• 0 Posts
  • 44 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 17th, 2023

help-circle
  • Part of the social contract in America (at least… this is what I believed growing up here) is that we all kinda share in this thing we all have going. Like, let’s say we get into a war. The government can (and does) ask citizens to join the military and fight and the reason that works is because we all kinda implicitly signed off on it. Yeah, sure, you had nothing to do with the country getting into a war. But because you participated in government, in the system, because we run this thing (nominally) by the standard of democracy and consent of the governed, everyone owns at least a small part of the responsibility for the country’s actions. In the case of a war, that might look like joining the military and “doing your part”. More commonly it looks like paying your taxes and still “respecting” the government, even if it’s not the one you voted for.

    Now, like I said, that’s more than anything what I felt when I was a kid. Speaking personally, I’m in a very different headspace now as it relates to governance. I also feel like generally speaking all that’s shifting, though I’ve very little to back that up save… gestures at the past couple of decades of American politics.

    More to your question however, I think that the kind of social contract I laid out above kinda explains some of what you’ve asked. Even if you want to say it’s purely performative, that’s fine. But the fact that Americans are “asked” about how they should be governed implicitly puts the idea in our heads that we’re responsible for what our country is doing. It’s not just “some dottering old idiot at the top of the org chart decided this thing”, it’s we. America is doing this thing. Even if the truth really is that some dottering old fool made a decision out of personal ambition or greed. We get it drilled into our heads from a very young age that this is our government. And no matter how much you try to distance yourself from that… it still irks you, somewhere in the back of your head.

    Maybe, at some point before I was born, that was expressed as a point of pride. I could see some folks being proud of what America was or what it stood for, once upon a time. Now though? I find it hard to believe that that mindset could find any other expression but shame. And weirdly, I believe that’s true regardless of what your politics are. Different reasons are at play there depending on what your politics are, of course. But lately it feels like everyone’s got some grievance against the government. Some reason to feel ashamed about what “our” government, what “we” are doing. Whatever that thing is for you, you don’t want it being done in your name. But the central trick of American “democracy” is that you don’t get to just walk away. Whatever is being done is being done “in your name” whether you want it or not. And it’s been that way since before you were born.

    A tangentially related correlate here is that I feel like a lot of Americans don’t feel represented by their government anymore. I certainly don’t feel that way, and I haven’t since Obama was president. That was roughly back when I was young enough to uncritically believe some of the views I’ve expressed here. Things have changed a little bit. Anyways, the reason I bring this up is because part of what I think is going on is that the social contract is breaking down along the lines of nobody feeling like the government they have is actually representing their interests. Maybe, if this goes on for long enough, the social contract will change into something different entirely. Maybe this “shame” we all seem to feel will turn American society into something different than what it currently is, if it’s given the time to do so. But, I can’t really read the tea leaves on that one. All I know is things just can’t keep going the way their going. Something’s gonna break eventually.


  • I legitimately can’t tell anymore what even they think their trying to do.

    Like… yall are monsters who think government shouldn’t help people, yeah, I get that. But… like… if you want to speed-run violence in the streets, artificially fucking with the food’s a great way to do it.

    And… again… I’m just perplexed. Do you want the violence? If you wanted to invoke the riot act or whatever there’s easier ways to do that that don’t involve blowing up half the economy along with it. Is this a “principled” stance? Do you believe government shouldn’t help people so much that your willing to stand ten toes on causing hunger riots? Or is this desperation? Do you want to loot that discretionary fund so bad that your willing to risk sparking a revolution to do so? Is the money even still there? Or are you fighting this hard against SNAP because it was stolen long ago?

    On top of all of the rest of the anger and outrage, it’s frustrating that there’s likely no answer to these questions. Or as many answers as there are right wing chuds with their boots on the nation’s throats. At least in movies the villian have a devious master plan. Here in reality it feels like we’re speed running accelerationism and it’s hardly even intentional. Just equal parts malice and stupidity.




  • It’s that “everyone with a brain” bit that’s different now. Because you’re right, nothing here is new. Trump and Epstein’s ties have been pretty common knowledge to anyone not in the cult.

    What’s changed is that those inside the cult can’t really ignore it anymore. They went from “the democrats are all pedophiles and the Epstein files prove it!” to “they have the Epstein files on their desks, they are just doing some final checks before they release them” to “there are no Epstein files, there never were any Epstein files, and if you think different you need to shut up.”. Cognitive dissonance may be a powerful force, but “the Epstein files” have been the conspiracy bread and butter that’s been holding this cult together for a while now. They were probably willing to bend on just about anything but that.

    A lot of hay is made out of the fact that Trump managed to fuck up running a casino, and it’s true. In a business where the saying goes “the house always wins”, it takes a special breed of incompetance to bankrupt the house. This feels very similar. Dude could have said that aliens stole the Epstein files, Q-anon folks would have bought it. Or better yet don’t say anything at all. I think a lot of folks wouldn’t have bat an eye if Trump’s cronies were still “working on releasing the Epstein files” in 2028.

    But he didn’t do that. He made a huge song and dance about “releasing the Epstein files” then obviously canned it at the last minute. For the rabid conspiracy theoriests that comprise his base, the folks who were willing to invent an entire child trafficing code for pizzagate, that was probably the one manuver even he couldn’t pull.

    Will this mean anything in the long run? Well, I’ve kinda had my hope beaten out of me in that respect. But this does kinda feel different, I will say that.



  • This has been a republican strategy decades in the making. The comment above framed it as an arms race and that’s a good way to put it. They’ve had the overthrow of democracy in their heads as an objective and have undertaking a concerted strategy to achieve it.

    The democrats were always going to be at a disadvantage simply responding to that, but that disadvantage is made a lot worse by the fact that they don’t seem to want to respond to it. They have an idea of what this country is and that comes with a bunch of lines their unwilling to cross. Meanwhile republicans had a clear idea of what they want this country to be and were willing to trample any line, break any law or norm, in order to make it a reality.

    This? The news story we’re responding to? It may represent the first stumbling steps off the starting line. But it doesn’t change the fact that the starting pistol sounded decades ago and the republicans have been running the whole time.

    Too little, to late. I don’t want that sentiment to be true, but I find it hard to look at this situation and view it in any other way.



  • On paper there’s plenty that could. The Supreme Court could have stepped in to stop a lot of this. Executive orders only stand in places where a full fledged law from congress doesn’t cover the issue. The military is theoretically as obligated to disobey an unlawful order as they are to obey a lawful one and states are theoretically pretty insulated from federal interference except in a few explicit areas.

    But, we don’t live on paper and none of those protections exist unless there are people out there who are ready, willing, and able, to act on them. What happens if the Supreme Court somehow manages to rule against the administration and they just flagrantly disregard the order? What happens if Trump orders the military to start attacking US citizens openly or starts an illegal war without congressional approval? What happens if Trump runs for president again in 2028? Or just says he’s president for life and we’re not doing elections anymore?

    The answer is nothing, unless people stand up against him. And… so far… we haven’t seen much of that. Not from people in government at any rate. We’ve seen a bit from normal folks on the ground in places like LA, but our government’s been working to neuter the power of popular protest since the civil rights protests, perhaps even earlier. So reasonable people can disagree on the efficacy of that.

    I really don’t want to echo the doomer line I’ve seen written here a lot, but yeah, we’re probably fucked. Like maybe if something was done like… a decade ago? Two? Maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation. But… as things stand? I don’t even know if the damage from the first Trump presidency can ever truly be repaired and more damage is being done on a weekly, almost a daily basis. Personally? I think it’s only a matter of time before this man breaks the global economy irreparably. In a way that simply can’t be swept under the rug again. Domestically? Who the fuck knows at this point? I have to resist the urge to laugh out loud whenever people ask where I see myself in five years because at this point I’ve got no idea what the next two weeks are gonna hold.

    So… yeah. Fun times in the ol US of A.






  • I think… there was a kernel of a decent instinct there. At the point that John Oliver bit came out I feel like we were all kinda just marveling at how far stupid playground insults managed to get Trump. “Well, ok, maybe he’s onto something. Let’s try it and see what happens.” Was a fine reaction for the time, but I think it was best abandoned quickly.

    In 2025, not useful in the slightest. I don’t know what is precisely, but I don’t think it’s petty name calling.


  • You know, there’s that old yarn about Alfred Nobel. That his obituary was accidentally published early and that he was shocked and dismayed to discover that the only thing he’d be remembered for was the invention of Dynamite. So, he went on to create the Nobel Peace Prize, in the hopes of contributing something other than death to the world.

    I’m not saying Nobel was a fantastic dude, but at least he cared enough to not be remembered as the guy that made it possible for your son to get blown to peices in a war. He wanted something positive associated with name.

    Even that seems too high a bar for these folks. They’ve become so entrenched in their own little world that I don’t think they much care what anyone outside it thinks.


  • Obviously this is all stupid and you’ll find problems anywhere you choose to look.

    The problem I’m finding is this, if Facebook truly is betting on AI becoming better as a way to encourage growth then why are they further poisoning their own datasets? Like ok, even if you exclude everything your own bots say from your training data, which you could probably do since you know who they are, this is still encouraging more AI slop on the platform. You don’t know how much of the “engagement” your driving (which they are likely just turning around and feeding back into the AI training set) is actually human, AI grifter, or someone poisoning the well by making your AIs talk to themselves. If you actually cared to make your AI better, then you can’t use any of the responses to your bots as most of them will be of dubious providence at best.

    Personally I’m rooting on the coming Hapsburg-AI issue so I don’t really have that much of a problem with Facebook deciding more poison is a brilliant business move. But uh… seems real dumb if your actually interested in having an actually functional LLM.




  • So, the following is a genuine question and not a snide remark.

    Does that matter? Is the military going to respect that? I’d heard prior to this that the military had forbade parliament from gathering. What’s to say they don’t just side with Yoon?Certainly wouldn’t be the first time in history that a nation’s military has dictated the corse of the nation’s civil future. I really hate asking questions like this but I’m just not familiar enough with the politics of South Korea to know if this a done and dusted thing or if the military is likely to go for a coup if Yoon pitches it.


  • I can’t remember when I came to the realization, but for years now I thought that if (and I would love to hold on to the naive hope that it is an “if”) WW3 breaks out then the battle lines would be drawn between the forces of autocracy and democracy. Those would be our sides.

    Now, I’m not even sure democracy is gonna make it out the gate… America’s elected a dictator who’s aligned with Russia who is itself a major factor of this unholy autocratic alliance with China, North Korea, and Iran… Now this?

    There were no “good guys” in world war 1. It was the result of squabbleing European powers not realizing the destructive potential modern military technology had and how much that changed the game. It needed to happen in the sense that countries couldn’t continue to act the way they had prior to the great war, but that doesn’t mean anyone was in the right.

    It’s hard to imagine “good guys” in world war 3 either. Increasingly, it kinda just seems like it’s a choice between “what shit flavor of authoritarianism do you hate less?”. Assuming that question even matters considered all the nuclear weapons that could fly in a third world war.

    I dunno man, shit’s just looking pretty fucking bleak.