent upon the welfare rolls. Liberals know this, and push for an increase in minimum wage anyway because they think that the commensurate increase in welfare spending will centralize power in the hands of the federal government and increase their own power.

            It’s the reverse of liberals sneering about how right-wingers only care about rich people. Liberals think that, say, conservatives know that an increase in the minimum wage will do good for the poor at the expense of the rich and oppose it for those reasons, rather than because we think that the increase in minimum wage is destructive.

          • David Friedman, SJWs are notable for discounting other people’s claims of good intentions.

            In racefail, it was “you expect to be judged by your intentions”. More recently (they do work on making their rhetoric clearer) it was “Intention isn’t magic”, and I’ve just seen “Impact, not intention”.

            Unfortunately, they don’t apply this standard to themselves.

          • keranih says:

            @Nancy –

            “Impact, not intention”

            On that note, I’m going to bed, and will go off to pleasant dreams, holding on to the notion that the SJ crowd might be making a turn towards actual evidence-based activism.

            I suspect it will not be so, but wouldn’t it be nice, to pretend it was?

          • keranih

            What I’ve seen of SJWs is that they’re very attentive to getting what they want (probably more evidence-oriented than most people), but not necessarily good at seeing whether what they want serves their larger goals. *Will* getting Confederate flags taken down make racist murder less likely? I don’t know, and I bet they don’t either, though they’re probably right that black people will feel more comfortable if they don’t see Confederate flags treated with respect.

            More generally, they are leaving a trail of people who fear and hate them, and are possibly less sympathetic to SJW goals than they otherwise would be. Is this worth it? The more committed SJWs aren’t even good at knowing what effect they’re having, let alone whether it’s a problem. Instead, they complain about white fragility.

            As far as I can tell “Impact, not intention” isn’t a general principle. If means that if they’re angry at you, it’s your fault, and if you’re angry at them, it’s your fault.

            In a spirit similar to your hopes for evidence-based activism, I keep hoping that intersectionality will eventually lead to paying attention to individual people.

            Note: I’m biased against SJW, though less so than some.

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            Here is an example I would definitely consider evil, and a good example of what David was talking about.

            The DoJ is threatening Berkeley with a lawsuit, because

            the Department of Justice has recently asserted that the University is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because, in its view, not all of the free course and lecture content UC Berkeley makes available on certain online platforms is fully accessible to individuals with hearing, visual or manual disabilities.

            I intend to discuss this elsewhere in the thread, because nobody brought it up last week. But it’s a prime example of the consequences of the Anointeds’ visions.

            The people who were called slippery-slope-scaremongering ablist bigots for warning about this will never get an apology.
            But we have gotten leftists justifying the DoJ’s threat already, and suggesting giving poor flyover rednecks access to college courses online does more harm than good, because it doesn’t force them to confront and atone for their privilege like a real $160,000 university education would…

            So yes, evil.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @David Friedman – “His basic thesis is that liberals are motivated by the desire to feel superior and don’t really care whether the actual result of the policies they advocate in order to do so is good or bad.”

            I too read half that book.

            The problem is that one could pick other issues and write the same book about conservatives. Generally, I think it is pretty clear from the past few decades that evidence-based policy as a whole has failed. Our leaders cannot reliably produce the effects they claim they will produce.

          • Garrett says:

            I think the bitter-clingers comment from then-Presidential candidate Obama is a good indication that people at the top are sneering.
            Likewise for the you-didn’t-build-that comment.

            I occasionally listen to Obama about his policies (because I don’t trust reporting), and I can’t help but hear contempt dripping from his statements, even about things I agree with. He frequently implies the worthlessness and lack of intelligence of anybody who doesn’t agree with him.

          • sweeneyrod says:

            @Homo Iracundus

            Do you genuinely think that there are some evil liberals sitting around stroking white cats, saying “Mwaha! Now those dirty rednecks won’t be able to access online courses!” Do you think they are sitting in the Department of Justice?

          • Lumifer says:

            @ sweeneyrod

            Evilness does not require white cats. Do you know the expression “banality of evil“?

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            Check out Scott’s tumblr discussions about this. That’s pretty much exactly what his Commie Tumblr Friends did, and with 50 cats odds are good at least one of them is white.

            If you read the DoJ’s recent “Dear Colleague” letters, it’s pretty obvious they see their role as pushing an ideology, not enforcing the law.
            If they were self aware enough to acknowledge they were acting like Bond villains, I’d probably have more respect for them.

            So yes, evil.

          • sweeneyrod says:

            @Lumifer

            Yes, but “suggesting giving poor flyover rednecks access to college courses online does more harm than good” implies a conscious, deliberate attack on rednecks which has been carefully planned to be the result of what seems on the surface to be a completely different policy (ensuring online courses are accessible to disabled people). It implies a conspiracy, not people “just following orders”, or even just being carried away slightly by tribal hatred.

          • Pan Narrans says:

            It implies a conspiracy, not people “just following orders”, or even just being carried away slightly by tribal hatred.

            Yeah – if people ended up saying “Well, we don’t want those rednecks around anyway“, that sounds more like a comeback you make after the fur has started to fly. I really struggle to see an evil plot to keep “rednecks” away from a university education.

          • Deiseach says:

            Some of those rednecks might have visual, auditory or other disabilities, so the free online lectures as-is are no good to them anyways.

            We’re in the 21st century, putting stuff online with accessibility options is not impossible (feck’s sake, when I’m setting up Windows, they keep asking me do I want speech recognition and all the rest of it to help if I can’t read or see the screen that well).

          • Jiro says:

            We’re in the 21st century, putting stuff online with accessibility options is not impossible

            But it’s not free either. And the content is free. So the university is told that they can’t give things away without paying to add accessibility options.

          • TheAncientGeek says:

            we think that the increase in minimum wage is destructive.

            What I’ve noticed is that opponents of minimum wags use theoretical arguments, and proponents use evidence.

          • Orphan Wilde says:

            TheAncientGeek –

            I can point to widening rural-urban disparities (minimum wage reduces the incentive to provide employment in low-cost-of-living rural areas by making the employees there just as expensive as urban areas, which would otherwise be the one advance rural areas have); and labor participation rates of unskilled, uneducated, and minority workers; and the widening skill/employment gap (which older millennials experienced firsthand as several years of unemployment had thus-far-permanent effects on their lifetime earnings).

            If you’re unaware of the evidence you haven’t looked for it.

          • Glen Raphael says:

            @TheAncientGeek:

            What I’ve noticed is that opponents of minimum wags use theoretical arguments, and proponents use evidence.

            What I’ve noticed is that the “evidence” used by proponents often suggests the exact opposite conclusion of what they think it does, in large part because they didn’t understand the theoretical arguments.

            For instance, proponents thought this was evidence raising the minimum wage doesn’t cost jobs.

            The headline claim was “2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage”. Minimum wage increased in 13 states but it was a trivial automatic rate-of-inflation increase in all but four. Only four states had passed new minimum wage laws taking effect that year which increased their minimum wage by more than inflation and if you just look at those four there is a surprisingly good correlation: the more they raised their minimum wage the worse their job growth was.

            Tiny Rhode Island raised their minimum by a mere 25 cents (from 7.75 to 8) and did better than the average state – they ranked 11th out of 50 in job growth.

            Connecticut and New York raised their minimum by 45 cents and 75 cents respectively (8.25 to 8.70; 7.25 to 8) and did somewhat worse than average; out of 50 states they were ranked 40th and 30th.

            New Jersey raised their minimum wage by a full dollar (7.25 to 8.25) – a larger increase than any other state in the union.

            So how did New Jersey do in “job growth”?

            Dead last.

            50 out of 50. New Jersey, the state with the largest minimum wage increase, was one of only 8 states that net-lost jobs that year; their economy shrunk more than any other state in the US.

            Now, the theory suggests the more you raise the wage, the bigger negative impact it has on jobs. So if you want to test that theory you’d do a scatter plot on this data of either the amount or percentage of minimum wage increase versus job growth. That line has a slope suggesting more increase means fewer jobs.

            For a zillion different reasons, a test like this shouldn’t be considered definitive – the theory doesn’t actually say the job losses should be so immediately visible with perfect timing and reasonably-close correlation. Nonetheless, your side claimed this data proved minimum wage doesn’t do harm and we should go full steam ahead with even bigger increases so surely now that I’ve pointed out the error you’ll all now be convinced it’s a bad idea after all. Right?

            Right?

            (sound of crickets)

          • Edward Morgan Blake says:

            proceed to cast said liberals as ridiculously strawmanned sneering morons.

            I have to deal with rich smug coastal liberals all the damn day, every damn day, as part of my work gigs, on the various volunteer and non-profit boards I sit on, on the damn neighborhood association boards, from the damn PTA, and now from the damn “tenants unions”.

            There is nothing “strawman” about my noticing their behavior and the reasons for my disgust with them.

            Believe you me, if I started saying what I *really* thought of them after hand and a half of decades of having to pretend to agree with them to afford my daily bread, Scott would ban me just for the profanity alone.

          • Edward Morgan Blake says:

            I had a meeting at work recently. At one point, my boss and a coworker had a back-and-forth about how important it was that the company avoid any contact or association with people with political views like mine. I am highly confident if my boss or coworkers knew my views, I would be fired.

            Welcome to my entire career.

            How many decades have you had to eat that particular shit sandwich so far? It does get really old, doesn’t it? The only thing that makes it at all palatable is to have people of your own blood depending on you to keep eating it, and their occasional gratitude that you are doing it for them.

            The liberals and “blues” that comment in this blog can try to claim that the people who do that are not “real liberals”. My answer to such is thoughtful (because I’ve had years and years to think about it) and unprintable.

          • Edward Morgan Blake says:

            the bitter-clingers comment

            When I read my archive binge of all the past SSC posts and comments, I recall that one of the resident blues (HeelBearCub, I think?) tried to explain the “bitter clingers” comment as Obama having charity for the poor “reds” who vote against him, and was explaining to his fellow liberals why they should also feel sorry for them.

            I didn’t buy it when I read it, mainly because if that was actually what Obama and HeelBearCub actually thought, that side is even sicker in the head than I feared.

          • Matt M says:

            Glen,

            Also worth noting that proponents often claim statistics support the claim that “modest increases in the minimum wage don’t necessarily result in job losses” while simultaneously supporting things like “fight for $15” which, depending on the state, calls for increasing the minimum wage by as much as 75%

          • Two points on minimum wage evidence:

            1. People on both sides try to draw conclusions from the overall unemployment rate. But minimum wage workers are a tiny fraction of the labor force, so any effect of increased unemployment due to an increase in the minimum wage is going to be drowned in random changes from other causes. What you have to look at is the unemployment rate in populations that are heavily weighted towards low skill/low wage workers, such as teenagers.

            2. I’m not familiar with the modern literature on this. There were patterns in the past that fit the conventional analysis, minimum wage going up and teenage unemployment going up.

            My impression is that the claim of evidence against the conventional analysis is based mostly on one study, by Card and Krueger. Somewhere online there is an interesting interview with one of the authors. The depressing part, from my standpoint, is his account of the hostility he got from other economists for his piece–that isn’t how science is supposed to work.

            But there is also a comment by him to the effect that he wouldn’t expect similar results from a large increase in the minimum wage.

            Also of some interest is what Krugman’s response was back when he was an academic economist rather than a professional public intellectual:

            “So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages “do,” in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.

            What is remarkable, however, is how this rather iffy result has been seized upon by some liberals as a rationale for making large minimum wage increases a core component of the liberal agenda…”

          • Glen Raphael says:

            @David Friedman:

            My impression is that the claim of evidence against the conventional analysis [of minimum wage] is based mostly on one study, by Card and Krueger.

            Yep, that and a few other studies of similar type. To catch up on some of the later developments (and also a summary of earlier ones) I recommend their arch-nemeses Newmark & Wascher (2012).

            I myself would not have expected the “job creation” study I referenced to have such a blatantly favorable-to-my-side result – even for me it seems hard to believe minimum wage was that damaging in New Jersey and in fact it probably shouldn’t be believed – there must have been other factors.

            Or to quote Newmark:

            Charles Brown, Curtis Gilroy, and Andrew Kohen, published in 1982, surveyed the existing literature on minimum wages and established the “consensus” that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would reduce teenage employment by 1 to 3 percent (Brown et al., 1982)

            (Thus, teenagers would have to be nearly 100% of the workforce for a ~13% minwage increase to by itself explain New Jersey’s miserable 2014 “job creation” record.)

          • HeelBearCub says:

            @Edward Morgan Blake:
            If you have one minute and 38 seconds, I invite you to listen to what he actually said.

            “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
            And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

            At least in some communities. I think what you’ll find is that people of every background … they’re going to be a mix of people. You can go into the toughest neighborhood, you know, working class, lunch-pail folks and you’ll find Obama enthusiasts, and you can go into places where you’d think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical.

            The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.”

            It’s important to understand that he is talking to, I believe, volunteers for his campaign.He is basically saying go out, have empathy, show up and talk about what our message is. Don’t take anyone for granted.

          • Lumifer says:

            @ HeelBearCub

            And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

            So, how is the Obama administration looking in this respect?

          • Matt M says:

            It took me a couple sentences to realize he wasn’t quoting Trump.

          • HeelBearCub says:

            @Lumifer:
            Well, he’s saying that before the financial crisis. The subsequent recession and slow recovery, which hit the most vulnerable communities the hardest and the longest, mean that the last eight years aren’t going to look great from an economic perspective.

            It’s also true that, save for a brief period until Brown entered the senate, the Republican’s were quite successful in implementing opposition to government programs of any sort.

            It’s also the true that the government can only do so much. One frequently hears talk of being worried about robots taking jobs away, as if that is only in our future. But steel mill and textile factory workers, and the like, already lost their jobs to robots. The low skill, high-wage jobs that pay people to act like robots aren’t coming back.

            Despite the blizzard of misinformation around the green-energy loans in the stimulus package, that seems to actually have jump-started a number of new manufacturers.

            ACA has also had an impact, and is most valuable to those whose job situation may no longer provide benefits.

            But, do people in those communities feel great about the last eight years? No. But I don’t think Obama was promising that.

          • TheAncientGeek says:

            Another thing opponents of the minimum wage do is fail to apply obvious bug fixes, like “make an exception for younger workers” and “make an exception for rural workers”.

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            Gosh, yes. I can’t wait to fill out your Form 87295 (Rural Worker Wage Exemption) with an attached folder of printed GPS logs and a notarized birth certificate for Señor Huevos Wallhopper.

            The tax system in this country definitely needs to be much more complicated, expensive, and have more legal penalties for trying to comply with it.
            And nothing helps low-productivity workers earn more than increasing the bureaucratic overhead of hiring them, right?

          • Matt M says:

            Why would they make exceptions? They think a higher minimum wage is a universal good that simply transfers wealth from the hands of greedy fat-cats into the hands of working class people with zero negative consequences. Why shouldn’t the young and the agricultural workers and illegal immigrants get to benefit from it too?

          • Jaskologist says:

            You say “obvious bugfix,” I say “unprincipled exception.” And in five years, the politicians will say “loophole that needs to be closed.”

          • John Schilling says:

            Why would they make exceptions? They think a higher minimum wage is a universal good that simply transfers wealth from the hands of greedy fat-cats into the hands of working class people

            Wrong “they”. AncientGeek wants the opponents of the minimum wage to apply the “obvious bugfixes” to the minimum wage, in the form of various presumably minimialist exceptions. Instead of, you know, actually opposing the minimum wage.

            Proponents of the minimum wage apparently get their virtue points by putting forth a well-meaning but bug-riddled proposal for a minimum wage and then demanding that the opposition make it work. Expecting then to come up with a finished, defensible, workable version of their plan on their own is apparently too much to ask.

          • Glen Raphael says:

            @TheAncientGeek:

            Another thing opponents of the minimum wage do is fail to apply obvious bug fixes, like “make an exception for younger workers” and “make an exception for rural workers”.

            Basic economic theory says that legislatively fixing any one term of a contract usually makes both parties to that contract worse off. Even when the law in question seems like it ought to help one side, in the long run it hurts both sides. In setting a minimum wage for any particular group, you basically have two options:

            (1) Set the wage below the market rate for that group. A wage this low does no harm, but also does no help; it’s pointless.

            (2) Set the wage above the market rate. A wage this high increases the measured “average wage” but does so at the cost of making workers in that industry collectively worse off (reducing both the quantity and quality of work hours available to that group compared to what it would otherwise be). And the people harmed the most are the ones with the most to lose; minimum wage is a regressive policy.

            I don’t want to make people worse off, so I don’t want to have a minimum wage. Having a minimum wage but then adding so many special-case “bug fix” exceptions that it doesn’t measurably affect anyone…why would that be a good idea?

            The end case for the strategy you suggest implies we set one minimum wage rate for most able-bodied college-educated majority-race adults, then apply lower rates or exceptions for: youths, discriminated-against minority members, retired people, disabled people, those who lack advanced degrees, those who lack job experience (aka “a training wage”), those who live in small towns with a low cost of living, those who have a criminal record, those who have poor language skills, those who have a poor work history and so on.

            A minimum wage with all the obvious “bug fixes” applied is approximately equivalent to either having no minimum wage (if it’s set low) or having a Minister of Economics decree what specific wage should be offered to which people throughout the economy (if it’s set high). Are either of those what you want, or is there some third option I’m missing?

          • “A wage this high increases the measured “average wage” but does so at the cost of making workers in that industry collectively worse off (reducing both the quantity and quality of work hours available to that group compared to what it would otherwise be).”

            That’s a little too simple.

            If the demand for labor is inelastic and we ignore all terms of employment other than the wage, then raising the minimum wage decreases employment by less than it increases the wage, so the total wages going to low wage workers go up.

            On the other hand, as long as there are other terms of employment that the employer is free to vary, such as working conditions broadly defined, raising the minimum wage results in those getting worse even when the savings to the employer is less than the cost of the worsening to the employee.

            So if elasticity of demand is unity, workers as a group are worse off. If it’s sufficient inelastic, they could be better off. In any case the society is a whole is worse off, but in the highly inelastic case that’s a net loss combined with a transfer to the low wage workers.

            And I’m ignoring some further complications such as the value of leisure to involuntarily unemployed workers and the effect of not getting a first job at a low wage on the prospects for getting later jobs at higher wages.

          • Glen Raphael says:

            @David Friedman

            You’re saying we can imagine a world in which the minimum wage didn’t hurt the low wage workers as a class…even though in reality we probably don’t live in that world.

            In this world, there definitely are other contract terms so the jobs would get qualitatively worse in non-salary aspects. This makes the still-employed workers worse off in that the jobs they have are now crappier jobs than what they would have bargained for in a free market. This is one area where TAG’s “evidence vs. theory” claim has some merit – we can be sure the job is getting worse as the mandate wage increases but we don’t know exactly how it’s getting worse, especially since any easily-identifiable worsening will just prompt new regulations that push the worsening elsewhere. (eg, some states have been cracking down on “irregular work hours” and advance notification of schedule changes.)

            And in this world there is certainly some elasticity of demand for labor so there would be some who lose their jobs. And those who lose their jobs tend to be more sympathetic to us bleeding-heart types than those who keep them. If we care not just about low-wage workers but specifically about the worst off low-wage workers, we shouldn’t want to make that tradeoff. Even in the unlikely event that the group as a whole did win more than it lost, the individual members of it who lose, lose pretty big.

            How’s that?

          • TheAncientGeek says:

            Wrong “they”. AncientGeek wants the opponents of the minimum wage to apply the “obvious bugfixes” to the minimum wage, in the form of various presumably minimialist exceptions. Instead of, you know, actually opposing the minimum wage.

            Still wrong. I want opponents of MW who argue against it on the basis of its consequences to argue against a reasonably steelmanned or strongmanned version.

            Speaking of which, there is no need to handle exceptions through the tax system.

            A minimum wage with all the obvious “bug fixes” applied is approximately equivalent to either having no minimum wage (if it’s set low) or having a Minister of Economics decree what specific wage should be offered to which people throughout the economy (if it’s set high). Are either of those what you want, or is there some third option I’m missing?

            The obvious bug fixes would relate to the small number of groups that opponents have identified.

          • Lumifer says:

            @ TheAncientGeek

            Minimal-wage laws exist. They are an empirically observable phenomenon.

            Why don’t we talk about the versions which we have in reality instead of being concerned with straw vs steel?

          • Glen Raphael says:

            The obvious bug fixes would relate to the small number of groups that opponents have identified.

            Okay, well: I’m an opponent, and I just gave a list of groups who are disproportionately harmed by minimum wage increases. It wasn’t a small number of groups, and it’s not an exhaustive list. But here’s what I consider a pretty good start at that kind of list:

            – young people
            – people of color
            – retired people
            – people with disabilities
            – people who lack job experience
            – rural people
            – people with a criminal record
            – people with poor language skills
            – people with unusual preferences

            So, are you saying that if I want to argue against minimum wage, I can’t argue against the one that actually exists, but rather should argue against one that includes “obvious bug fixes” for these nine groups I’ve identified?

            In that case: what “bug fix” would you consider obvious here? Should we just exempt people in those nine groups from the minimum wage? That would address much of the harm, but after doing so people not in those nine groups would now constitute new groups of people who are disproportionately harmed. After a few rounds you’d have a minimum wage that doesn’t apply to anybody and isn’t changing anyone’s wage.

            (You’d also have the problem that along the way we turn into old South Africa, with different worker classes getting different regulatory treatment and some Ministry of Salaries determining who belongs in which group and what salary applies to people in their group. That’s not a good look. I’d rather get rid of the minimum wage entirely than go down that road.)

          • TheAncientGeek says:

            @Lumifer.

            Why don’t we talk about the versions which we have in reality instead of being concerned with straw vs steel?

            I live in the UK. The UK’s MW law has one exception, actually a different rate, which is for young people.

            BTW, regarding the “one study” claim. That’s one study in the US.

            The national minimum wage is now an established part of
            the British labour market. In the first evaluation of all the
            evidence of its impact on pay and jobs, David Metcalf
            shows that there has been a big boost in the pay of those
            towards the bottom of the pay league table with no
            associated loss of jobs.

            http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/CP217.pdf

            A wage this high increases the measured “average wage” but does so at the cost of making workers in that industry collectively worse off (reducing both the quantity and quality of work hours available to that group compared to what it would otherwise be).

            If you assume that whatever employers are paying is as much as they can afford, it follows that they have to make savings, but you shouldn’t assume that. Emplomyent, particularly at lower wage scales, tends to be a buyer’s market, meaning that buyers get bargains…employers are likely to be able to hire people for less than the maximum they would be willing to pay. That means a judicious MW policy need not make employees unaffordable, which tallies with the empirical data as well.

          • Glen Raphael says:

            @TheAncientGeek:

            I live in the UK. The UK’s MW law has one exception, actually a different rate, which is for young people.

            That’s useful information, thanks!

            If we’re talking about minimum wage in the UK I would suggest looking at these two subgroups to most clearly see the negative impact it is having:

            (1) Chinese immigrants.
            (2) Female part-time workers.

            Regarding (1), consider the last few paragraphs of the link you just offered. In 2007, David Metcalf wrote:

            My own research on the Chinese labour market in London covering restaurants, health shops, food manufacture and distribution and clothing, concluded that not a single worker below the level of chef or shop manager was receiving the minimum wage.
            […]
            Frankly it is amazing that so many employers do comply with the minimum wage […] if the employer is caught not complying he simply pays back the arrears: there is no other penalty.

            Note that one unintended and favourable side effect of this non-compliance (and of illegal collusion between employers and workers) is higher employment in the noncomplying sector. For example, the Chinese restaurant and health care sectors are fiercely competitive and some restaurants and shops would close if the minimum wage were fully enforced.

            So restaurants and shops would close if the wage were enforced and if they did close there would be a measurable employment effect. But they don’t close due to widespread evasion of a law which isn’t actually enforced. Furthermore, he clearly thinks not paying the minimum wage creates jobs. (If there is higher employment in the noncomplying sector, doesn’t that mean there must be lower employment in the complying sector?)

            He also mentions collusion as a factor – in other parts of the economy workers and employers pay the listed rate but undercount hours worked. So they’re effectively maintaining two sets of books.

            Is that what you meant by an obvious bugfix? Pass a minimum wage but make sure large groups can just ignore the law at relatively low cost?

            (He doesn’t mention the corrupting influence of routine lawbreaking – are police being paid to look the other way? Can bosses get away with cheating their employees with impunity when the “official” wage rate is imaginary?)

            (Also, given widespread collusion, how much of that big boost in the pay of those towards the bottom of the pay league table and associated inequality decrease comes from imaginary pay raises?)

            Next, here’s a study on female part-time workers: A Re-examination of the Impact of the UK National Minimum Wage on Employment. Quote:

            we find that the introduction of the NMW had an adverse impact on employment retention of part-time women, reducing their retention by about 3% points. This is the group that has the largest proportion of workers affected by the wage floor. Furthermore, we find that employment retention among part-time women fell further in the recession. This is despite the fact that the minimum wage was increased only modestly in the past few years. These findings appear at odds with the earlier research by Stewart (2004). However, he focused on full time workers only citing problems with the data on part-time workers. We acknowledge those concerns and conduct a series of robustness checks on our results for part-time women. We find that our main conclusions hold up.

    • HeelBearCub says:

      1) SSC was built on the premise of encouraging people to make arguments for any position they felt like. It shouldn’t be surprising to find arguments here that aren’t necessarily “by the numbers”. There isn’t one official SSC position on anything.

      2) SSC may be a rationalist blog, but it’s also one built by someone who admittedly views blue-tribe as his outgroup (but, odd to me, never red-tribe) and spends most of his substantive posts tearing down government and/or academia.

      3) Scott is also an admitted contrarian.

      4) For some reason, the right leaning elements here spend more time repeating and amplifying each other’s points.

      Take all that together, and you will see plenty of pro-Trump comments here.

      • tumteetum says:

        >1, 2, 3, 4)

        Absolutely understood and I have no problem with any of it.

        >Take all that together, and you will see plenty of pro-Trump comments here.

        My problem is that these same coontrarian, rational, right leaning commentators
        seem to give him a free pass on complete gibberish! These same people who will
        split a hair down to a poofteenth of fuckall hear Trump and say “Make sense to
        me!”

        • Matt M says:

          Because the overwhelming majority of things Trump says do, in fact, make sense. Particularly given the context of political debate in the U.S. We know what he means, as do most Americans. If you don’t, that sounds like a problem with you, not with us.

          • Wrong Species says:

            Over half of Americans have an unfavorable view of Trump. It’s not just tumteetum, it’s most of the country.

            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

          • Matt M says:

            Having an unfavorable opinion of him =/ he speaks complete nonsense and I literally can’t understand why anyone would possibly like him.

            I don’t like Trump. I disagree with him on more things than I agree with him on, including core aspects of his entire philosophy. I won’t be voting for him.

            But Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. This guy isn’t saying “I have a problem with this one Trump policy let’s debate it” – he’s saying “this guy speaks total nonsense and I demand his supporters defend his obvious idiocy”

          • Alex says:

            Matt :

            Because the overwhelming majority of things Trump says do, in fact, make sense. Particularly given the context of political debate in the U.S. We know what he means, as do most Americans. If you don’t, that sounds like a problem with you, not with us.

            Can you give, in a language that an outsider would understand, examples of lets say three (sensible?) core Trump positions, that you are 99% convinced, he actually means?

            My impression is that this would help the discussion here a lot for various reasons.

          • Matt M says:

            1. We’re getting screwed by China/Mexico/whatever

            What he means here is that recent trade agreements have resulted in vast outsourcing of low/medium skilled labor resulting in job losses to specific groups of people that have not been adequately balanced out by falling prices.

            2. Political correctness is killing us

            In the aftermath of a few terrorist attacks/mass shootings, we’ve started seeing neighbors come out and say “I wanted to report this guy but I was afraid of being called a racist” (or, I DID report this guy but was dismissed as a racist). While it’s quite likely these people are lying just to seem smart (“I knew all along!”) there remains a concern that political correctness is quite literally contributing to terrorism in the sense that people are afraid to report and/or police are afraid to investigate Muslims

            3. Obama founded ISIS

            Implies that the Obama policy of supporting the “arab spring” overthrow of various dictators without a clear strategy for preventing the region from being taken over by popular fundamentalist islamic movements has directly contributed to the rise and increasing power of ISIS – also suggests that either we shouldn’t have been meddling over there in the first place (also easily attributable to Bush though) and/or once we were over there we should have somehow fought harder/more seriously/whatever.

          • Alex says:

            Thank you.

            I think just I learned about myself that my central disagreement with Trump and his equivalents in other countries is that they promise simple solutions where I firmly believe there are none.

            In other words I rather indulge in my cynism accepting an obviously suboptimal status-quo than “be lied to” by the claim that things can change.

          • Anonymouse says:

            Obama was the founder of ISIS.
            Obama was the founder of ISIS.
            Obviously I was being sarcastic when I said he was the founder of ISIS. Well not that sarcastic.

            Most of what Trump says is either gibberish or false.

        • HeelBearCub says:

          But note that Scott managed to, intentionally or not, endorse tribalism. He even makes point like “post partisanship is hyper-partisanship”. No one here is being encouraged to truly stop thinking tribally.

          • tumteetum says:

            >No one here is being encouraged to truly stop thinking tribally.

            Hmm ok thanks, I had thought that they were. All those calls to listen to opposing viewpoints and such, get info from multiple sources etc I had thought the idea was to rationally come to some conclusion. Maybe you’re right, I’ll have to think about it.

          • pku says:

            More cynical interpretation: Liberals are encouraged to stop thinking tribally, but nobody else is. This is depressing, but seems to mirror the commentators on here pretty well.

          • Dr Dealgood says:

            To be honest, the “SSC has gotten more tribal recently” argument sounds like people saying that they don’t have an accent.

            I was on SSC (under different names) way way back. And I remember that people would get dogpiled or ‘shouted down’ just like they do now. The difference was that back then it was the bonobo rationalist types doing the piling on.

            Now there has been a narrowing of views represented in the commentariat since then. The bonobos evacuated to the rest of the LW diaspora, the commies fled to Tumblr, and the Death Eaters mostly were purged in the Reign of Terror. So now we’ve got left-libertarians and right-libertarians and Jill.

            But that’s not because libertarians are so tribal they forced everyone else off. If anything, it was the reverse: the bonobos would put up with one or two deplorables but the existence of a plurality of us disgusted them. That doesn’t sound like tolerance to me so much as liking the smell of your own mess.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @pku – “always cooperate” is not, in fact, the best strategy in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Whether to think tribally or not is a question of strategy.

            Scott’s contribution, I think, is explaining what thinking tribally is. If you’re going to be thinking tribally, better to be aware of it and do so in a useful manner, and hopefully look for opportunities to stop. ie, tit-for-tat with forgiveness.

            I will freely admit that the discourse here is usually missing any sign of the forgiveness part. I wish that were not so.

          • The Nybbler says:

            Tribalism unfortunately dominates as a strategy; no matter what your opponent does, you’re better off acting tribally.

            As for Trump, the presidential race is a horse race; it’s not a question of how Trump measures up to some Platonic ideal for presidential candidates. It’s not even how he measures up to Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. It’s only a question of how he measures up to the other candidate with a chance to win, Hillary Clinton. And frankly that’s a low bar.

          • Wency says:

            @Dr. Dealgood

            What is meant by “bonobo rationalists”? And what, from the “bonobo” viewpoint, is a “deplorable”?

          • DrBeat says:

            SSC has gotten more tribal, and Onyxia Deep Breaths more.

          • HeelBearCub says:

            @Dr. Dealgood:
            “SSC has gotten more tribal recently”

            I did not say this.

            All I said was that this space does not actually encourage people to truly stop thinking tribally. That’s not a statement about whether it is more or less tribal than at some point in the past.

          • Dr Dealgood says:

            @Wency,

            Sorry if I was opaque.

            Bonobo rationalism is a term Ozy (Scott’s ex) made up to refer to the ‘Niceness’ / neoteny / non-monogamy cluster. Basically the SOs of rationalists.

            Deplorables is a reference to the infamous basket of deplorables comment. The nascent alt-right and (in olden times) the Red Pill / manosphere.

            @HBC,

            If that’s the case it’s kind of a weird non sequitur though.

            “Scott hasn’t done this very difficult thing which no-one else has done, and which he never set out to do!”

            The implication of your statements is that there is something unique or noteworthy here.

          • Teal (but not anymore, thanks gravatar) says:

            More cynical interpretation: Liberals are encouraged to stop thinking tribally, but nobody else is. This is depressing, but seems to mirror the commentators on here pretty well.

            Scott himself is Blue Tribe. He imagined audience is a bunch of Blue Tribers that are smart but haven’t really thought about the sacred beliefs of the tribe. The idea is to shake them out of their complacency.

            But it’s one big internet (or at least English speaking internet). All the negative sounding stuff he says about the Blue Tribe’s sacred beliefs is like catnip to the people that hate the Blue Tribe and want to kill it with fire. So that’s who comes to dominate the comment section.

            While those smart Blue Tribers might still find the above the fold posts interesting they aren’t going to stick around and participate in the comment section where the majority of posts are spittle flecked rants about how evil people like them are and they all die painful horrible deaths. Why would they?

            So right now there’s a big disconnect between Scott and the comment section. I don’t see that changing any time soon. Maybe Scott could change his imagined audience to reflect his actual one (or at least the most vocal parts of it). But given that as he’s mentioned several times — he isn’t being paid to write and wouldn’t want to be — why should he?

          • HeelBearCub says:

            @Dr. Dealgood:
            Why is it a non-sequitur to point out to someone, who appears to be modelling the commentariat as non-tribal, that the commentariat is tribal and not particularly discourage from being tribal?

          • HeelBearCub says:

            @Teal:
            If you registered a wordpress account, you could be teal again.

            As to your actual point, isn’t Scott interested in being effective in his communication? I think he signals that this is a concern of his. So, if you are correct that his target is blue tribe, he should change his approach.

            Also, he explicitly has stated he is not blue tribe. Self described he is grey tribe. I’m not sure I actually buy that, but there you go.

          • Teal says:

            If you go by Scott’s definitions of the Tribes rather than the comment section’s definitions, gray is a half formed offshoot of blue. Basically semi-disillusioned blue tribe members like himself, but still in cultural communion with it far more than the reds.

            As for being effective in his communication, I don’t think the denizens of his comment section is necessarily a good way to judge who he is and isn’t reaching. He may well have lots of readers that avoid the comment section like the plague.

            He has said in the past that he wasn’t too happy when down here was filled {won’t let me type it}, but I haven’t seen him explicitly say that he is unhappy with the current AR / right-libertarian / RP composition.

          • Gazeboist says:

            neoteny

            I keep seeing this word used to describe the bonobo rationalists. I’ve never seen anyone explain why it applies.

          • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

            Because they like and do stuff that is considered unbecoming of mature adults, such as forming cuddlepiles and listening to indie rock bands for teenagers.

          • Psmith says:

            I keep seeing this word used to describe the bonobo rationalists. I’ve never seen anyone explain why it applies.

            This may go some way towards explaining the association.

          • @Dr Dealgood:

            I followed the Bonobo Rationalist link. Where does “neoteny” come in?

            I ask in part because I have occasionally described myself as neotenous. People routinely underestimate my age and I like interacting with children.

          • “where the majority of posts are spittle flecked rants about how evil people like them are and they all die painful horrible deaths.”

            And people complain that Trump engages in rhetorical exaggeration. For your sins, you should sentence yourself to actually run through a few hundred consecutive posts and see what percentage of them come anywhere close to your description of a majority of them.

          • tumteetum says:

            @Teal

            I had wondered about the split above and below the line. Your explanation helps, thanks.

          • Richard says:

            @Teal (but not anymore, thanks gravatar)

            Tomato 3 is a good name too

          • Teal says:

            @David
            Matt M, hylnkacg, and Homo Iracundus are responsible for about ten percent of the posts in this open thread as of this writing. I invite you to review them, and consider how far off I really am.

            Perhaps you’ve gone numb to it, but not everyone has.

          • “Matt M, hylnkacg, and Homo Iracundus are responsible for about ten percent of the posts in this open thread as of this writing. I invite you to review them, and consider how far off I really am. ”

            I have just gone through all of the Matt M posts above this post of yours. There were about twenty.

            None of them came even close to your “spittle flecked rants about how evil people like them are and they all die painful horrible deaths.” A majority were not even defending conservative or libertarian views or attacking liberal views–they were on other topics.

            The ones that came closest were one explaining how one could defend a position of Trump’s and one pointing out that communists had done a lot of damage in the past and then saying:
            “The question in play is – to what extent does modern liberalism still want to move us in that direction?”

            Having gotten zero out of twenty, I didn’t think it worth continuing the experiment. But you might try doing it yourself. With only three people to check it should take much less time than reading all the posts on the thread. See out of their posts, how many you are willing to claim meet your description.

            And revise your opinion of the discussion, and your own ability to evaluate it, accordingly.

        • Seth says:

          I suspect there’s an enemy-of-my-enemy phenomena going on. The right-leaning commentators have a culturally affinity with Trump on topics such as #2 above, e.g. hating government and liberal academia, so they aren’t inclined to criticize him. Those cultural ties trump (pun intended) everything else. If you look at it in isolation, it does seem weird. But if you consider it as criticizing him means one would be giving aid and comfort to the Blue Tribe, it makes much more sense.

          It’s a bit like this (exaggerated for effect! Again, this is deliberately hyperbolic in order to be concise!):

          1) Trump is anti-gov, anti-libacademia
          2) Trump is ignorant and reckless (as well as racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc)
          3) Blue Tribe says anyone is who is anti-gov, anti-libacademia is ignorant and reckless (as well as racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc)
          4) If right-winger says anything at all which tends to indicate #2 is true, that’s viewed as support for #3. Therefore, the “free pass”.

          • tumteetum says:

            That makes sense to me, I just want expecting it here. Naive I guess.

          • “Trump is ignorant and reckless (as well as racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc)”

            He may be reckless–I have a hard time telling what is really him, what the act he thinks will bring him votes. He is ignorant of many things I know but probably knowledgeable about things I don’t know. The same is probably true of most politicians.

            I don’t see the evidence that he is “racist, sexist, xenophobic.” That seems to be based on some mix of his willingness to use politically incorrect speech and his desire to appeal to people who dislike the idea that one is obliged to avoid such speech.

            He is married to a foreigner and seems to get along just fine with her, which you wouldn’t expect of a xenophobe. Opposition to illegal immigration is a very popular position, especially but not only among Republicans, so of course he chose to appeal to it.

          • Seth says:

            @David Friedman, I think you’ve just provided an excellent demonstration of what tumteetum was noting, regarding “These same people who will split a hair down to a poofteenth of fuckall …”.

            Further, commenter sayeth not, because it’s not worth the risk of getting banned over this tribal skirmish.

          • hlynkacg says:

            In what sense?

          • @Seth:

            I’m splitting a hair because I think who someone marries is better evidence of his attitude to foreigners than what speeches he gives when trying to get the Republican nomination?

          • Chalid says:

            Even if it is an act, it is often a reckless act. One thing that’s stuck in my mind, because I live in Jersey City, is his claim that ““thousands and thousands” of Jersey City Muslims were cheering the fall of the World Trade Center. This is a despicable dangerous lie* of course, and is at least one of racist, xenophobic, or reckless. It’s really disheartening to think about stuff like this and then see Trump get praised here for “eroding PC norms.”

            *Yes you can find poorly-sourced anecdotes about occasional handfuls of Muslims maybe making happy noises somewhere in the Greater New York region; going from that to “thousands and thousands” in one mid-sized city is a lie.

          • David Friedman:

            I think xenophobic (and racist, for that matter) have an underlying assumption that prejudice will be evenly distributed among a wide range of targets.

            It would probably be better to check on whether Trump has specific unjustified prejudices.

          • Seth says:

            @David Friedman – I would use a different phrase myself than split a hair, but yes, I think the intended practice is well-illustrated. In standard English, the word “xenophobic” has a meaning where Trump’s statements on immigrants, Mexicans, Muslims, and so on, could be a central example. Interpreting it as if it were like applying arachnophobic to a person with a pet tarantula, is exactly the sort of approach I believe tumteetum was noting. It’s a tendentious language particle parsing which presents a very poor political argument as a technical objection. It’s the same type of fallacy as hypothetically arguing that Trump couldn’t lead the country into civil war because he’s rude, yet “civil” means “polite” (i.e. the exact same sequence of letters c-i-v-i-l has different meanings in different contexts, just like the letter sequence -p-h-o-b-i-c has different meanings in politics vs psychology).

            The SSC commentariate loves to do this sort of semantic wrangling. Yet the exact opposite attitude is being applied Trump’s statements. There’s a reason for that, which is shared political values.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @Chalid – ” This is a despicable dangerous lie* of course, and is at least one of racist, xenophobic, or reckless.”

            Okay. Why should I care more about that than about people in my immediate social circle excitedly looking for opportunities to ruin my life? How should I weight the threat of Islamophobia versus the threat of getting Luckied?

            @Seth – “If you look at it in isolation, it does seem weird. But if you consider it as criticizing him means one would be giving aid and comfort to the Blue Tribe, it makes much more sense.”

            Less “giving aid and comfort”. More that Trump is part of an emerging general strategy to break the power of appeals to “decency” and “justice” generally. Make those terms partisan signals, overreach hard enough, and opposing them pushes through and becomes positive, even admirable.

            [EDIT] – “We know 2+2=4, but they’ll push for 6, so we have to stand firm at 2!” The logic might be perverse, but so is the world we live in. If they really are in fact pushing for 6, what’s the right strategy?

          • “It would probably be better to check on whether Trump has specific unjustified prejudices.”

            Hard to check. He has said unkind thinks about illegal Mexican immigrants, but that’s a popular position, at least in the Republican party, so tells us little about his prejudices.

          • “This is a despicable dangerous lie* of course, and is at least one of racist, xenophobic, or reckless.”

            It’s an untruth and a damaging one. But I don’t think it implies that he is any of those three things. His primary concern, like that of other politicians, is getting himself elected, not making America a better place. I would count it reckless only if it was likely to cost him votes and I don’t think it was.

            I’m pretty sure that both Obama and Hillary, in the not that distant past, were opposed to gay marriage. Would you conclude that they used to hate gays and now don’t? Given the changes in the politics around that issue, isn’t it much more likely that what changed was not their view of gays but their view of the political costs and benefits of taking that position?

            Similarly here. What he says is very weak evidence of his beliefs, strong evidence of what he thinks will get him elected.

            To put it differently, you might argue that what he said was either racist or xenophobic. It doesn’t follow that he is either.

          • Loyle says:

            @David

            I would rank unintended consequences as a higher priority in determining recklessness than success in meeting one’s intended goals. If Trump is neither racist nor xenophobic, then making peoples of certain races and nationalities targets of very unfortunate consequences is very reckless.

            “I’m pretty sure that both Obama and Hillary, in the not that distant past, were opposed to gay marriage. Would you conclude that they used to hate gays and now don’t?”

            I personally wouldn’t see being against gay marriage as evidence of “hate” against gay people. Perhaps maybe some form of prejudice against gay people, but definitely having a certain belief of what marriage should be. I also wouldn’t say it’s the same as declaring them an enemy. Though I agree with you that they are more likely than not just rolling with the political tide. And would like to empress how constantly disappointed I am that a person can’t simply have changed their mind on any given subject.

            Like, I was pretty apathetic about gay marriage. Supporting it only because I saw no real reason not to, while arguably against it because I saw no point in it. Until I was shown a list of rights and privileges married people have and thought it was dumb to specifically deny these to homosexual couples.

          • The Nybbler says:

            But applying “xenophobic” as if it’s similar to “arachnophobic” is what his opponents do. Trump isn’t xenophobic; he’s opposed to certain sorts of immigration. Calling that “xenophobia” is exactly an attempt to make it sound like a mental problem instead of a policy position.

          • Loyle, people tend to not make a distinction between “unconcerned with the interests of [group]” and “actively opposed to [group]”. The two overlap, but aren’t identical.

            Assuming that lack of concern might as well be a policy of opposition is a convenient tool for enraging people, but it isn’t based in truth, and can increase opposition.

          • Loyle says:

            Perhaps I’ve been surrounded by weird people all my life, but I’ve never heard of xenophobia used in the same context as arachnophobia would. Hell, I’ve literally only heard it in reference to Japan and how very weird they are about gaijins.

            @Nancy

            Oh I’m well aware of that. And they’re wrong. “If you’re not a part of the solution, you’re a part of the problem” is rhetoric I’ve always had a problem with. Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but if you’re attacking me for trying to stay out of the way, you’re not using your efforts to furthering your goals and are also a part of the problem.

          • Buckyballas says:

            @ David

            What he says is very weak evidence of his beliefs, strong evidence of what he thinks will get him elected.

            Are you saying we should [mostly] ignore anything politicians say in campaigns due to its low epistemic value? It seems like it would be difficult to make any kind of distinction in any election?

            In the specific case of Trump, perhaps we can look at his speech and actions before he was trying to get elected to anything to draw conclusions about his beliefs and values. Some evidence that he might be racist: alleged housing discrimination (link), the whole birther episode (weak evidence).

            Some evidence he might be sexist (misogynistic? not very nice to women?): various allegations related to various beauty pageants, alleged marital rape (link), demeaning comments about his ex-wife (link, money quote:”But it requires a particular breed of lowlife to advertise the sexual superiority of one’s mistress over the mother of one’s children.”), various demeaning public comments about women’s appearances in general.

            I’m not sure there’s much public evidence that he is xenophobic (in fact, there is some evidence to the contrary, as he is alleged to have employed undocumented workers in the past).

            I think there’s also a fair amount of evidence that he might be corrupt/dishonest: various pay-to-play scandals; also, apparently, his dad made him an illegal loan by buying $3.5 million in casino chips (link); Trump University shenanigans, Trump Foundation shenanigans.

          • “If Trump is neither racist nor xenophobic, then making peoples of certain races and nationalities targets of very unfortunate consequences is very reckless.”

            Are you assuming that he much cares about unfortunate consequences to strangers? If not, why is it reckless of him to do things that might produce them?

            If your point is that he does not seem to be a very nice person, I agree. Also true of Hilary. Probably not of Romney from what can tell about him. May or may not be true of Obama.

            But there is nothing reckless about A doing things that might produce consequences B disapproves of.

          • David Friedman:

            “But there is nothing reckless about A doing things that might produce consequences B disapproves of.”

            ????

            To my mind, “reckless” implies ignoring important risks. It implies a framework of objective truth.

            It’s not about mere disapproval.

            Also, prejudice does get people killed. It’s not that most prejudiced people are murderers, or even pro-murder. (Usually. Those cheery crowds watching lynchings really did happen.)

            Prejudice does affect the fringe. In the US, people have been murdered for being black, gay, Muslim, Jewish, police, and/or being in the presence of people in targeted groups. (List is probably incomplete.)

            Trump’s talk about Mexicans and Muslims is seriously irresponsible.

            By the way, GWB should get more credit than he does for trying to shut down anti-Muslim prejudice even if Islam isn’t a religion of peace.

          • The Nybbler says:

            @Nancy Lebovitz

            Unfortunately “irresponsible” has become just another word that means “you can’t say that!”. Can you be more explicit about just what responsibility you think Trump has, that his words result in his failing to uphold?

          • Corey says:

            If your point is that he does not seem to be a very nice person, I agree. Also true of Hilary. Probably not of Romney from what can tell about him. May or may not be true of Obama.

            There was some circumstantial evidence (e.g. from Miles Kimball) that Romney cared about the poor. Obviously he chose to de-emphasize that during his campaign 🙂

          • I believe that all people have a responsibility to not do verbal attacks on large groups of people. Public figures like Trump have a stronger responsibility to not do those attacks because their words are likely to have more effect.

          • Chalid says:

            @David Friedman

            I want to concur with various people above who think you’re taking an overly narrow view of these words.

            @FacelessCraven

            I don’t really see it as something where you have to weigh one against the other, as I doubt the president has any effect on your situation.

          • Chalid says:

            On the gay marriage comparison, morality is to some extent relative to the time. Even the most rabid SJW doesn’t think badly of someone 50 years ago not supporting gay marriage. To a first approximation you might say that Clinton and Obama came around to being pro-gay marriage around the same time as everyone else did, so they have roughly average views on the subject which are not especially worthy of praise or condemnation.

            Whereas Trump making up lies about Muslims cheering 9/11 is a pretty far outlier.

          • Loyle says:

            Are you assuming that he much cares about unfortunate consequences to strangers? If not, why is it reckless of him to do things that might produce them?

            But there is nothing reckless about A doing things that might produce consequences B disapproves of.

            I’m saying that If I’m running late for work, and so choose to drive my car really fast and ignore traffic rules and that would result in my success in reaching my destination on time, I cannot argue with the judge “I can’t be guilty of reckless endangerment. My continued employment is important to me. The random others on the road did not concern me in the slightest.”

            Saying Trump isn’t reckless for not caring about the welfare of Muslims or whoever whenever anything he says could inadvertently bring harm to them is either using a meaningless definition of “reckless”, or a non-central one. Either way, it’s dishonest to use as a counter in order to deflect a particular negative attribute to him.

          • Matt M says:

            “Even the most rabid SJW doesn’t think badly of someone 50 years ago not supporting gay marriage. ”

            Today this is true, but will it always be?

            It seems to me that in 1900 there was no particular demand to tear down statues of Robert E Lee because he supported slavery.

            In 1950 there was no demand to remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from buildings because he supported racism.

            Barring some sort of huge change in the direction of the culture war, I predict that by 2050 there will be more than a few people demanding George Bush (both of them) be treated as historical pariahs for the crime of not supporting gay marriage.

          • The Nybbler says:

            @Nancy Lebovitz

            In that case, we simply disagree. I don’t think either Hillary’s attacks on Trump supporters or Trump’s attacks on Mexican illegal immigrants are per-se “irresponsible”.

          • The Nybbler:

            We are not at the point (and I hope we never will be) where people get killed because of preferring a candidate or a party. (Thanks for the nightmare.)

            People do get killed for their race and/or religion.

          • DrBeat says:

            Even the most rabid SJW doesn’t think badly of someone 50 years ago not supporting gay marriage.

            They do exactly and specifically that.

          • LHN says:

            E.g., the “Young People Read Old SF” blog series does seem to have a recurring theme of finding older writers wanting and blameworthy for not meeting the reviewers’ current standards re feminism, inclusion, diversity, ableism, etc.

          • Chalid says:

            @DrBeat

            Even the most rabid SJW doesn’t think badly of someone 50 years ago not supporting gay marriage.

            They do exactly and specifically that.

            Cite?

            (And c’mon, you had to know you’d be asked, could you just save everyone the trouble next time?)

            @LHN

            Not familiar with the blog you’re referencing, but I’d note that there’s a big difference between thinking badly of somebody for being on the wrong side of a past moral controversy (which is often defensible) versus thinking badly of somebody for not being forward-thinking enough to realize that a controversy might even exist.

          • “To my mind, “reckless” implies ignoring important risks.”

            But “risk” has built into it a judgement of what matters.

            A reckless act is an act which it should be obvious to the person taking it may have effects he considers very bad. It isn’t reckless to take an act that may have very bad effects for reasons you are entirely unaware of. It isn’t reckless to take an act that may have effects that other people consider bad but you don’t.

            Take a non-political case. Contact with the New World by people from the Old World set off a series of plagues which killed an enormous number of people, possibly as much as ninety percent of the population of the New World. Does that make the decision to land on the New World reckless, given that the people who made that decision had no reason to expect such a consequence?

            Darwin’s publication of The Origin of Species removed one of the strongest arguments for believing in God. From the standpoint of a believer that had enormous negative consequences, resulted in hundreds of millions of people going to Hell who would otherwise have been saved. Assume, for the sake of the argument, that Darwin was an atheist (my guess is he wasn’t). Would his publication have been reckless. Would it be proper for the religious believer (assume he knew Darwin was an atheist) to call it reckless?

          • David Friedman, the Europeans who went to the new world had no way whatsoever of knowing they were bringing epidemics.

            I think Darwin had some idea he was undercutting religious faith, though I suspect he had no idea how far it would go.

            Modern people have plenty of evidence that malicous descriptions of large groups of people can lead to murder.

          • Schmendrick says:

            I’m only one person, but I can testify that in my constitutional law class last spring the conversation was several times derailed by impassioned and earnest pleas from several of the more SJW-aligned students that the whole American constitutional system was so shot-through with classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia that it was irrevocably tainted, discussion on its terms made one complicit in its repugnant moral assumptions about society and humanity, and thus it all should be junked instanter. Additionally, the professor probably averted several other similar outbursts by frequently prefacing discussion of SJW-opposed doctrines and historical periods with some variation of “I know this is not ideal, and that many of the opinions here are deeply problematic and flawed, but this is the law of the land so we have to understand it.”

          • brad says:

            Every con law class ever is derailed by one or two students who won’t shut up. I don’t think the thousands and thousands of people that had to listen to not very well articulated fed soc speeches in con law classes let that determine their presidential votes.

          • Schmendrick says:

            Brad – I absolutely agree that every law school class – not just con-law – has its whackadoodles, and my vote wasn’t swayed by their speeches. However, I do think my experience is good evidence that there are SJWs completely willing to denounce people in the past for holding then-acceptable moral and social views which have since been shoved out of the Overton Window.

        • PGD says:

          Re Trump being “complete gibberish” — A recent piece in the Atlantic said that Trump’s supporters take him “seriously but not literally” while his opponents take him “literally but not seriously”. Since Trump uses a lot of irony, hyperbole, sarcasm, and personal insults, all forms of rhetoric that have been effectively driven out of political discourse before him and assume a reading that is not strictly literal, this makes a huge difference in how you interpret him. E.g. saying “Hillary Clinton founded ISIS” is clearly literally false, but if taken seriously clearly also makes sense as a shorthand reference to the ways in which she arguably contributed to the growth of ISIS during her time as SoS and due to policies she favored and championed (regime change in Libya accompanied by heavy arms supplies, arming Syrian rebels, and something-or-other about Iraq depending on your politics). It is not really a fully convincing argument in the context of a phenomenon as complex as ISIS, but it makes more sense than “Donald Trump is a Russian spy” which pretty much unhinged. Of course, that line is being pushed not by Hillary herself but by campaign proxies. (That’s another important difference between Trump and traditional campaign rhetoric — his operation is lean so all his rhetoric comes from him instead of the traditional split between sedate speech by the candidate and over-the-top stuff planted with proxies).

          • God Damn John Jay says:

            This sounds about right, his “build a wall and make Mexico pay for it” is actually roughly possible if “make Mexico pay for it” means cutting foreign aid, and trivial if “wall” means “fence”.

          • Matt M says:

            I feel like Trump has previously explained that the method by which they would pay for it is higher tariffs. Basically that he would say “look, either you cut us a check for this wall OR we are going to raise tariffs on you by a whole lot and use that money to build the wall, so you’ll end up paying for it anyway only first your economy will suffer significant damage”

            This doesn’t come up frequently because a detailed and logical explanation of his methods is just not Trump’s shtick, but it has been said and explained and everyone seems to just ignore it.

          • Corey says:

            @Matt: It was even more interesting. It was “cut us a check for the wall, or we cut off remittances via banking regulations”. And it would probably even work (temporarily; people are very innovative when it comes to routing around capital controls), be legal, and might not even require new regulation. IIRC it was defining money-transfer services like Western Union as “banks” subject to accountholder-citizenship requirements.

          • Matt M says:

            Corey,

            I forgot about that part.

            I do find it interesting that the same people who bash Trump for “not having details” routinely ignore/leave out instances in the past where he totally has provided details.

            Whether or not Trump’s “plan” for getting Mexico to pay for the wall will work or not is surely a matter of dispute, but the notion that he simply has no plan and is an idiot who thinks they will pay for it just because he tells them to is pretty clearly deceptive and dishonest.

          • hlynkacg says:

            That is an interesting distinction that seems obvious in hindsight.

      • anonymous now says:

        ” SSC may be a rationalist blog, but it’s also one built by someone who admittedly views blue-tribe as his outgroup (but, odd to me, never red-tribe”

        I don’t believe Scott wouldnt be able to sustain his blue-blaming cosmology if he lived in Tennessee (going on two years now i have yet to meet or hear of an SJW); or if he exposed himself to right-wing media which he would rather pretend doesnt exist, as it complicates the narrative.

        Easier to tear down a Vox article than defend one in the National Review.

        In this war of blue and red what falls through the gaps? What is always invisible to the people who use such a paradigm?

        Corporate Power. What unites Scott, and David Friedman, Peter Thiel and Bryan Caplan, et al. is a bottom-line commitment to preserving and expanding corporate power and private wealth. This is accompished primarily by never mentioning it, even while constantly denigrating all other social stakeholders which pose a threat to its dominance.

        http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/

        • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

          I don’t believe Scott wouldnt be able to sustain his blue-blaming cosmology if he lived in Tennessee (going on two years now i have yet to meet or hear of an SJW); or if he exposed himself to right-wing media which he would rather pretend doesnt exist, as it complicates the narrative.

          For better or for worse, that is already acknowledged in scott’s theory. He lives in such a bubble, that these people are as far to him, as islamic extremists are to your average “blue triber”, so they don’t seem relevant or important.

          Corporate Power. What unites Scott, and David Friedman, Peter Thiel and Bryan Caplan, et al. is a bottom-line commitment to preserving and expanding corporate power and private wealth. This is accompished primarily by never mentioning it.

          I sure hope you’re not bitter lefty anon, because this is an uncharacteristically paranoid comment.

        • The joke version is that the left tells the truth about business and the right tells the truth about government.

          Perhaps the ssc version is that business and government together operate as the jaws of Moloch.

        • Zakharov says:

          My impression of Scott is that he’s a progressive trying to improve the quality of the progressive movement. He criticizes Vox because he reads Vox, he doesn’t read Breitbart.

          • Stefan Drinic says:

            He did a review on a Breitbart piece, once. You can look it up. 80% of the comments were people complaining about it being punching down somehow, because obviously criticising Breitbart is crossing the line into being meaaaan.

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            All my google results for site:ssc breitbart are lefties moaning in the comments that the other side is also allowed to have partisan journalists.
            Got any other keywords I could toss in to refine the search?

          • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

            https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/15/lies-damned-lies-and-the-media-part-6-of-∞/

            Of course, Stefan’s assessment is pretty damn wrong. There are a bunch of comments that questioned the equivalence of posting about terrible statistics from breitbart, which is a shitty conservative site, and from Vox, which is a pretty good liberal site (The usage of the word “Mean” was used in this context), but they didn’t consitute a majority of the comments.

        • Deiseach says:

          I’m sorry, I’m laughing at the idea of Scott being mentioned in the same breath as Peter Thiel as “committ(ed) to preserving and expanding corporate power and private wealth”. Why not throw in the Koch Brothers while we’re at it?

          Scott is a trainee doctor in psychiatry, who should soon be able to hang out his own shingle and move back to civilisation from the wilds of “Catholic hospital in the middle of the country”. He will then have the thrilling adventure of trying to get a foothold in having a practice of his own, maybe starting by persuading some established practice to let him be a partner.

          As a bloated plutocrat, he’s about the worst example you could pick – you were doing very nicely with your list of deplorables but that was a basic error.

          • Nicholas says:

            In America junior doctors are part of the plutocrat class.
            Being a JrDr isn’t any better than anywhere else, the bar to be a plutocrat is just that low. The general hollowing out of the Upper-Lower Class means that there’s very little light between “upper-class twit” and “meth addict living in a house with a dozen people”. With 0% of anyone self identifying as upper-class twits, plutocrat is defined as “no one you know is hooked on meth”.

          • John Schilling says:

            What do you mean by “plutocrat class”?

            I’d tend to limit that to what Church called the E1, or maybe E1&E2 combined, and the junior doctors certainly aren’t there. I don’t think they are in the Elite hierarchy at all, and while there might be a case for putting them in E4 I think it is pretty weak.

            If what you are saying is just that junior doctors are in the class of people that can expect to make six-figure salaries someday, I think that is uninteresting and a gross misuse of the word “plutocrat”.

            If you are arguing some other point, I’m missing it and you might want to try a more careful explanation.

          • Edward Morgan Blake says:

            With 0% of anyone self identifying as upper-class twits, plutocrat is defined as “no one you know is hooked on meth”.

            I can name five people in my larger looser social circle of people who go to the same social events I do, who made more $250,000/year, and who have Obama and Hillary stickers on their cars, who have destroyed or are destroying their lives and their families lives with dextroamphetamine and methamphetamine.

          • Nicholas says:

            To use Church’s taxonomy:
            All of Elite, The top three categories of Gentry, the top 75% of the bottom category of Gentry, the top half of the top category of Labor. That’s the “plutocrat” class, defined as a group that is primarily concerned with ensuring that all loss of wealth and social costs fall on the Labor class, and exercises primarily economic power in service to that goal.

          • John Schilling says:

            @Nicholas: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

          • Deiseach says:

            Nicholas, I would say that Scott is a nice middle-class boy (even with aspirations to the upper-middle class in time, should his career in psychiatry prove fruitful and he get a nice practice in California) – like the joke about the Cork woman whose son fell into the river Lee and she ran along shouting for “Help, help, my son the doctor* is drowning!”

            But putting him in the same income bracket and sphere of influence as Thiel et al is rather pushing it, don’t you think? And I don’t agree with the “gentry” classification; doctors, lawyers, etc. were not members of the gentry as such, they were members of the professions which served the gentry. Certainly not trade or labour, but in that fuzzy area of ‘not quite a gentleman but not quite not, either’. Granted, this has blurred over time, but “plutocrat” to my ears strikes a different note: someone with not alone a good chunk of wealth but access to the machinery of power, be that as an employer/entrepreneur/techocratic innovator (the Ironmasters of the Industrial Revolution) – which is where Thiel comes in – or political influence, again either as part of the government or as wealthy donor to the party coffers.

            A junior doctor who is entering a career in psychiatry and will (please God) be a nice, middle-class, reasonably comfortably-off liberal in his turn is not a plutocrat.

            *Or, depending on version, “lawyer” or “accountant”.

          • Deiseach

            *Upper* middle class, I should hope.

          • LHN says:

            Physicians were gentlemen (dining with the family, not the servants, paid indirectly to avoid the embarrassment of being seen to accept money, etc.), but university educated physicians were a minority of medical practitioners.

            Surgeons were a rung below, having served an apprenticeship rather than going to university. (In the UK, as I understand it, they’re called Mister rather than Doctor in what’s now reversed snobbery.) Apothecaries were lower still, and weren’t really supposed to practice medicine (though they did, making calls in addition to compounding remedies); they largely merged with surgeons in the later 19th century. The apothecaries’ role as dispensers of materia medica was replaced by the more recently emerged (and lower-ranking) pharmacists/chemists.

            (And of course there were people in the community who knew how to set bones or deliver children, but who didn’t any sort of formal recognition.)

          • dndnrsn says:

            A plutocrat is, by literal definition, someone who rules by (or, uh, in the cause of? Someone with better Greek than me step in please) wealth.

            Do doctors, lawyers, professors, etc rule? They certainly do well financially (doctors and lawyers more than professors) and are influential as groups. But are they major sources of the leadership classes? Lawyers, maybe, but most lawyers don’t end up as judges or whatever.

          • aitch reasoner says:

            Scott is an exceptional writer. He is regularly celebrated at all the plutocrat-funded think tanks. Both for last years anti-SJW homerun(s) and the new spirit of libertarian fed-upness which we’ve seen as of late. Scott is not in love with being a psychiatrist. The market for persuasive writing is…lucrative to say the least. Scott’s value as a crafter of argumentation dwarfs his value as a doctor or as a writer of fiction. If you think he’s not on every techno-billionaires list of intellectuals to “cultivate” you really are naive . But you’ve just probably never played the tape out.

          • “He is regularly celebrated at all the plutocrat-funded think tanks.”

            Not that I’ve noticed. I gave a luncheon talk for Cato in SF just Friday and I didn’t see him anywhere around. Didn’t even hear anyone mention him.

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            That’s just proof they’re cultivating him super secretly, DUH.
            Scott will be a perfect cryptoplutocrat once he masters the evil laugh, and the whole “stop telling the truth” thing.

          • dndnrsn says:

            So where are all the people getting rich writing this stuff? Or, forget even rich, the sort of pseudo-journalists who write books and get stuff published in the Guardian probably top out at upper middle class.

            There are ideologies that people get paid to reproduce, whether as a journalist, a professor, whatever – but this ain’t one of them.

        • Wency says:

          I’d be curious where you are in TN. In Nashville, I met plenty of SJWs.

          In Nashville, within the tabletop community, you can meet all types — ranging from crossdressing gay LARPers to devout Baptists. In Bluer places, I’ve encountered representatives of the first group, but never the latter.

          I was kicked out of a Nashville D&D group for telling them that I voted for Bush in ’04, when asked. I never made any other political statements, but they considered it unconscionable and didn’t want to play with me any more.

    • Wrong Species says:

      It is really weird. When I see people here defending him, they are projecting reasonable positions on to him that he has never said in this very lawyer-like manner. By all reasonable interpretations, Trump said X but they’ll argue, unconvincingly to anyone but themselves, that he actually said Y. How is anyone supposed to argue against that?

      • Schmendrick says:

        Not to put words in anyone else’s mouth, but at least when *I* do it it’s because I never supported Trump because of what he actually said – I supported Trump because of who hated him. Unfortunately, this isn’t an acceptable or productive stance, especially talking with friends or quasi-friends: “I like him because people like you hate him” is a great way to piss people off. So, to save face, out comes the sophistry and apologetics.

    • Matt M says:

      “Do you USA types realise how he looks to the rest of the planet?”

      Feature not bug

    • Nadja says:

      BTW, I never actually realized there were so many other Trump supporters on here. Cool. Maybe we should do a meet-up? Make rationality great again? 😉

    • Dr Dealgood says:

      Doesn[‘]t it matter that he comes across as a rabid chimp? Do you USA types [realize] how he looks to the rest of the planet?

      That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

      One of the big reasons, arguably the biggest reason, people here support Trump is because his bombastic way of speaking and invincibility in the face of accusations of bigotry are eroding PC norms. If we have Trump presidency, the chattering classes in America and Europe will have to spend four to eight years listening very closely to someone who sounds like your blue collar uncle after a few too many beers. Hopefully that will make it more acceptable to have intelligent conversations (conversation as in a dialogue, not a sermon) about class and ethnicity that are presently forbidden.

      Beyond that, a lot of us are sick to death of eurotrash with beams in their eyes weighing in on the supposed deficits of our culture and politics. Don’t like Trump? Too bad, go vote in your own elections then.

      • tumteetum says:

        You’re voting for Trump cos then you’ll be able to talk about stuff you currently cant? Ok, if you say so.

        >eurotrash

        Nice.

        I wish it were as simple as you do your thing, we’ll do ours, but the USA has a rather large influence, so its not that straightforward.

        • Dr Dealgood says:

          I wish it were as simple as you do your thing, we’ll do ours, but the USA has a rather large influence, so its not that straightforward.

          Well then you should be thrilled that Trump is running.

          “Invade the world, invite the world” is the neoconservative and neoliberal rallying cry. Trump is no Jefferson, but he cleaves closer to the essential principle of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

          Dismantling the so-called American Empire is a big plank of his campaign, and probably why he’s so feared and hated by the establishment.

          • Aegeus says:

            He’s anti-NATO and anti-EU, sure, but he’s the one who talks the most about building up our military and bombing ISIS back to the stone age. I’m not convinced he’s any less “invade the world” than his contemporaries.

            (And that’s a mild formulation, that assumes all his really crazy statements were just hyperbole. I could also point out that he’s said nukes aren’t off the table for fighting ISIS, we should go after terrorists’ families, and that we should have taken Iraq’s oil for ourselves. None of that sounds like a man who wants fewer Middle East adventures.)

            Also, if you care about peace in general, then “Sure, he’s breaking up the biggest deterrent force in the Western Hemisphere, but at least America specifically won’t be part of the next war!” is not reassuring in the slightest.

          • Sandy says:

            The next American President, whoever that is, doesn’t have the option of just ignoring ISIS, so that is one Middle East adventure that we will have to go on anyway. Ordinarily I’d say let Russia and Iran kill everyone so Assad can stay, but ISIS has killed Americans abroad and on U.S. soil so America should be involved in Baghdadi’s extermination. Beyond that, I don’t think there should be any more Middle East adventures, and I haven’t heard Trump advocating for more. I have no doubt Clinton would insist on the necessity of spreading democracy in the Arab world, a goal I am adamantly opposed to.

            Is taking Iraq’s oil such an outrageous policy? Because that is precisely what Clinton’s advisers were advocating for Libya back when she was Secretary of State.

          • Matt M says:

            “doesn’t have the option of just ignoring ISIS”

            Citation needed. They CERTAINLY have the OPTION of doing so. What you mean to say is that you don’t think that’s a very good option. Which I would also disagree with, but still…

          • Sandy says:

            Ok, I suppose they do technically have the option of ignoring ISIS. But depending on which brand of motivated reasoning you listen to, the rise of ISIS is all Bush’s fault/Obama’s fault, so I think it’s only fair that a President who subscribes to one of those views (which Trump does, given that he blames the rise on ISIS on Obama’s foreign policy) would feel honor-bound to clean up his predecessor’s mess. Or the whole “ISIS has killed some of us and wants to kill many more, so we have to wipe them out” sentiment that probably has a lot of appeal for Trump.

            What I can’t see Trump doing post-ISIS is demanding the replacement of systems that work with systems that satisfy the liberal internationalist order, which Clinton would most certainly do the way she and her ilk did in Libya.

          • Matt M says:

            “so I think it’s only fair that a President who subscribes to one of those views (which Trump does, given that he blames the rise on ISIS on Obama’s foreign policy) would feel honor-bound to clean up his predecessor’s mess.”

            My position on this would be that there’s a non-zero chance the best way to “clean up the mess” is, in fact, to ignore them. That the odds are overwhelmingly good that whatever interventionist method we pick to “solve the problem” will end up making things worse.

            Source: The last 50 years

          • John Schilling says:

            The next American President, whoever that is, doesn’t have the option of just ignoring ISIS, so that is one Middle East adventure that we will have to go on anyway.

            I’d almost say the next American President doesn’t have any option but to ignore ISIS. He or she will probably do some strident televised posturing on the subject, but nothing of real consequence.

            Ordinarily I’d say let Russia and Iran kill everyone so Assad can stay,

            That’s going to happen whether you say so or not. That’s going to happen whether the next President says so or not.

            but ISIS has killed Americans abroad and on U.S. soil so America should be involved in Baghdadi’s extermination.

            Oh, if all you are talking about is the Bin-Ladinesque manhunt for one has-been loser who no longer matters, sure, we might be able do that. If Baghdadi doesn’t decide to go down in a blaze of glory at the Fall of Raqqa, though if he does there will presumably be some titular successor we can hunt down. I thought you were talking about stuff that mattered.

            Mosul and Raqqa will probably not have been fallen by 20 January 2017, but they will be besieged, and by people who ultimately take orders from Moscow and Tehran. No US President is going to risk open conflict with those powers for the sake of having U.S. Army troops march triumphantly through the streets of ISIS’s last city when it falls. If we insist, they’ll let us drop some of the bombs in the preparatory bombardment, again, that’s not stuff that matters.

            The window of opportunity for the US to strike a decisive blow against ISIS and/or shape the postwar futures of Syria and Iraq is pretty much closed. The next POTUS will have to deal with entirely different crises, which may or may not involve the problem of Syria and Iraq being ruled by Russian and Iranian puppet regimes. If you’re judging the candidates specifically by their anti-ISIS policies, that’s just silly.

        • Garrett says:

          I always find it interesting that people complain about the US influence over the world, and then seem to want us to make changes.
          Why not change your country to be more like the US so that you, too, can have a large influence?

          • Sandy says:

            European countries can’t do that without being accused of neocolonialism. China actually does complain about American influence and act on those complaints as well.

          • Nicholas says:

            When you do, you get put on the “Axis of Evil” American corporations boycott you, American diplomats get your trading partners to sanction you, and the US Marines bring Explosive Democracy to your country.

          • Schmendrick says:

            When you do, you get put on the “Axis of Evil” American corporations boycott you, American diplomats get your trading partners to sanction you, and the US Marines bring Explosive Democracy to your country.

            Or, if you’re Russia, a major party’s nominee for President has a slightly obnoxious man-crush on your strongman, while the other party is annoyed at you for cultural reasons but is ideologically barred from actually posing a real challenge to your power politics.

      • Maz says:

        Whenever the media attack Trump, his reaction is essentially to say, “OH YEAH? FUCK YOU TOO!” He treats all criticism as a personal attack, and that works because in fact much of the time the criticisms, even if ostensibly about issues, ARE primarily personal attacks, and treating them as such makes sense.

      • Stefan Drinic says:

        Fuck you too, Amerifat.

      • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

        eurotrash

        The state of the art term is yuropoor, get on with the program.

      • sweeneyrod says:

        “eurotrash”
        I thought we’d agreed last thread that it was only leftists called rightists nasty words. Regardless, pejoratives are by definition unkind, rarely necessary, and in this case lack a truth value.

      • Anonymouse says:

        >four to eight years listening very closely to someone who sounds like your blue collar uncle after a few too many beers. Hopefully that will make it more acceptable to have intelligent conversations

        How does this make any sense? How does somebody talking like an ignorant jackass make intelligent conversation more likely?

        Also I dunno if the Trumpers here subscribe to the niceness norm Scott advocated, Trump sure doesn’t. So if you want a niceness norm he’s a bad choice.

        • Sandy says:

          I’m not sure a niceness norm is an option, given that the other side increasingly seems to believe that they are ascendant and therefore they do not have to nice to their opponents anymore.

        • Fahundo says:

          Also I dunno if the Trumpers here subscribe to the niceness norm Scott advocated, Trump sure doesn’t. So if you want a niceness norm he’s a bad choice.

          Not a Trumper but there’s a big difference between valuing a space where niceness is the norm and thinking niceness should be the norm everywhere, at all times.

        • Anonymous says:

          four to eight years listening very closely to someone who sounds like your blue collar uncle after a few too many beers. Hopefully that will make it more acceptable to have intelligent conversations

          How does this make any sense? How does somebody talking like an ignorant jackass make intelligent conversation more likely?

          You missed the qualifier. Dr Dealgood (maybe not actually a real doctor) actually said:

          Hopefully that will make it more acceptable to have intelligent conversations … about class and ethnicity that are presently forbidden.

          Without that qualifier, it might not make so much sense. With that qualifier? People actually have to experience a class/ethnic divide and yet take a person somewhat seriously. (FTR, I don’t blame you too much for missing the qualifier, because it was hidden behind a parenthetical, but you probably should pay more attention.)

          • Dr Dealgood says:

            Not a real doctor yet. And even once I get my degree I won’t be that sort of doctor anyway.

            My name is a Mad Max reference. The pic is awful but that’s the character.

            And yes, precisely. No platforming doesn’t work on the Leader of the Free WorldTM.

          • Deiseach says:

            No platforming doesn’t work on the Leader of the Free WorldTM.

            God help me, now I almost want a President Trump just to see this kind of thing happening with the people who were gushing over the Justin Trudeau/Barack Obama photo-ops. Just to hear the brain-melting screams of anguish from all the opinion columnists and editorialists. Will the Washington press corps to a person refuse to attend briefings from a president they don’t recognise as legitimate? Will the border with Canada be blocked by mass exodus of fleeing citizenry? (That new bridge is just in time!)

            Dr Dealgood, you naughty, naughty person, tempting me from the path of strict virtue! 🙂

    • hlynkacg says:

      In the spirit of charity I will assume the question is genuine… (though the rabid chimp bit makes me wonder)

      First off, I would not say that a this is not a “rationalist blog” per se, yes our host does identify as a rationalist and he was a regular contributor to LessWrong but the topics here are more diffuse and the commentariat more diverse. We have Hillary Supporters and we have Trump supporters, we have Labour and Torries, and we have Communists and An-caps. and for the most part nobody tries to stab anyone else. I would argue that this is a good thing.

      Finally to answer your question, there is an impression among a significant subset of Americans, primarily the rural working class, colloquially referred to as “the red tribe” that our current political establishment as personified by people like Bush and Clinton have not been looking out for American interests. Trump is the red tribe’s “middle finger” to the political establishment and “all those foreign assholes” who’ve been taking advantage of Americans’ patience, blood, and treasure.

      You see people defending him here because this is one of the few “safe spaces” on the internet where red tribers, blue tribers, and non-americans can interact without knives drawn.

      I’d like to think that SSC is the culture war’s version of Checkpoint Charlie or the Christmas Truce.

      • Gazeboist says:

        I’d argue (though I am an outsider) that Trump is the Red Tribe breaking up in response to an environment that’s been changing since the Reagan era, and that the emergence of the “Grey Tribe” and other* ex- or psuedo-Blue factions is the same thing.

        * To the extent that the Grey Tribe is ex-Blue. Arguably, it has some ex-Reds and some ex-Blues.

        • Schmendrick says:

          I agree, though from my position it looks more like the ACTUAL Red Tribe breaking out from under the leadership of those who espoused “Red” policies and appealed to “Red” norms, but themselves preferred to be culturally “Blue;” living in coastal metropolises, working in service industries or the media, sending their kids to ritzy schools, etc.

          • LHN says:

            By lining up behind a guy who lives in a coastal metropolis, leveraged his way into fame by putting his name on service industries (hotels, casinos) and media properties, and hobnobbed largely with the culturally “Blue” (including his current opponent). For the outsider candidate, he’s remarkably insidery.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            and yet they rage.

          • hlynkacg says:

            For the outsider candidate, he’s remarkably insidery.

            They’re lining up behind him because he has a critical trait that that all the other candidates thus far have lacked. He fights.

          • Schmendrick says:

            By lining up behind a guy who lives in a coastal metropolis, leveraged his way into fame by putting his name on service industries (hotels, casinos) and media properties, and hobnobbed largely with the culturally “Blue” (including his current opponent). For the outsider candidate, he’s remarkably insidery.

            Ah yes, but he rambles. He rages. He’s inarticulate. He talks in vague, self-satisfied generalities. He’s super-tacky, and seems to take pride in the fact. He’s not a person you can plausibly imagine talking knowledgeably about hot yoga, shopping at Whole Foods, or being up on the latest prestige TV show. He’s a lout, a pig, and a boor. None of these are Blue traits, and indeed seem almost calculated to maximally piss off Blues.

          • Gazeboist says:

            He’s not a person you can plausibly imagine talking knowledgeably about hot yoga, shopping at Whole Foods, or being up on the latest prestige TV show. He’s a lout, a pig, and a boor. None of these are Blue traits, and indeed seem almost calculated to maximally piss off Blues.

            Huh. I don’t see those as being Blue universals at all. Intellectual posturing is, and there’s a projection of calm detachment that’s close to being universal, but not these in particular. I see the Blue Tribe as an alliance composed of the following:

            (1) People strongly in favor of civil liberties, but not necessarily suspicious of bureaucracy/government.
            (2) The Social Justice Left and its immediate predecessors (the more revolutionary leftist groups from the 60s-80s or so).
            (3) The “old left” or Social Democrats, who think the US should import systems used in Scandanavia or Britain, and are huge fans of FDR.
            (4) Minorities (racial and otherwise) who feel they have no alternative choice, even if they might prefer another group.
            (5) Rich (but rarely massively so) New England WASPs and their counterparts elsewhere who want low-effort prestige for charity and diversity.

            Groups 1 and 3 have major technocratic subsets, but neither is entirely technocrat-run, and they have different (if aligned at times) goals. Group 5 donates heavily to the others.

            These groups are united mostly by being vaguely urban or dense suburban. During the heyday of the Blue Tribe, these groups mixed to an extent and had pretty fuzzy borders. Group 2, especially, mostly recruited from the other four groups, rather than raising their children as successors, and Group 5 donated membership (and donates still) to all of them (except those parts of Group 4 for which it doesn’t make sense). Now, though, Group 1 has mixed with full libertarians and split off to form the Grey Tribe, and Group 2 has started attacking all the rest. That breakup, I think, mostly happened during Obama’s first term. Many members of these groups pulled together briefly in 2012, but it was much weaker, and the divisions ultimately got worse.

            Sanders was an avatar of Group 3’s non-technocrat subset; he also managed to capture a bunch of Groups 2 and 5. His problem was that he mostly failed to appeal to the technocrats, in his own group, and lost pretty badly among Group 4. Clinton is a compromise candidate; she has Obama’s name to help in Group 4 (not that she really needs that help in the general), but otherwise doesn’t appeal all that well to any of these groups. I’d guess she fits with Group 5, which shows when she reads off Group 2 talking points without really considering them, but there’s an argument to be made that she’s originally from Group 3.

            The cultural markers in the quote up top seem to mostly describe Groups 3 and 5, as well as the members they donated to Group 2. Group 1 likes being “weird” too much to focus on prestige TV or upper middle class fads like yoga and Whole Foods, and Group 4 has half a dozen different cultures in it, none of which do any of that. Group 2 might, but it’s more likely to get pissed off at Whole Foods for some heresy, or declare westerners doing yoga to be cultural imperialists.

          • houseboatonstyxb says:

            @ hlynkacg
            >> For the outsider candidate, he’s remarkably insidery.

            > They’re lining up behind him because he has a critical trait that that all the other candidates thus far have lacked. He fights.

            Heh. So does Hillary; they both seem to enjoy it. Hillary too has sort of a low-class whang to her. In 08, she had a famous ‘Rally in the Rain’, and trying to get Obama to debate she said “I’ll debate you anytime, anywhere. I’ll debate you on the back of a flat-bed truck!”

            She’s had several prestigeous titles, but strkes me as an outsider type. Always criticized, passed over by the Dems in 08. It’s odd to hear her criticized as ‘the Anointed One’ this year; I supposed the reason there weren’t many good candidates in either primary, was because they were all scared to run against her.

    • Ilya Shpitser says:

      A ton of pepe the frog people here.

      • hlynkacg says:

        Well meme’d my friend.

      • Dr Dealgood says:

        I believe the proper term of venery here is a “basket of deplorables.”

        • Ilya Shpitser says:

          Not a “bundle of deplorables” (referencing the fasces)?

          • Lumifer says:

            The fasces which are stronger together..?

          • LHN says:

            Some months before “Stronger Together” was unveiled as the Clinton campaign motto, it was the title of a Supergirl episode. I always wondered if there was a connection; it wouldn’t surprise me if people in the campaign were watching the very girl-power heavy show. (The president in the show was pronoun-checked as a woman early on. It’s since been announced that she’ll be played by Lynda Carter, which is a nice touch.)

            In the episode, it’s revealed that the phrase (in Kryptonian) is what the sigil Supergirl (and Superman) wear represents. (Because after most of a lifetime of it being obviously “S for Super”, they’ve decided they need to get creative about it.) Supergirl explains it as the reason she needs her sidekicks friends. This is in contrast to Superman, who wasn’t raised within the House of El and (at least in this show) tends to operate alone.

            But the main villain at the time is Supergirl’s aunt. She’s also shown invoking it in the episode, to justify her domination of her fellow crashed space-criminals.

            At the time, I thought that was actually a nice parallel to the way the fasces are widely used in American republican iconography[1], but also serve as the symbol of the eponymous political tendency.

            [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces#Fasces_in_the_United_States

          • brad says:

            For a little while after “Stronger Together” came out I thought it taken directly from the anti-Scotland independence campaign. Then I looked it up and that was “Better Together”. Still pretty close.

          • God Damn John Jay says:

            Superman’s costume being a remnant of krypton and being his family crest dates back to the first movie, (It was Brando’s idea).

            It was originally just an “S” however.

            For more trivia, the superman and Batman outfits with the underwear on the outside are based on circus performer’s outfits (think acrobats).

          • LHN says:

            Well, Brando wanted to wear the S. I suspect that the details (like giving the other council members different but analogous symbols) were left to others. But the idea largely lay fallow after that for a couple of decades.

            (In the comics of the Silver and Bronze Ages, Kryptonians did sometimes wear symbols on their chests, but Jor-El’s was a first a ringed planet, and later and most frequently a sun.)

            There was also an odd story around 1980 (“The Sword of Superman”) that had the symbol preexisting Krypton itself and going back to the beginnings of the universe. But there wasn’t any followup to that.

          • keranih says:

            …I was always more a fan of the Batclan than Sups, but wasn’t it a thing that the S stood for “Scientist” at one point? (I want credit for having a fridge moment at the tender age of 10 or so, and going, what, they used the English alphabet? How does that work??)

          • LHN says:

            @keranih I don’t remember that one. That said, while I have way more brain cells than is reasonable storing Superman-related trivia (e.g., varieties of kryptonite, members of the Legion of Super-Pets, etc.), I’m certainly not going to categorically say that it was never stated to mean that in 78 years, across multiple media.

          • Edward Morgan Blake says:

            Superman’s costume being a remnant of krypton and being his family crest dates back to the first movie, (It was Brando’s idea).

            I thought it was Elliot S! Maggin’s idea, and predated the first Reeves Superman movie.

          • LHN says:

            I don’t think so– Maggin is the one who wrote the “Sword of Superman” story I mentioned (where the symbol first shows up on a primordial sword destined for Kal-El’s hand). But IIRC, he still stuck with the idea that it was devised by the Kents when Martha made the costume out of Clark’s Kryptonian baby blankets.

            (Usually implicitly Martha, but in “The Sword of Superman”, she intends a standard S until the familiar symbol is somehow placed in Jonathan’s mind by the sword.)

            In old Silver/Bronze Age continuity, it couldn’t be a familiar symbol on Krypton (and certainly not of the El family), since Superman time-traveled back to Krypton in costume and spent time with Jor-El and Lara. He used his real (Kryptonian) name and claimed to be a distant cousin. But they didn’t know he was related until he said so– clearly he wasn’t wearing a family crest.

            (His outfit was explained as a “space costume” relating to the movie set he’d conveniently landed in. Not that it was all that different from typical Kryptonian garb of that era.)

            (Then after the 80s reboot, Kryptonians wore all-covering bodysuits and didn’t go in for families, let alone family symbols.)

          • keranih says:

            @LHN –

            I swear to god, I remember that whole S is for Scientist thing.

            But if you don’t remember it, I dunno how to justify it.

          • LHN says:

            No need to justify it– I’m not denying your lived experience. 😉 Even after decades it wouldn’t be the first belated surprise.

            I mean, it was only in the last year or so that I found out about the time Superman dressed as a giant mynah bird in order to terrorize his next door neighbors’ pet. (A pet, I hasten to add, who was innocent of any crime.)

            http://www.cbr.com/i-love-ya-but-youre-strange-that-time-superman-dressed-as-a-giant-bird-to-protect-his-secret-i-d/

            [ETA My wife, looking over my shoulder: “Where did he even get a giant mynah bird suit?”]

    • Furslid says:

      I’m not a Trump supporter, but this is my best argument for him.

      The status quo sucks. There are many problems with the status quo that persist regardless of which party is in power.

      How much has actual policy changed under Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama changed? On immigration? On military interventions? On alliances with oppressive foreign regimes? On the war on drugs? On mass imprisonment? On crony capitalism?

      Hillary Clinton is very much part of the establishment. I don’t expect changes from her. The other major republican candidates were also part of the establishment. I didn’t expect changes from Cruz or Jeb Bush.

      Trump is not part of the establishment, and there is at least a chance of some change. The change might be for the better. Trump is a risky candidate (not necessarily unstable, but his policies are purposely vague and unknown), but a risky bet is better than a certain loss.

    • TMB says:

      I don’t think this is a troll, it’s third level persuasion.

      “I am an outsider and you must not do this”

      An excellent way of persuading people to do something and motivating your “opponents”: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3981823.stm

      Though, having said that, it is still sometimes used by liberals unironically (Obama/Brexit). Or maybe he was just creating the pretext for invasion?

    • Philosophisticat says:

      Trump supporters seem to fall into a few camps.

      1) People who accept that Trump is a nincompoop but who think that Hillary being president would be worse, because, say, her foreign policy is more of a known evil, the long term consequences of having another liberal supreme court justice are too dire, Trump wouldn’t be able to get his way on the worst stuff, etc.

      2) People who accept that Trump is a nincompoop but have a “want to see the world burn” kind of attitude, especially if it means dirty liberals get their knickers in a twist. (Maybe more charitably: they think the chaos of a Trump presidency will have some positive long term effect on the political arena).

      3) People who genuinely buy into the surface Trump sell – he’s a real tough strong guy who’s going to put America first against the Mexicans and the Chinese and use his ability to make Really Great Deals and not let weak liberal pansies stand in his way to fix things.

      4) People who think that Trump is actually a very clever man who merely puts on an act to appeal to the masses, and we shouldn’t confuse his persona, which they admit looks to the untrained eye like he’s an egotistical buffoon with no coherent political ideology or understanding of serious political issues, with the man himself. They agree with what they take Smart Trump’s real agenda to be.

      I think the people in 1) are wrong, but I understand them pretty well. I think the people in 2) are pretty disgusting, but I get them too. I have a hard time intellectually empathizing with the people in 3), but at least I know that the world is full of people who are dim and easily manipulable and I get that Trump’s persona has features that appeal to dim and easily manipulable people. The people in 4) are the ones I have the hardest time understanding. The group includes a lot of relatively thoughtful people, but it seems to me that there’s something deeply off about their ability to read people and evidence.

      Trump’s base is full of people in 3), but the demographics here tend to skew towards the other three groups.

      • TMB says:

        I would say I’m number 3 – I don’t think border control is insane or evil. I don’t think that vetting of immigrants is a bad idea. I think they are good ideas.

        So, I hereby challenge you to manipulate me in the opposite direction. Should be easy, right?

        • Philosophisticat says:

          I’m breaking up these groups according to the relationship between their decision to support Trump and what they think about his level of nincompoopery. If you think Trump is an egotistical irrational blowhard who lacks any advanced sense of policy, but support him anyway because you think heavy restriction on immigration is correct and important and you think he’s most likely to pursue it, then you would count as group 1, not group 3. If you think Trump is a really great smart competent guy (based on his surface persona and not some inference to a hidden and very different person underneath) then you’re group 3. I can’t tell from what you said which group you’re in.

          Anyway, being easily manipulable doesn’t mean anyone can manipulate you into anything – you might be primed to be manipulated in some directions but not others. In particular, the relevant manipulability here is being susceptible to Trump’s peculiar brand of charisma in forming judgments about his competence. If his pronouncements about how he’s going to make great deals, just really great deals, you’re just going to be blown away by how great these deals are going to be, fill you with confidence, then you count as the relevant kind of manipulable. If you independently agree with positions you think he’ll promote, that’s a different thing.

          (I do not have that particular brand of charisma, if I have any at all)

      • anonymous now says:

        I’m interested in the person who wants to see the world burn but thinks it wont burn them.

        Can anyone think of examples of this desire working itself out in the past?

        • Garrett says:

          Why does it need to not hurt them? Suicide-by-cop is a thing. Why can’t suicide-by-politician be a thing?

        • Jaskologist says:

          “I have a real problem with bullies. I spent my childhood moving from school to school and I got made fun of everyplace I landed. I feel like Paul is a bully and maybe that’s why I have no sympathy here. Someday every bully meets and even bigger bully and maybe that’s me in this case. It’s the same thing that happened with Jack Thompson. It might not always make the most business sense and it is a policy that has caused us some legal problems, but I really don’t give a s*** about that. When these assholes threaten me or Penny Arcade I just laugh. I will personally burn everything I’ve made to the f***ing ground if I think I can catch them in the flames.” – Gabe from Penny Arcade

          (I censored it for the sake of spam filters.)

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            When these assholes threaten me or Penny Arcade I just laugh. I will personally burn everything I’ve made to the fucking ground if I think I can catch them in the flames.

            I miss that old Dickwolf attitude. Guess Gabe finally met bigger bullies.

        • Luke the CIA stooge says:

          Speaking as a libertarian burner. The idea that I have, and a lot seem to have is that on policy Trump will either be ineffective or no worse than Clinton, but the cultural damage he’ll do to the American culture/character/institutions will be irreversible.
          And as a result the rumbling secessionist movements in the states will take off, with the effect the effect that by 2030-2040 where we now have one giant festering abomination we’ll have fifty dynamic countries, with lots of room to experiment and a strong practical right of exit.

          The Federal system is a festering abomination that’s ripping more rights away every day. 330m is just to many people for one country, and 330m, $20tn, and $700bn/year “defence” is way to much for any administration to handle responsibly, and far too terrifying to not handle responsibly.

          • Anita Restrepo-Sanchez says:

            And as a result the rumbling secessionist movements in the states will take off, with the effect the effect that by 2030-2040 where we now have one giant festering abomination we’ll have fifty dynamic countries, with lots of room to experiment and a strong practical right of exit.

            As if. According to the late Justice Scalia, this issue was “settled at Appomattox”. And think about the Supreme Court’s finding in Texas v. White, including:

            By these, the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

            When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final.

            The United States is indissoluble. Once a state is in, its in forever. There can not and will not be any “breakup” or “velvet divorce”. And expect anybody who tries to get what they deserve: the same treatment as the last bunch who tried to leave.

          • TheAncientGeek says:

            Do you think a broken-up US will retain an effective military? Do you think it will need one.

          • Matt M says:

            “As if. According to the late Justice Scalia, this issue was “settled at Appomattox”. ”

            And the issue of whether it’s appropriate for a President to forcibly put-down secessionist movements was settled by John Wilkes Booth. (credit to Bob Murphy for this one)

        • Nicholas says:

          All three successful Fascist elections in Europe in the 1930’s. The Communist Revolution in Russia. Cuba, I think?

      • E. Harding says:

        I’m with #1 and #2. In any case, I think Trump was the best of the primary candidates because he was subservient to noone and an original thinker. Rand was subservient to Mitch; Cruz was not an original thinker.

        • Snodgrass says:

          Ah, you think subservience is a problem in a political leader. Interesting. I would like my political leader to be subservient to experts in every field in which experts exist; her role is exclusively to choose which experts to be visibly subservient to at any given point. That’s enough to lead politically – a leader whose focus is on the effectiveness of defence procurement and a leader whose focus is on the effectiveness of poverty amelioration, both proceeding by subservience to the greatest experts in the field they choose, will head their countries in perceptibly difference directions.

    • Skef says:

      Since all-around crabbiness about Trump seems to be the theme of this thread (and season) and because I desperately want to procrastinate for a few minutes, I’ll fling my own poop into the ring.

      1) If you had asked virtually anyone two years ago if Trump would make a good or even reasonable president, I really doubt much of anyone would have said “yes”. There might have been some Apprentice fan/capitalist-symbol-groupie exceptions. I suspect the most common observations would concern his total lack of political experience and his empty blow-hardiness, but there were plenty of other things to criticize. I also doubt “he can win” would have been taken as much of a plus.

      2) I don’t think the campaign has much changed anyone’s perception of Trump. Virtually everything he has done is consistent with his self-promoted image of many years. I’m not certain he is more of a caricature now but I suspect so. He has no additional relevant experience. The only substantial exception to this is the “he can win” factor.

      So how do you explain Trump support now in light of 1 and 2? Broadly speaking it of course amounts to “better than the alternatives” but I think saying just that underplays the depth of #1. And most arguments for Trump — even some (but not all) of those from his most enthusiastic supporters — are premised in one way or another on the current political moment’s need for him or someone like him. I’m deeply suspicious of this sort of reasoning. The only thing we learn about this guy is that he can win and suddenly people decide he’s almost tailor-made for the political problems we face? It’s a priority that foreign leaders get sneered at? Those around him will let him do the “good” stuff but stop him from doing any bad stuff because … why? What basis do we have to even predict what he will pursue as president? I’ve heard people say things like “He’ll have to build the wall or at least fight for it”. Why exactly would Trump need or want to pursue any part of his platform once elected? Because otherwise he will get bad press? Because he wouldn’t betray his true supporters?

      People complain about the mindless “balance” of both-sides-do-it reporting in the U.S. but in a way it’s a logical extension of the two-party system and our general screwed-up attitudes about politics. Support for Trump is more than anything the result of his getting the Republication nomination even though no one thinks that process revealed anything besides “he can win”. I’m not at all enthusiastic about Clinton because she greatly over-estimates the utility of killing people and there’s some truth in the idea of political capital and she seems to have spent hers in 1993. But the ideas that “Trump will be fine” and “Clinton will be really bad” for the country don’t seem to trace in any obvious way to what we know about Trump and Clinton.

      • Skef says:

        A different, mostly-unrelated point:

        Lots of people on both sides criticized Occupy Wall Street for (among other things) not “issuing demands” and being “unrealistic”. With the latter the proof may be in the pudding, but the former is just nuts. Bring demands to what? The Federal government we love in theory but loathe in practice with so many veto points that there is no actual governing absent a celestial super-majority alignment? That under normal circumstances can at best produce laws that are disavowed by everyone involved, who are then blamed for compromising at all?

        Representative democracy is by all evidence primarily retroactive. Promises made in a campaign don’t mean much and aren’t taken to mean much. Once in office a politician’s incentive is to be elected again or (given the personalities of those who tend to run) at least well thought of. In a functioning system they do stuff their constituents take them to be responsible for, or don’t do much of anything and are taken as responsible for that, and that’s what the next vote is about. This works OK in a parliamentary system. The party with the majority (or the majority coalition) actually gets to sort of do what it wants until voters don’t like it or it’s looking like they won’t.

        We don’t have that. Our presidents are usually reelected or not based on factors they had little or no control over, often the economy. If they don’t pass their agenda we blame them for “not leading” regardless of who happens to be in power in Congress. And we simultaneously hate “Congress” but love our Senators and Representatives because it’s generally true that the latter don’t make much of a difference in what the former accomplishes. Somehow because everyone is responsible for what little happens, no one is. As a result our campaigns tend to focus on the same kabuki issues for cycle after cycle and little or nothing comes of it. This is a feature of the system, not the participants. It worked for a while because the paper rules weren’t the actual rules and now they are. A strange candidate is not going to change this except perhaps in the sense of breaking it. That could possibly cause a better system to arise out of need. Historically it tends to result in the Army picking someone for some reason.

        OWS was at root an invitation to get together and make a new system on the premise that the current one is broken. So you hated their clapping and drum circles and smell and fake consensus and whatever. OK, but the system itself still includes you and them and is how we all work out who has responsibility for what. Is your response really to point to the federal government and say “no, look, we’ve got already this great thing!”? Or maybe more like “let’s stick with that because I’d really rather vomit than talk to you about all this and I bet the Army feels the same way!”?

        Whatever you thought, the demands criticism is dumb. They didn’t take or present themselves as already knowing what to do or wanting to demand it without your input, and what they hoped to achieve can’t be demanded anyway.

        • Aegeus says:

          Representative democracy is by all evidence primarily retroactive. Promises made in a campaign don’t mean much and aren’t taken to mean much.

          This is apparently not as true as people think, though. On average, presidents keep 67% of their campaign promises: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/

          Now, this doesn’t tell you which promises they’ll keep, and if you’re a single-issue voter a 67% chance probably doesn’t fill you with confidence, but you should expect to get at least some of what your candidate campaigned for.

          • Matt M says:

            You might also consider that politicians are greatly incentivized to only make promises that will be easy to keep. They can pad these stats by making a bunch of minor promises about small issues that nobody will really care about or pay attention to at all.

            I’m sure GHWB kept a ton of his promises, but none of them matter after “read my lips, no new taxes”

            Edit: Note that this is a huge problem with stuff like “Politifact rates 90% of Hillary’s statements as true but only 50% of Trump’s statements as true therefore Trump is less honest.” Even if you accept Politifact as an unbiased and neutral source, it refuses to attempt to weight “lies people actually care about” and “truths about minor issues that are not in dispute” any differently at all.

        • Nicholas says:

          In the book Muddling Toward Frugality it’s actually argued that this is an intentional designed feature of our government by the Founders: They thought that out of the space of all failed governments, a senile government was less bad than all the other kinds of failure, so aimed to crash there when/if they crashed.

          • Yes, but they were wrong because in practice governments are made out of people and when the system is obviously not working people will ignore the system. That’s why parliamentary systems with fewer checks and balances are systematically more stable than presidential systems.

            I don’t blame our founding fathers for being wrong in the absence of evidence but it’s 2016 now, not 1776, and we’ve had hundreds of years of experiments in democratic republican government to observe.

      • Another piece is that a lot of people hate Hillary Clinton, and she’s his opponent.

        • Harkonnendog says:

          Yeah, most of the people I know who are voting Trump are voting against Hillary. Maybe because they hate her, but more likely because they fear her. For me, every time I hear an anti-Trump argument I think “but Hilary is worse.”

          Trump is a crook. Yeah he is, but she’s worse.
          Trump has no experience. Yeah, he might be terrible at his job, but we KNOW she’s terrible based on her track record.
          Trump is a liar. Yeah, but she lies more, and about more important things.
          He’s a racist. Maybe, and maybe she is not a racist, but she thinks 25% of the country is deplorable and
          “irredeemable.”
          Trump doesn’t relate to regular people because he’s always been rich. Yeah, but Clinton has been living like royalty since she was the First Lady. She can’t relate either.
          This is the internal dialogue that drives Trump support in the majority of his supporters, I bet.

      • ” I don’t think the campaign has much changed anyone’s perception of Trump.”

        It changed my perception. It convinced me that there was a significant chance that he was smarter than I would have thought.

        That’s based on the simple fact that he won when almost everyone thought he didn’t have a chance. I don’t understand politics well enough to have a confident opinion about why he won, so can’t reject the possibility that it had nothing to do with his being clever, but that’s the most obvious explanation.

      • anon123 says:

        Consider the same argument only replace the statement “Trump would make a good or even reasonable president” with “same-sex marriage should be considered the equivalent of heterosexual marriage and anyone who says otherwise is guilty of hate speech”, or “a man who ‘feels like a woman’ is really a woman and should be allowed to use the women’s restroom”, with the time scale adjusted accordingly. In all three cases the “public position” that “everyone just knows is corrent” changed without much in the way of relevant evidence being presented.

        Basically this is what it looks like when the Overton Window shifts.

        • dndnrsn says:

          I think you are conflating “everyone in some left-wing bubbles” with “everyone”. Taking your second example sentence, enough people are shitty to trans people to make things quite shitty for trans people. Most trans people are not, say, on university campuses, just as most people in general or not. That somebody is getting screamed at right now by a student activist for not holding the right opinion on gender doesn’t make life better for the greater number of trans kids getting kicked out by their parents. “People are whatever gender they say they are”, or more jargon-y equivalents, is a minority opinion overall.

    • Corey says:

      He’s anti-social-justice (aka anti-PC), which is a founding principle of this community, so we’d expect a high proportion of Trump fans. Rationality is not needed in the service of the anti-SJ cause.

      • Jiro says:

        If you oppose SJ, supporting a candidate who will oppose SJ is rational.

      • Deiseach says:

        My social justice is not your social justice. I certainly hope I am not “anti-social justice” because I’m in trouble if so! 🙂

        Anti-blanket “you are white cishet therefore completely privileged along every axis and the root cause of every bad thing in the world and benefit from institutional -isms even if you’re personally at the bottom of the ladder and any disagreement or not keeping up on the ever-changing shibboleths is evidence of your evilness” is more like it, though.

        • There was an earlier social justice which was much more benign than current Social Justice, but its name got appropriated. This is probably a microaggression.

          In print, I distinguish between them with capitalization. I don’t know what a good way to distinguish between them while talking.

          • Pan Narrans says:

            I just use “reasonable” and “unreasonable”. Although this is perhaps bad practice as I’m in the left-wing-but-not-what-people-around-here-mean-by-SJW camp, and I would just apply the nice word to my side of the fence, wouldn’t I?

          • sweeneyrod says:

            @Pan Narrans
            I think you are distinguishing between what Nancy would call reasonable Social Justice and unreasonable Social Justice. She is using social justice to refer to Catholic social justice (although various other groups, such as the Methodists, also have a claim to the title).

          • Actually, I believe there was also secular(?) or non-Catholic(?) social justice which was oriented towards making life better. I don’t know how effective it was, but it wasn’t devoted to spreading misery to people who didn’t join it. So far as I know, it wasn’t capitalized.

            It’s mentioned in the beginning of The New Jim Crow.

          • keranih says:

            The Catholic Worker movement holds to a lot of reasonable SJ tenants at its heart. I hung with some of them in the uni town – and while I didn’t hold with their politics, while we worked (homeless care) and prayed, we got along very well.

            When they stopped walking and started talking, there was strife. But – to their credit – most did more walking than talking.

    • Psmith says:

      A mighty interesting linguistics post on this subject–I thought the Elmore Leonard comparison was especially illuminating.

    • neonwattagelimit says:

      Honestly?

      I think this blog (and some others that draw readers from a similar cohort) has many readers who are so opposed to certain elements of the modern cultural left that they can’t see the forest for the trees in this election. The opposition to those elements of the cultural left is often rational, but the ways in which it manifests itself often is not.

      Trump’s “not PC,” and Hillary, and some of her supporters, reminds them of feminists who insult them on tumblr. So they invent calmly logical reasons to support electing someone who is obviously a cretinous, willfully ignorant, jackass to the most important job on the planet.

      “It’s all an act!” Is it? Really? How come he’s been pulling this act for 25 years? This is a guy who first rose to national prominence by starring in a reality TV show where he took obvious glee in firing people. So we can believe that a) this is all part of some grand plan for him to swoop into the Oval Office and save the country, or b) he’s really just an asshole, which is in accordance with everything which has been known about him for three decades. What’s it gonna be? What’s more logical, more rational, to you, that someone who looks like an asshole is just an asshole, or that he’s playing some game of four-dimensional chess so subtle that literally no one but people who need to invent justifications for supporting an obvious asshole can see it?

      “He’s not really a misogynist/racist/whatever!” He isn’t? OK, he’s probably not as racist or misogynist as he appears to be. But that’s not saying much. Scott had a post awhile ago arguing this and frankly I don’t buy it. Yes, he probably plays it up in public, but there’s a reason why this persona – that of a narcissistic, womanizing, bully – is the persona he has chosen. Nobody forced him to brag about his sex life in public, or retweet memes from white supremacists. It comes from somewhere. It strains credulity to think that the misogynistic, xenophobic and racist things he has said do not reflect anything about who he is as a person.

      “Hillary’s just as bad!” By what measure? Do you actually believe that Obama’s policies have been SUCH a failure that we need to, essentially, set the world on fire? Fine, then, vote for Trump. Otherwise – do you really think the guy who wants to bomb ISIS to the stone age is going to remove us from foreign entanglements? Do you really think that donations to the Clinton Foundation – which has actually done some legitimate good in the world – are the same as Trump University, as stiffing contractors, as his long string of unfulfilled promises and bad business deals? Do you really think Hillary’s sometime support for the more-strident parts of the cultural left – even if you dislike the cultural left – is somehow the same as Trump insulting disabled people and veterans and lashing out like a baby basically anytime anyone criticizes him?

      “He’s a successful businessman!” No, he isn’t. He’s more celebrity than businessman, and has been for a long time. He gets most of his income nowadays from licensing his name, like a celebrity. When he was a businessman, he wasn’t a very good one. His businesses underperformed the market; he declared bankruptcy multiple times; he would have gotten precisely nowhere without his father’s money and political connections. Legitimate businessmen – and I know some – mostly think Donald Trump is a joke.

      Donald Trump is good at selling Donald Trump. Like, really, really good at it, apparently. So kudos to him for that, I’d guess. He obviously has communication skills and I’m not going to say he is dumb in the IQ sense (though I do think he’s, as I said, willfully ignorant). But he’s clearly a buffoon, and if you can’t see that your stereotypes of the left are blinding you. The idea that we are even entertaining the notion of him being President of the United States, that we are debating his candidacy as though he were Mitt Romney or John McCain or Marco Rubio or even George W. Bush, is frankly shocking and unnerving.

      • Corey says:

        “He’s a successful businessman!” No, he isn’t.

        To extend this theme, even if he was that’s not very relevant to Presidenting. Businesses and governments do very different things, for good reasons. Management-of-people skills might have some overlap.

        • I think Gary Johnson has a better claim to being a successful businessman, since he built up a sizable firm from nothing. Working on a smaller scale than Trump but, measured by output vs input, more successful.

      • Dr Dealgood says:

        The idea that we are even entertaining the notion of him being President of the United States, that we are debating his candidacy as though he were Mitt Romney or John McCain or Marco Rubio or even George W. Bush, is frankly shocking and unnerving.

        The 2000 election was the first one I was old enough to clearly remember. The 2008 election was the first I voted in and I pulled the lever again for Obama in 2012 (yup, four years is a long time…).

        And the thing is, as much of a cartoon frog come to life as Trump is… we weren’t impartially “debating the candidacy” of Bush or McCain or Romney that way back then either.

        We, and I include myself here, treated them like brain-damaged corrupt borderline-fascist lunatics who could never in a million years be trusted to hold office. Friends and family sincerely believed Bush was planning to cancel the 2008 election with a false-flag attack, that John McCain was going to start a nuclear war or drop dead in a second, that Romney was going to turn the country into something like the Handmaid’s Tale as he looted the country.

        So ok, we’re taking Trump about as seriously as we took any other Republican candidate in the last twenty years. That’s a problem but it’s not the problem which you think it is.

        • Urstoff says:

          Right, it definitely feels like a “boy who cried wolf” scenario. Trump is uniquely terrible, but the apocalyptic rhetoric has no bite because it was used against anodyne candidates like Romney. As a third party voter, I hear every four years about how this election is too important to vote third party this time; of course, that election where it’s okay to vote third party never materializes.

          • Matt M says:

            Every election I’ve ever been alive for has been the most important election of my lifetime.

          • Corey says:

            Matt Yglesias had a good summary of this: “Liberals are like the boy who saw a wolf and cried ‘wolf’. Now the wolf is eating people and everyone blames the boy.”

          • DrBeat says:

            They’re the boy who has been screaming “WOLF!” at the top of his lungs, totally uninterrupted, for the past twenty years (that boy has some lungs on him, probably because he doesn’t age). Any time anyone else tried to get into the actual wolf-warning business, the boy pressured him into becoming an exact psychological and ideological mirror of himself who ALSO screamed the word nonstop.

            Now the wolf is eating people and instead of doing anything useful, the boy is saying “You people are so stupid and contemptible for letting this happen! I TOLD you there was a wolf, didn’t I?”

          • Deiseach says:

            Liberals are like the boy who saw a wolf and cried ‘wolf’.

            No, some liberals (and a lot more much further left) are like the boy who saw a newsreel about a wolf, then saw some dogs and yelled “Wolf! Wolf, a whole pack of them! Definitely wolves!” until the townspeople no longer believed the dog this time really was Hitler a wolf anymore.

            I like how he turns the point of the fable around to where the boy is in the right all along because he really did see a real wolf but the dumb old Republicans townspeople ignored him, whereas in the original fable there is no wolf, the boy is just being a jerk amusing himself by getting the townspeople into a tizzy.

          • aitch reasoner says:

            Deiseach. Where i live in southern flyoverland there are no sneering liberals screaming “racist!” or “rapist!” at meek and vulnerable republicans simply trying to avoid riot, regulation and rapist allegations.

            But your descriptions of the blue/red divide in america does seem familiar.
            Thru whatever route, You’re regurgitating the right-wing media’s pre-digested picture of reality, where the u.s is some kind of PC superstate.

            http://www.newsmax.com/

            If you find yourself buying a story sold by partisans in an evenly-divided country you’ve never been to? That has good decent people on both sides? You are the very picture of harmful stupidity.
            If the U.S. had one thousand racists or a hundred thousand, how would you know?
            Why are you gloatingly floating the phony talking point about “mean liberals caused trump”? Did you ever think how frustrating that is for all the non-elitists who dont want this man as president?
            And what % of Trump supporters do you think are culturally intimidated snuffy smiths of your imagination? And what % of liberals are like the annoying celebrities and sneering coastal elitists of your imagination?
            So why are you taking sides?

          • aitch reasoner says:

            Deiseach. Where i live in southern flyoverland there are no sneering liberals screaming “racist!” or “rapist!” at fearful and vulnerable republicans simply trying to avoid riot, regulations and racist allegations.

            But your descriptions of the blue/red divide in america does is familiar.

            Thru whatever route, You’re regurgitating the right-wing media’s pre-digested picture of reality.

            If you dont believe check it out. Google
            newsmax , breitbart, freerepublic, the daily caller.

            I think you’ve forgotten or perhaps never knew that there is a strong bias in the comment sections here that does nothing to police itself and in fact refuses to admit it’s existence.

            How does it feel to have found another nation’s right wing echo chamber and absorbed its pov?

            As you fistbump Dr Feelgood, remember you’re buying and re-telling a story sold by super-partisans in an evenly-divided country you’ve never been to? That has good decent people on both sides?

            What % of Trump supporters do you think are culturally intimidated snuffy smiths of your imagination?

            And what % of real life liberals are the virtue-signalling celebrities and sneering coastal elitists and entitled richkids of your imagination?

            If the U.S. had one thousand racists or a hundred thousand, would you know?

            Our local country club admitted it’s first black, it’s first female members four years ago. Not a men’s club. The Belle Meade Country Club. The only country club that matters,

            http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-02/country-club-admits-woman/54694024/1

            Why are you gloatingly floating the phony newsmax talking point: “mean liberals caused trump” [what a manipulative double-bind that is! only a sadistic parent could have spun it]

            Why does the purported existence of SJWs in our society mean that everyone’s future must pivot on a Trump presidency in your mind?

            Pretty much all my neighbors and friends are centrists in a blue city in a red state. And what of all the Republicans against Trump. They must also pay
            for Brandon Eich’s pain and suffering?

            Why are you savoring this insanity you think should be imposed on our world?

            What about relatives who voted for McCain and Bush but see Trump as a terrible threat?

            Because someone (who? you weren’t around then were you? Because calling either one of those guys hitler has been anachronistic kid stuff in adult america since jello biafra got fat.) called those two Hitler, you’re just rubbing your hands with glee that people who never called them hitler and aren’t calling trump hitler must suffer a trump presidency?

          • anon123 says:

            > Where i live in southern flyoverland there are no sneering liberals screaming “racist!” or “rapist!” at meek and vulnerable republicans simply trying to avoid riot, regulation and rapist allegations.

            Hey look what happened at the University of Kansas just last week.

        • Civilis says:

          And as soon as the election is over, all those ‘Reagan/Bush/McCain/Romney is the next Hitler’ comparisons are completely forgotten. G. W. Bush recently helped open the new Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture alongside Obama. Now that he’s out of office, he doesn’t matter. Democrats can admit they were wrong about his handling of Katrina (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/252119-donna-brazile-praises-bushs-katrina-response-on-flight-with).

          Meanwhile, all the hyperbole goes the opposite direction for the Democratic candidate. “There has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America,” said Obama. This from a man that qualified for the Nobel Peace Prize merely by getting elected president.

          In 2004 I had a democratic co-worker, an older veteran, that loudly proclaimed how he could never vote for Bush because he dodged the draft, and how proud he was to be voting for a noble fellow veteran like John Kerry. I asked him who he voted for in 1996. “Why, Clinton, of course.” He didn’t even understand why I asked the question.

          • keranih says:

            In 2004 I had a democratic co-worker, an older veteran, that loudly proclaimed how he could never vote for Bush because he dodged the draft, and how proud he was to be voting for a noble fellow veteran like John Kerry.

            Yeah, I ran into this, too. OTOH, one of the people I had been acquainted with long enough to know that she’d voted for Clinton over Dole, and that Bush’s service never came up when he was up against Gore. So I was disinclined to take her (or the rest of them) seriously.

          • aitch reasoner says:

            There’s nothing wrong with anecdotes, but when they are most of all that’s ever offered, when concessions to evidentiary fairplay are absent, i’d have to wonder if i was dealing with a real phenomenon (the SJW) or a group of people trying to nail the other side to the wall.

            A group that once stigmatized isolated rigor and weak evidence and then, suddenly, strangely, stops? You’re going to trust those people?

            There is a one-sidedness that brings complaint. And then there is a further one-sidedness that shuts down complaint.

            For in-group members the second state is a self-evidenly happy free speech zone. It’s members are partisans who enjoy the feeling that fairness must be in effect around them. After all, there are no complaints

            There it is safe to completely invert reality and not be challenged

            That’s this place.

        • neonwattagelimit says:

          We, and I include myself here, treated them like brain-damaged corrupt borderline-fascist lunatics who could never in a million years be trusted to hold office. Friends and family sincerely believed Bush was planning to cancel the 2008 election with a false-flag attack, that John McCain was going to start a nuclear war or drop dead in a second, that Romney was going to turn the country into something like the Handmaid’s Tale as he looted the country.

          That might be what you did. It’s not what I did, and it’s not what most folks I know did. The only election I can think of that even comes maybe-sorta-close is 2004, and that one at least had four years of evidence of Bush fucking things up to back it up. And even then I never bought into the idea that Bush is a fascist. I was in college in ’04 and I certainly recall some of the more far-out left-wing types making comparisons between Bush and Hitler and I hated that crap. Bush was a terrible President; he was no fascist. I have been consistent in this view for nearly 15 years. I’m sorry you and some people you know have not been, but this does not invalidate my point.

          I think you make a decent point in that there has been some crying-wolf going on on the left over the past dozen or so years. But really this stuff does not permeate popular discussions as much as you may think it does – the paranoid left exists, but it’s less influential than the paranoid right.

          Personally, I voted for Obama twice, but I respected McCain and I even thought Romney was mostly-OK personally even though I disagreed with him politically and had serious misgivings about handing the Republican Party control of the executive branch. If you can’t see the difference between these guys and Donald Trump, that’s not the fault of your family or friends who believe silly things; nor is it the fault of you eight years ago.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @neonwattagelimit – “Bush was a terrible President; he was no fascist. I have been consistent in this view for nearly 15 years.”

            I believe you.

            “I’m sorry you and some people you know have not been, but this does not invalidate my point.”

            Just as the crazy people do not represent you, you do not represent the crazy people. The fact that you lived your life above the floodline of madness does no good for the people living down in the gullies. Crazy right-wingers of various stripes have left indelible marks on the right. Is it really so surprising that crazy left-wingers have left indelible marks on the left?

          • “I think you make a decent point in that there has been some crying-wolf going on on the left over the past dozen or so years.”

            I’m guessing that you are not old enough to remember the 1964 campaign. A piece by a large number of psychiatrists claiming that Goldwater was insane. An Ad by the Johnson campaign implying that he would start WWIII. Lots of other stuff.

            I have some more recent examples of the pattern in two blog posts on the subject of crying wolf, one from this election, one from the previous election.

            My guess is that the pattern is more common and stronger when the candidate is a Republican who liberals strongly disagree with, as in the case of Goldwater and Trump, but it isn’t limited to such cases.

          • aitch reasoner says:

            Funny how the liberals and centrists here always seem to pad their posts with concessions.

            The conservatives just go in for the kill.

            But the discussion is always about liberal aggression.

            Again, I would take a look at that and ask myself if that isn’t a warning sign that there is some inversion of reality going on.

          • neonwattagelimit says:

            @FacelessCraven: Frankly, my position is that while the crazy left exists, and is perhaps more influential now than 5-10 years ago, it remains far less influential than the crazy right. Trump is exhibit A.

            @David Friedman: While I am indeed too young to recall (or be alive in) 1964, as a student of political history I am aware of some of the attacks on Goldwater. In retrospect, they were a bit much. However, the right does the same thing. Just to give one example, the governor of Kentucky (?) recently gave a speech in which he said that if Clinton wins it will be “the end of America,” or something along those lines.

            I really, truly do believe that Trump is uniquely bad. Maybe not “end of America” bad, but still singular in his awfulness in recent U.S. politics. As I’ve said, I did not believe this about other recent Republican nominees, although I can’t say what I’d have thought in 1964 as I was born twenty years later.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @neonwattagelimit – I am an Obama voter who is voting for Trump in large part because of interactions with the crazy left. It seems likely to me that you underestimate their influence.

            [EDIT] – “Just to give one example, the governor of Kentucky (?) recently gave a speech in which he said that if Clinton wins it will be “the end of America,” or something along those lines.”

            This is entirely true, and it also is a big part of the reason Trump is currently the Republican nominee. The political narrative relied upon for the last few decades is no longer credible.

          • sweeneyrod says:

            @FacelessCraven

            Is it also possible that you overestimate the influence of the “crazy left” if you live in a bubble that contains a disproportionate amount of them?

          • Anonymous says:

            Given this:

            “Just to give one example, the governor of Kentucky (?) recently gave a speech in which he said that if Clinton wins it will be “the end of America,” or something along those lines.”

            This is entirely true,

            I don’t think you are in a position to claim:

            because of interactions with the crazy left.

            I mean, would we take that claim “there are a ton of crazy people out there that deny that the CIA is beaming messages into our filings!” at face value?

          • neonwattagelimit says:

            @FacelessCraven:

            Could you possibly discuss how you went from Obama to Trump and what role the crazy left played in this evolution?

            This is entirely true, and it also is a big part of the reason Trump is currently the Republican nominee. The political narrative relied upon for the last few decades is no longer credible.

            By “this is entirely true” do you mean that it is true that someone said a Clinton Presidency would be the end of America, or do you mean that that is a true statement? Also why is the political narrative relied upon for the last few decades no longer credible?

            I’m not being snarky here; I’m legitimately curious as to why you believe these things.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @SweeneyRod – “Is it also possible that you overestimate the influence of the “crazy left” if you live in a bubble that contains a disproportionate amount of them?”

            Absolutely. The best way to tell is to make predictions and see how they pan out.

            @Anonymous – “I don’t think you are in a position to claim…”

            Apologies, I quoted the wrong part of neonwattagelimit’s post. I was agreeing that his quote was an example of right-wing madness, not with the quoted politician’s statement.

            @neonwattagelimit – “Could you possibly discuss how you went from Obama to Trump and what role the crazy left played in this evolution?”

            Start with fury at the right over Bush. Obama failed to deliver substantive change, and the left has shown itself incapable of controlling or even moderating the Social Justice movement, which has gone rabid enough to need to be actively fought. The conservative establishment is worse than useless, and the left isn’t much better. I wish madness and ruin on them all. Enter Trump.

            Cruz (or any other republican candidate) vs Clinton, I’d vote Clinton.
            Cruz vs Sanders, I’d vote Sanders.
            Trump versus Sanders… I’d probably vote Trump for maximum damage, but a tough call.
            Trump vs Clinton, not even a contest.

            Without the crazy leftists, I’d probably be voting Clinton.

            “Also why is the political narrative relied upon for the last few decades no longer credible?”

            The previous phase of the culture war is winding down; a new phase appears to be starting. The Christian Conservative issues are dead. The Supreme Court no longer matters; we are now decisively in “living constitution” mode from here on out, so what matters is the Overton Window. Consensus policy has been unpleasantly consistent for the last half-dozen administrations, regardless of the incumbent’s party. More foreign war, more intrusiveness at home. The parties don’t seem to be interested in changing things, so it’s time to burn their houses down.

            [EDIT] – tl;dr – in previous elections, it was possible to believe that the first priority was for one’s party to win. People are coming around to the idea that their party winning gets them nothing; what they want is for their party to change.

          • neonwattagelimit says:

            @Faceless Craven:

            So, thinking Social Justice is a big bad enemy is pretty much gospel around here. I’m gonna go ahead and partly disagree with that. Before I do, I want to note that I think it’s real shame that the phrase “social justice” has been co-opted by the Amanda Marcottes of the world, but here we are.

            But anyhow, I don’t think Social Justice is quite the boogeyman you make it out to be, and in any case the President has very, very little control over it. Personally, probably 80% of my disagreement with Social Justice falls into one of two categories:

            a) Generally agree with the aims, but disagree with the tone and the tactics.
            b) Believe they are – annoyingly, but relatively harmlessly – making mountains out of molehills.

            The exceptions here are Black Lives Matter (sort of) and campus speech. On BLM, I largely disagree with the narrative, but I do think it’s understandable why people find this stuff so upsetting, and I think there probably needs to be some reform of policing. I also take issue with the way that some on the left view lock-step agreement with BLM as a prerequisite for human decency – but there are also reasonable pro-BLM folks. Basically, I think BLM waaaaay oversimplifies things, but I don’t think they’re *totally* wrong and this seems like an issue that can be resolved via normal political processes if everyone (the right, too – the anti-BLM folks can be just as bad) could just take the temperature down a little.

            Campus speech, frankly, is pretty far from my wheelhouse, so I can’t comment on it much. But I’ve read some pretty disheartening related to it and Social Justice.

            In any case, the President can’t do very much about either of these things. S/he has no control over what happens on college campuses. S/he might be able to have an impact on policing at the margin, but it’s largely a local issue. Probably the only thing the President can do is set some sort of tone, and here Trump – who would dial this shit up to 11 – would be way, way worse than Clinton.

            For the rest of Social Justice stuff…eh. It’ll mean something different in ten years. Political correctness was a big thing for awhile in the 80s/90s, then it faded away. Ten years from now we’ll be talking about something else.

            On the issues I really DO care about – climate change, economic/fiscal policy – it’s still mostly the right that is gumming up the works and screwing things up. The President also has a lot of sway over this stuff, unlike what happens on college campuses.

            More foreign war, more intrusiveness at home. The parties don’t seem to be interested in changing things, so it’s time to burn their houses down.

            Fair enough. But is the guy who has, at times, advocated a ground war against ISIS and rounding up and deporting millions of people actually the answer to “more foreign war, more obtrusiveness at home?” I think not.

            This is an argument for Johnson, maybe. It’s not an argument for Trump.

          • The Nybbler says:

            @neonwattagelimit

            The President, via the Department of Education, actually has a fair bit to say about SJ on college campuses. The campus rape inquisition is a direct result of a “Dear Colleague” letter and followups from the DoEd to colleges. There’s also one on the whole transgender bathroom thing; there may be others.

          • neonwattagelimit says:

            @TheNybbler:

            Maybe so, but the DOE has little control over specific campus policies. They might be able to fiddle with funding, but most school funding comes from tuitions, endowments and, for public schools, state-level subsidies.

            In any event, I was specifically referring to speech. I’m not really sure what you mean by “campus rape inquisition” and so do not have an opinion on it; and I am fully on board with allowing transgender individuals to use whatever bathroom they please.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @neonwattagelimit – “But anyhow, I don’t think Social Justice is quite the boogeyman you make it out to be, and in any case the President has very, very little control over it.”

            For a bit of background, see my comment from the Clinton, Stein, Johnson Endorsement thread, here. I’d be interested in your views on the questions posed there, if you’re interested in offering them.

            Social Justice matters because it has demonstrated the central importance of the Overton Window. Progress means, for example, “being colorblind” was the goal of progressives in the 90s, and is a boilerplate example of racist thinking today. We have now had enough examples of this principle in action to realize that “racism”, “sexism”, “bigotry” and so on have no fixed definition, that they mean whatever Social Justice finds convinient, and that their meanings are flexible enough to cover all of human behavior.

            The Culture War really sucked, and for a bit there it was possible to believe that it might be winding down toward a stable equilibrium. After the last two years, that doesn’t seem possible any more. Social Justice has demonstrated that they do not intend to coexist with dissenters, that they believe they have the power to crush anyone who stands in their way, and that they have a moral obligation to do so. Their tactics have been remarkably successful and are ongoing. They have the consensus of law and custom going back to the civil rights fights of the 60s on their side, as well as overwhelming support from the media, academia, and government. They have abandoned classic liberal concepts like freedom of speech and conscience, and their interpretation of diversity is not worth the word.

            Up until a few years ago, they were held in check by cultural institutions, but the Supreme Court is no longer a viable defense, and the Republican Party has been useless for a decade or more. Several dozens of millions of Americans and a good chunk of American culture, essentially all of Red Tribe, are “deplorable” according to SJ. It is not hard to see how things roll out from here. Trump offers these people a rallying point to coordinate around, and a test-case to see whether opposition to Social Justice is possible or not. If Trump can survive SJ, they probably can, at least for the time being. If he can’t, they probably can’t either, and things look pretty bleak.

            I appreciate that campus shenanigans do not appear important to you, but we are talking about something like a fifth to a quarter of the American population realizing that, overnight, they no longer have any meaningful political representation or redress and that the entire rest of the culture actively wants to destroy them. They have no allies, no bargaining position, nothing to negotiate with. They are looking at a future of pure tribal politics, and they’re the minority tribe. What’s the rational response at that point?

            That’s how it appears from where I’m sitting, at least.

            [EDIT] – tl;dr: it’s one thing to win the culture war. But once you’ve won, you still have several dozens of millions of fellow citizens who lost, and now hate and fear you. Wat do?

            “Fair enough. But is the guy who has, at times, advocated a ground war against ISIS and rounding up and deporting millions of people actually the answer to “more foreign war, more obtrusiveness at home?” I think not.”

            I’ll take the candidate willing to claim Iraq was a mistake over the one being endorsed by its architects. I appreciate that as anti-war candidates go, he’s a pretty awful one. Hillary, and especially the foreign policy consensus she represents, are overwhelmingly worse.

          • Kevin C. says:

            @FacelessCraven

            we are talking about something like a fifth to a quarter of the American population realizing that, overnight, they no longer have any meaningful political representation or redress and that the entire rest of the culture actively wants to destroy them. They have no allies, no bargaining position, nothing to negotiate with. They are looking at a future of pure tribal politics, and they’re the minority tribe. What’s the rational response at that point?

            Death by heroin overdose or liver cirrhosis.

          • Lumifer says:

            @ Kevin C.

            Death by heroin overdose or liver cirrhosis.

            Probably oxy rather than heroin, but same difference.

            And guess what, white middle-aged women in the South and the Midwest (that’s where the minority tribe lives, right?) have increasing death rates. See here or here.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @Kevin – My particular branch of the Faith frowns on alcohol use, much less illicit drugs.

          • Kevin C. says:

            @Lumifer

            And guess what, white middle-aged women in the South and the Midwest (that’s where the minority tribe lives, right?) have increasing death rates.

            I know, that’s why I said it the way I did. It’s the behavior of “reservation Indians”, the behavior of a defeated people who know their culture, values, and way of life have no future.

            @FacelessCraven

            …Or whatever method you prefer to numb the pain while you slide inevitably into the irrelevance and eventual extinction that awaits a defeated people.

          • Lumifer says:

            @ Kevin C.

            You can also contemplate the dangers of tying too closely your identity to your tribe and its fate. “Adapt or die” is a permanent requirement of the universe imposed on all its inhabitants.

            Or you can read Ecclesiastes.

          • Kevin C. says:

            @Lumifer

            You can also contemplate the dangers of tying too closely your identity to your tribe and its fate.

            Within the context here (the doomed “Trumpist”/”Red Tribe”/”Borderer” population/subculture), I’m not sure what you mean by this.

          • Lumifer says:

            @ Kevin C.

            You become a “reservation Indian” when you give up and stay in the reservation. If you think of yourself as a member of a tribe/culture/tradition/etc. first and as an individual second, morosely drinking your way into the sunset because your tribe/culture/tradition/etc. is done for is understandable. But if you think of yourself as a unique person snowflake first and remember the maxim that I mentioned, you can (and should) get off the rez and make yourself a new life in the new world.

            It does not mean you need to assimilate into the conquerors, but it does mean you need to figure out how to best live in the world in which they exist and probably won’t magically disappear in the near future.

          • The Nybbler says:

            No matter how you think of yourself, you’ll always be a goddamn injun/cis white male to _them_.

          • Lumifer says:

            So extend the middle finger and depart for places (literal or figurative) where the idiots are of a different variety. Or run a not-quite-visible resistance group. Or develop a highly useful skill and overcharge _them_ for your competence. Or go meditate on a mountaintop. It’s not like you’re the first human who has to face such problems.

            All that, of course, assuming you believe you have irretrievable lost the war. Cthulhu swimming habits notwithstanding, fads come and go, the social power of various groups rises and ebbs. Think e.g. about the implications of the Brexit vote.

          • Anonymous says:

            Lots of white, cis, males are doing more than fine out here in blue land.

            Find something else to blame your lack of success on.

          • Kevin C. says:

            @Lumifer

            It does not mean you need to assimilate into the conquerors

            You say this, and yet you go on to say:

            you need to figure out how to best live in the world in which they exist and probably won’t magically disappear in the near future.

            Which, from where I’m sitting, pretty much does mean assimilating into the conquerors, to the extent assimilation is even possible, for the reason The Nybbler gives.

            So extend the middle finger and depart for places (literal or figurative) where the idiots are of a different variety.

            And just where are these places to which the millions of Trump supporting Red Borderer types are supposed to flee that is: 1. beyond the reach of their enemies, 2. they can afford to move to, and 3. will let them come?

            Or run a not-quite-visible resistance group.

            Resisting how? And the only way to be invisible is to have no impact, to “make no waves”, which is to say to be completely ineffective.

            Or develop a highly useful skill and overcharge _them_ for your competence.

            And just what sort of learnable skill (and not inborn talent) will be enough when being a Nobel Prize-winning co-discoverer of the structure of DNA wasn’t enough to protect James Watson?

            Or go meditate on a mountaintop.

            And what does that accomplish, except, again, numbing the pain?

            Cthulhu swimming habits notwithstanding, fads come and go,

            So when does the “fad” of women’s suffrage go? The “fad” of democracy as “least worst” form of government? The “fad” of the abolition of slavery? Some things really aren’t “swings of the pendulum” to be reversed, are they?

            the implications of the Brexit vote.

            The Brexit vote that will likely never actually be implemented, but simply delayed and delayed until a they can expect a revote to get the “right” answer, as with the Lisbon Treaty revotes?

          • Lumifer says:

            @ Kevin C.

            Well, the oxy and/or alcohol option is always open for you if you’re feeling pessimistic : -/ I think that you’re overstating your problems, though. Is there a massive purge going on? (compare to, say, Turkey). Are you unable to find gainful employment? Are there people with guns that are coming to kill you?

            Define your goals. What do you want?

          • keranih says:

            The Rights of Englishmen.

            Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

            And all the remaining powers invested in The People.

          • Kevin C. says:

            @Lumifer

            Define your goals. What do you want?

            In short? An end to the entire “Enlightenment Project”, as I firmly believe that if said course is allowed to continue, iy will lead almost inevitably to the permanent, irreversable destruction of industrial-age civilization, the likely extinction of European-descended peoples, and has good odds of ending our species altogether; it is, in fact, my prime candidate for the Great Filter.

            The rub is that from my examination of that problem and the ridiculous, over-optimistic proposed solutions, I don’t believe that “Leftward-swimming Cthulhu” can be stopped at this point. So everything I care about is utterly doomed, all hope is false, there is naught but despar.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @Kevin C. – Stop reading about this shit, stop worrying about this shit, stop watching the news, ditch your current media intake. Keep making changes till you’re enjoying life again. Fixing humanity is too big a job for one person, and despair solves nothing. Get out of here, get some sun, and enjoy yourself.

          • Kevin C. says:

            @FacelessCraven

            So, ostrich up, then? “Ignorance is bliss” and all that?

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @Kevin C. – Get busy living, or get busy dying. The first is preferable.

            You say “Ostritch up”, but none of this stuff has any point unless it actually helps you live better, which it very probably does not. We are all going to die sooner or later anyway. Our first priority should be living well; if we can’t do that, why was our civilization worth preserving in the first place?

          • Lumifer says:

            @ Kevin C.

            Well, that’s not a goal, that’s daydreaming. You can expect something like a new Reagan/Thatcher era, but humanity is not going back to pre-Enlightenment times.

            Either deal with it, or follow FacelessCraven’s advice and, as I mentioned, read Ecclesiastes.

          • Kevin C. says:

            @Lumifer

            humanity is not going back to pre-Enlightenment times.

            I agree. Which is why the doom of all that is good and valuable in this world is inevitable. Evil will triumph absolutely forever.

            Either deal with it,

            How?

            read Ecclesiastes.

            And what is rereading it supposed to accomplish? I’m not one of those atheists who dismisses the entire Bible out of hand; I admit there are portions with insights that remain valid even given the nonexistence of God, souls, the afterlife, et cetera, but I don’t see how Ecclesiastes is one of them.

            And would you tell someone worried about “unfriendly” AI to “read Ecclesiastes”?

      • Deiseach says:

        we are debating his candidacy as though he were Mitt Romney or John McCain or Marco Rubio

        And when Romney and McCain and Rubio were running, they got hammered as the next thing to Hitler because they were the Republican nominees. You can’t keep crying wolf forever, because one day a real wolf will come along and nobody will believe you anymore.

        I don’t think Trump is a good candidate, I’m amazed he got this far, but all the fear-mongering about “He really is Hitler this time!” is rolling off his back precisely because those taunts of being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and so on and so forth have been trotted out all the time. Chimpy McHitler? Well, now you’re getting real Hitler? No really for real this time?

        • Seth says:

          Well, now you’re getting real Hitler? No really for real this time?

          One of the fascinating aspects of this election is the way it’s providing an empirical test of certain intellectual moralisms. Now, there’s always fringe leftists who regularly proclaim the Republican candidate the next Hitler, just on general principles. Those people will be with us always. But in my corner of net-culture, there’s an extremely strong taboo about such comparisons to Hitler and Nazis. Making such a comparison is considered automatic loss of argument, plus an invitation to dogpile the person with sneering mockery. It signifies you’ve violated the tribal shibboleth, and everyone can feel good that they are better than you, who should immediately slink away forever because of being a bad, bad, person (I overstate it a little here – but not much). This is about as from “crying wolf” as can be on this topic.

          Yet, I’ve seen quite a few Trump == Hitler type comparisons in this subculture in the past weeks.

          Do people say “X is a tribal member in good standing, who knows comparing to Hitler is taboo. Therefore, if X is now publicly comparing Trump to Hitler, perhaps I should serious consider what X is arguing due to the willingness to violate the comparing to Hitler taboo?”
          No. I haven’t see anyone say anything which would match even vaguely like this. The reactions are either roughly “Yes, I agree with X, the taboo is inapplicable here because Trump really is like Hitler”, or along the lines of “X is utterly deranged by comparing Trump to Hitler, as shown by X’s violating the taboo about comparing to Hitler”.

          But “crying wolf” – or its opposite – doesn’t seem to matter *in practice*.

        • BBA says:

          At least one leftist, Corey Robin, has written that Trump isn’t any worse than Bush/McCain/Romney, and singling out Trump’s awfulness is just diminishing how bad Bush was.

          • Matt M says:

            For whatever else happens with Trump, bad or good, he should get a statue somewhere simply for doing the nation the great service of single-handedly eliminating the Bush family from political relevance.

          • BBA says:

            Current Texas Land Commissioner and 2028 GOP frontrunner George P. Bush begs to differ.

          • Matt M says:

            Then we put up a dollar-sign shaped bat-signal and Eric Trump flies in to the rescue?

            In all seriousness though, if not for Trump, Jeb is probably on the stage right now and probably beating her. Instead, he and his brother are now basically regarded, even by GOP primary voters as embarrassing laughingstocks.

            That’s worth acknowledging and celebrating.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            amen.

          • keranih says:

            For what it’s worth, I think Jeb! was a decent fellow and would have done a solid job as President. But there were 3-5 other candidates whom I would have preferred, and the baggage associated with the name was too large to overcome that.

            The Rep bench is deep enough to not need a Bush candidate, and I really wish the D bench didn’t need a Clinton.

          • Gazeboist says:

            I always feel kind of bad for Jeb Bush. I don’t know why, but he gives me this impression of haplessness, like he doesn’t really want this big political career and his family and their friends kind of made him do it. If he were elected president, I would feel a lot of sympathy for him. Sort of like that guy in Norway who got elected to the town council over his own protests.

          • Anonymous says:

            Current Texas Land Commissioner and 2028 GOP frontrunner George P. Bush begs to differ.

            Isn’t Marvin queued up to get his turn first?

            Edit: forgot all about Neil, too. Can’t forget Neil Bush!

          • Matt M says:

            Actually from what I’ve heard (honestly can’t remember where I heard this and I make no claim to its accuracy), Jeb was the one who was really into politics and was SUPPOSED to be the main heir to HWB, but Dubya somehow skipped ahead of him in line despite not caring nearly as much about the whole thing – and of course Dubya’s baggage was such that it set Jeb back more than just “wait until your brother’s term is over” and hey, it turns out even waiting eight years wasn’t long enough…

          • On the subject of Jeb Bush …

            I talked to an academic in Florida who knew him, had interacted with him in some context, and thought highly of him. Not, I think, in terms of political agreement or disagreement but of intellectual ability.

        • neonwattagelimit says:

          Well, now you’re getting real Hitler? No really for real this time?

          Just for the record, I don’t think Trump is Hitler. I think he’s more like “wants to be Putin, but will never get there because the U.S. isn’t Russia and he’s not nearly competent enough.”

          That’s still pretty fucking terrible, though.

          • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

            The following question would be… what’s your opinion of Romney and McCain? What was your opinion on them when they were running.

          • Matt M says:

            Do you think that if Hillary or Obama or Bush or McCain or literally any politician ever had the opportunity to be like Putin in the U.S. they would refuse it and walk away?

            Nearly all politicians have nearly unlimited ambitions of power. Our government is (poorly) designed to limit them, but that’s about it. They are not limited by some sense of morality or decency or any other such thing.

          • neonwattagelimit says:

            @Whatever Happened to Anonymous: I refer you to my prior comment in this thread, where I address this very question.

            @Matt M: This is a difficult statement to prove or disprove, as none of us know what is in Bush’s or Obama’s or Clinton’s or McCain’s – or any politician’s – heart of hearts. That said, I think the fact that nobody has really tried to be Putin in the U.S. would indicate that our leaders generally do not aspire to that.

            Decorum matters. For example, Trump has – implicitly and, at times, explicitly – encourage violence at his rallies. This is not something that national politicians generally do the in U.S. I happen to think it’s a very important line. He crossed it.

            I also do not find Trump’s habit of saying whatever dumb thing pops into his head at any given moment endearing. I want the President to think before s/he speaks, because what the President says is important.

            So while I don’t know that it’s decency or morality that has stopped Obama or Bush from trying to be Putin, I do find Trump’s relative lack of scruples to be very, very troubling. Not necessarily Hitler-level troubling, but still. I am in favor of, to borrow a title from one of Scott’s better essays, “niceness, community and civilization.”

          • anon123 says:

            @neonwattagelimit

            > For example, Trump has – implicitly and, at times, explicitly – encourage violence at his rallies.

            What on earth are you talking about? Or are you reffering to the violence against his supporters encouraged by his opponents? In that case, I agree that is a line that shouldn’t have been crossed.

          • Deiseach says:

            Speaking as an outsider, I thought McCain was decent but had no real chance, and Romney didn’t impress me but not because I thought he was a racist sexist etc. who would be grinding the faces of the poor, just that he was rather too perfect a middle-of-the-road Republican candidate who wasn’t particularly inspiring or didn’t seem to have much of a vision of what he wanted from his administration (other than to be president).

            I don’t think President Romney would have been a disaster, but he really hadn’t much chance going up against Obama again, who positively glowed with charisma by comparison.

            On the other hand, I really disliked Kerry, especially over the ‘taking communion‘ photo-op. Maybe he didn’t plan it, but his campaign sure as hell must have liaised with the photographer and they should have been aware enough to tell the guy “you don’t shove your way up to the communion rail and stick your lens into the middle of the distribution of the Eucharist”. If it was meant to attract in “Catholics who regularly go to Mass” by showing Kerry was one of them, it had the complete opposite effect on me. Especially as he was doing this as a political statement, or at least his campaign were (subtly) letting it be taken as such. Ack!

          • dndnrsn says:

            @Deiseach:

            Maybe that stuff is meant to attract people who consider themselves Catholic but don’t actually follow the rules, go to services, etc. “Cultural Catholics” I suppose you could say. They have a positive emotional association with it but aren’t going to be upset about stuff like that because they don’t really take it that seriously as a religion.

          • keranih says:

            Do you think that if Hillary or Obama or Bush or McCain or literally any politician ever had the opportunity to be like Putin in the U.S. they would refuse it and walk away?

            Errr. George Washington did.

            Granted, he was noted, in his own time as being very adverse to power grabbing, compared to ordinary mortals, but he did.

          • Chalid says:

            @Anon123

            First google hit for “Trump condones violence at rallies” is this list, with quotes like “Try not to hurt him. If you do, I’ll defend you in court, don’t worry about it” and “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you?”

          • The Nybbler says:

            So protestors go in, storm the stage he’s on, interrupt his rallies (including those held on private property), throw tomatoes at him, and you’re upset at him for a bit of tough talk in response?

            something something isolated demand something.

          • hlynkacg says:

            @Homo Iracundus (and to a lesser extent Nybbler)
            I agree but lets try to be better people than our opponents shall we?

          • Chalid says:

            throw tomatoes at him, and you’re upset at him for a bit of tough talk in response?
            something something isolated demand something.

            Um yes? Because, in most years, we hope for a bit of maturity and restraint in our leaders?

            Whatever you think of the tomato-thrower and of some celebrity’s antics, they’re not the ones up for election. If *Clinton* was asking her supporters to do violent things, then you could start talking about isolated demands etc.

          • The Nybbler says:

            For years, protesters using similar tactics have managed to effectively prevent and disrupt assemblies by those they disagree with. If the State isn’t going to protect the rights of certain speakers, I have no complaint if the supporters of those speakers enforce them themselves. I’d say the same if Trump supporters disrupted a Clinton rally while the State did nothing… but it never seems to go that way, does it?

            If being “better people” means letting others silence you, maybe you need to rethink what being “better people” means.

          • neonwattagelimit says:

            I’ve tried to steer clear of this discussion today because I have lots to do at work right now and and can’t get too distracted…but…

            Um yes? Because, in most years, we hope for a bit of maturity and restraint in our leaders?

            This. There were Tea Party protestors at Obama rallies. There were anti-war protestors at Bush rallies. A Congressman interrupted Obama’s State of the Union address once. Did they encourage their supporters to beat them up? Did they offer to pay legal bills for people who did so? Did they threaten them at all?

            No. Because they were fucking adults.

            Look: Trump is a 70-year-old man with the temperament of a 10-year-old bully (which he thinks is his best asset). Look at how he’s behaved since the debate. Anytime things don’t go his way, he lashes out like a spoiled little child. How’s he going to react if negotiations with foreign leaders don’t go his way? How’s he going to react if there’s a terrorist attack?

            I honestly do not understand how anyone who has ever had to, you know, be an adult in the world cannot see this.

          • “If *Clinton* was asking her supporters to do violent things, then you could start talking about isolated demands etc.”

            That’s a little tricky. Part of what you are voting in is a person, part an ideology and a movement that that person represents. Over my lifetime, it’s consistently been the left that tried to shut down people they disagreed with by shouting them down and similar tactics.

            That would be more of an argument against Sanders than against Clinton, however. Despite her current positions, I don’t think she is part of the left-as-movement in the sense in which he is.

          • Skivverus says:

            @David Friedman

            Over my lifetime, it’s consistently been the left that tried to shut down people they disagreed with by shouting them down and similar tactics.

            Er. McCarthyism was before my time; am I misjudging your age when I speculate that it was not before yours?

          • anon123 says:

            > This. There were Tea Party protestors at Obama rallies. There were anti-war protestors at Bush rallies. A Congressman interrupted Obama’s State of the Union address once.

            And did those protesters ever try to stop supporters from getting to the rallies by blocking the highway or prevent the speach from being given? Ok, the anti-Bush protesters did. How about becoming so violent that a ralley had to be cancelled?

          • The Nybbler says:

            McCarthy and HUAC and the red scare in general were _different_ tactics to shut people down, used then by the right… and now by the left also.

          • “Er. McCarthyism was before my time; am I misjudging your age when I speculate that it was not before yours?”

            I was born in 1945. Taking Wikipedia’s definition of the McCarthy era I was about eleven when it ended. So within my lifetime but a few years before I took a serious interest in politics. I remember my father explaining to me why McCarthy’s approach was wrong, but that would probably have been a few years later.

            But I don’t think McCarthy et al. were trying to silence people by “shouting them down and similar tactics.” I wasn’t thinking of modern cases of people on the left trying to get people fired but of the many cases of left wing students trying to prevent speakers they disapproved of from speaking. It’s possible that that happened within my lifetime in the other direction, but I’m not aware of it.

          • Skivverus says:

            Taking Wikipedia’s definition of the McCarthy era I was about eleven when it ended.

            But I don’t think McCarthy et al. were trying to silence people by “shouting them down and similar tactics.” I wasn’t thinking of modern cases of people on the left trying to get people fired but of the many cases of left wing students trying to prevent speakers they disapproved of from speaking. It’s possible that that happened within my lifetime in the other direction, but I’m not aware of it.

            Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

      • Orphan Wilde says:

        Do you actually believe that Obama’s policies have been SUCH a failure that we need to, essentially, set the world on fire?

        Yes.

        Since the left only cares about the murder of brown people when Republicans are doing it, I will remind you that the operational definition of “militant” in the Middle East for the past decade of drone strikes has effectively been “young male.”

        We’re murdering young men because they’re young men. And y’know, we’re probably getting some terrorists with them, but for every one terrorist we end that way, we mint ten more; when Trump said Obama created ISIS, that, among other things, is what he meant. I’m willing to give the guy a shot if only for calling our government out on that; he can be Hitler in all other respects, so long as he puts a stop to our national policy of murdering people.

        And the Trump might be just as happy to murder people – certainly Obama didn’t run on a campaign promise to kill lots of brown people – but the Democrats at least -say- something when it isn’t their guy in charge, instead of pretending any criticism of a president who is happy to murder poor foreigners is racism.

        Do I want Trump? No. He fulfills, as far as I can tell, one out of a dozen policy positions that are important to me.

        Clinton, however, fulfills zero. She’s pretty much a negative ten on the one issue, given her own history there.

        • Zombielicious says:

          I’m kinda doubtful that votes for the guy who ran on a platform of “kill their families” and “torture works” will be interpreted by many as votes against reckless foreign policy and collateral damage of extrajudicial assassinations.

          The arguments, frequently made here, for going Trump based on “the current system sucks” seem better intended for supporting the third parties.

          You may have also forgotten when any failure to support the Republican-started wars was treated as unpatriotic anti-American treason, or the ridiculous amount of criticism Obama’s assassination program and foreign intervention got from the left, from places like The Intercept and Democracy Now and people like Sanders wanting another Democrat to run against him in 2012.

          • Orphan Wilde says:

            I’m kinda doubtful that votes for the guy who ran on a platform of “kill their families” and “torture works” will be interpreted by many as votes against reckless foreign policy and collateral damage of extrajudicial assassinations.

            And people are objecting when Trump says it, as opposed to when Obama is currently doing it and nobody says anything.

            Overall the arguments, frequently made here, for going Trump based on “the current system sucks” seem better intended for supporting the third parties.

            Johnson has my vote. I wanted him to win the Republican nomination in 2012, but that wasn’t going to happen.

            What I’m arguing against here is the idea that Clinton is better. Clinton is just another four to eight years of murdering countless brown people while the Democrats pretend it isn’t happening.

            ETA: And yes, I’m aware the far-left opposed that shit. I was hoping Sanders would win. Sanders would have been a redemption for the Democrats; he is what the Democrats have pretended to be for the past forty years. Clinton, however, is not a redemption; she’s part of the problem. She’s exactly what the Democrats loudly claim to hate about the Republicans.

          • Zombielicious says:

            Ah, ok – I agree pretty much 100% with all that. Given the post you replied to I thought you were saying Trump was the best way to oppose those kinds of policies, which seemed like some incredibly twisted logic.

            Personally Clinton seems more like the moderate right to me (or “radical center” to use NYT terminology) – see her neocon supporters – though that might have been better held by Kasich, and Sanders just “the (disappearing) left,” but whatev.

          • Orphan Wilde says:

            Zombielicious –

            I agree Clinton is center-Right. More, although it infuriates the Left to admit this, Trump is center-Left. He’s a leftist populist of the old Republican stripe.

            This election is kind of… Clinton is the Democratic Party before its supposed “realignment” in the 70’s, in which it supported all the same policies but for new, less racist reasons. Trump is the Republican Party of that era, back before they became the party of Christian Capitalists.

            It’s a popcorn-worthy election fifty years old.

    • Mr Mind says:

      Well, a rationalist would say: how probable it is that you are right and everybody else is wrong?

      I don’t follow USA politics much closely, on one side I cannot influence it, on the other side here in Italy we have our own problems, but from your comments and the little I know about Trump I would say: unless you’re able to present solid evidence that every Trump supporter is committing a fallacy or is under some kind of systematic mistake, you should entertain the idea that is your own biases which are making Trump unintelligible to you.

      This is a whole different enchilada from saying: I do support Trump’s value. But to agree / disagree, you must first understand.
      And also factor that politics is not a battle of ideas but a battle of persuasion.

      This, I think, is the real battle: understand, beyond all the pampering and the rethoric, which are the ideas fueling the candidates, that will be implemented when one of them becomes president.

      • Corey says:

        unless you’re able to present solid evidence that every Trump supporter is committing a fallacy or is under some kind of systematic mistake, you should entertain the idea that is your own biases which are making Trump unintelligible to you.

        Epistemic closure is a thing. Anybody who lives outside of a reality bubble finds residents of such a bubble unintelligible.

        • Orphan Wilde says:

          Epistemic closure is a thing. Anybody who lives outside of a reality bubble finds residents of such a bubble unintelligible.

          Eh. No.

          • Corey says:

            Glad we cleared that up.

          • Orphan Wilde says:

            *Shrug* I find just about anyone intelligible; frequently wrong, but I can, with a small amount of effort, figure out -a- reason they would believe what they do, even if it isn’t -the- reason. Therefore your statement is false.

          • Corey says:

            I see, I was thinking of *the* reason which isn’t what was meant. Knowing the true reasons tends to require knowledge of the prevalent beliefs of the relevant bubble.

          • Orphan Wilde says:

            Corey –

            The difference is that I think the pursuit of *the* reason is just the rationalist equivalent of tilting at windmills, regardless of whether it’s your own bubble or somebody else’s.

        • lvlln says:

          That strikes me as a fully general argument with which one could dismiss anyone that they perceive as unintelligible as being in a bubble.

          Unless your statement was meant purely as a statement of fact – i.e. epistemic closure is a thing that exists – rather than to describe the phenomenon being discussed above – i.e. epistemic closure is the thing that is going on in this case. The former would be defensible but adds nothing to the conversation, while the latter would run into the problem mentioned in the previous paragraph.

          • Corey says:

            What I was going for is the opposite – the opposition is unintelligible because they’re in a different reality. (Which one is ‘real’ and which is a ‘bubble’ is a matter of one’s own position, of course).

            So, from the perspective of someone outside of the reality where Trump supporters live, every Trump supporter *is* under some kind of systematic mistake: they take as true many things that are not true from the observer’s perspective.

    • TheAncientGeek says:

      I’m confused, this is a rationalist blog, Trump is barely coherent when he speaks, if he posted comments here in the same manner he would be roasted, yet I’m seeing a lot of support for him here, what gives? Doesnt it matter that he comes across as a rabid chimp?

      It’s a valid question. I think part of the answer is that some rationalists have a taste for radicalism .. there’s a theme in LW subculture, particularly, that things are badly broken, and that easy fixes like UBI and moveable houses are available. Also US political culture puts less value on intelectuality/technocracy than Europe, so the baseline is in a different place to start with.

      Do you USA types realise how he looks to the rest of the planet?

      Hmm, well, The Boris is a test case for that.

    • houseboatonstyxb says:

      @ tumteetum
      Trump is barely coherent when he speaks, if he posted comments here in the same manner he would be roasted, yet I’m seeing a lot of support for him here,

      Rejecting “Arguments Are Soldiers” involves rejecting “Arguments Are Allies”.

    • anon123 says:

      > Do you USA types realise how he looks to the rest of the planet?

      Well the leaders of the most popular parties (judging by the latest polls) in several European states, France, Austria, Sweden, Hungary, porbably I few others I missed, have more-or-less endorsed him. Of course, the Chinese, Saudis, and European elites don’t like him. However, that’s arguably a good thing.

  40. Scott Alexander says:

    Posting down here where it’s hard to find, out of shame that I still don’t understand this.

    A lot of people complain about studies with low sample size and say we should ignore the results. But suppose these studies use p-values and get (with their low sample size) p = 0.01. And suppose another study with a gigantic sample size also gets p = 0.01. Pushing to the side concerns about whether small studies are easier to put in the file drawer if they’re negative, do these two studies provide exactly the same amount of evidence for their hypothesis? If so, why are people so against low sample size studies?

    • MawBTS says:

      I have no statistics training but don’t p-values only capture variation induced by chance, and not any of the other ways a study can go wrong (errors, accidents, selection effects, etc), which are presumably more of an issue with small sample sizes?

    • keranih says:

      No, they don’t provide the same weight. Meta reviews weigh results by sample size (and other factors, ideally identified before selecting studies to include in the meta review.)

      (And p’s not really what I would look at, but instead the confidence interval/ratio. But that’s a theological debate and is sideways of sample size.)

      And it’s not that low n studies can’t be accurate, it’s that small n study results are subject to lots of errors that would be mitigated by larger sample sizes.

      Studies with a low n should not be *ignored* – they should be used as evidence for re-examination of the concept with a study that has higher predictive power/better accuracy of the impact. The error comes from assuming small n studies are definitive.

      • nelshoy says:

        So are small sample sizes purely an issue of representativeness?

        P-values already adjust for sample size, so you would still need a much larger effect size to get the same p=.01, right?

        • pku says:

          Yeah, but they’re more volatile to shifts. For example, say you’re flipping a coin and trying to determine if it’s biased in favour of heads. If you get all heads on eight trials, p<.01 that it's fair, but there's a 10% chance of getting that if it has .75 odds to get heads. If you get 900 out of a thousand heads, you can be more sure that the effect is larger.
          If you're just trying to tell if an effect exists, it probably doesn't matter (aside from the effect on the other ways a study can go wrong, mentioned above). If you want to have an approximation of the size of the effect, sample size matters more.

          • nelshoy says:

            But wouldn’t the 900/1000 heads then have a much lower p-value?

            I can see how with a small binomial sample you’re sample is limited to a small number of discrete values (You can’t get an accurate estimate of a 33% heads coin after 2 flips, the only answers are 0, .5, 1), but what about when you’re measuring continuous variables on a normal distribution? Shouldn’t the p-value be just as valuable assuming representativeness?

          • Alex Zavoluk says:

            With a small sample size, a small p-value probably means that your effect size is too big. The sign of the effect may also have a large probability of being wrong. These are facts that Andrew Gelman (probably among others) has been attempting to bring more attention to for years. See a simple explanation with a neat picture at https://alexanderetz.com/2015/05/21/type-s-and-type-m-errors/

    • Douglas Knight says:

      One reason people hate small studies is that they are cheap and thus more subject to the file drawer effect. Have sunken a lot of money into a big study, the researcher is more likely to publish, even if null. Whereas, the same money might produce many studies which suffer from multiple comparisons. Similarly, funding a large study is evidence that someone believes in the hypothesis and is a kind of very weak but unforgeable pre-registration.

      What does it even mean to say “the same amount of evidence for their hypothesis”? What hypothesis? The negation of the null hypothesis? The null hypothesis is always false. The negation of the null hypothesis is a stupid hypothesis. If the p-values of the two studies are the same, the effect size of the large study is much smaller. If you do a small study and get p=.01 and then you do a large study and get p=.01, you have refuted the small study. Yes, if they were free from p-hacking, they are, in some sense, the same evidence for different hypotheses. But the large study is weak evidence for a subtle effect, while the small study is weak evidence for a powerful effect. Assuming away p-hacking is the problem.

      It would probably be better if instead of people proposing to falsify the null hypothesis, they actually put forward a positive hypothesis. Don’t merely reject the null hypothesis, but measure the real effect. Implicitly, the size of the study suggests a positive hypothesis: if the size of the study was chosen by a power calculation, you can infer the positive hypothesis. But small studies are unlikely to have had power calculations.

      I probably should say something about open and closed sets. The null hypothesis z=0 is a closed hypothesis, while the negation z>0 is an open hypothesis. It is bad because it includes possibilities arbitrarily close to the null hypothesis.

      • lemmy caution says:

        Thanks for this explanation.

        The newsworthiness/discusability of studies is something like:

        1) is p <.05?
        2) if so, report if effect is large

        small studies have an definite advantage here

    • ejenk says:

      Stop thinking in terms of p-values, and start thinking in terms of effect size and statistical power. A study with a small sample size can only reliably detect an effect that you think will be large. If you think that your coin is biased by maybe 1% (so that your prior for probability of getting heads is uniform over the interval [49%, 51%], then flipping 8 heads in a row gives you approximately zero evidence that the coin is biased towards heads, even though p < 0.01.

      A p-value is equivalent to the posterior distribution for a noninformative prior (although exactly which noninformative prior, I’m not quite sure). A noninformative prior is often a very bad starting place for anything you care about. Effect sizes in the real world tend to be fairly small compared to the various sources of random variation, so our priors should reflect that expectation. A small-sample-size study with a statistically significant (p < 0.05) result necessarily looks like it has a huge effect size. You're free to disbelieve the size of the effect, but at that point, why should you even still believe that you've correctly determined the sign of the effect? After all, a coin that comes up heads 49% of the time is almost as likely to get eight heads in a row as one that comes up heads 51% of the time.

      Anyway, this is all stuff Andrew Gelman harps on a lot, so you should really be reading him regularly. His explanations of Type M (magnitude) and Type S (sign) errors (as opposed to the traditional Type I an Type II), why the null hypothesis is always false, and why noninformative priors are bad really helped elucidate a lot of things for me.

    • Ilya Shpitser says:
    • Oort says:

      If the study with a low sample size gets a small p value, the effect size must be large. That seems more interesting to me than the other study, even if it’s exactly equally likely to be real. My guess is that people just think “small sample size = big p value” or don’t know what p values are. But I’m not very confident here.

    • suntzuanime says:

      P values only measure the odds that such a result would be observed if the effect were not real. You need to compare that to the odds that such a result would be observed if the effect were real, which is lower the smaller your sample size.

      A true bayesian would also ask for the prior probability the effect was real, but then we’re getting into the true heresies.

    • Lumifer says:

      An important conceptual point: low p-values do not provide evidence for your hypothesis. They provide evidence against the null hypothesis.

      From my point of view the p=0.01 in a gigantic-sample study is less convincing because the the t-test starts to reject the null hypotheses for tiny effect sizes and in a lot of cases this is because the assumptions for the test (e.g. that the distribution is normal) are broken in a minor way. Usually you can ignore these small infractions, but for gigantic sample sizes every little thing becomes significant.

      • Scott Alexander says:

        Can you give an example of a real-life situation (a real published study would be super great) where a t-test incorrectly rejects the null hypothesis because the assumptions were broken?

        • Lumifer says:

          For general support of the idea that gigantic-sample studies lead to problematic p-values see e.g. this (section 2 You can make the p-value as small as you can afford), or this (section Why Isn’t the P Value Enough?), or this and there’s a lot more if you want to. Sample quote:

          A cancer researcher developed a new anticancer treatment and tries to demonstrate that it improves survival using n = 7 mice in the control and treatment groups. Let the median survival in control and treatment groups be 10 and 15 days, respectively, with SD = 6 days. Again, using formula (1), we compute Z = 1.56 with the p-value = 0.06. (A more appropriate test for survival comparison is the log-rank test (Rosner 2011), but it does not solve the principal problem.) Advice from a statistician: buy more mice. If the number of mice in each group is doubled (n = 14), the p-value = 0.014: the article is published and a new grant is funded.

          For the situations where the t-test is inappropriate the usual terminology is “non-parametric test vs parametric” (see e.g. this). There has been some analysis of the typical stats errors in medical publications, for instance.

          A simple example of the data where the assumption of normality is wrong is most of financial data. You have probably heard various financial crashes called six-sigma events, ten-sigma events, etc. A notable case was the LTCM bankruptcy which resulted from events which its managing partners (including Nobel laureates) considered to have too low probability to care about. And if you have really really REALLY lots of data (see high-frequency trading), the t-tests are completely useless.

        • Alex says:

          How would you know that the t-‘Test “incorrectly” rejected the null hypothesis? You do not get access to ground truth.

          • Lumifer says:

            Failure to replicate, basically.

            If you’re estimating the characteristics of a process which continues to produce more data, out-of-sample testing.

    • HeelBearCub says:

      There is also the “elderly Hispanic woman” effect to consider.

      Small sample size tests are easier to run than large ones. I’m fairly sure that far more of them are run than large ones. Publication bias means that that the small ones never see the light of day. Given 20 tests of different things with the same sample size, I think we would tend to see one of them with a false positive, and that one will the one someone attempts to publish.

      So given that you see a small size study, we probably should be interested and to want a larger study to repeat it. It should be easy to replicate, because the effect size is large.

      But of course we don’t like to fund replications, because peoplle are so hung up on spending money “effectively”. Or at least that is my sense. If government grants were regularly going to people who were simply trying to replicate other results, I have a sense this would be used to generate a hubbub in the chattering class.

    • anon for now says:

      P values are based on the standard error of the estimate. As sample size approaches infinity, the standard error approaches a value which we have a nice formula for, and which is itself decreasing in the number of observations. P values are in this sense only true asymptotically – and the smaller the sample size, the less trustworthy the statistic is.

      This is how things work in classical hypothesis testing anyway – reporting p values in Bayesian statistics seems weird to me.

    • Izaak Weiss says:

      Most analysis use a statistical law called the Central Limit Theorem. The Central Limit Theorem says that if you are looking at the mean of a sample with size n, then this mean will usually be distributed normally around the true mean. However, you’ll notice that there is the word “limit” in the name of the theorem, which means that this statement only holds true in the limit; as n goes to infinity.

      With small n, this theorem doesn’t hold, so any analysis that depends on it won’t be very sound; you may get errors that is accounted for by the p value, because your model is not a good one of the actual distribution.

    • Oscar Cunningham says:

      Another way to think about this is to use Bayes’ Theorem directly. You’ve told us that the probability of observing the data (sigh, I mean “values at least as extreme as those in the data”) given the null hypothesis is the same in each experiment, and the prior probability is also the same. So the only remaining input into Bayes’ Theorem is the probability of getting that data given that the medical treatment does work.

      This is where effect size comes in. In a small study the data will have to be very extreme to give p=0.01. But if you were only expecting a small effect size then this extreme data will also be surprising even if you condition on the treatment working. But in the large study you can get data which gives you p=0.01 while also being likely under the hypothesis that the treatment works. So the large study is better evidence than the small study.

      On the other hand, if you were expecting a large effect size (conditioned on the treatment working) then the small study is better evidence than the large one (although the large study might suggest that the treatment is having some effect, just not the large one you were expecting).

    • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

      I think this post works well for you

      http://allenfleishmanbiostatistics.com/Articles/2012/01/13-p-values-in-small-samples/

      He answers the question

      ” The way I see it a p-value of 0.01 for a sample size of 20 is the same as a p-value of 0.01 for a sample of size 500. … I would like to hear other points of view.””

      • Matt M says:

        I know this type thinking won’t appeal to a largely rationalist community, but at some point “common sense” or a “sanity check” needs to kick in.

        I had a marketing statistics professor say something to the effect of “mathematically, I can prove to you that all p-values are equal… but if you bet your company on the results of a customer survey that you sent to 100 people and was answered by 10, you’re a damned fool, no matter how convincing the results look”

        • Lumifer says:

          I know this type thinking won’t appeal to a largely rationalist community

          You opinion of the “largely rationalist community” isn’t very high, is it? X -)

          Rule #1 of rationality: Don’t Be A Bloody Idiot.

    • Alex Zavoluk says:

      See https://alexanderetz.com/2015/05/21/type-s-and-type-m-errors/ for some discussion of Gelman’s work on the subject.

  41. nelshoy says:

    What’s the general opinion here on sending signals to space? I’m interested to know what a more x-risk-minded commentariat thinks.

    Should we be trying to contact alien civilizations? Do we have reason to think it would lead to negative consequences like Stephen Hawking fears?

    It came up on reddit and most people thought it was totally unreasonable and that they would have no motive for hurting us, that the idea of them plundering our resources and making us their slaves was anthropomorphizing (I agree).

    But I wrote:

    Here’s a plausible motive for harming humans that actually makes sense for a type I/type II civilization. We could be a threat. If technology advances quickly from intelligent civilizations like ours, it might be a blink of an eye in cosmic terms before we are a superintelligent AI-led, space colonizing species with the potential to do harm.

    If you look at the history of warfare, it becomes clear that the power of offensive technologies (swords to guns to nukes) outpaces the speed at which we can defend against them (armor worked better than bullet-proof vests which worked better than expensive missile defense systems that would probably fail). We probably don’t have to be anywhere near their full power level to pose a threat, in the same way a tiny terrorist cell with a nuke poses a risk to the US. What if they listen to radio signals and nip the problem in the bud? It would help explain why we don’t see a bunch of other signals.

    • Sandy says:

      It seems to me that any alien civilization capable of traversing space and reaching Earth would necessarily have to be far more advanced than we are, so we’d just be precocious monkeys to them. And we put precocious monkeys in zoos and labs.

      But I have no framework by which I can understand an alien civilization’s priorities.

      • nelshoy says:

        They pick up radiosignals of Hitler or whatever and see a primitive intelligent species that is currently no threat to them. But if the timescale from Hitler to actually-powerful-enough to threaten them is only a few hundred years, then maybe they just come over and pre-empt that threat, whether that means exterminating life or putting us in zoos.

        It’s all moot since we’ve already sent out signals, but I was more interested in “was this a good idea” and “should we send out stronger signals that go further?”

        • Gazeboist says:

          At a couple of centuries, “pre-empt the threat” probably means “have a nice chat and set up some ’embassies’ to export goods they like”. That’s US/Japan timescale, not human/chimp timescale.

        • K says:

          They could see us as precocious monkeys on the brink of reaching the AI singularity – in themselves no threat, but giving rise to a new civilization which could out-compete, and if hostile, eradicate them.

          At which point, some of them might start adding “ceterum censeo” to their political speeches. Better safe than sorry.

    • pku says:

      The probability that aliens would want to destroy us, given that we send signals their way, is probably low. The probability that aliens would want to destroy us given that they respond at all, in a way that we notice, to signals we send their way is uncomfortably high (they could either respond hostilely or helpfully, and neither seems much more likely than the other. If they respond hostilely, they could probably destroy us – so at least a 30% chance of getting destroyed in this scenario). If they don’t respond, we get nothing – so the expected value of sending signals into space is negative.

      • Gazeboist says:

        neither seems much more likely than the other

        This statement is doing a lot of work, and doesn’t have much justification. You’re also assuming that the ability to destroy humanity is guaranteed to be used by a hostile actor, as opposed to a conquest or indirect exploitation arrangement.

    • pku says:

      Related: Assume we come up with interstellar travel in the next few hundred years, and then get an alien radio signal implying they’re probably at the technology level we are now. Should we go over and destroy them?

      • nelshoy says:

        I don’t think we do. We’re too curious and we’d still be relatively unadvanced compared to a civilization that’s been exploring the galaxy for millions of years.

        My scenario only makes sense if you assume:

        1. Stars are scarce- different civilizations compete for them and they’re aren’t enough to go around, we value our own civilization having the stars more than others.

        2. Type II civilization is expansive enough to have already ran into contact with other civs. It knows that new ones will quickly gain enough power to be a threat, and is therefore forced to respect their territory by virtue of mutually assured destruction.

        This of course assumes that there are intelligent civilizations colonizing the stars out there, but that is kind of assumed when you start sending signals in the first place.

    • Yrro says:

      It seems pretty obvious to me that *whatever* their actions are toward us, *we* will have almost no control of them. That seems like a pretty high risk in and of itself.

    • An important issue here is that our broadcasts which have had time to travel a sizable distance are really diffuse. It would take an extremely large antenna (or more likely, array) to pick up I Love Lucy. If you have a Dyson Sphere, that’s easy, but if you’re planet-bound not so much.

      So the real question is who would be hearing such broadcasts, and how that would affect their reactions.

      • nelshoy says:

        That means the question of “Should we make extremely powerful space broadcasts in the hopes of attracting alien attention?” is still an open question.

    • AoxyMouseOnArgo says:

      If the utilitarian singulatarians final conclusions are correct, there is no such thing as aliens.

      Just utility spaces, some thought devices, and the objects that pleasurable data controls to spread and ensure its existence.

      But there is no need to be afraid of sending signals to space, for many reasons.

    • Brandon Berg says:

      Interstellar war seems implausible for the simple reason that the percentage of planets populated by intelligent life is, as far as we can tell, very, very low. Even assuming FTL travel is possible, why go to the trouble of conquering the one planet in a thousand-light-year radius that has intelligent life when there are uninhabited planets available for resource extraction all over the place, and much closer?

      • moridinamael says:

        What trouble? von Neumann warships are practically free.

        • Fctho1e says:

          They are spam. And if allowed to be intelligent and mutate basically very dangerous form of spam.

          • moridinamael says:

            Fair enough. Forget the self-replicating angle, then. Shouldn’t any Type II civilization or higher just be able to send a carefully aimed, mostly-invisible relativistic mass to snuff out any nascent planetary civs?

            We are practically speaking already capable of this. If we discovered Klingons with early rocket tech orbiting Proxima Centauri, we wouldn’t have to “fight” them at all.

          • John Schilling says:

            We are practically speaking already capable of this

            That is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I suppose you could stretch “practically” and “capable” to include things like Orion-drive battleships or Starwisp probes, but the former is a couple orders of magnitude shy of relativistic and the latter sufficiently wispy that a direct hit on an Earthlike planet just makes a pretty aurora.

          • moridinamael says:

            @John Schilling

            Your challenge prompted me to play with the rocket equation and realize I’m entirely full of shit.

    • Thomas Jørgensen says:

      Anyone inclined and able to kill us already would have, so risk free. If we were in the neighbourhood of anyone genocidal, we’d not be transmitting.

      There are trivial ways to check planets for life across interstellar distances Gravity lens telescopes using your own star should get amazing resolution, and the same trick lets you eavesdrop on.. well, a heck of a lot of what we do with radio, so they already know we are here. .. or will when the radio waves hit them.

    • John Schilling says:

      If the hypothetical advanced alien civilization A: exists, B: is within a hundred light-years of us, and C: has the vaguest notion that other civilizations might be worth paying attention to, then they tasked some grad student with putting observation platforms in all the interesting solar systems back when our ancestors were tree shrews with delusions of grandeur, and they’ve know all about us since our first campfire. I think our odds are better if they know that humans exist and are open and friendly, rather than knowing we exist and are paranoid and secretive.

      If any of A, B, or C are false, then sending signals is a harmless waste of effort.

    • Aegeus says:

      My take on it is that space is too big for interstellar warfare to be practical. Unless you break the lightspeed barrier, it’ll take hundreds or thousands of years for our signal to reach an alien, and hundreds or thousands of years for the alien invasion fleet to reach us. It’s not really practical to wage war with a command lag of 200 years. And also, since space is so big, it’s very unlikely that we’ll have anything to fight over. There are more than enough stars in the sky for everyone, unless you’re absolutely obsessive about colonization and you have really far-thinking foreign policy.

      Your argument makes sense if the aliens are powerful enough that they just spam out colony fleets everywhere, so they expect that we’ll do the same, and eventually our ever-expanding spheres of territory will come into conflict. But first, if there was an ever-expanding sphere of alien colonies, we’d probably be able to see it, and second, if they’re a galaxy-spanning colonial power, they’re going to invade us whether we signal them or not. And if they aren’t a galaxy-spanning colonial power and don’t plan on becoming one, why are they afraid of us doing the same, so afraid that they’re willing to commit genocide to stop it?

      So why not send out a signal? Most likely scenario: Nobody hears it. Second most likely: Some alien astronomer hears it, but he can’t get the budget for an invasion fleet so he just writes it up in the paper instead. This is basically a win – we get into the alien history books, and nobody invades us. Third most likely: The aliens are already on the ever-expanding spherical colonial warpath, and the signal doesn’t make a difference either way.

      The range of civilizations who will invade or destroy us if and only if they receive a signal indicating intelligent life is a pretty small range, I think.

      • AnonEmous says:

        D) they hear our signal, decide to send over an expeditionary fleet. Expeditionary fleet learns we’re crazy and decides to open ire. You really haven’t eliminated that possibility at all -whag if they just happen to be pretty nearby? And by the way, what if they can FTL right to us?

        • John Schilling says:

          E) they don’t hear our signal, decide to send over an expeditionary fleet. Expeditionary fleet is predisposed to believe we are crazy because any neighbor that doesn’t say “hello” within some reasonable time after moving into the neighborhood is Probably Up To No Good. You really haven’t eliminated that possibility either.

          From a game-theoretic standpoint, I tend to consider “Kill anyone who doesn’t preemptively offer friendship” to be a vastly more likely strategy than “Kill anyone who does preemptively offer friendship, and ignore the rest”.

        • Aegeus says:

          Like I said, “unless you break the lightspeed barrier.” But as far as we know, FTL is impossible, and if it is possible, you can time travel. Which means we probably have bigger problems than an invasion fleet.

          The closer you require the aliens to be, the lower the odds that there are any aliens within that distance. And the greater the odds that we would have found them already.

          In the case of the expeditionary fleet, what makes them decide to open fire? Not the initial signal, that just made them want to investigate. It was something else that made them decide we’re crazy and need to be destroyed, in which case the solution is to not sound crazy when we’re talking to the expeditionary fleet.

          And my reasons that they wouldn’t see a need to destroy us apply just as much to the expeditionary fleet as they do to the aliens. Space is big, and unless one or both of us are on the ever-expanding colonial warpath, there’s no good reason to go to war. So the odds that they will think we’re so dangerous that genocide is the only solution are low.

          (Also, if the alien diplomatic expedition habitually carries doomsday weapons around with them and can use them freely, I think that falls under “aliens are already on the warpath.”)

    • bean says:

      Doubtful. Interstellar war is really, really hard, and we’d have to develop much, much faster than they do for us to ever be a threat if they have the capability of taking us out now. That’s unlikely, although I’m reminded of a story of, IIRC, Asimov’s that centered around the premise that sexual reproduction was uncommon and meant we developed much faster.
      I can’t see a motive for them to go after us in an existential way, except for ones that we might classify as religious. By that I mean ‘do this, even though it doesn’t make logical sense’. Classify that as you will. In terms of resources, you can get all you need either from uninhabited places (most of which have shallower gravity wells) or from trade. The equivalent of a few handfuls of beads will buy a lot of cows (or whatever it is they want.) The only possible exception is if they want all the cows, which would make a good silly story, but no more.

      • Lumifer says:

        Well, there is, of course, the canonical

        As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system

    • Maware says:

      Go nuts, by the time they’d reach any alien race humanity would probably be extinct. You need a large amount of magic and belief to even assume they exist, let alone that they have this magic ability to defy universal constants and respond to us.

  42. The Nybbler says:

    This Week in the Culture Wars: Palmer Luckey appears set to replace Brandon Eich in the “hounded out of his own company for having the wrong politics” department.

    http://fusion.net/story/350541/how-palmer-luckey-became-a-trump-supporter/ (etc)

    He apologized and backtracked

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10209141115659366&id=1063830478

    which of course means only that he’s put the scent of blood in the water.

    • FacelessCraven says:

      His girlfriend was also apparently pro-ants, and thus is subject to apparently ongoing harassment. No word if Crash Override has stepped in to help yet.

    • Corey says:

      Brandon Eich

      After taking a shot, I’ll channel my inner bot and explain, again, that job security is evil, so why do we care again? Other than it’s Evil SJWs doing the firing as opposed to the Invisible Hand or typical executive power plays?

      • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

        I’ll channel my inner bot and explain, again, that job security is evil, so why do we care again?

        I mean, this is great if you actually believe it. But if the proposition is “job security, except for the people who don’t conform to the views that X group deems acceptable” (replace X with your favourite outgroup: “SJW”, “Christian Conservatives”, “Spooky Scary Libertarians” , “Radical Muslims”, “Nazi Terrorist Cartoon Frogs”. Your choice, really) then it’s not that great.

        • Corey says:

          *Everyone* believes job security is evil – go try to find a union supporter and you’ll see what I mean.

          Generally, we’re all supposed to be OK with jobs that can evaporate at any time for any reason or no reason, because it makes the pie higher or whatever.

          Eich’s making less money. So is everyone (in the USA) who built cars (or anything else) in the 80s. Or who owned a small retail establishment. Or who went to law school in the last 10 years, yadda yadda yadda.

          TVs are nice and cheap, and most people with hourly jobs have no idea when or how much they will work in 2 weeks, assuming they still have the job. Yay Pareto!

          • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

            *Everyone* believes job security is evil – go try to find a union supporter and you’ll see what I mean.

            Who is everyone here? Trumpers don’t, Bernouts don’t, Hillary Clinton doesn’t (explicitly), nor do people in the tenure track… We might reap the benefits of job mobility and liberalism, but nobody but the most tarian of libertarians will explicity attack job security except selectively (republicans => teachers’ unions, democrats => police unions, or whatever).

          • Jiro says:

            Eich’s making less money. So is everyone (in the USA) who built cars (or anything else) in the 80s.

            I’m pretty sure if people were being fired for being BLM supporters or other currently fashionable left-wing causes, “well, people who built cars are making less money too” would fall on deaf ears.

          • brad says:

            I don’t think there is anyone in US politics trying to put in place European style non-at-will employment. Not Bernie Sanders, not Elizabeth Warren, not Donald Trump, not Paul Ryan.

            So rather than saying that most people only attack job security for limited situations, I’d flip that around and say most people only support job security for limited situations.

            In terms specifically of the left wing, you can bet that if any of these people who were fired for their tweets were represented by unions they wouldn’t have been fired. The collective bargaining agreements would never have permitted them to be. And left wingers in general think we should have more people represented by unions.

            Although neither one is going to happen, more widespread union representation leading to more job security is less unrealistic than the sudden adoption broad informal norm that seems to be what the conservatives on SSC think is the proper solution.

          • birdboy2000 says:

            I’m a union supporter, hard-left, and appalled by this stuff (and fanatically pro-ant) for that very reason.

            Politically motivated employment blacklists are a great way to stop political change, and have a long history of being used especially to stop change of the radical variety – so this kind of thing horrifies me even though I don’t care a whit for Lucroy’s own views.

          • Corey says:

            Upon further consideration, I realize I’m probably just falling prey to outgroup homogeneity bias. AFAIK the free-market fundies and the people appalled that someone’s livelihood was attacked are not the same people. (They might be, but I haven’t checked and have no reason to assume they are).

          • Cerebral Paul Z. says:

            It’s not even outgroup homogeneity bias; the real problem is that “giving everyone job security would be bad for the economy” and “ideological blacklisting is bad for free speech” aren’t at all contradictory.

          • “Generally, we’re all supposed to be OK with jobs that can evaporate at any time for any reason or no reason, because it makes the pie higher or whatever.”

            The view you are parodying–possibly because you don’t understand it–is not that all employment should be at will but that freedom of contract ought to apply to contract law. That makes possible employment at will, job security except for cause, lifetime employment (subject to employer bankruptcy), and lots of other alternatives.

            The underlying argument is that what terms the employer will offer depends on costs and benefits to him of the alternatives, what terms the employee will accept depends on costs and benefits to him, which gives them a joint interest in finding the terms that maximize summed benefit and then haggling over how it is divided.

          • “but nobody but the most tarian of libertarians will explicity attack job security”

            Speaking as the most tarian of libertarians, you don’t understand the position. There is nothing wrong with job security as a term in an employment contract. What is wrong is forbidding contracts that do not provide it.

            There may be a further problem when the contract is made by agents not adequately under the control of the principals they are binding, as in the case of tenure for government employees.

          • Corey says:

            The view you are parodying–possibly because you don’t understand it–is not that all employment should be at will but that freedom of contract ought to apply to contract law. That makes possible employment at will, job security except for cause, lifetime employment (subject to employer bankruptcy), and lots of other alternatives.

            In the absence of a UBI or a really strong safety net, how does this reach any equilibrium other than 100% employment at will?

          • “In the absence of a UBI or a really strong safety net, how does this reach any equilibrium other than 100% employment at will?”

            How is it that anyone is paid more than the minimum wage? Isn’t that really the same question–and evidence of how far from reality your picture of economics is?

            My employer is considering offering employees $12/hour and employment at will. He somehow discovers that he could get just as many people of the same quality if he offered $11/hour and termination only for cause as confirmed by an arbitrator chosen by a method specified in the employment contract or $10/hour and he can only fire an employee with a year’s notice. He works out which of those terms is best for him and makes his offers accordingly.

            In some contexts that’s a matter of individual bargaining, in others of what employers find does best for them with standardized offers.

            Is it your assumption that the ability to fire an employee at will is always worth more to the employer than it costs the employee?

            Alternatively, is your assumption that the alternative to accepting an offer from one employer is starvation? If so, why does anyone get paid more than the minimum wage?

          • Shieldfoss says:

            @Corey:

            In the absence of a UBI or a really strong safety net, how does this reach any equilibrium other than 100% employment at will?

            I live in a Scandinavian welfare state – if I get fired, I will get a serious payout from the state, for years if necessary – until I find a new job.

            AND YET: One of the points of contention when I took my current job was exactly that: Job security. From the day I was hired, I could truthfully state that I cannot be fired – even for cause – with any less than three months warning. They can send me home if they don’t want me working after they tell me I’m getting fired, but then I effectively just get a three month paid vacation.

            I guarantee you that this is not common, and significantly better than what the law requires (because the law assumes I don’t need that security because I can go on a state payment instead if I lose my job)

            So even with a strong safety net, you still don’t get to 100% employment at will.

            In fact, calls for a higher minimum wage and contracts that are hard to terminate seem significantly more common in countries without adequate safety nets, presumably on the theory that if the state doesn’t take care of the poor, you should instead force that on any corporation that accidentally ever hires them.

          • Corey says:

            Is it your assumption that the ability to fire an employee at will is always worth more to the employer than it costs the employee?

            Alternatively, is your assumption that the alternative to accepting an offer from one employer is starvation? If so, why does anyone get paid more than the minimum wage?

            Yes, usually, and because nobody trains.

            Is it your assumption that employers and employees bring equal power to the bargaining table? That’s a common libertarian failure mode.

          • Corey says:

            (because the law assumes I don’t need that security because I can go on a state payment instead if I lose my job)

            Good point; with a strong safety net, low job security isn’t as much of a problem.

          • Edward Morgan Blake says:

            From the day I was hired, I could truthfully state that I cannot be fired – even for cause – with any less than three months warning. They can send me home if they don’t want me working after they tell me I’m getting fired, but then I effectively just get a three month paid vacation.

            I just spent the past 15 months firing someone. He was a lier, I’m pretty sure he was an embezzler, and his technical sabotage to the project was constrained only by his laziness. Having my time consumed by this distraction, and the budget consumed by his overly generous salary that he locked in before I was brought in to PM this particular project has put the entire project at risk, and if thus fails I will have to lay off half a dozen good people who have been working very hard for the past year and a half.

            My opinion of people who think that “can’t be fired” employment agreements should be mandatory or even just standard is… low. Very very very low.

          • mnov says:

            @Corey

            Is it your assumption that employers and employees bring equal power to the bargaining table? That’s a common libertarian failure mode.

            What does ‘power’ mean in this context?

          • Corey says:

            because nobody trains

            In retrospect I was trying to say “labor supply is finite”.

          • Corey says:

            What does ‘power’ mean in this context?

            Have one fewer employee than you’d like? Unless your business is very small, this is a minor annoyance.

            Have one fewer job than you’d like? Discarded pizza boxes are an excellent source of cheese.

          • jaimeastorga2000 says:

            What does ‘power’ mean in this context?

            From “The Non-Libertarian FAQ”:

            It is frequently proposed that workers and bosses are equal negotiating partners bargaining on equal terms, and only the excessive government intervention on the side of labor that makes the negotiating table unfair. After all, both need something from one another: the worker needs money, the boss labor. Both can end the deal if they don’t like the terms: the boss can fire the worker, or the worker can quit the boss. Both have other choices: the boss can choose a different employee, the worker can work for a different company. And yet, strange to behold, having proven the fundamental equality of workers and bosses, we find that everyone keeps acting as if bosses have the better end of the deal.

            During interviews, the prospective employee is often nervous; the boss rarely is. The boss can ask all sorts of things like that the prospective pay for her own background check, or pee in a cup so the boss can test the urine for drugs; the prospective employee would think twice before daring make even so reasonable a request as a cup of coffee. Once the employee is hired, the boss may ask on a moment’s notice that she work a half hour longer or else she’s fired, and she may not dare to even complain. On the other hand, if she were to so much as ask to be allowed to start work thirty minutes later to get more sleep or else she’ll quit, she might well be laughed out of the company. A boss may, and very often does, yell at an employee who has made a minor mistake, telling her how stupid and worthless she is, but rarely could an employee get away with even politely mentioning the mistake of a boss, even if it is many times as unforgivable.

            The naive economist who truly believes in the equal bargaining position of labor and capital would find all of these things very puzzling.

            Let’s focus on the last issue; a boss berating an employee, versus an employee berating a boss. Maybe the boss has one hundred employees. Each of these employees only has one job. If the boss decides she dislikes an employee, she can drive her to quit and still be 99% as productive while she looks for a replacement; once the replacement is found, the company will go on exactly as smoothly as before.

            But if the employee’s actions drive the boss to fire her, then she must be completely unemployed until such time as she finds a new job, suffering a long period of 0% productivity. Her new job may require a completely different life routine, including working different hours, learning different skills, or moving to an entirely new city. And because people often get promoted based on seniority, she probably won’t be as well paid or have as many opportunities as she did at her old company. And of course, there’s always the chance she won’t find another job at all, or will only find one in a much less tolerable field like fast food.

            We previously proposed a symmetry between a boss firing a worker and a worker quitting a boss, but actually they could not be more different. For a boss to fire a worker is at most a minor inconvenience; for a worker to lose a job is a disaster. The Holmes-Rahe Stress Scale, a measure of the comparative stress level of different life events, puts being fired at 47 units, worse than the death of a close friend and nearly as bad as a jail term. Tellingly, “firing one of your employees” failed to make the scale.

            This fundamental asymmetry gives capital the power to create more asymmetries in its favor. For example, bosses retain a level of control on workers even after they quit, because a worker may very well need a letter of reference from a previous boss to get a good job at a new company. On the other hand, a prospective employee who asked her prospective boss to produce letters of recommendation from her previous workers would be politely shown the door; we find even the image funny.

          • Jiro says:

            That essay of Scott’s contains a lot of nonsense.

            Nobody would try to get a letter of recommendation from an employee before going to another employer, because the number of employers is relatively small compared to the number of employees so
            1) More direct ways of getting information are much more useful.
            2) Since an employer interacts with many employees, a recommendation from an employee tells you about a much smaller percentage of that employer’s behavior than a recommendation from an employer tells you about an employee’s behavior.

          • People familiar with the non-libertarian faq might find my responses of interest.

          • Shieldfoss says:

            @Edward Morgan Blake

            15 months? Man that is harsh. By law or by contract? Or were company politics part of the reason?

            I negotiated for my three months because that’s what I had at my previous position and I did not want to give them up in case the new job fell through. Like I told my new employer – those three months mean a lot to me, and they’re free to you unless you plan on firing me.

          • John Schilling says:

            Have one fewer job than you’d like? Discarded pizza boxes are an excellent source of cheese.

            Again, I note the implicit assumption that everyone should aspire to have exactly one job. Per career, apparently.

          • Corey says:

            @John: One _simultaneous_ job.

          • Tibor says:

            I think this also depends a lot on what field you are in and what your qualifications are. A friend of mine is a designer (well, technically he is a modeler but whatever) and a very good one. A few months ago he decided to quit his job in Technicon Design in München and look for a better offer (or possibly the same if they offered enough money). His interview process in Audi looked something like this:
            Audi: “Ok, Mr. so and so, we can give you a draft of the contract next week.”
            My friend: “Well, that’s too bad because I already have another offer and I have to decide till the end of this week.”
            Audi: ” We’ll see what can be done, but it will definitely take a few days”

            He had the draft of the contract in his mailbox on the same day in the afternoon.

            At the end he did not take the job because the other company (a new Chinese company with facilities in München that wants to build electro cars, I forgot the name) offered a better deal. He came back to the Audi people if they could top that, they said that unfortunately, they have a union at Audi and the union made a deal with the company under which the wages are based on maximum education and years of practice and don’t give much room for individual changes (20% or so at most). The guy told him to come work for Audi once he has enough experience and is bored by working for the Chinese. His old boss also tried to keep him in the company but he could only offer him about 1000 EUR a month less than the Chinese.

            So in his case, it is actually the employers who are worried about the employee leaving. Also, he was not the only one from their office who moved to the Chinese. They took the best people and that can be pretty bad for the employer in the short term as well, just as it is not to have a job.

            Now, my friend might be and exception, after all, when people talk about job security they usually don’t mean job security of high-pay professionals. But I think that is not all that different otherwise. One aspect of a job is the salary. All else being held the same the higher salary the better, of course. But all else is not held the same and so people sometimes have to make a choice between a nice environment where the boss won’t yell at them and where they won’t be required to stay late at work but where the salary is also lower and one where it is the other way around. Some people prefer the higher salary and some the nicer working conditions. Of course, in reality it is a bit more complicated since it is not clear whether hostile working conditions are really a good thing for your company’s productivity.

          • Tibor says:

            The problem with “job security” is that it is a job security for people who already have a job. Spain has an enormous amount of “job security”. It is even harder to fire people than in Scandinavia (or anywhere else I think) and when you actually do fire people, you have to pay them a lot of money in compensations (depending on how long they’ve been working for you). The result is that a horrible unemployment rate – about 23% for the general (working age) population and about 43% for people under 25. This makes sense, under these terms companies are very reluctant to hire anyone at all and when they do they prefer people with a history, not someone who’s never done a job and might be a horrible employee who is hard to get rid of. These unemployment rates are not as horrible as they may seem, since many people in Spain work without a contract instead. But the result is that a country with extremely high “job security” ends up with employment without contracts. This is a really bad deal for the employees. Under a more liberal labour laws, they would get a contract which would not give them as much job security as that which is prescribed by the Spanish laws, but still a much better deal than this. Since the employer is not allowed to offer such a contract, he can only offer illegal work instead (or at best limited time contracts but there might be some legal limitations to how many of those you can have in a row at the same employer, I am not 100% sure about that). One could object to that, saying that it is “just” necessary to make sure illegal work gets prosecuted. The companies need the employees after all, so let’s force them to hire them on the terms set by the governments. Setting aside the fact that this is much easier said than done (and it costs money to do so), if such an initiative were successful, it would very likely result in many companies closing down, as they could not afford the extra costs, driving the unemployment rate even higher.

            At the end of the day, not even the lucky people who do have a contract and have had it for some time are that much better off. They know that if they quit their job now, they won’t have a chance to get a long-term contract (at least until the situation in Spain improves a lot, economically, and that might take some time), so they are stuck in their job since it is the best alternative but it would not necessarily be one if the Spanish labour laws were not so restrictive. France has similar problems (and laws) and Greece is a complete tragedy, unfortunately not just its labour laws. The worst thing is that many people in those countries actually protest against making the labour laws more liberal, blocking a way to an improvement, a decrease of the unemployment rate and ironically, greater de facto if not de jure job security.

          • CatCube says:

            @Shieldfoss

            …they’re free to you unless you plan on firing me.

            Presumably your employer knew you pretty well before making that deal. If it turned out you were incompetent (or, God forbid, outright criminal) that three months could have turned out to be one of the most expensive promises they’ve ever made.

          • Matt M says:

            “Now, my friend might be and exception, after all, when people talk about job security they usually don’t mean job security of high-pay professionals. But I think that is not all that different otherwise.”

            I just graduated from business school. Many of my classmates had job offers from three or more top companies. They had plenty of power to tell Google, “Here’s what Amazon is offering me, match it or I walk.” This actually worked fairly often, because the recruiting process is long and expensive and HR people don’t understand the sunk cost fallacy nearly as well as finance majors do. By the time they give you a job offer, it’s because they really do want you and you have some power.

            And sure, you can say that’s the exception rather than the rule and historically/statistically you’re probably right.

            But the point is that it’s simply not true that employers always have power relative to employees. Highly skilled highly in-demand employees sometimes have the power instead. If you’re upset that your employer has too much power over you, I dunno, go get some better skills?

          • The whole “power over you” argument doesn’t work. Given whatever advantages the employer may have, he will use them to get the best terms for himself at which he can hire the employee he wants. If job security costs him the equivalent of one dollar an hour and is worth the equivalent of two dollars an hour to the prospective employee, it is in the selfish interest of the employer to offer job security–and a lower wage.

            That’s the point nobody arguing the other side seems to understand, let alone rebut. Their argument only works if there is a legal limit to how low a wage can be offered and the employer is already at that limit.

            For the high end skilled employee, the logic of this is likely to work itself out through bargaining. For lower end employees it may well be in standard employment terms.

            But either way, it pays the employer to find the combination of wage and employment terms that maximizes the summed benefit to the two and then use any advantage he has to get as much as possible of that benefit for himself.

          • John Schilling says:

            @Corey: Yes, I got that you think everybody does or should want to have exactly one simultaneous job. I would like to hold this belief up to the mockery it deserves.

          • jaimeastorga2000 says:

            If you’re upset that your employer has too much power over you, I dunno, go get some better skills?

            Yes, because it’s not like intelligence and conscientiousness are fixed or anything.

          • TheAncientGeek says:

            Most of the time , and for most people, employment is a buyer’s market, and that’s where the asymmetric power of employers comes form.

            Nobody would try to get a letter of recommendation from an employee before going to another employer, because the number of employers is relatively small compared to the number of employees

            There’s actually a website for that. It’s called glassdoor.

          • Tibor says:

            I wish people in this subthread responded more to serious arguments such as those made by Scott and David and less to one-off remarks like most other commenters seem to do. I find David’s response the most convincing (surprise surprise, I guess) but I would like to see someone cleverly address those arguments. It works better if you challenge an argument you disagree with, otherwise you risk that you end up prematurely convincing yourself there are no good counterarguments.

            I agree that the argument about “get yourself some better skills” is not very good. Not everyone is capable of being a high level professional and my argument only really works well for those. David’s is a more universal one.

          • Alex says:

            Their argument only works if there is a legal limit to how low a wage can be offered and the employer is already at that limit.

            But this is an accurate model of reality for low-requirement jobs in developed countries?!

          • Corey says:

            @Corey: Yes, I got that you think everybody does or should want to have exactly one simultaneous job. I would like to hold this belief up to the mockery it deserves.

            Nobody else has stepped up, and I don’t see what’s inaccurate about it, so what’s the problem?

          • Matt M says:

            “I agree that the argument about “get yourself some better skills” is not very good. Not everyone is capable of being a high level professional and my argument only really works well for those. ”

            For a given individual, no, it’s not incredibly realistic (especially if you’re over the age of 30).

            My point was only to establish that the difference in bargaining power is not automatically inherent to the employer/employee relationship. Rather, it comes about as a result of simple supply and demand for various skills. If your skills are easily supplied and demand for them is low, your bargaining power will be low. That is not a flaw of capitalism, that is capitalism working as intended in order to motivate people to get better (i.e. more highly demanded i.e. more socially valued) skills.

            We should celebrate, not bemoan, the fact that society provides significant motivation for people to work in the most socially beneficial fields.

          • Matt M says:

            And honestly, even at the individual level, I feel like “get yourself some better skills,” while difficult, is still probably the best possible advice you can give to someone.

            It certainly seems more likely to result in better outcomes sooner than “support a certain group of politicians and hope they get elected and then hope that they pass some new laws and regulations that will somehow force companies to hire you”

          • Loyle says:

            @Corey

            If you wouldn’t mind a personal opinion with no weight to it…

            A person should aspire to have a single job insofar as they are willing to put up with the bullshit.

            If you want to move out of your parents’ place and into an apartment with no roommates, wanting a single part-time job is being a little greedy. I’d say a single full-time job or two part-time jobs is more or less sane if you desire that scenario. But in addition to that it’s perfectly reasonable for a person to desire as many jobs in excess to their needs insofar it isn’t detrimental to their health.

          • Corey says:

            @Matt: Skilling up is all well and good for individuals, pointless for populations. Also fraught with different problems (ask someone who went into law).

            @Loyle: I’m still not quite getting it. Are you saying most people “should” live on less than one full-time-equivalent job? Or are you saying most should juggle multiples? How achievable is holding multiple jobs in an age of just-in-time scheduling? Or should most people freelance?

          • Lumifer says:

            For a given individual, no, it’s not incredibly realistic (especially if you’re over the age of 30).

            Um, why?

            We’re not talking about changing one’s IQ or personality or something like this. Skills are learnable and it’s not like you lose the ability to learn new things once you’re past 30.

            There are dumb people who are unable to do tasks more complex than digging ditches or serving fries, but the problem with them is not that they can’t learn new skills, the problem is that they can’t learn *any* skills.

          • Loyle says:

            @Corey

            I’m not saying “most” people “should” do anything. I’m saying a person “can” decide to work as many jobs as they please. With the caveat they should be able to handle them.

            I personally think that a full-time job , due to the investment a person needs to put into it, should meet, at least, the requirements of self-sufficiency. And I personally think that a single part-time should meet, at least, the requirements of sufficiency, but with a little help. If you manage more than that, great for you.

            As an aside: I work from ~3am – ~8am, and I’m almost certain to be home by 10am except for the weirdest of circumstances. I could probably find a second job that’s compatible with that schedule. I’d rather not have my job(s) be my identity, though. So I put up with less than the American Ideal™ of living conditions, and I don’t think that’s a problem. I also don’t think it’s a problem if someone wished to work multiple jobs to get closer to that ideal, or even if they were already living that ideal but wanted a bit extra for “reasons”

          • “But this is an accurate model of reality for low-requirement jobs in developed countries?!”

            In the U.S. at present, about four million workers have wages at or below the federal minimum, the latter being presumably people to whom the minimum wage, for one reason or another, did not apply. That’s roughly four percent of all hourly paid workers, so about two percent of the labor force.

          • HeelBearCub says:

            Aren’t most of those with less than minimum wait staff in restaurants, whose actual take home is far higher? How are you coming up with that number?

          • “How did you come up with that number?”

            I googled it. Here.

  43. tgb says:

    Re: presidential longevity. What’s the correction for the fact that currently-living presidents were ignored? I’m sure there’s a standard survivorship bias correction to use here.

  44. jaimeastorga2000 says:

    Today on the libertarian side of Tumblr we have The Kowloon Walled City and the superiority of basic income to welfare programs and the minimum wage.

    And speaking of Tumblr, The Unit of Caring wants some SSC Trump supporters to answer a few questions. Anyone wanna take her up?

    • pku says:

      About the second link: They agree that minimum wage is below inflation rises and ridiculously below productivity gains, but then claim moving the money from corporate profits and executive pay to minimum wage earners wouldn’t even push it to inflation. This just doesn’t add up. For the executive pay part, I assume it’s due to some mathematical trickery where they just count one highly-paid executive at walmart. The second part is way shadier, in that they mix up “10% of corporate profits” with “10% of average minimum wage earner’s income.” Unless poor people’s income is somehow the majority of US GDP, this is ridiculous.

      (Raising minimum wage vs. eliminating it may or may not be a fantastic/terrible idea for other reasons, but that bit really makes me distrust the article).

      • There’s no trickery on the executive pay bit. Because the Wallmart business model is based on having huge numbers of employees to handle a huge number of different products there isn’t much money sloshing around to raise wages without also raising prices. And since Wallmart’s customers tend to be poor that’s not much of a solution.

        Really, the big increase in inequality in the US in recent decades isn’t about changes in the distribution of money within firms but instead between firms. The places you could find large piles of money laying around so that you could pay those Wallmart workers more are in companies like Apple which have relatively few employees but are making money hand over first. And Apple does pay it’s lowly support staff fairly good money because they might as well get the best janitors, but that doesn’t help the people working for Wallmart.

        The 10% thing is obviously a mistake but it looks like the classic sort of $1.10 baseball and bat “I stopped thinking about this too quickly” mistake, not dishonesty.

    • FacelessCraven says:

      “what policies do you think a president Trump would actually pursue?”

      I’m mainly hoping for a break from the foreign interventionism/adventurism consensus I see prevailing since the end of the Cold War. Past that, any breaks from the current bipartisan consensus on policy seem like good things.

      “what is your interpretation of why people who hate Trump hate Trump?”

      They think he’s a racist, sexist, etc. They think he’s erratic, an egomaniac, possibly megalomaniacal, and can’t be trusted with the civilian power of the presidency, much less the military or nuclear powers. They think he’s basically an offensive scumbag.

      “do you believe the things Trump says, and are there things he could say that in your opinion would disqualify him from the presidency?”

      I assume a lot of what he says is bluster, as evidenced by the fact that he’s quite comfortable contradicting himself on some issues. I think there’s a core of rhetoric that he hasn’t flip-flopped on, and it’s possible he does have some concrete values.

      Openly declaring his intention to start shooting wars with major world powers, or his intention to engage in offensive nuclear warfare would be a no-go. That’s about it.

      “do you think that your life will be better under Trump? what sorts of peoples’ lives do you think would be better under Trump?”

      I have no idea. I doubt any of the first-order effects of a Trump presidency will have much effect one way or the other, and certainly not in a predictable fashion. Most of what I’m hoping for are second- and third-order effects, primarily a stable resolution to the culture war.

      “someone comes back from the future with news of what the Trump presidency was like. what about that news could change your support of Trump?”

      News that Trump himself, directly, initiated a large-scale holocaust, nuclear or ethnic.

      • tumteetum says:

        You say…

        >They think he’s erratic

        Then you say…

        >he’s quite comfortable contradicting himself on some issues.

        So it appears you think he’s erratic too no?

        • FacelessCraven says:

          nope. The rest of the sentence provides clear context. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump flipflopped on abortion. I would be quite surprised if he flipflopped on the TPP. I think him starting a major war is significantly less likely than, say, Hillary or Jeb doing so, and ditto for a nuclear exchange. People who don’t support trump disagree with me on those assessments; they seem to think he’s erratic in foreign policy terms.

          • E. Harding says:

            Considering Trump’s promise that “we’ll make great trade deals”, I would not be surprised if Trump managed to pass half the TPP by stealth by the end of his presidency. Thomas Friedman, generally not very brilliant at all, wrote a brilliant piece on how Trump could advertise the TPP. It’s clear, though, that Trump has never liked NAFTA and opposes deals like it.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/opinion/let-trump-make-our-trans-pacific-trade-deal.html

          • tumteetum says:

            >nope. The rest of the sentence provides clear context.

            Well it says there’s a core he hasnt flip-flopped on. I’m just saying that if you agree that he’s “comfortable”(!) contradicting himself on some issues that would seem to constitute being erratic even if he does have a core of other things he’s consistent about.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @tumteem – There’s a difference between being erratic about how he uses words and being erratic about how he uses tanks and nukes. I was refering to the later, you’re conflating the later and the former. that doesn’t seem like a useful thing to do.

          • tumteetum says:

            @FacelessCraven

            Ok that wasnt clear to me, thanks.

          • Paul Barnsley says:

            Neither revoking trade deals nor restricting foreign policy adventurism seem like core parts of Trump’s pitch at all.

            As E Harding notes, his plan is better trade deals, which may well end up meaning the exact same trade deals with different adjectives.

            Similarly, there’s a lot of talk about stronger, tougher, responses to foreign wars, mixed in with the talk about isolationism.

            These seem to boil down to (deeply nonstandard) claims about technocratic competence, not about a bold shift in direction.

            What am I missing – how do we identify Trump’s philosophical core?

        • Deiseach says:

          All politicians do that. Big Topic of today wasn’t even a minor topic five years ago; five years ago Politician L followed the majority opinion and gravely opined that they would never support/turn against the position. Today it suddenly is Major Freedom Issue of Our Times and majority public opinion has changed, Politician L wants to be elected, they now gravely opine they will never turn against/support the position.

          Trump wibbled on something because focus groups or whatever showed wibbling would bump up favorability ratings? I may collapse on my fainting couch from the shock of hearing that!

      • He’s also a con man and a thief. Look at Trump University and his habit of not paying contractors.

        • Bassicallyboss says:

          Okay, sure, maybe, but this isn’t a debate. This is FacelessCraven answering TheUnitOfCaring’s attempt to seek information from supporters. Let’s not let it become an argument; there are enough opportunities to have those elsewhere.

        • Dr Dealgood says:

          So is it fair to assume you’re supporting Johnson then?

          In a Trump / Clinton race, to call just one of them out for being corrupt and amoral is revealing a rather serious blind spot regarding the other. I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to which of them has gained more from illicit deals but in any case that’s likely more a question of opportunity than willingness.

          • My current plan is to vote for Clinton because Trump horrifies me. Pennsylvania has some chance of being a swing state, otherwise I’d vote for Johnson.

            It’s plausible that there was something fishy about those cattle futures, but I care less about that sort of corruption than I do about ripping off vulnerable individuals. This may be a failure to think about systems on my part, but I also think Trump thinks on a grand scale in hunting for his own advantage that Clinton doesn’t.

          • E. Harding says:

            Nancy, why does Trump horrify you? And why doesn’t Clinton’s disastrous foreign policy horrify you? And Johnson’s an all-around ignoramus; why would you ever consider him?

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @E. Harding – I’m not Nancy, but Clinton is pretty clearly more of the same, and our current situation is not really describable as “horrifying”. trump is not more of the same, and many of the things he’s been accused of are horrifying. if you give credence to those accusations, seeing him as horrifying makes sense.

            Objectively, it’s obvious that Trump is easily the more risky candidate.

          • E. Harding:

            Why does Trump horrify me? Let help you a bit with modelling me.

            I am habitually polite. I’m not saying there’s no slippage, but it’s a pretty strong habit.

            I hate nastiness. I have a strong sense of “This is a human spirit. Do not bend, fold, spindle, or mutilate.” I don’t come on as strong about this as I might because of that habit of politeness, but Trump violates some principles I care about in how to treat people.

            Furthermore, in addition to racism/bigotry, he doesn’t seem to get that his policy proposals in re Muslims and Mexicans affect the quality of life of real people, and that people make plans which are affected by federal policies. He can go back and forth about what he says a lot more easily than they can change their plans.

            He’s in favor of torture. Clinton probably is, too, but at least she isn’t gleeful about it. I can always hope that hypocrisy gives a little leverage for changing behavior.

          • “And Johnson’s an all-around ignoramus”

            Assuming you don’t know him personally, how can you possibly know that?

          • E. Harding says:

            “and our current situation is not really describable as “horrifying”.”

            -In the U.S., for the most part, the situation is not horrifying (who knows; maybe it is, but it hasn’t enormously deteriorated since W left office). In the Middle East, a good part of it is (and has deteriorated since W left office), thanks to Obama’s policies.

            “Objectively, it’s obvious that Trump is easily the more risky candidate.”

            -No. Objectively, when you evaluate both candidates’ apparent foreign policies, Clinton is the more risky candidate.

            “Assuming you don’t know him personally, how can you possibly know that?”

            -That Aleppo comment really sealed the deal for me, man. And Johnson shows no awareness of libertarian theory, as well. What topic is Johnson not obviously an ignoramus on?

            “Furthermore, in addition to racism/bigotry, he doesn’t seem to get that his policy proposals in re Muslims and Mexicans affect the quality of life of real people,”

            -Why did Trump propose the Muslim ban? To improve the quality of life of real people. Why did Trump support prioritizing the deportation of violent illegal aliens, propose building a wall, and, crucially, NOT promising to deport (or kill) every last illegal alien residing in the US in his big Arizona immigration speech? Because he met with real people and digested their concerns.

            “Furthermore, in addition to racism/bigotry,”

            -What, exactly, are you talking about?

            Nancy, you are (mostly) treating Trump’s policies in a vacuum. He isn’t in one. There’s no point in analyzing Trump’s policies in a vacuum. Trump, in any objective sense, might be a bad candidate. But I’m reasonably sure he was the best candidate in either primary.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @E. Harding – ” In the Middle East, a good part of it is (and has deteriorated since W left office), thanks to Obama’s policies.”

            I would argue that invading Iraq resulted in a pretty serious deterioration as well. The middle east has been horrifying for a long time. I very, very much want it to be less horrifying, and think Trump might make it so, but life, for us, will go on either way.

            “No. Objectively, when you evaluate both candidates’ apparent foreign policies, Clinton is the more risky candidate.”

            I agree, but that is based on an assessment of where I think things are going long-term. My assessment could be wrong. Trump’s own supporters sell him as a high-risk strategy; see Scott Adams’ posts on the subject.

          • E. Harding says:

            Nancy, you’re right on PA having some chance of flipping Trump. The primary vote margin there was close:

            https://marginalcounterrevolution.wordpress.com/2016/09/24/trump-v-clinton-in-the-pennsylvania-primary/

            @FacelessCraven

            “I would argue that invading Iraq resulted in a pretty serious deterioration as well.”

            -In the short term, definitely. In the medium term, only as a result of interaction with Obama’s policies.

            “I agree, but that is based on an assessment of where I think things are going long-term.”

            -I think Trump’s a lesser risk both short- and long- term.

          • (About the claim that Gary Johnson is an ignoramus, I asked)

            “Assuming you don’t know him personally, how can you possibly know that?”

            (Response)

            -That Aleppo comment really sealed the deal for me, man. ”

            Then I’m an ignoramus too. I know that Aleppo is a city in the Middle East but I have not been paying attention to the details of the current Syrian war. Is familiarity with current hot news your mean criterion for whether someone is an ignoramus.

            I do, however, have a reasonably clear idea of who the Alawites are, which I wouldn’t assume is true of any of the candidates.

            “And Johnson shows no awareness of libertarian theory, as well.”

            That’s a more interesting point. My guess is that he is familiar with it, having been part of the movement for a long time. But he is deliberately presenting a very watered down version, I presume because he thinks the special circumstances of this election give the LP the opportunity to get a much larger vote total than in the past. I’m not sure that is the correct tactic, but it’s not obviously wrong.

            “What topic is Johnson not obviously an ignoramus on?”

            He has a Bachelor’s degree in political science. He knew enough about running a company to grow the firm he founded from one man to over a thousand employees. He knows enough about politics to have been twice elected governor by large margins as a Republican candidate in a Democratic state.

          • E. Harding says:

            @David

            “Then I’m an ignoramus too.”

            -And that’s OK. But you aren’t running for president.

            “I know that Aleppo is a city in the Middle East”

            -That’s way more than we realized Johnson knew about it.

            “Is familiarity with current hot news your mean criterion for whether someone is an ignoramus.”

            -I expect a presidential candidate to be in possession of the knowledge base necessary to be president, yes.

            He has a Bachelor’s degree in political science. He knew enough about running a company to grow the firm he founded from one man to over a thousand employees. He knows enough about politics to have been twice elected governor by large margins as a Republican candidate in a Democratic state.

            -So, American politics and business. That may be fully acceptable for a gubernatorial candidate. But a presidential candidate? I don’t think that’s sufficient.

            My guess is that he is familiar with it, having been part of the movement for a long time. But he is deliberately presenting a very watered down version,

            -My first instinct is to suggest that the watered-down version is what he actually believes. What’s the largest piece of evidence that contradicts this suggestion?

          • Irishdude7 says:

            @E. Harding
            “And Johnson’s an all-around ignoramus; why would you ever consider him?”

            He vetoed hundreds of bills as governor in an effort to prevent special interest provisions, increased spending, or increased taxes. If all Johnson did as president was veto 90% of bills coming out of congress (which more often than not make the budget situation worse and advantage certain favored industries or companies), he’d get my vote.

            His policy proposals are better than the Dems or Repubs: balancing the budget through a 20% reduction in federal spending, eliminating federal departments, eliminating the IRS and going to a national sales tax, supporting free trade, stopping foreign interventionism and regime change, legalizing marijuana (and therefore deescalating the drug war), criminal justice reform, and a general respect for personal and economic freedom.

          • Deiseach says:

            Then I’m an ignoramus too. I know that Aleppo is a city in the Middle East but I have not been paying attention to the details of the current Syrian war. Is familiarity with current hot news your mean criterion for whether someone is an ignoramus.

            Familiarity on the part of someone presenting themselves as a serious candidate for the highest office in the land, on a matter which directly involves the nation and which, if they by some miracle did get elected, they would be required to not alone be aware of but have policy on and sign or break agreements – yes, I expect that.

            The US and Russia worked together to broker the latest ceasefire which has more or less collapsed, and Russia is now in a war of words with Western powers over whether or not it is preferentially helping Assad, to the point of what are being called war crimes.

            I think this is something likely to have an effect where the US is concerned. I would expect a candidate for the presidency to have some opinion on what the hell is going on. And to have an opinion, that candidate needs to have some knowledge of what is currently going on, which includes knowing the name of Aleppo. Even giving the most benefit of the doubt – that the name was pronounced strangely or the question sprung upon him – the “wazzat?” reaction does not sound as if he had done any preparation on it. Johnson may well have other matters he considers much more important, but Syria is not something that the US might get involved in; it already is involved in it, and even if Johnson’s opinion is “get shot of the whole bloody mess”, he has to sound as if he knows what he is talking about.

            And he did not sound as if he knew what he was talking about.

            Imagine if the interviewer had asked him “And what about the GDP?” and he answered “What’s a GDP?” Would you have confidence in him as a policy maker to vote him into power?

          • Ed says:

            The thing you need to understand about E. Harding is that he is a paid Russian troll. Once you know that, his comments make a lot of sense.

          • Ed

            “The thing you need to understand about E. Harding is that he is a paid Russian troll. Once you know that, his comments make a lot of sense.”

            Why do you think so?

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            The thing you need to understand about E. Harding is that he is a paid Russian troll.

            Uh oh guys, Correct The Record has found SSC.

          • Deiseach says:

            The thing you need to understand about E. Harding is that he is a paid Russian troll.

            Wait – we can get paid for commenting on here? Where do I apply? 🙂

          • “-I expect a presidential candidate to be in possession of the knowledge base necessary to be president, yes.”

            If he gets elected, which nobody expects, it will be almost four months till he is president, by which time the hot topic in the Middle East may well be someplace other than Aleppo.

            You are buying the PR version of what a President does. Given the current scale of the Federal government, no human being is competent to know everything relevant and run it himself. Most of what he needs is the ability to select and control a team of people, including ones who specialize in foreign policy issues. The fact that he was successful first as founder and CEO of a firm and then as state governor is evidence that he has that ability.

            You are taking seriously the pretense of politicians to know all sorts of things that they studied up on, like a student cramming for an exam, before they had to pretend to know them. Biden’s slip on FDR and television was a revealing case of the illusion dropping for a moment, revealing just how ignorant a top level politician can be.

            “My first instinct is to suggest that the watered-down version is what he actually believes. What’s the largest piece of evidence that contradicts this suggestion?”

            A fair question. All I can say is that I heard him give a talk to a libertarian audience a few years ago. I wasn’t struck by any obvious signs of deviationism then.

          • Matt M says:

            David,

            Are you at all familiar with Tom Woods’ analysis of Gary Johnson, particularly in regards to the issue of whether or not he is actually familiar with the standard tenets and principals of libertariansim?

            If so, do you agree or disagree with Woods?

          • onyomi says:

            “You are taking seriously the pretense of politicians to know all sorts of things that they studied up on, like a student cramming for an exam, before they had to pretend to know them.”

            I think this pretense is reinforced by the new “fact-checking” fetish prevalent on the left. Related, I can’t believe anyone buys team-Hillary’s suggestion that moderators should “fact-check” the debates as anything more than a naked partisan ploy. Because you know what that means is “contradict Donald’s exaggerations and any statistics he comes up with while keeping silent whenever Hillary is talking.”

            If a candidate tells a real whopper, it should be up to his/her interlocutor to call them on it. The notion of a debate “moderator” “fact-checking” the participants is based on two false premises:

            1. That there ARE objective facts about most politically relevant issues not subject to interpretation, contextualization, or wide variation depending on which study you’re citing

            2. That mastery of a bunch of facts is either important to voters or to being president

            Regarding the lack of importance of “facts” for voters, one can debate whether or not this is a good thing, but I think it’s clear the vast majority don’t wait to decide until after soberly poring over canddiates’ detailed policy proposals.

            Of course journalists and experts can and should “fact check” candidates’ statements after the event, but having the debate moderator selectively interject him/herself as some kind of encyclopedia would clearly not improve the quality of the debate, which is really more a chance for voters to get a sense of how the candidates handle themselves and think on their feet than of their grasp of minutieae.

            Regarding the importance for being president, I agree with David that no human can have in his/her head all the basic facts or expertise necessary to be president of 300 million people and that ability to pick advisors and make informed decisions on the basis of their advice is more important.

            Otherwise, Ken Jennings should be president for life (maybe he would actually be better than both candidates currently on offer, but not because he is the all-time Jeapordy champion, but because he seems like a smart, reasonable-ish guy).

          • HeelBearCub says:

            @David Friedman:
            Yes, a rapidly changing world necessitates a president being able to absorb the relevant facts about a situation so that they can properly respond to the communications they are receiving from their cabinet and staff.

            Seeing whether they can absorb those facts and respond appropriately during a campaign is one data point in considering how well they can do it as president.

            Of course it’s arguably more relevant that the president surround himself with competent staff. But here again, the staff of a campaign, and how well they insulate the candidate from making informational mistakes is also a good data point.

          • Urstoff says:

            No doubt Trump would have absolutely nailed that Aleppo question…

          • onyomi says:

            @HBC

            “Seeing whether they can absorb those facts and respond appropriately during a campaign is one data point in considering how well they can do it as president.”

            What Urstoff said.

            And also, the major party candidates start getting all kinds of security briefings and meetings with top-level people which third-party candidates don’t get, so Johnson’s command of details is less reflective of how well he’d grasp them during a theoretical Johnson presidency than are Clinton’s or Trump’s.

          • Matt M says:

            “1. That there ARE objective facts about most politically relevant issues not subject to interpretation, contextualization, or wide variation depending on which study you’re citing”

            I’ve seen a bunch of people on Twitter pro-actively tweeting at the debate commission and at Lester Holt that the ONLY valid measure of unemployment is from the BLS statistical report and that any other citation is invalid and cannot be allowed.

            They are actively, ahead of time, pressuring the moderator to call Trump out, not just on “if he says this lie correct him” but “if he tries to cite any source other than the one we approve of correct him”

          • Deiseach says:

            If he gets elected, which nobody expects, it will be almost four months till he is president, by which time the hot topic in the Middle East may well be someplace other than Aleppo.

            I wish to God, but I don’t expect Syria to be sorted out that fast. And the US is still going to be involved unless it walks away completely and yields the field to Russia.

            As for candidates only ginning up on hot topical matters so they can do the “I’m glad you asked me that, Bob” canned answer – sure, of course they do.

            But Johnson is a professional politician – I was not aware that he had been Governor of New Mexico and got re-elected – so this is an even bigger blunder on his part: if his campaign team hadn’t prepared a cheat sheet of likely questions and answers based on What’s Big In The News Today, that’s not very efficient of them and as a politician who ran and succeeded in getting elected, surely he encountered the same thing on the local level (“So, Governor, what’s your opinion on the Noxious Weeds Act” or similar).

            If they did and he ignored it, that’s a bad decision on his part. He’s running for the big job now, and if he intends this to be a serious candidacy, rather than merely “Let me get my name and the party into the news”, then he has to start thinking on the national and international scale – and if he can’t switch gears up from local politicking to that level, then he needs to learn how or drop out of the race.

          • Matt M says:

            D,

            Until very recently, GJ was only getting interviews from incredibly sympathetic sources (such as say, reason.com). My guess is he was wholly unprepared to be treated like a serious candidate (which includes receiving designed-to-stump “gotcha” sort of questions)

          • “Are you at all familiar with Tom Woods’ analysis of Gary Johnson”

            Not very. I have just listened to the beginning of Woods’ talk on the subject at the LP convention. Given my preference for consequentialist arguments, telling me that Gary doesn’t base everything he says on the non-aggression principle doesn’t convince me that he doesn’t understand libertarian ideas.

          • “and if he intends this to be a serious candidacy, rather than merely “Let me get my name and the party into the news””

            I can’t read his mind. But I plan to vote for him, and it’s not because I think he has any chance of carrying California.

          • HeelBearCub says:

            @Urstoff @onyomi:
            Part 1 – Know what the issue is

            Part 2 – Have a coherent and substantive position on the issue

            “Bomb/knock the shit/hell out of them” is not a coherent and substantive position. The follow on position of “make sure we stay and get the oil” is slightly more substantive and coherent, but worse for that coherence and substance.

          • houseboatonstyxb says:

            @ Nancy
            He’s in favor of torture. Clinton probably is, too, but at least she isn’t gleeful about it.

            Nope, she’s against it.
            https://youtu.be/t1c10kwZWL4

          • Vorkon says:

            I find all of the concern over the Aleppo comment to be absolutely ridiculous.

            Here is a transcript of the entire interview, which nobody ever seems to be quoting from a point any earlier than the Aleppo question, itself:

            http://time.com/4483779/gary-johnson-aleppo-transcript/

            It goes from a conversational discussion about how he might effect the dynamics of the election to, seemingly out of nowhere, a question about Aleppo. Johnson clearly thought the hosts were trying to continue the line of discussion that they had been on for the entire interview thus far, and once he realized “no, we’re talking about Syria now” he pivoted to the topic at hand.

            Sure, you can make the argument that a President needs to be quicker on his toes, and better able to adjust to a quickly changing discussion like that. That’s a very good point. But the prevailing narrative, that he “doesn’t know what Aleppo is,” is utter nonsense. He just had no idea his hosts had suddenly shifted to foreign policy out of nowhere, and was trying to figure out what something called “Aleppo” had to do with how many votes he would or wouldn’t draw away from which candidates.

            I have no doubt whatsoever that Gary Johnson knows as much or more about the situation in Syria than any commenter here. His poor reaction to an unexpected question might not bode well for his ability to roll with the punches of the next political opponent who tries to make him look stupid, which is certainly an issue a President will have to deal with, and I can certainly understand why some Libertarians would take issue with him being mostly a vaguely Libertarian-ish-leaning Republican rather than a hardcore ideological Libertarian, but basing your decision on whether or not to vote for him on the idea that he “doesn’t know what Aleppo is,” strikes me as foolish and gullible.

            The mainstream political machine has been doing everything in its power to make both him AND Jill Stein look foolish every chance they can get, sometimes warranted, but oftentimes not. In this case, they finally found some good ammunition, which they realized would resonate with people outside of the “he isn’t Libertarian enough!” crowd for once, and have milked it for all it’s worth ever since. I won’t try to say that there aren’t valid reasons not to support Johnson, because there certainly are, but unless you’re specifically referring to his ability to deal with hostile journalists, the Aleppo question shouldn’t be one of them.

            Edit: Also, for what it’s worth, “what would you do about Aleppo” is an idiotic question. His attempt to turn it into a discussion about the Syrian conflict as a whole was the appropriate response. There’s no solution to the situation in Aleppo, specifically, that doesn’t require solving the situation in Syria, as a whole. If anything, I think he was giving his interviewers too much credit, by assuming that they were asking him a question which WASN’T stupid, and thus assuming that they must be asking about something he didn’t know about. It’s a stumbling block I often run into myself in conversations where I would otherwise be well-informed, so I can totally sympathize with the guy for making the same error. Admittedly, I’m not running for President, but still…

          • Deiseach says:

            My guess is he was wholly unprepared to be treated like a serious candidate (which includes receiving designed-to-stump “gotcha” sort of questions)

            But he ran for governor of New Mexico and won, and ran for re-election and won. Surely somebody asked him (middling) tough questions during his campaigns? Especially in the first one, when he was running against the incumbent and was of a different party?

            Some of it is plainly brain blep of the kind that happens to us all when we’re put on the spot or our brain is going faster than our tongue, but the Aleppo thing does seem to show that he hasn’t switched his thinking from ‘local’ to ‘national and international’ level, which is a flaw, particularly since this is his second go at running as a presidential candidate.

          • houseboatonstyxb

            Thanks for the Clinton anti-torture link. I’m pleased that she’s so firmly opposed, though I’d want to know how she intends to enforce an anti-torture policy.

          • Matt M says:

            D,

            That was over eight years ago, and who knows what the media landscape in New Mexico is like – certainly not me. Maybe he faced serious scrutiny in his gubernatorial campaign, maybe he didn’t.

            What we do know is, he hasn’t faced any serious scrutiny since at least 2008. Human nature to get lax about things in that sort of situation.

          • Who wouldn't want to be anonymous says:

            I am given to wonder how much of “being presidential” or “a serious candidate” is from the candidate, and how much of it is from having a presidential sized staff.

            The key takeaway from this article for me was just how many people we’re talking about. Setting aside of course the transparent dig at Trump.

            Personally I doubt GJ has the staff to make him a serious candidate. Which makes it hard to get the funding to pay the staff to be a serious candidate.

          • John Schilling says:

            I am given to wonder how much of “being presidential” or “a serious candidate” is from the candidate, and how much of it is from having a presidential sized staff. […]

            Personally I doubt GJ has the staff to make him a serious candidate.

            But if that’s the standard, why is it even relevant? You’re basically saying that a “serious presidential candidate” is one that can afford the support team for a piece of elaborate performance art that is only vaguely related to the actual performance of the duties of office, and that candidates should properly be judged by the quality of the show.

            Granted, probably some voters will never see past the performance, but then some voters will never see past the parenthesized letter at the end of the candidate’s name. If this is what decides elections, sorts the “serious” candidates from the rest, that’s more of a statement about the voters than about any candidate.

          • keranih says:

            I am given to wonder how much of “being presidential” or “a serious candidate” is from the candidate, and how much of it is from having a presidential sized staff.

            Once you get even to the mayorship of a small town, it’s not what you do, but what you do with the people you control. Which includes “what sort of people can you attract to your orbit, who will do what you tell them to do?”

            And so – for me – it’s not the number of people, but the quality, the gravitas, of the leader’s subordinates. Someone who is a quality leader in their own right, but has placed themselves subordinate to the top guy – to me, that’s the mark of a top guy who can Get Stuff Done.

            Of course, you really only figure this out from working w/people, not from watching them on tv screens.

          • Who wouldn't want to be anonymous says:

            @keranih

            I would say that all else being equal of course gravitas matters. But in order for all else to be equal everybody needs to be able to pay the high caliber lieutenant’s salary requirements. They are still going to have mortgages to pay and kids to send to college no matter how much they may like the candidate.

            Like, if I am trying to choose between working for Google, Microsoft, or working on a campaign; and two of them are offering 250k plus stock options and a golden parachute, but the third can only offer “zero, plus it would be really sweet if you payed your own travel” … What do you really think the outcome is going to be?

            @John

            I think your characterization as performance art to be lacking.

            A lot of people consider having our presidential candidates be “like” our presidents to be a bona fide job requirement. This isn’t totally bonkers; a large portion of a president’s job is to just hang around being presidential, after all.

            But presidents have a huge staff supporting them in their hanging around. Consequently, in order to be “like” a president, candidates need a large staff to support them in hanging around acting presidential. This also isn’t totally bonkers; the ability to manage the staff is a bona fide job requirement.

            The problem is that being able to pay the staff isn’t strictly a job requirement. It is a loose a measure of popularity, but it results in a catch 22 kind of thing.

          • TheAncientGeek says:

            ou are buying the PR version of what a President does. Given the current scale of the Federal government, no human being is competent to know everything relevant and run it himself. Most of what he needs is the ability to select and control a team of people, including ones who specialize in foreign policy issues.

            Presidents need to interact with other world leaders, so it is useful to know who they are and who they lead. Actually, political leadership is disanalogous to to company leadership in a bunch of ways…there’s much more spin and PR, there’s much less secrecy and more scrutiny, you’re in charge of people you didn’t hire and can’t fire, and so on.

          • bluto says:

            The latest one is probably worse. On the spot he couldn’t name a single foreign leader he respects, worse he didn’t claim that he doesn’t respect any of them (a dodge but better than claiming an Aleppo moment).

          • erenold says:

            Agreed, bluto. This one is genuinely quite unarguable. It’s not in itself a reason for no one to vote for him – there have been many good reasons to do so raised in this thread – but let us have no more pretending that Mr. Johnson could conceivably have any actual foreign policy expertise, or even general knowledge apparently. He has none.

            Why don’t the Libertarians just run the other guy next to him? He seems minimally competent.

          • qwints says:

            Weld could never have gotten the Libertarian nomination.

      • The Most Conservative says:

        I’m mainly hoping for a break from the foreign interventionism/adventurism consensus I see prevailing since the end of the Cold War. Past that, any breaks from the current bipartisan consensus on policy seem like good things.

        Why do you think that any break would be a good thing?

        I’m not a historian, but this is my current understanding: The last 50+ years have been a historically unprecedented period of peace and prosperity not just for the US, but for the entire civilized world. The best illustration might be the “long peace” visualization at the end of this video: http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ Post World War II, Eisenhower got elected president specifically to maintain American military bases all over the world and have USA play the role of world cop. This seems to have gone ridiculously well.

        In the 60s and 70s, people wrote songs like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVErDEf04-0 about the impending doom of nuclear war. “If we make it we can all sit back and laugh”, Lake sings. And somehow we managed to dodge that bullet… shouldn’t that be considered a smashing policy success?

        If the last 50 years don’t validate Eisenhower’s decision, and all the work that’s gone in to preventing nuclear proliferation, what would?

        Due to a ridiculous stroke of luck, the English settlers who came to North America 400 years ago built not only the most powerful, but also the most benevolent empire the world has ever seen–an empire that has arguably never lost a war. (If you disagree the US is unusually benevolent, name a single historical empire that provides protection and defends trade routes but does not demand tribute. I’m pretty sure the US is the only one! We let our provinces govern themselves, despite the fact that out troops have been stationed in their territory for decades.)

        Understanding society is hard. If things ain’t broke, don’t try to fix them! That’s why I’m against changing the US electorate through immigration, and also against voting for wrecking balls like Donald Trump.

        The only safe changes are ones that we already know are workable (e.g. turning back the clock on American culture and returning to traditional gender norms, drastically decreasing government spending to return us to the level seen in previous decades, etc.)

        • FacelessCraven says:

          @TMC – “I’m not a historian, but this is my current understanding: The last 50+ years have been a historically unprecedented period of peace and prosperity not just for the US, but for the entire civilized world.”

          I don’t think it can last forever, and I don’t like the failure modes that seem probable. I’m not confident that our effect on the world is net-positive; we’ve made an awful mess of a bunch of different countries. We do not seem to be good at exporting democracy. We do seem to be pretty good at creating failed states. I would like us to stop doing that.

          Whether this is the best possible strategy, I don’t know. I don’t think anyone else does either.

          • The Most Conservative says:

            We do not seem to be good at exporting democracy. We do seem to be pretty good at creating failed states. I would like us to stop doing that.

            I agree–I don’t see attempts at nationbuilding as being key to the strategy. Promising to defend Japan and South Korea with our nukes does seem pretty key.

        • E. Harding says:

          @The Most Conservative

          This is similar to the arguments the Communists used for keeping the Soviet system afloat around c. 1985. They were also, incidentally, right in the short term. Which, I think, is better than can be said of your argument against Trump.

          • The Most Conservative says:

            Re: Soviet system, see http://lesswrong.com/lw/lw/reversed_stupidity_is_not_intelligence/ With the Soviets, you could argue that their people saw a superior, working Western system and wanted to switch to it. I don’t think you can easily make a similar argument here. If you want to run experiments, I’m all in favor, but don’t do it in the biggest, most critical country that seems to have one of the best systems.

            I think China’s route out of communism was a smart one. Experiment with special capitalist zones; expand them after the experiment goes well. Their current system looks basically like capitalism, but with the added advantage that they worry less about communist airheads trying to start a revolution since they’re officially communist.

            What sort of near-term horrors do you forsee if the US stays on its current track? Terrorism is the only thing that comes to mind off the top of my head. Terrorism of course kills fewer people than car accidents, but I’m in favor of public hysteria regarding terrorism because antiterror measures are also helpful to guard against existential risks. However, I don’t think the marginally increased level of terrorism hysteria from a Trump presidency outweighs the other risks. The guy has an instinctively non-diplomatic personality, and being diplomatic is important for, well, global diplomacy.

            I thought some about what could conceivably a demonstrably better system than the US, and the answer that came to mind was Singapore. Check out this conversation between Obama and the Singaporean prime minister. Some highlights:

            (1) Singapore has extremely close ties to the US; even though Singapore’s policies are outside America’s Overton window, and the Singaporean leader sees fit to remark on America’s changing demographics (racist!), the closeness of the alliance demonstrates that American and Singaporean rulers are actually relatively close philosophically speaking.

            (2) Obama agrees with me that things are going great in the world: “We have benefitted from enormous peace and prosperity around the world, an unprecedented period where the great powers were not engaged in conflict, in part because of growing interdependence.” Singapore’s PM agrees with me that America is a remarkably benevolent force on the world stage: “there are other powers, other centers of creativity and technology and science and progress, but yet [America is] a unique participant with a history of contributing to the world not just for your own interest but because you believe that the world should be a better place for all countries.”

            (3) Singapore’s Prime Minister is vastly more diplomatic than Donald Trump. He suggests that the US election is overheated and also subtly implies that electing Trump would be a mistake, though hopefully not a big one:

            So that’s the crucial factor over the next 50 years. As for what we do over bipartisan links, if there’s a U.S. leader who is more closed off and wants to turn inward, I don’t think this is the right forum or indeed there is any right forum for me to talk about U.S. politics in public at this moment. We will work with whoever is the U.S. administration, whichever party. We’ve worked with five Republican and four Democratic administrations. And our experience of American elections, presidential elections, has been that many pressures build up during the election campaign. And after the elections, in a calmer, cooler atmosphere, positions are re-thought, strategies are nuanced, and a certain balance is kept in the direction of the ship of state. It doesn’t turn completely upside down.

            The Americans take pride in having a system with checks and balances so that it is not so easy to do things, but it is not so easy to completely mess things up. (Laughter.) And we admire that and sometimes we depend upon that. (Laughter.)

            (4) Singapore’s PM favors the TPP–in fact Singapore is where the TPP originally started. Obviously Donald Trump is against it. Hard to see how this makes them part of the same geopolitical school of thought.

            This article provides further support for the idea that Singapore is anti-Trump.

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @TMC – “What sort of near-term horrors do you forsee if the US stays on its current track? ”

            Nuclear war with Russia, due to brinkmanship by both sides.

          • The Most Conservative says:

            You’re worried about nuclear war with Russia even after they withdrew from Syria? What do you see on the horizon that might precipitate a nuclear war?

          • FacelessCraven says:

            @YMC – “What do you see on the horizon that might precipitate a nuclear war?”

            American foreign policy has had the goal of containing Russia and breaking its regional power status since the end of the cold war. I think this policy is stupid and dangerous, because it drags us into conflict with Russia over things that are none of our business. If Putin has already reneged on the Soviet “no first use” policy toward nukes, and has stated that if necessary, he’d be willing to use tactical nukes to compensate for Western dominance on the battlefield. I could see us doing the same if a hostile superpower looked like it was getting its boot on our neck.

            Generally, this is my problem with the Pax Americana. Foreigners don’t like being ruled by us, and they’re never going to stop trying to get out from under us, and our efforts to keep them there appear to do a whole lot of damage, and keep ratcheting up the risk.

          • John Schilling says:

            What sort of near-term horrors do you forsee if the US stays on its current track?

            Financial and economic collapse on the level of Greece, if not Venezuela. The United States is a very rich nation, but one accustomed to living beyond its means on the basis of holding a credit card with low rates and an unspecified credit limit that we haven’t reached yet. Barring revolutionary change, we will. I’d put better than even odds of that happening in the next thirty years, and it is as likely next year as thirty years from now.

            This is not something I expect either Trump or Clinton to do anything useful to stop, of course.

          • Civilis says:

            American foreign policy has had the goal of containing Russia and breaking its regional power status since the end of the cold war.

            I think this seems highly unlikely, given the fractured nature of American governance. G. H. W. Bush, Clinton, G. W. Bush and Obama have all had different opinions on Russia. Romney was routinely derided for thinking Russia was becoming a threat again.

            Looked at from a practical perspective, the consistent goal of the US with regards to foreign policy (beyond keeping the US safe) is keep up the public relations facade that things are as nice and peaceful and happy as possible. Ideally, we’d want everyone to be nice and happy, because when things aren’t nice and happy, the US and Western governments get pressured to do something about it. So whether things are actually nice and happy doesn’t matter as long as nobody really finds out about it; appearances matter, not reality.

            With the Soviet Union gone, we could pretend Russia was nice and happy. They had more freedom. They were on our side, nominally, against Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War (an example of all the now nice and happy people ganging up on someone who very obviously was still a bad guy). Admittedly, this meant sweeping the increasing repression and what happened in Chechnya under the rug, but it’s not the only bad things we’ve covered up in the name of niceness since the end of the cold war. As long we could pretend Russia was nice and happy, we didn’t care.

            What happens in Russia stays in Russia. What happens in the Ukraine and Georgia, not so much. The news couldn’t pretend what was going on there was nice and happy, because people in the Ukraine and Georgia managed to make the news with how not-nice and unhappy things were, and that it was Russia’s fault, not theirs. For this, the truth doesn’t matter, the narrative does; Russia is bigger, therefore it’s the bad guy.

            The news couldn’t pretend what was going on in Syria was nice and happy, either. Assad revealed himself as an obvious bad guy. The west tried offering outs so we could get back to ‘nice and happy enough for the middle east’. We ignored crossing the red line. We offered a ‘pretend to get rid of your chemical weapons’ out. We recently brokered a cease fire. Assad doesn’t care about nice and happy, he cares about staying in power, and Russia cares about their port.

            Russia, being practical, doesn’t care about niceness and happiness. They’re not alone in this, but they’ve gotten to the point where they don’t care what people think, which naturally puts them in opposition to the people that think everything should be nice and happy.

          • Jaskologist says:

            @John Schilling

            Financial and economic collapse on the level of Greece, if not Venezuela [in the next 30 years]

            How would you recommend somebody hedge against this? We’ve previously discussed preparing for TEOTWAWKI, where you recommended stockpiling friends. How about this scenario, which presumably lacks roving militias?

          • Lumifer says:

            Financial and economic collapse on the level of Greece

            I don’t know if I would speak of the “collapse” of Greece. Most everyone there became poorer, but their political system is functioning as usual, the buses are running, there is no starvation, etc. Greece isn’t Germany, but it has never been Germany.

          • Anon. says:

            their political system is functioning as usual

            You say that like it’s a good thing.

          • Lumifer says:

            I’m not saying that Greece is in a good shape — I’m saying it’s in its usual shape :-/

            There might be a bit of an optical illusion here because in the years between entering the eurozone and the debt crisis Greece was doing exceptionally well. It just reverted to type.

          • John Schilling says:

            How would you recommend somebody hedge against [financial collapse]? We’ve previously discussed preparing for TEOTWAWKI, where you recommended stockpiling friends. How about this scenario, which presumably lacks roving militias?

            The network of friends is still a good idea, of course, particularly ones with couches you can sleep on.

            I’d start with enough cash – actual physical money – to live for a month and fly to another continent, not necessarily in that order. This is a subset of the six months’ emergency savings recommended on general principles; you want a fraction of that to be immune to any damn fool thing the fiscal Powers That Be may do to your credit and/or bank accounts. US dollars are probably OK; the fPTB will be pulling out all the stops to preserve the value of the US$ on paper for a few months more even when the writing is clearly on the wall.

            Next, if practical live in a house or condominium that you own, if not free and clear then one with a 15- or 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Make inflation your friend, and make it as hard as possible for anyone else to make a legal or moral case for kicking you out of your home.

            The Mormon approach of keeping a year’s supply of food and other consumables in that home is another good step. Depending on your cooking and eating habits, this may be a simple rotating pantry rather than a dedicated stockpile of preserved food.

            Solar panels on the roof of said house, but only if they are close to being economically viable in their own right.

            Skills that you are confident you can barter with people who live in your community. This one can be huge, and shouldn’t be neglected just because it isn’t a material thing.

            Low on the list but still worth mentioning are the survivalist/prepper staples of a rifle/shotgun, a pistol, and a car that can be converted to run on biodiesel (or an electric one if you’ve got the solar panels). No roving militias, but possibly armed neighborhood watches in place of now-unpaid police, and an advantage to being on the inside. Also an advantage to retaining mobility if the gas station is only open two days a month.

          • erenold says:

            @The Most Conservative:

            Singapore is indeed in every single way the anti-Trump land. They, as a positive rule, seek to elect the most mandarin-like, technocratic, academically excellent rulers they can find. Their people are personally circumspect, socially diffident folk, generally mistrustful of “braggadocious” characters. Their system is hypersensitive to race-baiting demagoguery, and Donald Trump would never in a million years get anywhere near the gears of power in their country. Whether this is a good thing for them, is for them to decide.

            None of this, however, changes the fact that their Prime Minister should mind his own bloody business. And so should Justin Trudeau, Monsieur le French Ambassador whatever his name is, and everyone else. Singapore in particular should come in for special criticism here because their national sport appears to be exploding in self-righteous indignation whenever a guailo so much as comments on their political or legal systems, yet here they are doing exactly the same thing or worse – trying to actively influence a sovereign nation and ally’s election.

            If nothing else, it’s stupid, because its so obviously counterproductive. Not one single American is going to care what the Singaporean PM thinks of Trump/Clinton, nor should he. If anything, this will probably play to Trump’s strengths as a Patriotic American Who Takes No Shit, and, in the 45% chance Trump actually wins, get Singapore into a world of hurt subsequently.

          • The Most Conservative says:

            @erenold – if you actually read the minister’s comments, they are quite diffident. Other world leaders have been more strident I think.

            @FacelessCraven – There’s a case to be made that Trump would *increase* the odds of nuclear war involving Russia as well http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12247074/donald-trump-nato-war

          • erenold says:

            @The Most Conservative

            Just to clarify, I’m not referring to their PM’s comments in the joint press conference with Obama. He’s been commenting on the US election, on record, to top US newspapers, for a long time now, calling it an ‘extreme menu of choices’ (but I think, based on the timing, that he had Sanders in mind rather than Clinton, though). In fact, he called it the most extreme choice in America’s entire history, and unsubtly warning Americans that Trump=unqualified=populism=Hitler.

            http://www.pmo.gov.sg/mediacentre/pm-lee-hsien-loongs-interview-wall-street-journal-wsj

            “PM: You believe in your system, with checks and balances, you can have somebody who is far from ideal become the President and the system will prevent him from doing harm. And so far, it has worked in the sense that you have had Presidents who have not measured up, but after some time, well, the world comes back. But I do not think you have ever had such an extreme menu of choices as you have in this election, choices which are likely to end up on the ballot paper. If you do, there are precedents. In Asia, you can write those off as unstable, immature democracies, but in Europe, before the War, such stress led to very extreme outcomes in Germany, in Italy and in the end, you had a very unhappy result. “

            I’ll admit that in all honesty, I think this PM of theirs is probably a very bright, serious guy. I would probably vote for him if I had a chance. And truthfully, I share his assessment of your election almost to the letter.

            But shutting up about it on the record, even if asked, really doesn’t seem so hard, does it? He’s not even like Enrique Nieto where Trump has been bashing his country and Nieto rightly feels some need to respond.

            “No, I have no comment to make about what is solely a matter for the American electorate alone to decide.” Done. Why the need to comment at all?

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            You can say that you are rebalancing towards Asia, but is it words or is it deeds? And if in fact, you are rebalancing towards Asia with aircraft carriers and aeroplanes, what is it in aid of? All your partners in Asia-Pacific have China as their biggest trading partner. The Australians, the Japanese, the South Koreans, most ASEAN countries, including Singapore since recently. So, to develop a trans-Pacific relationship, you have to deepen the trans-Pacific trade and investment ties, which have done so much to benefit the people of both sides. If you are not prepared to do that, then what do you mean when you say you are deeply invested and want to do more together?

            you have a population which is anxious, tired and does not want to bear any burden and pay any price, and that is very difficult for whoever becomes President. You are tired of expending blood and treasure, you are uncertain about jobs and competition. To say that you need free trade and you need to be present in far-flung places, it is true, but it is very hard to make the argument and I do not think many of your legislators are doing that.

            I think they would be more comfortable doing that if it is an open region and there are other participants and they can maintain an omnidirectional policy. If you only have one relationship, well, then between being a friend and being a client, the line is grey.

            God this is a refreshing read. Open and honest, but veiled, like reading an old book. And the quirks of Singaporean English are strangely appealing.

            Maybe Trump doesn’t have to reign for 40,000 years. What if we just imported an emperor from Singapore?

          • erenold says:

            Well, it’ll cost you, for one thing. 425% what you’re currently paying Obama, to be exact.

            http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/singapore-pm-lee-hsien-loong-remains-highest-paid-country-leader-1-7m-annual-salary-1493952

            (Do note the ‘clean wage‘ policy, though – that guy gets paid a large, transparent lump sum all at once, but no ‘second home’ expenses and other complex add-ons etc. No pension either.)

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            That sum is exactly what Hillary was paid to “write” a book that sold 3,000 copies. I’d help pay it myself for a man like Lee.

          • jaimeastorga2000 says:

            Well, it’ll cost you, for one thing. 425% what you’re currently paying Obama, to be exact.

            From “Reactionary Philosophy In An Enormous, Planet-Sized Nutshell”:

            Would the Czar be corrupt and greedy and tyrannical? Yes, probably. Let’s say he decided to use our tax money to build himself a mansion ten times bigger than the Palace of Versailles. The Internet suggests that building Versailles today would cost somewhere between $200M and $1B, so let’s dectuple the high range of that estimate and say the Czar built himself a $10 billion dollar palace. And he wants it plated in solid gold, so that’s another $10 billion. Fine. Corporate welfare is $200B per year. If the Czar were to tell us “I am going to take your tax money and spend it on a giant palace ten times the size of Versailles covered in solid gold”, the proper response would be “Great, but what are we going to do with the other $180 billion dollars you’re saving us?”

        • baconbacon says:

          Pax Americana is wildly overstated (though it is still probably better than many other empires) for a few reasons. First is selecting the end of WW2 as a start date, the US tried to drive world policy after WW1 and failed (in terms of creating a peace) spectacularly. Starting after WW2 is like saying “I have an excellent driving record from age 17 onward” when you ran over 5 people driving at age 16″.

          The second is that most analyses focus on wars between states, the majority of violence since WW2 has occurred between a state and its “people”. If China had been split into several factions post WW2 and then fought a series of wars that killed 30 million people, the “peace” no longer looks so good, but because China was “unified” and 30 million died of starvation and disease this doesn’t get counted as a mark against peace by many historians (ditto for Stalin’s violence in Eastern Europe, or the ongoing dictatorship in North Korea).

          • “the majority of violence since WW2 has occurred between a state and its “people”.”

            What happened in China was mostly peaceful, with the exception of parts of the Cultural Revolution, although it resulted in a lot of deaths.

            But there have been a series of wars in Africa in the post WWII period, primarily internal, that have killed very large numbers. I think the estimate for the Biafran war alone is about a million.

          • baconbacon says:

            I’m not sure of your definition of peaceful. The Chinese Civil war continued for ~4 years after WW2 and caused a significant number of casualties. The great famine was caused by the Great Leap Forward in which land was stripped (via force or threats of force), and the Cultural Revolution was all violence and intimidation. The methods were somewhat different than Stalin used, instead of sending secret service to arrest and deport opponents and their famiies/supporters, Mao basically gave carte blanche to anyone against their neighbors. If you lableded them a dissident you could strip their property away, have them publicly humiliated, abused or tortured without fear of repercussions from the state.

        • eccdogg says:

          I don’t know if our involvement is net good or bad. I can see evidence on both sides and really think the issue is too complicated to model.

          I do know that it is expensive both in lives and treasure. And I don’t think one country that represents ~17% of the world GDP ought to be responsible for ~35% of military spending.

    • E. Harding says:

      How do you reply to Unit of Caring? I’ve never had a Tumblr account; the whole place just seems to be a hive of scum and villainy. And the recently-revealed Yahoo hack does not give me much confidence.

      I think mostly “what policies do you think a president Trump would actually pursue?”

      -Cut taxes; let Russia defeat the Islamic State. I have no clue what he’d do on the Yemen issue; probably no different than Clinton. Try for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, which will be rejected by Palestine. Appoint conservative Supreme Court picks, as vetted by Mike Pence. Don’t bother doing anything with Ukraine; let the Europeans deal with it. Get NATO members to pay their fair share. Punish companies trying to move jobs overseas (though not sure whether Ryan would agree). Not touch Social Security or Medicare. Support a pretty large infrastructure plan. Not sure what he’d do on Libya, but probably nothing too stupid. Be tough on Iran, including shooting down their boats in international waters if they make rude gestures. This will cause some international incidents, but, like that time Bush I shot down an Iranian civilian plane, this won’t be too big a deal. He will apologize for nothing. Keep, and possibly expand, the NSA’s capabilities. Trump will, sadly, be too deferential to the Jewish State. Overall, a mediocre president, but almost certainly way better than Rubio, Clinton, or Kasich, and more realistic than Cruz on foreign policy. Strong border security; no amnesty. A more sensible policy on Muslim immigration.

      “what is your interpretation of why people who hate Trump hate Trump?”

      -The most obvious reason to dislike Trump is his endless inconsistency. But I really don’t understand nuts like Eric Erickson and Ross Douthat, who supported Mitt “windsock” Rmoney, a bought robot if I ever saw one. It seems too many college-educated people care much more about style than substance and don’t really understand American Politics 101. The college-educated generally have disgusting political preferences, preferring dangerous bought robots like Rubio and boring people who won’t change a thing in a positive direction like Kasich to original thinkers who reject the errors of Bushism like the Donald and true conservatives like Cruz. I do not believe most people claiming to oppose Trump out of principle are the least bit principled.

      “do you believe the things Trump says,”

      -On occasion. His statements must, as with all politicians, be judged in context. Some are true, some are false.

      “and are there things he could say that in your opinion would disqualify him from the presidency?”

      -Of course. If he said something like “We’d be looking to appoint Supreme Court justices like Stephen Breyer and Merrick Garland” (who said that?) half my reasons for voting for him would disappear. The same would be the case if he said anything much more dangerous than Obama on foreign policy.

      “do you think that your life will be better under Trump?

      -Sure. Maybe the manufacturing productivity stagnation of the past half-decade will end under him. Maybe not. Who knows? I suspect Trump will be a one-term president and that there will be a mild recession under him.

      “what sorts of peoples’ lives do you think would be better under Trump?”

      -Coal miners; those benefiting from protectionist policies. Those disliking political correctness.

      “someone comes back from the future with news of what the Trump presidency was like. what about that news could change your support of Trump?”

      -Again, lots. The options are limitless.

      • Bassicallyboss says:

        Tumblr pages typically have an “Ask” button in the heading, which allow visitors to send text messages to the author. No account is necessary to use it, but it does seem to have a fairly restrictive (~300) character limit.

      • Deiseach says:

        What flabbergasts me is the view on the (can we call it the left?) side that Trump actually cares a button about abortion. I realise the view is that he is pandering to the Religious Right, but what the hysterics don’t seem to realise (because as far as they’re concerned, all religious practice is the same) is that his appeal is greatest amongst what could be called ‘cultural Evangelicals’ (in the same way as Kaine has done the whole “I’m a devout Catholic but I think the Church is going to change its mind on homosexuality and women priests and I’m not going to push my personal religious beliefs about abortion on the public but I’m for the death penalty even though the popes are against it” – he has a 100 per cent rating from Planned Parenthood) who aren’t too big on church going but who would have been brought up in that kind of milieu. Amongst committed religious, including church leaders, he has little to no support and a lot of criticism.

        I don’t imagine Trump cares a button whether his employees (male or female) are using contraception, other than if some of them get knocked up it means they’ll be taking time off to have the baby and that interferes with their productivity. Yet to read the more fraught appeals, a Trump presidency would mean every woman in America reduced to being barefoot and pregnant. I think he put out the abortion message as a vote-grabbing gimmick, not realising that it won’t grab him as many votes as he thought. And I really can’t see him putting any kind of restriction on contraception or abortion if he got into power.

        • Corey says:

          It’s assumed Trump would rubber-stamp anything from a Republican Congress, which is very likely to restrict contraception and abortion. As for whether he’d make executive actions (appointments, regulations, etc.) to restrict abortion, well, he probably wouldn’t need to.

          • Matt M says:

            Why didn’t such restrictions occur when GWB had the executive and legislative branch (and supreme court and majority state governments)?

          • Corey says:

            Good question. The national GOP wasn’t as coherent on abortion then, I guess. Hasn’t “abortion should not be allowed in rape/incest cases” gone from fringe to mainstream in that time? Most of the movement has been at State level, since the 2010 GOP sweep.

          • Deiseach says:

            It’s assumed Trump would rubber-stamp anything from a Republican Congress, which is very likely to restrict contraception and abortion.

            Again, I don’t think so. Easy way for President Trump to gain some pragmatic co-operation from the Democrats? Leave anything to do with access to contraception alone. Tell his Republican supporters that it’s in order to reduce abortion, because (as we get constantly told) in order to reduce the need for abortion, access to cheap, plentiful and a range of choice contraception will prevent unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

            And you can easily unbundle “I don’t personally support abortion” from “I think access to family planning is making a responsible choice” and “I don’t have the right to interfere in people’s private sex lives”.

            I think President Trump would be much more interested in striking a deal where he could get a Supreme Justice selection who was sound on contraception/abortion rights (to please the Dems and which he personally doesn’t care a straw about) and who was likely to make decisions on trade, tax etc. that favoured Trump’s economic views. If he presented it as “you can oppose Justice Buggins and then you don’t get anybody you like because I’ll find some way of sticking you with a candidate you hate, or you can not-oppose Justice Buggins, who won’t touch Roe or anything to do with it, and you can have your victory there. So – abortion rights or tax cuts for big business, which is more important to you, and given that you’ve spent this entire campaign crying over the horrible pro-life threat I represent, what are you going to tell your base when I offer you a pro-choice judge and you refuse them?”

          • Brad (The Other One) says:

            @Matt M

            Because the republican establishment doesn’t actually want to get rid of abortion: having abortion as a wedge issue in election years to rile up the apparatchiks and useful idiots means it’s pragmatically useful for it to be around.

          • Corey says:

            @Brad: That is indeed the conventional wisdom about abortion opposition, but I think it’s not true anymore, because today’s politicians come from yesterday’s base. That is, I think current pro-life politicians sincerely oppose abortion on moral grounds, rather than for cynical reasons.

          • Wednesday says:

            It’s assumed Trump would rubber-stamp anything from a Republican Congress, which is very likely to restrict contraception and abortion.

            You do realize that literally no one wants to restrict contraception, right? Infamous Catholic boogeyman Rick Santorum voted to fund a federal program to distribute contraceptives.

            Also relevant: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/243112-senate-republicans-call-for-over-the-counter-birth-control

        • What sort of Supreme Court judges do you think Trump will push for?

        • Jordan D. says:

          Realistically, the only important question for the President related to abortion is the tenor of Supreme Court justices they’d nominate. Presently, there are a majority of states which would produce bans or stringent restrictions on abortion, but they’re restrained by the holding in Roe v. Wade and related Supreme Court cases. Since the only way to overturn those holdings is either to pass an Amendment (not very likely) or get a majority of Justices willing to reverse those cases, a single-issue voter ought to care only that Trump is more likely to nominate Justices who would overturn Roe than Clinton is.

          So whether Trump cares about abortion is irrelevant- the only question is if you believe him when he says that he’d appoint extremely conservative Justices as opposed to his sister or something.*

          *Note that Trump’s sister is actually an accomplished jurist and, if not really on anyone’s shortlist for the spot, would hardly be the strangest nomination we’ve ever seen.

          • Deiseach says:

            a single-issue voter ought to care only that Trump is more likely to nominate Justices who would overturn Roe than Clinton is

            But is he? I don’t think he is – why would he? “Oh, to appease his Religious Right base!” But that’s not his base – not the real ‘religious right’, and even in their hey-day of influence, no Republican presidents did such a thing.

            I took his comments on abortion to be the usual cynical vote-grabbing tactic: promise much, deliver little, on something that personally doesn’t matter to him as policy but is what (is assumed to) play well with a large block of voters. In power, it’s “we can’t do it because of legal stuff”.

          • Jordan D. says:

            (Note: I have no desire to vote for Trump, so what I’m saying may be biased against him)

            Well, here’s the thing. It wouldn’t shock me if Trump threw his Heritage-approved list out the window immediately. I don’t really think he cares about ‘conservative jurisprudence’ or the interests of the religious right as such. Furthermore the things he seems to have a personal interest in- reducing the scope of First Amendment protections, increasing the applicability of eminent domain- are things a lot of the people on his lists aren’t likely to go for. A President Trump might very well end up appointing a truly eclectic group of Justices that nobody really wants.

            On the other hand, there hasn’t been a lot of sign that Trump really cares very much about the Supreme Court. He might very well appoint whoever from his list because it’s simply not interesting to him.

            BUT- Clinton is 100% not going to appoint anybody willing to overturn Roe. If someone is voting and that issue is what matters to them more than anything else, they have a higher chance of getting what they want with Trump than they do with Clinton.

            Now, if you’re not a single-issue voter, you can certainly say ‘Trump has a better chance than Clinton of having Roe overturned, but it’s far from a sure thing, so I should factor all of these other policies into the mix.’ That’s legitimate. But single-issue voters do exist.

            As for why past presidents didn’t get Roe overturned by appointing Justices who would do it- well, I mean, they did. It isn’t always obvious how any of the Justices would vote on any issue, but Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas have all either come out against it or been in favor of narrowing the holding in the past. It’s just that since Kennedy wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe, they never had a majority. Possibly a President Trump wouldn’t deliver that majority either, but it’s certainly more likely than Clinton doing it.

          • Matt M says:

            Worth noting that the “real religious right” consists of a lot of NeverTrump people who favored Cruz over him for the exact reason that they don’t think he’s actually pro-life at all

          • sourcreamus says:

            I believe him and its 75% of the reason I plan on voting for him. I don’t think he personally cares about the supreme court or just about any policy. He is mainly in politics to satisfy his personal vanity and not for any ideological purpose. Given his lack of interest in policy he would mostly rely on others for names to nominate and any republican he would ask would have a list of good judges for him to choose from. He already released a good list of candidates and while I don’t think he personally knew about any of them it was a sign he is listening to the right people.

    • keranih says:

      Re UoC’s questions:

      I think mostly “what policies do you think a president Trump would actually pursue?”

      Self-aggrandizing, taking global holidays, and basking in the glow of bootlickers. Also attempting to prove that a President really can’t do much themselves to influence the nation. More seriously, I think he’s going to try to address immigration and business regulation, and I don’t expect him to get particularly far on either.

      “what is your interpretation of why people who hate Trump hate Trump?”

      …yah know, I started typing out a long answer to this, and then realized that actually when *I* want to know why someone dislikes Trump, I ask them. My mind reading *sucks*. So find someone who hates Trump (shouldn’t be a long walk) and ask them.

      “do you believe the things Trump says, and are there things he could say that in your opinion would disqualify him from the presidency?”

      I don’t think he believes all the things he says, and what’s more, he expects us to see that. Which in terms of Presidential politics is a bracing gust of fresh air. He could say that he is under the age of 35 and/or that he’s not a US citizen. Aside from that I’m not aware of qualifications that we’ve strictly enforced.

      “do you think that your life will be better under Trump? what sorts of peoples’ lives do you think would be better under Trump?”

      Emotionally and in terms of professional satisfaction, yes. I also think that it’s likely people would be marginally safer as the recent uptick in violence and crime dampens down again. In terms of financial/material wealth, I expect environmental and regulatory creep to not increase as much under Trump as it will under Hillary, and so we should see better financial outcomes across the country.

      “someone comes back from the future with news of what the Trump presidency was like. what about that news could change your support of Trump?”

      Completely useless information without someone coming from the counter-factual future where we could see what a Hillary presidency was like. I’d like to think that I’d have refused to vote for a president who put American citizens in internment camps…but FDR also got us through WWII, and that’s not nuthin’.

      • anonymous now says:

        “I don’t think he believes all the things he says, and what’s more, he expects us to see that.”

        It doesnt seem possible that Trump could be communicating something he expects to get across through so much misinformation.

        http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/2016-donald-trump-fact-check-week-214287

        It doesn’t seem possible that a rational actor could read that report and speak of voting for Trump with such equanimity.

        I guess I’m wondering if you havent sealed yourself off from bad news about Trump?

        • Civilis says:

          At this point, reports like that are useless. They either favor your preconceptions, or they’re put out by a biased source. The Politico one is particularly bad, as it’s a soundbite vs soundbite argument. Most substantial political debates and arguments can’t be reduced to easily quotable paragraphs for speeches.

          For me, the questions asked were meaningless. I don’t know Trump’s policies will be better than Hillary’s. I despise both candidates. I’m likely voting for Trump (if the state looks close) because of the total degradation in the rule of law over the last eight years of Democratic Party rule of the federal executive branch, of which Hillary’s recent scandals have just been the most visible. Somebody needs to hold the government to task and actually investigate the serious allegations against it. With a horrible non-Democrat in office, both sides might actually do so.

        • keranih says:

          Anon now –

          News reports, I read.

          Opposition research channeled directly from Hillary’s campaign to MSM, nsm. That was a hit job.

      • Gabe says:

        I don’t think he believes all the things he says, and what’s more, he expects us to see that.

        This is kinda convenient for him, though. This way, he can say everything, and then people can pretend he really believes whatever subset they most like.

        Does he feel that Mexicans and Muslims are ruining America, or is he just pandering to people who think that? Answer: whichever would make you vote for him.

    • hlynkacg says:

      What would be the best way to go about replying to UnitofCaring if one doesn’t have a Tumblr account and isn’t interested in getting one?

      • Bassicallyboss says:

        Tumblr pages have an “Ask” button that can be used by non-account holders to send messages. There seems to be a character limit, however.

    • knownastron says:

      The Kowloon walled city is a incredibly interesting place. I have family from Hong Kong that have visited the walled city back in the day. They described it as if it was just another visit to the grocery store. There was no mention of a fear for their safety or of the Triads.

      • onyomi says:

        Visiting Chungking Mansions recently I felt like maybe I was experiencing a little taste of what the Walled City must have been like. Not sure if the comparison is accurate.

    • sohois says:

      That second link provides an interesting insight into debate on the tumblr platform. The libertarian lays out their position fairly dispassionately, and I think gives a decent account of what they believe and why they believe it is a good thing.

      Not being too familiar with arguments for or against libertarianism, I decided to check out the reply from the original debater. This person describes themselves as talking about leftist policies, so I must assume they are some kind of socialist? In any case, they appeared to attempt to reply, but very quickly became so bogged down in rage that any semblance of reason was thrown out the window. They could barely begin to write their counterparts before being overcome with desire to call their opposite number, the positions and anyone who supports them “fucking stupid”. Why were they fucking stupid? I honestly have no idea, as they seemed to think it was self-evident that this was the case.

      I don’t have a particular leaning in this fight, but it really does not reflect well on this socialist/anti-libertarian’s position that they can’t articulate an argument without devolving into a frothing rage.

      • Gazeboist says:

        “Socialist” is not a word that has much meaning. “Social democrat” is probably (but not necessarily) a better description of what you mean.

      • thirqual says:

        One of the problems there: the best case scenario is that socialjusticemunchkin/Promethea is very fond of exploiting one failure mode of discussions among rationalists and adjacents, ie pulling out numbers and using them without checking if they apply or if they are correct as long as they support her arguments, and then back-pedaling a minimum or vacating the discussion when this is pointed out. It is effective as long as no-one looks into it (and I usually don’t, she’s on my blacklist because of that behavior), and of course dishonest and infuriating.

        The second problem is that jeyseic does not adhere at all to the local rules of engagement, and is discussing stuff with Rat_Tumblr because of epic anti-SJ rants and an interesting take on disfranchised whites and dependency on public services and help.

    • TomFL says:

      I’m not really a Trump supporter, but more like a Trump sympathizer.

      “what policies do you think a president Trump would actually pursue?”

      Reversal of the Obama agenda of the last 8 years in many specific areas. Enforcing the border better, reducing immigration. Slowing down globalism that is affecting fly over country more than the coasts. Forcing the EPA to stop effectively legislating. Conservative justices. Stop pandering to identity politics. Make Europe and NATO pay their share for protection. Stop acting like the US is the UN and create policies that are negotiated with our interests as the first priority.

      “what is your interpretation of why people who hate Trump hate Trump?”

      They seem to be quite open about this. Racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, liar, stupid, fascist. This isn’t cherry picked rhetoric from dubious sources. All you need to do is read the NYT or WP every day. Trump is a target rich environment and deserves much of the criticism. What went wrong here though is the criticism went over the top with name calling and turned into a screeching choir of virtue signalling. There is zero tolerance for Trump support in academia and the media. Trump actually supports several policies liberals can agree with but these are rarely covered or mentioned. It really got out of control when Clinton and the media et. al. started attributing all these characteristics to Trump supporters and assuming malicious intent and moral defects. This is an own goal that they may soon regret.

      “do you believe the things Trump says, and are there things he could say that in your opinion would disqualify him from the presidency?”

      Mostly bloviating. He is playing by a different set of rules than the standard politically correct gotcha journalism standards. Most people I think were already sick to death of this with politicians being so defensive as to make sure they never said anything that could be interpreted as offensive to anyone. The media is like a big swarm of yellow jackets waiting for a misstatement. What disqualifies someone is a voter’s choice. There are not universal standards. I don’t judge him by the standards a liberal would. Trump’s most redeeming characteristic in my view is that he doesn’t give a f*** what the thought police think. That is a refreshing and welcome change. If you can’t see this, then you will never understand Trump support. He has gone too far with this many times, see gold star families.

      “do you think that your life will be better under Trump? what sorts of peoples’ lives do you think would be better under Trump?”

      Yes/no, and I don’t/do think it will get better under HRC as well. I’m just not a big believer in presidential determinism. My life is mostly controlled by….me. To the extent that nibbling around US policy goes, it will marginally change for me either way. The president is one person with limited powers, there are 300 million people in the US who in total make vastly more difference to how things in the US economy work. Zero presidents are responsible for iPhones, Google, Facebook, the computer revolution, etc. Trade protectionism may marginally help the working class in the short term.

      The belief that the current establishment does not care about the working class and lives in their own bubble is pervasive and the establishment has handled this exceedingly poorly. The fact that the voters are willing to vote in the Trump truck bomb and let if off in Washington DC should send a clear message. Message not received yet, time to start listening. People don’t understand it because they are too busy killing the messenger.

      “someone comes back from the future with news of what the Trump presidency was like. what about that news could change your support of Trump?

      I think there is a 99% chance that the answer will be “another run of the mill president with some successes and failures”. The problem with these hypotheticals is one has to play out separate timelines with both HRC and Trump doing different things and then compare. Bad things happen (9/11, Iraq, Syria, Financial crisis) and leaders have to make decisions with incomplete data and the other side gets a vote. A near nuclear war scenario is where crazy Trump might go wrong, but Kennedy played nuclear brinkmanship exactly the way many imagine Trump would. He is less predictable and that can work for you and against you. It has risks.

    • onyomi says:

      Also regarding Kowloon Walled City, the surrounding area under British control hardly had the worst government in the world. Quite the opposite in fact (though the PRC did).

      Reminds me of the strong reaction against “charter cities” which always particularly infuriates me. Because, on some level, politicians know that, given the chance, huge chunks of their population will move anywhere with less government control. Of course they don’t say that. It’s all “neo-colonialism!” “national sovereignty must not be abrogated!…”

    • gbdub says:

      So I saw an article at The Atlantic the other day that said of Trump, “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally”.

      And that seems pretty insightful – I’ve seen a number of times where Trump says something hyperbolic or sarcastic, and the press falls all over itself “fact checking” the literal truth of that statement rather than addressing the underlying thought of the statement. Meanwhile his supporters are eating up the sentiment and not too concerned on the factuality. The most prominent examples I was thinking of offhand were the “Obama/Hillary founded ISIS” statement and recently the Skittles thing (my Facebook feed had people actually doing mathematical analysis on the numbers he used, and outrage over “People are not Skittles!”). The Atlantic article mentions Trump saying that the living conditions in predominantly black communities are “worse than Afghanistan”, another good example.

      Anyway this highlights a frustration I’ve had with some of the coverage – “Demsplaining” the falsity of Trump’s outrageous statements and ignoring why the sentiment is appealing, when the sentiment is the whole damn point. Rationality and fact-checking is not what Trump is trying to appeal to, and anyway his supporters don’t trust the fact-checkers and find them condescending, so it’s counterproductive. If you want to beat him, take the sentiment seriously and dare I say charitably.

      • Matt M says:

        Another phrase I’ve heard used to describe this (not sure where, possibly here) is that “the left brought fact-checkers to a culture war”

        • Deiseach says:

          The left-leaning online media and commentators are gravely explaining (or worse, simply asserting) that Pepe the Frog is a white supremacist neo-Nazi symbol, and has been all along. All I knew about it was that it was a “dank meme” (and damn annoying seeing it popping up everywhere).

          If I am to believe the earnest pro-Clinton supporters, everyone on Tumblr who posted it in some variation was actually signalling their support for the KKK and wishing for the return of Hitler? Which is where I throw my hat at it.

          • HeelBearCub says:

            Rachel Maddow seemed to put it in appropriate context when she covered it on her show.

            I also saw another written (liberal) take that covered it in more detail, although it perhaps gave to much credence to someone who was specifically claiming that he, as a white supremacist, was specifically trying to take back the Pepe meme from the main stream.

          • keranih says:

            HBC –

            Could you lay out Maddow’s reasoning here, and/or why you find it compelling? I am not following the whole frog = Hitler/KKK thing.

            (Last I checked, frogs = French.)

          • hlynkacg says:

            Know your meme.

            …Though I don’t know where the white nationalist bit comes from besides some guy on twitter.

          • HeelBearCub says:

            Maddow’s reasoning was basically that Pepe is innocuous, but that white supremacists have adopted using him, including explicitly saying that they do use him.

            Then when you look at the source of the specific use of Pepe that Trump, Jr. tweeted out, it comes from avowed white supremacists.

            Here is the segment. It’s not a good explainer on Pepe as an overall meme, just why it’s fair to look at HOW white supremacists’s use Pepe.

          • Gazeboist says:

            As far as I can tell, Pepe’s neo-Nazi symbolism starts here. It’s both interesting and horrifying to see a self-described 19-year-old parodying cultural appropriation rhetoric as he describes his (and others’) efforts to deliberately turn Pepe into a white nationalist icon and watch the reporter not get it.

            edit: Is there some other thing besides the Maddow clip that goes through the timing? Where did the clip that she showed come from? When did that Q&A happen?

          • keranih says:

            Yeah, her explaination owes a lot to “you know who ELSE was a vegan?!?!? And loved his dog??!?!?!”

            srsy, wtf? This makes just as much sense as V’s army of anarchists all wearing the same mask and marching in lock step.

          • hlynkacg says:

            Funny thing from my perspective is that Pepe and Brett (aka Dog and Frog) were staples of barracks graffiti back in the mid-late oughts. If this is true, half black guys in my Det. were secretly white supremacists. 😛

      • Aegeus says:

        I’m willing to forgive hyperbole, but at some point I have to say “Then what the hell does he believe?” Is the wall he wants to build a literal wall? Is he planning to literally bomb ISIS? Is he planning to literally pull out of NATO and literally break our trade deals? Is he planning to deport illegal immigrants literally, or is that just a metaphor?

        Trump’s own backtracking has made it worse. Sometimes he says that his statements were “sarcastic” or just “suggestions,” sometimes he doubles down and says “No, I meant what I said.” Sometimes he does one, then the other. How am I supposed to trust anything he says at this point?

        Basically, I think that the media is going after him because Trump has worn out his benefit of the doubt. He’s made so many crazy statements that the media no longer knows what’s serious and what was just hyperbole. Which is kind of a problem when your job description is reporting the facts. So they’ve chosen to draw a line in the sand and say “That’s it, no more hyperbole, we are going to hammer on every little thing you say until you show you have at least a tiny amount of respect for the truth.”

        And in their defense, what else can they do? Their job is to fact-check people and keep them informed, and he’s not giving them any facts to work with, just various forms of “Yay, Trump!” But they can’t do nothing, either – if you just report what a politician says without context, you’re not doing your job, you’re just giving them a megaphone.

        If Trump says “My tax plan will save us a billion dollars” they can say “But according to this analysis, it’ll cost us twice that.” But if Trump says “Conditions for black people are fucking terrible,” that’s not a true-or-false statement You can’t say “But according to this analysis, conditions are merely ‘slightly crappy.'” There’s no way to argue with sentiment. You can argue facts, you can argue what policy actions to take in response to those facts, but you can’t control how someone feels.

        So, even though it’s really annoying in this case, I don’t want to abandon the norm of “Things that politicians say must have some sort of relationship to reality.” That’s an important norm to have.

        EDIT: This Vox article has a pretty good analysis of why the media has such a problem with Trump’s approach: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/16/12484644/media-donald-trump

        • Orphan Wilde says:

          There’s no way to argue with sentiment. You can argue facts, you can argue what policy actions to take in response to those facts, but you can’t control how someone feels.

          I’m vaguely disturbed by this block of text for reasons I am having trouble specifying.

          • Aegeus says:

            Disturbed by what it says about my thought processes, or disturbed by what it says about politics?

            (On reflection, “can’t” is probably too strong a statement, since spin doctoring is a big part of politics, and that is basically “trying to change how someone feels in response to your proposal.” But it’s a lot harder to change a narrative than it is to report facts.)

        • gbdub says:

          I agree (and dislike) that sometimes Trump tries to have it both ways – he was being literal if you like what he said, rhetorical if you don’t – but I also think media outlets have on many occasions been seemingly deliberately obtuse about things in order to bash a more uncharitable interpretation. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

          I feel like if Trump said “Obama is a jackass” we’d immediately get a Politifact article assigning 4 pinnochios to the statement and a 500 word explanation of why Barack Obama is in fact human and not a donkey, or indeed any member of the Equus genus.

        • TomFL says:

          At this point it is the gift that keeps giving. The media has affirmed what many already believed, that they are en masse on one side of this election. If 42% of the electorate is willing to vote for Trump and the media just can’t figure it out, I suggest they start talking to someone else besides themselves to find the answers.

        • Tseeteli says:

          I’m willing to forgive hyperbole, but at some point I have to say “Then what the hell does he believe?” Is the wall he wants to build a literal wall?

          I don’t think he has specific policy beliefs. Instead (in as far as he’s consistent*) he has policy directions.

          The Wall is an image he’s using to convey his preference for increased restrictions on immigration.

          I’m not sure it’s all that different than what politicians do normally. Typically, we see a slogan (“Universal Heathcare”) and then a policy proposal that most people read, or really be able to evaluate (11M+ words of heathcare reform bill).

          I think the typical voter is already voting based on the slogan. The policy proposal itself seems kind of secondary.

          * Trump, specifically, is kind of all over the place. I’m steelmanning his tactics a bit.

          • The Nybbler says:

            Yes and no. The wall is certainly a symbol for his opposition to immigration and hardline stance on illegal immigration. But it’s also an actual wall. Imagine how much government money could go to Trump-affiliated construction companies to build it….

      • TomFL says:

        Sometimes I really wonder if anyone believes all this alleged secret signalling to the Trump base to appeal to their nativism, racism, etc. Having a left pundit explain what Trump “really meant” is almost always laughable. To say they extend zero charity to Trump or his supporters is an understatement. There have been a few articles that have rung true to what I think Trump support is all about, but the media seems remarkably hesitant to point that social science magnifying glass inward.

        This is the one that seems most on point in my opinion:

        Brexit Is Only the Latest Proof of the Insularity and Failure of Western Establishment Institutions
        https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-insularity-and-failure-of-western-establishment-institutions/

      • The Nybbler says:

        In the case of the black communities “Worse than Afghanistan” claim, it’s not so much that you can’t argue with the sentiment, but that arguing with the sentiment (if you’re on the left) leaves you arguing with your own side (in particular, with Black Lives Matter).

      • Fahundo says:

        I think the “Obama founded ISIS” one is a bad example since even Trump’s surrogates didn’t seem to understand what he meant there.

        Demsplaining

        Please don’t.

        • Edward Morgan Blake says:

          Demsplaining

          Please don’t.

          Only if you call out every bad use of the term “mansplain” everywhere. Until then, it has a meaning which is clear, obvious, useful, and hilarious.

          I think we have seen the formation of a new word constructor, similar to putting the suffix “-gate” on things. The suffix “-splain”. It’s doubly fun because it immediately creates its own ironic opposite.

          • Fahundo says:

            Only if you call out every bad use of the term “mansplain” everywhere

            Mansplaining is a term, that as far as I can tell, just means “you have the facts on your side, but I still get to declare that you were wrong anyway.”

            I’m not going to call out every instance of its use everywhere because I can’t possibly be aware of all of them.

            If Demsplaining is anything like mansplaining, using it basically means you automatically lose the argument.

          • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

            For whatever it’s worth, I’m pretty sure it was used ironically.

          • Anonymous says:

            Mansplaining is a term, that as far as I can tell, just means “you have the facts on your side, but I still get to declare that you were wrong anyway.”

            It was originally coined to describe something that actual happened. A woman who actually wrote a book on a particular subject was at a cocktail party and some jackass started telling her what was in her book (that he didn’t realize she had written) based on some vaguely remembered New Yorker story. Many other women recounted having similar experiences where men just assumed they didn’t know anything about anything and would enjoy being lectured at by them.

            Now in … certain subculture … this may seem like no big deal because they are filled with this very same type of asshole — the guy that thinks he is an expert on anything and everything and is sure to let you know it at length. And since these certain subcultures are largely male dominated anyway, it doesn’t seem to be a man / woman thing so much as a jerk / non-jerk thing.

            But in at least some sub-cultures, that happened to be gender integrated, it does tend to be a man / woman thing and so the coining captured something that actual exists and is real.

            How it mutated in certain online spaces into a general purpose insult is both unfortunate and entirely to be expected. Online is all to often terrible.

          • lvlln says:

            But in at least some sub-cultures, that happened to be gender integrated, it does tend to be a man / woman thing and so the coining captured something that actual exists and is real.

            The issue is that the above was asserted to be true without any attempts at finding evidence to support it. That there exist some women who have experienced being condescendingly explained something they already know about by a man is obviously true. But the term “mansplain” carries with it much more than that, including the idea that either men do this to women more or worse than women do it to women, or that men do it to women more or worse than women do it to men. And while we might have mountains of personal experiences that swear that this is the case, all those mountains amount to nothing in terms of evidence actually indicating that it is the case.

            So “mansplain” never mutated, it has never been anything other than a bludgeon for shutting people up. That’s not to say that men condescendingly talking down to women isn’t a real problem that exists and should be addressed. It’s just that “mansplain” is clearly attempting to make it specific to just that combination, without justifying the specificity.

          • Anonymous says:

            And while we might have mountains of personal experiences that swear that this is the case, all those mountains amount to nothing in terms of evidence actually indicating that it is the case.

            You may find this essay interesting: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/

          • lvlln says:

            You may find this essay interesting: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/

            That’s one of my favorites of Scott’s essays! I did indeed find it very interesting. Completely irrelevant for this conversation thread, though, unless you’re trying to make the claim that any given demand for rigor is an isolated demand for rigor. Which strikes me as a fully general argument against ever having to provide any rigor whatsoever.

          • Mansplaining has happened to me, in the fairly specific sense of a man telling me his version of feminism (he’s in favor of it– he think men have messed things up so badly that we should have women in charge for a while) and not listening to anything I said on the subject.

            I don’t use “mansplaining” because it seems to me that it brings in gender issues in a way which isn’t remotely useful, and it’s better to address specific flaws in arguments. I may start addressing habits of just taking up time through redundancy.

            I feel compelled to note that on NPR call-in shows (time is at a premium), it’s typically men who start by laying out their theory of what’s going on (a theory which is in no way unusual) before they get to their point.

          • Anonymous says:

            @lvlln
            Can you point to any other neologism ever whose coiner, or anyone else, produced the type of evidence you are demanding for ‘mansplain’?

          • Jiro says:

            He doesn’t have to show you another neologism that has the same type of evidence, because it is possible that he is consistent in his demands for rigor but all the neologisms are pretty bad, so by using consistent standards he rejects all of them.

            I can’t think of any such neologism that makes any sense; they do seem to be pretty much all bad from where I am sitting.

          • houseboatonstyxb says:

            @ Edward Morgan Blake
            I think we have seen the formation of a new word constructor, similar to putting the suffix “-gate” on things. The suffix “-splain”.

            Yes, ‘-splain’ as a generic constructor, hopefully serving the need of ‘Tell your grandmother how to suck eggs’.

          • “A woman who actually wrote a book on a particular subject was at a cocktail party and some jackass started telling her what was in her book (that he didn’t realize she had written) ”

            Oddly enough, I was once in the jackass role in a similar interaction.

            But the author whose work I was describing to him was male.

          • Yrro says:

            I think it’s pretty clear that “mansplaining” is a common failure mode for some men’s communication. Most women socialized in our society feel no need to share their “theory of everything” with anyone willing to listen. Many men do.

            What I’m less clear on is that this is a specific failure mode when a man is talking to a woman… in my experience the listener has little to do with it. I get “mansplained” to all the time — I often “mansplain” or am “mansplained” to myself by other men… because there’s a fine line between “mansplaining” and “sharing interesting and novel new insights and knowledge.” Usually the heuristic is “I thought this was novel when I heard it” not “I think you’re ignorant.”

          • The Nybbler says:

            The term “mansplain” isn’t limited to that scenario. It can be applied any time a man is talking to a woman. In particular, it can be applied in a meta way. The woman complains that she’s in a sexist environment because a man (call him “Bob”) condescended to her. Another man, Bill, says that no, Bob condescends to everyone, male or female. Now Bill is guilty of “mansplaining”.

          • Anonymous says:

            @David Friedman

            Oddly enough, I was once in the jackass role in a similar interaction.

            But the author whose work I was describing to him was male.

            @Yrro

            What I’m less clear on is that this is a specific failure mode when a man is talking to a woman… in my experience the listener has little to do with it.

            Suppose for the sake of argument that this is true. That targets are roughly equally likely to be of either gender. Nonetheless if the perpetrators are very disproportionately likely to be men, is “mansplain” an unfair coining?

            Take “manspreading” for example, it doesn’t imply that only women are inconvenienced by someone taking up a lot of room on the subway by spreading out his legs, only that men are overwhelmingly the ones that take up a lot of room on the subway by spreading out their legs. (Yes, I’m aware that there are all sorts of other ways to take up a lot of room on the subway.)

            Also, keep in mind what I said about subculutres:

            Now in … certain subculture … this may seem like no big deal because they are filled with this very same type of asshole — the guy that thinks he is an expert on anything and everything and is sure to let you know it at length.

          • houseboatonstyxb says:

            @ Jiro
            I can’t think of any such neologism that makes any sense; they do seem to be pretty much all bad from where I am sitting.

            (Proud Clintonista here.*) I think most neologisms are quite useful, at the beginning and, hopefully, at the end of their cycle.

            1. used usefully, for a meaning that needed a name, and with clear definition (definition by example or origin story, eg ‘-splaining’).

            2. stretched, widened

            3. used where they don’t add anything but just signal something, no longer usable for 1 or 2.

            4. hopefully 3 is dropped as unfashionable, and the term becomes useful again, at least as 2.

            * happily using ‘-ista’ as 2.

          • Orphan Wilde says:

            The Nybbler –

            I think that is an unusually common instance, really.

            Content Warning: Amateur sociology.

            Some people have a tendency to interpret everything that happens to them as being a result of some characteristic of themselves, as being about them, rather than being about what the speaker wants to say; if somebody talks to them, they’re objects of the speech, rather than recipients of it.

            I think women are particularly prone to this because they grow up being told that guys are “interested in one thing” (and similar lines of being indirectly responsible, based on some internal characteristic, for other people’s behavior), resulting in internalized objectification.

            And when somebody helpfully points out that, no, the speaker does that to everyone, the person pointing this out isn’t rejecting a characteristic of the speaker, the person pointing this out is rejecting the objector’s femininity.

          • Whatever Happened to Anonymous says:

            Suppose for the sake of argument that this is true. That targets are roughly equally likely to be of either gender. Nonetheless if the perpetrators are very disproportionately likely to be men, is “mansplain” an unfair coining?

            Not at all, as long as you don’t attach some theory of insidious sexism to the term.

          • Orphan Wilde, I think being angry about being mansplained to has two parts. One is feeling angry about being mistreated, and the other is a hypothesis about being mistreated for being a woman.

            If you just say “it’s not because you’re a woman” and ignore the anger at being mistreated, it’s just possible that the woman will feel that you’re ignoring her reaction.

            Does anyone have advice for dealing with people who have steamrollerish habits when talking?

            I had a conversation go reasonably well when I simply kept interrupting the fellow. He paid good enough attention to what I said, he just wasn’t leaving what I’d call opportunies for me to speak.

            I’m not saying this would work with everyone.

          • Matt M says:

            “Most women socialized in our society feel no need to share their “theory of everything” with anyone willing to listen. Many men do.”

            Why are we automatically assuming that “a method of communication commonly preferred by women” is superior to “a method of communication commonly preferred by men”?

          • Orphan Wilde says:

            Nancy –

            I think the issue there is that it’s trying to have things both ways. If a man made the same complaint, what do you think the response would be?

            The gender is relevant to both halves of the complaint – I’m being treated differently because I’m a woman, and also take my complaint about being treated differently seriously because I’m a woman. And the “man” element of “mansplain” makes it that much worse – take my complaint extra seriously because the object of my complaint is being male at me.

            The complaint itself is an assertion of social power based on gender. Rejecting that social power is rejecting them as women.

          • dndnrsn says:

            @Nancy Lebovitz:

            I’ll confirm that often interrupting an interrupter is the best call. I used to be horrible with interrupting people. I’ve gotten better. My thinking at the time was essentially “anyone can interrupt anyone at any time, and if people aren’t interrupting my interrupting, they must not mind my interrupting.” So I didn’t pay a huge deal of attention to people giving pauses, etc.

            Part of it is upbringing – everybody in my family is like that. It took me a while to figure out that not everybody is used to having a say in the conversation be like treading water, basically.

          • Orphan Wilde, how bad would it be to say, “he’s being a pain in the ass, but he does it to everyone”?

            The piece you may be missing is that women are frequently trained to have fewer resources for shoving back against that sort of dominance.

            I agree that a man who complained about being talked over probably wouldn’t be viewed sympathetically. I *think* that’s a separate problem, and definitely one which should be addressed.

            Deborah Tannen

            “Based on a two-and-a-half hour recording of Thanksgiving dinner conversations with friends, Tannen analyzed the two prevailing conversational styles among the six participants, which she divided evenly between the categories of New Yorker and non-New Yorker.[5] Upon analyzing the recording, Tannen came to the conclusion that the speech of the New Yorkers was characterized by exaggerated intonations (paralinguistics), overlapping speech between two or more speakers, short silences, and machine-gun questions, which she defines as questions that are “uttered quickly, timed to overlap or latch onto another’s talk, and characterized by reduced syntactic form”.[5] The style of the non-New Yorkers was opposite that of the New Yorkers in all regards mentioned above; furthermore, the non-New Yorkers were caught off-guard by the New Yorkers’ exaggerated intonation and interrupting questions, two factors that discouraged them from finishing their conversations at some points.[5] Tannen refers to the New Yorkers’ style as “high-involvement” and the unimposing style of the non-New Yorkers as “high-considerateness”.[5]”

          • The Nybbler says:

            @Nancy Leboviz

            Orphan Wilde, how bad would it be to say, “he’s being a pain in the ass, but he does it to everyone”?

            If you’re a man, that is a pretty good way to get yourself accused of mansplaining. Or occasionally, “minimizing”.

          • Orphan Wilde says:

            Nancy –

            Most men aren’t trained either, they’re expected to teach themselves, and the social disapproval if you DON’T teach yourself is incredibly immense; it’s less “Men are trained” and more “Men are constantly socially shamed into becoming competent at these things”. If you want women to get the toolset men have, they’re going to have to agree to the rest of the bullshit as well.

            But most women don’t want to agree to the rest of the bullshit; except for us nerdy folk who find it incomprehensible, the system works for most people, male and female alike. The system is quite simple:

            The woman demonstrating her “weakness” and getting a man to do something for her is, in fact, demonstrating her social strength – the man, in turn, is also engaging in social performance, demonstrating his value and grasp of the social rules (either to the woman herself or to other observers), with a slight but not strong implication that he’s close to equivalent social standing to her, if he is permitted to help her.

            ETA:

            Which is to say, wrt “I agree that a man who complained about being talked over probably wouldn’t be viewed sympathetically. I *think* that’s a separate problem, and definitely one which should be addressed.”, it isn’t a separate problem. The lack of sympathy is exactly why men have the toolsets to deal with these situations.

          • Anonymous says:

            Strange how you two (or three) manage to feel so persecuted and the vast majority of men don’t. It is almost like you aren’t describing something that’s at all common.

            I know, it must be false consciousness!

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            The key is to recognize when you’re dealing with an actual conversation steamroller rather than someone who treats conversation as a tennis game.

            The sort of passive-aggressives with poor social skills who ovaryact about mansplaining generally don’t seem to be very good at the kind of conversations where “turns to speak” are handled by interjections (“No shit?” “I kno~w, right? And–“)

            Then there’s Anon, who just butts in to everything in the most obnoxious possible way in order to feel some kind of human contact.

          • Orphan Wilde,

            You’ve got a point about men not being actually trained to the demands of masculinity, but many women are trained *out* of assertiveness.

            At this point, I’m fantacizing about a society where people are actually taught how to do both high-involvement and high-consideration talk.

          • The Nybbler says:

            At this point, I’m fantacizing about a society where people are actually taught how to do both high-involvement and high-consideration talk.

            Aside from the practical matter of teaching people how to do that, there’s the other problem of this whole issue often not being about that. Rather, it’s about the usual thing, power. If you can impose a turn-taking style on others who prefer an interrupting style (and then not let them have a turn, often enough), you have power. Similarly, if you can interrupt when others take turns (and not have them tell you to pipe down), you have power.

          • If people generally have access to both conversational styles, it won’t solve dominance problems, but it will make it easier for people of good will to work things out with each other.

          • gbdub says:

            Yikes, I go away for a bit, and look what I’ve wrought….

            For whatever it’s worth, I’m pretty sure it was used ironically.

            It was. To the extent it was a point, it was basically that the reaction Trumpers have when presented with condescending “fact-checkers” is similar to that of women getting “mansplained” to. Regardless of your feelings on the validity of the complaints, people who feel they are being condescended to generally do not react well.

            Orphan Wilde

            Some people have a tendency to interpret everything that happens to them as being a result of some characteristic of themselves, as being about them, rather than being about what the speaker wants to say;

            I’ve noticed this as well, it seems to have gotten worse in the “you are your identity” era. It makes it very awkward to call out jackasses who happen to belong to a protected class. E.g. my girlfriend was once on a train that happened to be carrying a number of people to a gay rights protest. The protesters were shouting slogans, bouncing around, and generally being rude to the people stuck in an enclosed space with them.

            My girlfriend (who is very pro-gay rights) asked politely if they could be a little quieter on the train, as she had a nasty migraine and didn’t want to barf. Most of the protesters in her vicinity were nice enough to do so, but one got in her face and started shouting that she was a homophobe. No, she’s not a homophobe, just an asshole-phobe, please stop being an asshole.

            Anyway this is a bit off-topic, I do think the underlying behavior criticized by “mansplaining” does happen, but I also think that sometimes were are too quick to look for insult (even in the canonical example, it wasn’t clear why the mansplainer should have known he was talking to the author. Certainly I doubt I’d recognize many of my favorite authors and I could certainly see myself going up to one and inadvertently gushing about their work to them as something they must read.)

          • keranih says:

            FWIW –

            – If I’m in a conversation, and someone’s “mansplaining” – that someone is ME. ‘Cause I do this lots.(*) If I used SJ speak, I’d go on about how I feel erased and denied self-agency by people who gender this style of discourse.

            – A good friend has a paper taped over her desk: “I don’t mean to interrupt, I just remember things randomly and get all excited and want to share!” Which is exactly her.

            – I disagree with Nancy here:

            You’ve got a point about men not being actually trained to the demands of masculinity, but many women are trained *out* of assertiveness.

            They/we are no more trained out of it than men are trained into it – society & biology work to encourage one set of behaviors from one half of the equation and a balancing set from the other half. It doesn’t work perfectly, because Mama Nature is a right bitch like that, and we don’t have to outrun the bear.

            I do think that the most successful people (of both sexes) are aware of their relative aggressiveness in conversation and are constantly their audience’s reaction in order to get the result they want, and that they dial up and down as needs must.

            I think some people struggle to hold their own more than others, and that some people are more controlling and intolerant than others. *shrugs* It does take all types.

            (*) I’m better than I was. Because someone drew it to my attention in a bitchy passive-aggressive way that hurt a lot. Still torn on the question of if I would have noticed it if they’d used a shorter 2×4 to beat me over the head with.

          • Jiro says:

            Proud Clintonista here

            The request for evidence was for evidence of the sex-based connotation of “mansplain”, not for evidence that a single man has explained something in a way that a single other person didn’t like. “Clintonista” doesn’t have any analogous connotation to require evidence for.

          • HeelBearCub says:

            @Jiro:
            Her response to the text she quoted makes perfect sense to me. You made the the much stronger claim that there are no neologisms that make sense.

      • Jaskologist says:

        On the Trump side of Facebook, I’ve been seeing this making the rounds: Politifact when Bernie Sanders says black unemployment is >50% and Politifact when Trump does.

        From that point on, you can consider any such articles from them about how Trump lies way more neutralized. Those depend on the recipient believing they use the same measure for Trump they would for Hillary, and that goodwill is already burned. Nobody believes fact-checkers are any more objective than the rest of the media.

        • That is a pretty striking case of a double standard.

          Each of them made a statement about the unemployment rate of black youth that was false in terms of the official measure of the unemployment rate. In each case there was a different definition that you could argue was sort of an unemployment rate. In Trump’s case it was the percentage of blacks in the relevant age group who were not employed–which would include ones not looking for work and so not in the official figure for unemployment. In Sanders’ case it was a more complicated definition, one that, among other things, included people working part time or marginally attached to the labor force, what his source referred to as “underemployment.” Both Trump and Sanders referred to their figures as the “unemployment rate.”

          Politifact rated Sanders’ statement as “Mostly True” and Trump’s as “Mostly False.”

          • Homo Iracundus says:

            The worst part was that in several versions they explicitly used Trump’s quote that “5?% of black men are not working“, and used that to claim he was lying about the technical looking-for-work-in-the-last-few-months-but-can’t-find it “unemployment rate”.

          • gbdub says:

            I find Politifact’s long form explanations to be generally good and informative. But their “rating” seems extremely subjective and frankly biased.

            Unfortunately no one ever repeats their explanations, just their bottom line numbers “Trump lies more than Hillary!”

  45. Daniel says:

    What is the best way to financially support a band you like?

    Lets assume that I already have all of their albums through a streaming service, and have no desire to own any of their merchandise. On top of that, lets say the band doesn’t ever play live near where I live.

    But given how much I like and listen to the band’s music, I want to give them $20 as a sign of appreciation and support.

    What is the best way to spend this money, to benefit the band as much as possible?

    If I buy a digital download, 30% goes to Itunes, and im sure more goes to other people – but then the band has higher placement on the Itunes charts.

    If I buy physical goods, then I’m paying for the production of the actual items I don’t want, and the cost of mailing them to me.

    Should I just mail a cheque to the band’s management and hope it gets to them?

    Any thoughts or suggestions on this?

  46. Skef says:

    At first glace it seems like the notion of market failure wouldn’t apply to a matter of taste or aesthetics. If people enjoy A more than B, isn’t that just a personal preference? Who are we to say that someone is wrong about what they like?

    But I recently realized that the loudness war seems like a kind of market failure, and a substantial one. Admittedly the issue is partly technological, in that it comes down to many devices having volume setting relative to a standard amplitude. But the owner of the device gets to choose their own setting and almost no one puts one at full volume. So most popular music of recent years, and also reissues of older music, have been engineered in increasingly crappy-sounding ways as part of an arms race for practically the dumbest reason imaginable.

    Anyway, it seems like an interesting test case. How could we have avoided this dumb era of music production?

    • Alliteration says:

      As much as people complain about compressed music, compressed music is nice for listening in load environments (like in a car), because the range between to loud and drowned out by the background sound is smaller.

      (This is one of my frustrations with listening to classical music in the car, because classical music isn’t compressed the quite parts are either too quite or the loud parts too loud.)

      • doubleunplussed says:

        I know right. Try watching a movie with actual dynamic range on the audio when your housemate is trying to sleep.

        *turn it up because I can’t hear the dialogue*

        *SUDDEN LOUD MUSIC OR GUNFIRE TURN IT DOWN*

        At least compressed music has the compression applied at the mastering stage rather than by some horrible automated algorithm later by pirates. Whereas compressed audio for say, a pirated movie that was filmed in a cinema amplifies things so much when there’s actual silence that you get loud white noise instead of silence. And the white noise fades in and out as the characters speak. Horrible. But as a lover of metal music, intentionally compressed audio there can be quite nice.

      • Winter Shaker says:

        I have actually taken the trouble of running one of my favourite classical CDs (Henri Duparc’s songs, just voice and piano) through Logic’s compression algorithm then re-uploading the mp3s to my iPod so that I could still listen to them properly on a bus or train.

        I’m pretty sure that a workable solution, if we could have wangled it, would be to have each record published in an ‘audiophile’ version, with decent dynamic range for enjoying in a quiet environment, and a ‘driving’ version for listening in noisy environments, and somehow encode these onto the same playing medium so that you didn’t need to buy two versions. If cassette tapes could have been one-way only, you could do this, vinyl could have one version on each side at the expense of being only about 20mins, so I’m not surprised they didn’t do it then, but I’m sure it would have been trivial for CDs relative to the complexity of the CD in the first place, and if they had made those just a little bigger, they would have been enough to hold two versions of any standard 45-min vinyl album.

        [Edit – Marginal Revolution on how they did choose the size of CDs, features a cute story about wanting to fit all of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony on one disc, though Snopes suggests factoid actualy just statistical error.]

        • Skef says:

          Trent Reznor did this with a recent album.

          Vinyl already has a more limited dynamic range and there are some standard pre-processing steps for tracks recorded on it.

          I’m suspicious of the arguments against “canned” compression algorithms if the use-case is listening in a noisy environment, but it’s true that at the mastering stage you can better control the relations between individual instruments.

          • Winter Shaker says:

            I am pleased to hear that, and also that one of the commenters in your link names the book Perfecting Sound Forever: An Aural History of Recorded Music by Greg Milner – I also recommend that as a fascinating history of audio recording generally, including the loudness war.

      • lemmy caution says:

        I like compressed music for that reason. It sounds good and you can adjust the volume without it getting too loud or too soft.

    • onyomi says:

      I do think one can apply the logic of market failure to such cases.

      I think intellectual property may have contributed somewhat to this by making appeal to the lowest common denominator more profitable.

  47. jaimeastorga2000 says:

    SSC SF Story of the Week #21
    This week we are discussing True Names by Vernor Vinge.
    Next time we will discuss Three Worlds Collide by Eliezer Yudkowsky.

    • jaimeastorga2000 says:

      I first heard about True Names from Eliezer Yudkowsky’s bookshelf. I didn’t find it nearly as mindblowing as he did, but I read it after I had already read The Sequences, Hanson’s papers, the Optimalverse, and other high-level transhumanist writings, so I guess that’s to be expected. What I did find it to be is lots of fun. Most of the novella is basically a cyberpunk mystery, but the climax is an action-packed fight for the fate of the Earth, and the denoument is a thoughtful exploration of transhumanist themes. All of these are entertaining in their own right, and they combine well together to form a fast-paced, exciting adventure.

    • 4bpp says:

      How old is True Names? Linking the magic trope to having the cover of your unsavoury internet identity blown is something that the Greater Chanosphere already did [NSFW] since before “doxxing” became a thing.

    • “True Names” is a very good story for at least two different reasons:

      1. It pointed out the importance of anonymity online very early, using the metaphor of true names in fantasy. If your enemy knows your true name he can use it to do magic against you. If your enemy knows your real space identity, he can arrest or kill you.

      2. It is science fiction that feels like fantasy not because the science is really magic but because the real science results in a world of avatars protected by concealing their true names. That’s an idea picked up by later writers.

      • Vinge uses a lot of fantasy metaphors in his science fiction.

        I wonder if this is a useful method in general because fantasy needs to make a certain amount of sense.

        I’m still amazed that Tolkien’s elves had secret cities, and then it turned out that the Soviets had secret cities. I assume it was something like that you can get secret cities at some population and magic/tech level if you feel you’re under threat.

        Would anyone who remembers the Silmarillion better care to speculate on whether the elves were dictatorial?

        • LHN says:

          Mostly, I’d say they’re monarchical. We don’t see all that much about the laws and administration of the kingdoms, but for the most part people who don’t like the way the king is running things seem to be able to leave for another one (orcs and balrogs permitting), and the rulers are mostly seen making decisions about foreign affairs, war, and the workings of their courts.

          Gondolin may be something of an exception, with its law that anyone who finds their way there can’t ever leave, and it generally has an air of greater regimentation. But even there, we don’t know a lot about day-to-day life in the city.

        • Gazeboist says:

          The elves as a society fissioned two or three times before reuniting (kinda) towards the end of the Third Age, when their civilization was dying. I’d as soon judge the elves’ dictatorial nature under Galadriel, Elrond, and Celeborn as I’d judge the level of freedom in the Roman Republic during the rise of the Ottoman Empire.

        • Deiseach says:

          Would anyone who remembers the Silmarillion better care to speculate on whether the elves were dictatorial?

          I think if Feanor had lived long enough, he definitely would have been. He already gives plenty of examples of “my way or the highway Helcaraxe” and I don’t think living under his rule would have been a great improvement. To be honest, I don’t think any of the Feanorians were that great – their attitude towards Men tended to be dismissive (to say the least) until they discovered they made great cannon-fodder against Melkor.

          On the other hand, the rebels were badly stuck. They couldn’t go back to Valinor, the dream of Feanor that they could defeat Melkor in Middle-earth and establish their own independent realms came crashing down about as soon as they set foot in Middle-earth, and they were more or less forced into continued defensive positions. Gondolin went to extremes of secrecy, but the necessity was for survival. And Turgon’s big mistake was in hoping that he could finally establish and remain in a secure realm, even after the message of Ulmo that it was time to abandon it.

          However they might have ruled if they could have set up realms free from the threat of Melkor, the fact remains that one of the drives for the Exiles to leave Valinor and return to Middle-earth was ambition: to have new lands and new realms of their own, out from under the rule of the Valar. And when they came into contact with the existing Elven realms in Middle-earth – such as Doriath – that didn’t go too well (again, I’m mostly pointing at the Feanorians here): the Exilic Noldor did tend to look down their noses at the Sindar who had remained as ‘country cousins’ which never goes well, and then they were trying to claim territories that the Sindar regarded as their own, or within their sphere of influence.

          And then you had Men constantly coming in waves moving westward, fleeing Melkor and making the political tensions even tenser.

      • LPSP says:

        1. It pointed out the importance of anonymity online very early, using the metaphor of true names in fantasy. If your enemy knows your true name he can use it to do magic against you. If your enemy knows your real space identity, he can arrest or kill you.

        Meditating on this, it occurs to me that for daemons, gods and similar such fantastical creatures, creating a physical avatar or manifestation and appearing in what we would call “the real world” is more akin to entering the internet and logging into an account with its own prescence and pseudonyms. The “real world” for daemons et al is the magical realm they call home.

        Humans are more like computer programs, including viruses, in the analogy.

        I immediately thought of an application of this framework to Homestuck.

    • AxiomsOfDominion says:

      Vernor Vinge is a national treasure. Just downloaded and read True Names. Now I’ll be unable to stop thinking about it all week. A whole week ruined. But it was worth it.

      • Hmm. I have Vernor Vinge on my list of “Don’t read any more of these,” because the one book of his I read — “Rainbows End” — was so boring.

        • I agree that Rainbow’s End was boring, and I didn’t even finish The Children of the Sky.

          Marooned in Real Time, A Fire Upon the Deep, and A Deepness in the Sky were much livelier.

          • Throwaway says:

            Yes, it was really sad to read “The Children of the Sky” after amazing A Fire Upon the Deep, and A Deepness in the Sky.

        • jaimeastorga2000 says:

          I note that Rainbow’s End was written in 2006, and that there is a pretty general trend of authors becoming worse as they get older (Isaac Asimov, Larry Niven, Orson Scott Card…).

          • I haven’t read Vinge for a while, after stopping part way through two books because they had gotten too dark for me. But my tolerance for dark is probably unusually low.

    • Deiseach says:

      Not as impressed with it as I am supposed to be, probably because it’s a story from the 80s that I’m only reading now. Had I read it back in 1980 it might well have blown me away, but there have been too many similar stories and novels since.

      And really, I’m a tiny bit tired of “small band of strong independent we don’t need no Feds hackers save the world by becoming VR gods and ushering in the New Millennium”. Can’t say I liked any of the characters and if they had all dropped dead in their computer fantasy worlds I wouldn’t have cared.

      • gbdub says:

        Had I read it back in 1980 it might well have blown me away, but there have been too many similar stories and novels since.

        Is there a name for this phenomenon, when you underrate the “original” because you’ve read newer renditions of the same trope? Sometimes this is because the original was legitimately weak, but other times its just that the new versions are very good, and/or don’t suffer from zeerust, and I feel a bit bad about those.

        • Steven says:

          TV Tropes calls this “Seinfeld Is Unfunny”
          http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny

          • gbdub says:

            Yes, that’s exactly what I was thinking of, thank you! Though I wish they’d gone with the name “Hamlet Is So Cliched!” since (as Deiseach notes below) comedy is subjective and you might find Seinfeld unfunny for reasons unrelated (e.g. Hype Backlash).

        • Deiseach says:

          I have no idea if there’s a name for it, but it’s probably the same principle as the joke about the old lady who went to see “Hamlet” and didn’t like it, because it was full of quotations 🙂

          I never found “Seinfeld” funny, even when it was first run, so there’s that as well.

      • Edward Morgan Blake says:

        And really, I’m a tiny bit tired of “small band of strong independent we don’t need no Feds hackers save the world by becoming VR gods and ushering in the New Millennium

        Then I recommend you read Vinge’s “The Peace War”.

        The backstory of The Peace War *is* a “small band of strong independent we don’t need no Feds hackers save the world, defeat ALL the warmongering armies, insanely dangerous bioweapon labs, oligarchical governments, ecologically devastating polluters, and evil transnational corporations, and then usher in the New Millennium of peace, local communities, organic gardens, and Human Flourishing”.

        And then jump forward a generation, see what happens next.

        Basically, it was Vinge taking a 50s/60s SF novel, and then demonstrating the truth of “You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain”.

        • Maware says:

          I should read this. One of the reasons why I fell out of reading SF was that there was so much emphasis on the uberman and very little on how the normal person would be affected by such radical change. I think Nancy Kress did well ending her Beggars in Spain trilogy with the Super-sleepless forcing a rather horrific, “good” change on everyone.

  48. keranih says:

    I watched Bottle Shock this weekend, and found it light and enjoyable, with a little bit of chemistry (discussion of how to make wine, not between the lead characters). However, digging into the background, I found the film even less “factual” than to be expected from a Chris Pine (Unstoppable) movie. This week has also seen comments on Eight Below, Hildago, Outbreak and several other “based on a true story” movies where what actually happened would have made a really good movie, if that had been the story they wanted to tell.

    Anyone have any examples of “real events” movies that more or less captured facts? For me, it seems that Alive and Breaker Morant are fairly good.

    • Douglas Knight says:

      I’m Not There is very accurate.

    • Fahundo says:

      I’m already completely disappointed in Snowden just based on what I’ve seen in the trailers. I guess there’s already a good movie about him though.

      • Edward Morgan Blake says:

        Just watch CitizenFour, much better.

        And that documentary is part of it’s own story, which is wonderfully meta. I particularly liked the bits that showed Edward and Glenn watching the news on TV that included footage of themselves of the video record that was part of the documentary itself.

        • Fahundo says:

          Just watch CitizenFour, much better.

          Yeah, that’s what I was referring to when I said at least he already has a good movie.

    • brad says:

      I’m not sure how much room there is between documentaries and loosely based on a true story. We almost never have actual dialog and even if we did it wouldn’t sound right on a movie screen. Real people aren’t as pretty or witty as what we want out of movie. The pacing of real life isn’t suited to a two hour film. And so forth.

      There’s always going to be a choice that a writer or director made in a “based on a true story” that we can quibble with, but once we agree that they need some significant license I think that concedes the main point.

      • keranih says:

        Eh, I’m not really talking about direct quotes or compressing events, I mean things like (in Unstoppable) changing a major antagonist figure from *ordering* the risky-but-heroic move that saves the day, to (in the movie) trying to stop the heroes from doing that thing. Or (in Bottleshock) where a major figure is removed from the story, and a replacement – of different ethnicity, motivation, and impact – is substituted.

        I do completely agree that most stuff makes for poor movies. Or tales around the campfire, even, which is why we talk of Skywalker and Coyote and Babe the Blue Ox. But I’ve hit a bad run of movies which took more liberty than I think optimal.

        • LHN says:

          I wish that, just as there’s a subgenre of harder SF (which won’t tend to produce blockbusters, but will satisfy a narrower audience), that there were similar subgenres of “accurate biopics” and “faithful adaptations”.

          Everything doesn’t have to fall into those subgenres. (The MGM Wizard of Oz movie is a masterpiece for all the liberties it takes with Baum; Richard III is a classic even if it tends in the direction of Tudor propaganda). There’s plenty of room for stories that merely “inspire” the auteur. And as with “hard SF” it’s a goal and a sliding scale, not a binary.

          But I’d really like there to be a subset of movies and TV series that are visibly trying to portray a true or fictional story faithfully in a different medium. Sometimes the fact really is sufficiently legendary.

          (I do get tired of a complicated mix of human motivations getting reduced to a central casting stereotype over and over again. And there’s something a little deceptive in getting the audience to swallow the product of dramatic license by letting them believe “unlikely though this seems, it’s true!” when it isn’t. )

          As with hard SF, it’s something I value, and it’s something seen if anything even less often.

    • Zombielicious says:

      There’s a weird movie called Compliance which you’d expect to have been completely made up, but apparently holds pretty close to the actual events it’s based on. I can’t say it’s a great movie though, aside from the fact that the absurd stuff in it actually happened.

      • VivaLaPanda says:

        I remember reading about this in my Psychology class. Social Engineering/obedience is a force to be reckoned with.

      • Hyzenthlay says:

        I’ve seen it. I found it pretty gripping.

      • HP Blount says:

        I watched this movie recently and hated it because I thought it was so farcical. I knew it had been based on a true story, but I just thought that they had taken a premise and flown with it.

        It was only afterwards when I read the wiki, it dawned on me just how stupid people can be. I did like how it took till the greasy looking older guy right at the end of the film to go “wait, this clearly isn’t a police officer”

    • A. says:

      I don’t know anything about the similarity of the story in “Breach” to real events, but I thought the best part of the movie was the letter that the main character really did write to the Russians, apparently read in the movie word for word. I think I would have liked the movie a lot more if it wasn’t based on a real story, if the conclusion wasn’t already known.