As someone who only partially agrees with the thrust of this piece, I find it absolutely thrilling to see all these furious triggered comments rolling in. You are a brave writer and I dig it.
Curious what parts y'all only partially agree with? I do think there are aspects of this that are individually complicated (though, for me, there are a bunch of dealbreakers in what's happening now that tilt the overall balance extremely far in the "bad" direction, regardless of those things). But I am curious how other people construct that balance. (Also, obviously, this is a whole thing that people have very strong feelings about, so get it if people don't want to talk about it.)
For me - the immigration / deportation stuff - I have a hard time knowing what is sensationalized and what is real and what is common vs what is uncommon. If we were truly only deporting violent criminals that were fairly treated subject to due process etc - and found legitimately guilty - is that controversial? On the other hand - separating kids from their families and just being cruel - I understand that as a real issue to be concerned about. My main problem is it take SOO much work to carefully understand these topics to try to get to the bottom of what actually happened - what commonly happens - what was intended to happened vs what actually happened. Its a hard world to live in when you feel anyone may lie to you at anytime and you have few tools to tell if they are lying...
Yeah, on this topic especially, I agree it's a very difficult to parse what's really happening. But, both Trump himself and so many people in his orbit have so many more or less explicit "blood and soil" beliefs that the intention of his immigration policies seems pretty clear.
Great introduction on the African-American true history. I read about all this when I was 10 (The whole slavery history is not really advertised here in Argentina) and it left a profound mark in me.
Bold words from Benn. The whole world is watching with fearful-concerned-worried-unblinking eyes what is going on there. It would seem that the law is open for interpretation, and that everything can be amended as they go, depending on what suits them best.
IMHO America should not come first. People should. And it is that people that builds up the country. The zillion individual contributions, individual hardships, individual efforts.
Take the people out of the territory and it is just beautiful land.
And the ones who are really putting up, are the impoverished ones. The people have faced home mortgages crisis, debt increase, inflation, layoffs ... and still another representative of "the traditional way" is in office.
And on top of it all... AI, being pampered to take on every possible (or rather every) job out there.
Man, I have seen this picture locally, the smiling shiny new president (ok, nothing new about him) and their cohorts rubbing their hands and buckling up for the free ride.
I cannot speak for the president's opposing forces (if any). I honestly know nothing about them (and that fact alone speaks volumes). I hope that this is not a new chapter in a history of wrongdoings.
I know, as I re-read this, that I sound terribly naive. And that is exactly how I feel. It's like watching a house on fire, beyond control, and just knowing that watching is all you can do.
Thank you :) Anyone who did not want to hear from the 1619 Project should read David Waldstreicher's article in I think the Boston Review about how it represents one side in intricate history wars. These same people should read Waldstreicher's "The Odyssey of Phillis Wheatley" which was wonderful. ("In The Midst Of Perpetual Fetes" is the thing that gets cited all the time but I have not read it)
My impression is that highly intelligent people are often seduced by interesting ideas and controversial ideas tend to be more interesting. It is with experience and a lot of mental processing we sometimes come to the conclusion that the most useful insights are often simple which does not make them any easier to apply in our own lives. I’m not sure that the thirst for something interesting or Scott Alexander specifically are to blame for Trump (to be fair to Scott I think he’s doing his best to remain vigilant with his own assumptions and “update his priors”). It is troubling though how few actual beliefs the tech industry seem to hold. I’ve never been a huge fan of DEI (and I’m a woman) but I am already seeing posts on LinkedIn on how to best replace it by the same people who claimed to support it previously. Zuckerberg literally changed his haircut to be more trendy. Bezos has no hair so he just dates someone… trendy… after his divorce. Somehow the older they get, the more they resemble teenage boys - and those are the people with tremendous power to make changes in the world.
Yeah, I don't think Scott Alexander is a problem, per se. Though I do think he's.... somewhat irresponsible? I think he's genuinely curious, and genuinely tries to be fair. But there are a lot of rationalist types who operate in bad faith, and probably find his work selectively useful. Though you can't really blame him for how his stuff gets used by bad actors, and I'm sure he'd say he's just engaging with ideas, I think that's kind of a cheat. In a vacuum, sure, that works. In the real world, ignoring the consequences of what you say isn't noble; it's selfish.
And yeah, I'm very much with you that there's something inherently appealing in controversial ideas, especially if believing it makes you feel smart, different, and like whatever you're doing is good. I'm not sure I fully believe this, but you could argue that that explains the entire arc of DEI - it got popular because it made the people implementing it feel good about themselves, and now it's getting undone because it makes those same people feel good about themselves.
Every time Peter Thiel goes on JRE to talk about how he’s supporting trump for what he’s going to do for the middle class, my eyes roll back into my brain. Come on. Thiel
is the avatar for smug douchebags everywhere. I think you nailed that part. The politics at the end of the article seem a little 2016, but overall this was an entertaining and well written piece.
On the 2016 thing, I hear you, but think that's sort of the point for me. Like, I would roughly describe 2016 and 2024 as:
- 2016: Bunch of what I would consider bad things carried out by a clumsy administration, and a very big and showy resistance to them (in a way that was pretty performative, but at least noisy). It was two disorganized armies mushing into each other, and, relatively speaking, not all that much really happening as result.
- 2024: Bunch of what I would also consider bad things being carried about by a prepared administration, and no real resistance to it at all. Some people have switched sides (which, such is democracy) and others are now...not in favor of it, necessarily, but seem more willing to keep their heads down and "have no comment," so long as they get the things they want. And at least in tech, I think that latter thing partly comes from people just mimicking everyone else. If nobody is saying "hey, wait a minute, this bad thing seems like a bad thing," then I probably won't say it either.
In other words, as someone who prefer Trump not have an unchecked ability to run roughshod over the country, I don't want a 2016 #resistance, but I'd like to see some 2016 spine.
t done without the consent of the target person, it will be done remotely, The target person won't notice anything at all and henceforth you will be able to view all the phone activities, text messages, and also read the deleted messages as far back one year ago, there will be a separate folder for all the deleted text/chat which you will be able to view yourself. hgj
`We can do anything we want. To the victors go the spoils, and the spoils can be ghostwritten into an executive order. We can build with reckless abandon. We can accelerate with the governor off. We can get launch permits to Mars. We can run roughshod over whatever norm we find annoying. We can indulge ourselves in the stories that we want to be true—that what is good for technology is good for humanity; that those who dislike our debauchery are the ones who need to grow up; that we were right all along. We are self-governed now, and our decency—and our mercy—must come from within.`
I’m not from US, but I’ve checked news about WHO is actually being deported. So far I saw:
Man with an Interpol warrant for armed robbery. Man charged with rape but released by authorities. Man charged with armed robbery and heroin trafficking. Member of MS13 gang.
Good lord. Please don’t tell me that you leave these people roaming the streets freely while rich people live in fancy and gated communities. Because this is how people see the US from outside.
I agree with some of the things in article. Lot of bad stuff happened in past and lot of controversial stuff is happening now. But also this is exactly what was being said during the campaign – lot of people actually voted for this stuff. It’s not about one man in office, but general mood in the nation.
So maybe the better question is "Why this happened?" and "What mistakes have been made?"
If that's what happens, sure. But there are a whole lot of motions towards much more aggressive deportation policies that, while they might catch some criminals, would also sweep up millions of other people, break up communities, destroy families, and turn a whole lot of people into refugees who have nowhere to go. Plus, though they loosely frame it as being about "catching the bad guys," the broader thrust of these policies is much more "blood and soil" - pretty much explicitly so - than anything else.
Which, to your point, maybe is what people want? And I'm sure the reasons for that are somewhat complicated, though if I'm honest, I'd argue that it most of that is because of social media. (Briefly, social media creates a lot of incentives for people post stuff that is engaging; nothing is more engaging than stuff that makes you righteously angry; the easiest way to make people righteously angry is to say that you're being screwed over by someone else; the easiest targets are the groups that people have long-standing biases and prejudices against. "Your life is terrible; it's not your fault; it's these other people's fault" goes viral, and it becomes true because you hear it everywhere.)
In a complete vacuum, sure. But there's a lot of subtext wrapped in that. On their own, both "black lives matter" and "blue lives matter" are pretty innocuous statements too, that both mean far more than the words in the phrase.
As someone who only partially agrees with the thrust of this piece, I find it absolutely thrilling to see all these furious triggered comments rolling in. You are a brave writer and I dig it.
Ya - What Patrick said. I only partially agree with the post - but you are much braver than I am and I suspect you are probably better informed.
(This is a real question)
Curious what parts y'all only partially agree with? I do think there are aspects of this that are individually complicated (though, for me, there are a bunch of dealbreakers in what's happening now that tilt the overall balance extremely far in the "bad" direction, regardless of those things). But I am curious how other people construct that balance. (Also, obviously, this is a whole thing that people have very strong feelings about, so get it if people don't want to talk about it.)
For me - the immigration / deportation stuff - I have a hard time knowing what is sensationalized and what is real and what is common vs what is uncommon. If we were truly only deporting violent criminals that were fairly treated subject to due process etc - and found legitimately guilty - is that controversial? On the other hand - separating kids from their families and just being cruel - I understand that as a real issue to be concerned about. My main problem is it take SOO much work to carefully understand these topics to try to get to the bottom of what actually happened - what commonly happens - what was intended to happened vs what actually happened. Its a hard world to live in when you feel anyone may lie to you at anytime and you have few tools to tell if they are lying...
Yeah, on this topic especially, I agree it's a very difficult to parse what's really happening. But, both Trump himself and so many people in his orbit have so many more or less explicit "blood and soil" beliefs that the intention of his immigration policies seems pretty clear.
Yeah, it's the commenters who are furious and triggered, not the author of the piece. 😂
Congratulations. Those are strong and needed words.
Ok, this is my first comment here.
Great introduction on the African-American true history. I read about all this when I was 10 (The whole slavery history is not really advertised here in Argentina) and it left a profound mark in me.
Bold words from Benn. The whole world is watching with fearful-concerned-worried-unblinking eyes what is going on there. It would seem that the law is open for interpretation, and that everything can be amended as they go, depending on what suits them best.
IMHO America should not come first. People should. And it is that people that builds up the country. The zillion individual contributions, individual hardships, individual efforts.
Take the people out of the territory and it is just beautiful land.
And the ones who are really putting up, are the impoverished ones. The people have faced home mortgages crisis, debt increase, inflation, layoffs ... and still another representative of "the traditional way" is in office.
And on top of it all... AI, being pampered to take on every possible (or rather every) job out there.
(https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2024/11/18/ai-will-replace-full-time-careers-for-some-employees-2025-predictions/)
Man, I have seen this picture locally, the smiling shiny new president (ok, nothing new about him) and their cohorts rubbing their hands and buckling up for the free ride.
I cannot speak for the president's opposing forces (if any). I honestly know nothing about them (and that fact alone speaks volumes). I hope that this is not a new chapter in a history of wrongdoings.
I know, as I re-read this, that I sound terribly naive. And that is exactly how I feel. It's like watching a house on fire, beyond control, and just knowing that watching is all you can do.
In a lot of ways, I think this point - "It would seem that the law is open for interpretation, and that everything can be amended as they go, depending on what suits them best" - is the biggest story from last week. This is barely even a joke (https://theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constitution-with-executiv-1830106306/), and it'll only become more true if this continues to be the response (https://x.com/apagliar/status/1883606641205285345).
Thank you :) Anyone who did not want to hear from the 1619 Project should read David Waldstreicher's article in I think the Boston Review about how it represents one side in intricate history wars. These same people should read Waldstreicher's "The Odyssey of Phillis Wheatley" which was wonderful. ("In The Midst Of Perpetual Fetes" is the thing that gets cited all the time but I have not read it)
So true
My impression is that highly intelligent people are often seduced by interesting ideas and controversial ideas tend to be more interesting. It is with experience and a lot of mental processing we sometimes come to the conclusion that the most useful insights are often simple which does not make them any easier to apply in our own lives. I’m not sure that the thirst for something interesting or Scott Alexander specifically are to blame for Trump (to be fair to Scott I think he’s doing his best to remain vigilant with his own assumptions and “update his priors”). It is troubling though how few actual beliefs the tech industry seem to hold. I’ve never been a huge fan of DEI (and I’m a woman) but I am already seeing posts on LinkedIn on how to best replace it by the same people who claimed to support it previously. Zuckerberg literally changed his haircut to be more trendy. Bezos has no hair so he just dates someone… trendy… after his divorce. Somehow the older they get, the more they resemble teenage boys - and those are the people with tremendous power to make changes in the world.
Yeah, I don't think Scott Alexander is a problem, per se. Though I do think he's.... somewhat irresponsible? I think he's genuinely curious, and genuinely tries to be fair. But there are a lot of rationalist types who operate in bad faith, and probably find his work selectively useful. Though you can't really blame him for how his stuff gets used by bad actors, and I'm sure he'd say he's just engaging with ideas, I think that's kind of a cheat. In a vacuum, sure, that works. In the real world, ignoring the consequences of what you say isn't noble; it's selfish.
And yeah, I'm very much with you that there's something inherently appealing in controversial ideas, especially if believing it makes you feel smart, different, and like whatever you're doing is good. I'm not sure I fully believe this, but you could argue that that explains the entire arc of DEI - it got popular because it made the people implementing it feel good about themselves, and now it's getting undone because it makes those same people feel good about themselves.
(African-American Intellectual History Society has recommended a new history of Atlantic slavery by Ana Lucia Araujo that centers Brazil FYI)
"It is easier to stay silent."
I guess it was, since you went 4 years without complaining about the last President at all (the non corrupt one who had to pre-pardon his family).
Talking about unsubstantiated allegations against Hegseth is pretty gross, too.
Every time Peter Thiel goes on JRE to talk about how he’s supporting trump for what he’s going to do for the middle class, my eyes roll back into my brain. Come on. Thiel
is the avatar for smug douchebags everywhere. I think you nailed that part. The politics at the end of the article seem a little 2016, but overall this was an entertaining and well written piece.
On the 2016 thing, I hear you, but think that's sort of the point for me. Like, I would roughly describe 2016 and 2024 as:
- 2016: Bunch of what I would consider bad things carried out by a clumsy administration, and a very big and showy resistance to them (in a way that was pretty performative, but at least noisy). It was two disorganized armies mushing into each other, and, relatively speaking, not all that much really happening as result.
- 2024: Bunch of what I would also consider bad things being carried about by a prepared administration, and no real resistance to it at all. Some people have switched sides (which, such is democracy) and others are now...not in favor of it, necessarily, but seem more willing to keep their heads down and "have no comment," so long as they get the things they want. And at least in tech, I think that latter thing partly comes from people just mimicking everyone else. If nobody is saying "hey, wait a minute, this bad thing seems like a bad thing," then I probably won't say it either.
In other words, as someone who prefer Trump not have an unchecked ability to run roughshod over the country, I don't want a 2016 #resistance, but I'd like to see some 2016 spine.
No, the President is not "an awful man doing awful things". Man, your narcissism is completely of the charts. Time to grow tf up.
t done without the consent of the target person, it will be done remotely, The target person won't notice anything at all and henceforth you will be able to view all the phone activities, text messages, and also read the deleted messages as far back one year ago, there will be a separate folder for all the deleted text/chat which you will be able to view yourself. hgj
What an arrogant asshole. Makes one long for the downvote button.
No shit! Epic fail...
`We can do anything we want. To the victors go the spoils, and the spoils can be ghostwritten into an executive order. We can build with reckless abandon. We can accelerate with the governor off. We can get launch permits to Mars. We can run roughshod over whatever norm we find annoying. We can indulge ourselves in the stories that we want to be true—that what is good for technology is good for humanity; that those who dislike our debauchery are the ones who need to grow up; that we were right all along. We are self-governed now, and our decency—and our mercy—must come from within.`
I'm pretty sure the Flotbots wrote that.
Unfortunately, that was me, trying my best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqtIyftTiWI
I’m not from US, but I’ve checked news about WHO is actually being deported. So far I saw:
Man with an Interpol warrant for armed robbery. Man charged with rape but released by authorities. Man charged with armed robbery and heroin trafficking. Member of MS13 gang.
Good lord. Please don’t tell me that you leave these people roaming the streets freely while rich people live in fancy and gated communities. Because this is how people see the US from outside.
I agree with some of the things in article. Lot of bad stuff happened in past and lot of controversial stuff is happening now. But also this is exactly what was being said during the campaign – lot of people actually voted for this stuff. It’s not about one man in office, but general mood in the nation.
So maybe the better question is "Why this happened?" and "What mistakes have been made?"
If that's what happens, sure. But there are a whole lot of motions towards much more aggressive deportation policies that, while they might catch some criminals, would also sweep up millions of other people, break up communities, destroy families, and turn a whole lot of people into refugees who have nowhere to go. Plus, though they loosely frame it as being about "catching the bad guys," the broader thrust of these policies is much more "blood and soil" - pretty much explicitly so - than anything else.
Which, to your point, maybe is what people want? And I'm sure the reasons for that are somewhat complicated, though if I'm honest, I'd argue that it most of that is because of social media. (Briefly, social media creates a lot of incentives for people post stuff that is engaging; nothing is more engaging than stuff that makes you righteously angry; the easiest way to make people righteously angry is to say that you're being screwed over by someone else; the easiest targets are the groups that people have long-standing biases and prejudices against. "Your life is terrible; it's not your fault; it's these other people's fault" goes viral, and it becomes true because you hear it everywhere.)
America is a country where the leader stating to put its country first can be somehow viewed as a nagative statement.........
In a complete vacuum, sure. But there's a lot of subtext wrapped in that. On their own, both "black lives matter" and "blue lives matter" are pretty innocuous statements too, that both mean far more than the words in the phrase.
Plus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_First
https://2015-2022.miniszterelnok.hu/for-us-its-hungary-first/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_First_Party