Comments are turned on for paid subscribers; if you aren’t one, please see the announcement in the Announcement & Housekeeping section at the bottom of this post.Holly’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
Thank you!! I've got therapy in a couple of hours and some homework to do, but to answer your question -- I read obsessively as a child, because it was how I escaped my childhood. I tended to be a serial monogamist of obsessions. I got obsessed with the wild west and read dozens of biographies of figures from that area. Likewise I went through periods of obsession with the sinking of the Titanic, the Holocaust, the 1918 flu epidemic, and a few other topics. I also tended towards historical or futuristic fiction -- Star Trek novels, the Laura Ingalls Wilder books, the Great Brain series.
Twitter may end up becoming known as the place where status and prestige went to die. It really showed us what our "elites" are made of.
"Stochastic Terrorism" makes no more sense to me than Chomsky's (intentional) nonsense phrase "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". As a math person, can you make any sense of how "stochastic" terrorism differs from the garden variety? Those words don't seem to belong together.
It's meant to imply that certain types of ideas deserve to be punished, because they're really really bad and dangerous. Inexcusably so, like terrorism. That's the best answer I've got, anyway.
So "stochastic" now means "bad" rather than probabilistic? I didn't agree to that. When did that happen? I don't recall it ever meaning that before ~ 6 months ago.
So, Biden's speech would count, then? I mean, let's face it, there's a low but nonzero probability that being denounced directly by the president like that will cause someone's switch to flip...
Yes. But the whole point of this type of reasoning that you can always foresee theoretical bad consequences - the whole point is to apply that foresight unevenly.
Biden said, "Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal.". To me, the abnormality is the obsession with Donald Trump - those truly obsessed and ruining lives based on his spectre and those who are using it as political misdirection. Most of what came after that is straight out of the genocide handbook - putting us at stage 6. It concerns me that to his ilk, the only true Republicans are the ones who agree with democrats. The horrific tone deafness of authoritarian references when he is the worst yet would be funny, were iI not concered that he was speaking to a goodly number of true believers. I too believe we are at an inflection point and we will choose a banana republic or freedom with all its messiness and confusion. But we cannot have both.
"And yet, history tells us that blind loyalty to a single leader and a willingness to engage in political violence is fatal to democracy." Yet he tells us if we do not fall in line we are MAGA Republicans becuase only those evil people disagree with his god like pronouncements.
He did give me one laugh when he said, "And this is a nation that rejects violence as a political tool." Standing in Independence Hall uttering that bullshit means he is relying heavily on vapid thinkers who are poorly educated in our history. If the Founders were not rolling over in their graves at the speech they surely were laughing their asses off in heaven.
I completely agree with this, "We’re all called by duty and conscience to confront extremists who put their own pursuit of power above all else." but he identified the wrong extremists.
The obsession with Trump is farcical, or would be if it wasn't so dangerous. And the only reason I'm not concerned about genocide is that the left are so goddamn weak. Just misgender them and watch them turn the gun on themselves. *laughs so I won't cry*
I do not underestimate the left. The woke hand-wringers are useful cover for people willing to use violennce just as public health measures have been used to exclude people from public life (Germany) and 'threats of political violence' have been used as excuses to disarm other peoples prior to instituting state violence. http://genocidewatch.net/genocide-2/8-stages-of-genocide/ : POLARIZATION: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Motivations for targeting a group are indoctrinated through mass media.
They've gotten rid of the people with enough spine to stand up to them, in many cases. But that's different from loading it with people who would point guns at their neighbors and community members. The people who join are still, by and large, in touch with reality. When you've defecated in the field in front of your unit, you are fully aware of the reality of biology and that we are our bodies.
> The Republicans have pendulum-swung into extremism on the abortion issue in many states.
Without defending the Republicans here because they *have* gone to extremes, it's not like "I support abortion up until the moment of birth" is particularly *less* extreme.
It's assholes all the way down. All I've ever wanted is just to be left the fuck alone.
And hopefully I won't have to go full Daxin Freeborn to get it.
The percentage of the time that happened for reasons other than dire medical issues was minuscule. Not defending it -- it should never happen trivially -- but it needs to be an option for dire medical circumstances. I know someone who found out at 20 weeks that her son would live a few hours at most. She opted to carry to term, and because it was her choice, the six figure NICU bill that eventually cost her and her husband their house is something she doesn't regret. Can you fathom the rage if it had been forced on them? She wanted the few hours and doesn't regret the decision they made. But giving him a painless death in her womb and handling it another way is morally and ethically justified in these horrible cases of fetuses with conditions incompatible with life.
Honor *what* limit? What law do you want to see enforced that you think the Democrats will not enforce? That late term abortion in the case of medical catastrophes should not be permitted?
No. I think they wouldn't honor the limit of it being only for medical catastrophes, if they had their way.
Apologies if I'm being particularly unclear this go around, I've been really incredibly ill and basically asleep since Tuesday night, save for a few hours of wakefulness here and there. And, indeed, I'm about to go right back to sleep.
The irony of what the Republicans have done is that the number of late term abortions is going to go up. The red state overreaction means that people in my friends' shoes, knowing they have to face what she faced, will simply go visit friends in New York or Vermont, as soon as possible. Whereas if there were reasonable limits on the books, they may seek out more specialists and wait to see if the diagnosis holds.
And I think the occasional psychopath who has an elective late term abortion is not justification for punishing all the rape victims, including the children, but I understand that Christians disagree. Many were thrilled when it looked like a 10 year old in Ohio was going to have to give birth.
I agree. This was a stupid, unforced error on the part of the Republicans, that will have completely foreseeable "unintended" consequences of just the sort you mention. And which will primarily impact those without the resources to travel.
Having been subjected to it myself, I certainly have no interest in punishing rape victims, or even those women who became pregnant through purely consensual intercourse. Anyone who does is indulging in sociopathy masquerading beneath the veneer of religion.
The only point I have (apparently, very, very poorly) been trying to make is that left to their own devices, and particularly in the wake of the reversal of Roe, I do not see the same people who tweet about celebrating one's abortion, and who support the mutilation of healthy children in service of trans ideology, setting **any** limits on abortion at all.
Personally, I can't grasp the logic of the God-obsessed anti-abortion folks. Given that He is (by their theology) omniscient, He must have known what was going to occur to a given fetus, and either it is irrelevant for the purposes of ensoulment, or He sent that soul *there* intentionally.
"I love seeing Trumpists condemning the political optics of this image. Admittedly, they are terrible. But they are only bad by reference to values that should lead you to totally repudiate Trump himself. For Biden, this is a gaffe; for Trump, it would be a window into his soul."
Beyond that, I note that most of Trumps speeches are outdoor daylight ones (or if indoors generally in large stadiums etc.) with backdrops of flags flapping in the breeze, home made signs and cheering multitudes. Yes they can look a bit culty but they are positive expressions of a love of country and an optimistic view of the future. Biden can't draw thousands of cheering supports in the first place so his minders have to make different venue choices. But I think we can all agree that this one was particularly bad.
Your comments on the political pendulum of Roe V Wade and it's after effects on the coming election I feel is spot on. Most likely we will be dealing with overreach, both from Blue states removing as many barriers and red states putting as many up as they can, for the next few decades before an actual compromise and middle ground is found. The crazies on both sides were given a bloody red meat feast thanks to the way Roe v Wade ended and neither is gonna let go of that particular chew toy anytime soon, especially since they can point to their political opposition and justify their actions based on what they are doing.
As for not voting I do completely understand even though I do not fully agree. Though personally I think this makes even more clear the need for their to always be an option of "None of the Above"
or something to that effect, on every ballot. Perhaps we could start to get some of the politicians to realize just how alienating they are if 25 or 30 percent of the vote was basically "we don't think any of you will represent us properly and don't want any of you to win"
I'm rereading the Gulag Archipelago and one passage that I'd never noticed leapt at me, out of the page, and drove a splinter in my mind. He was describing the idea of the 'cult of personality' as a euphemism meant to soften what can be understood more simply, and accurately as atavism. I have much more I'd like to say about this speech, but I've said it all in my head half a dozen times; with the number of comments on this already, I found them best left there. I thought you might find that interesting and relevant, however.
Thank you!! I've got therapy in a couple of hours and some homework to do, but to answer your question -- I read obsessively as a child, because it was how I escaped my childhood. I tended to be a serial monogamist of obsessions. I got obsessed with the wild west and read dozens of biographies of figures from that area. Likewise I went through periods of obsession with the sinking of the Titanic, the Holocaust, the 1918 flu epidemic, and a few other topics. I also tended towards historical or futuristic fiction -- Star Trek novels, the Laura Ingalls Wilder books, the Great Brain series.
Twitter may end up becoming known as the place where status and prestige went to die. It really showed us what our "elites" are made of.
This is perceptive and thoughtful, although I can't say much more than that, not being American.
I will note that a legal academic at Oxford (& a friend of mine) tweeted this image, using Biden's red/black lighting as a substitute cover for a book by a man who, while an extremely able lawyer, lent his immense legal talent to the Nazis in the 1930s: https://twitter.com/annvyshinsky/status/1565708938175184902?s=21&t=_lVvlC-AJlZ_PLBLDxCe4Q
Thank you. And wow, that's a good meme.
"Stochastic Terrorism" makes no more sense to me than Chomsky's (intentional) nonsense phrase "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". As a math person, can you make any sense of how "stochastic" terrorism differs from the garden variety? Those words don't seem to belong together.
It's meant to imply that certain types of ideas deserve to be punished, because they're really really bad and dangerous. Inexcusably so, like terrorism. That's the best answer I've got, anyway.
So "stochastic" now means "bad" rather than probabilistic? I didn't agree to that. When did that happen? I don't recall it ever meaning that before ~ 6 months ago.
No, now "stochastic" means "related to ideas" and "terrorism" means "very bad."
I think the claim is that the stochastic terrorist makes a speech act that will with low but nonzero probability incite some nutter to do violence.
As the stochastic terrorist repeats such speech acts, he causes violence with a probability that approaches one.
This is a justification for stretching restrictions on incitement and conspiracy to include theoretical claims of bad consequences.
So, Biden's speech would count, then? I mean, let's face it, there's a low but nonzero probability that being denounced directly by the president like that will cause someone's switch to flip...
Yes. But the whole point of this type of reasoning that you can always foresee theoretical bad consequences - the whole point is to apply that foresight unevenly.
Actually to be fair, even if arguing in good faith, angering your opposition should count. That's a heckler's veto.
In fact it's the basic woke tactic: I got upset therefore what you said had a bad impact, and is therefore bad.
I think the speech was intended to cause violence they could then try to exploit to victory in November.
So you suspect malice rather than stupidity?
Biden said, "Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal.". To me, the abnormality is the obsession with Donald Trump - those truly obsessed and ruining lives based on his spectre and those who are using it as political misdirection. Most of what came after that is straight out of the genocide handbook - putting us at stage 6. It concerns me that to his ilk, the only true Republicans are the ones who agree with democrats. The horrific tone deafness of authoritarian references when he is the worst yet would be funny, were iI not concered that he was speaking to a goodly number of true believers. I too believe we are at an inflection point and we will choose a banana republic or freedom with all its messiness and confusion. But we cannot have both.
"And yet, history tells us that blind loyalty to a single leader and a willingness to engage in political violence is fatal to democracy." Yet he tells us if we do not fall in line we are MAGA Republicans becuase only those evil people disagree with his god like pronouncements.
He did give me one laugh when he said, "And this is a nation that rejects violence as a political tool." Standing in Independence Hall uttering that bullshit means he is relying heavily on vapid thinkers who are poorly educated in our history. If the Founders were not rolling over in their graves at the speech they surely were laughing their asses off in heaven.
I completely agree with this, "We’re all called by duty and conscience to confront extremists who put their own pursuit of power above all else." but he identified the wrong extremists.
The obsession with Trump is farcical, or would be if it wasn't so dangerous. And the only reason I'm not concerned about genocide is that the left are so goddamn weak. Just misgender them and watch them turn the gun on themselves. *laughs so I won't cry*
I do not underestimate the left. The woke hand-wringers are useful cover for people willing to use violennce just as public health measures have been used to exclude people from public life (Germany) and 'threats of political violence' have been used as excuses to disarm other peoples prior to instituting state violence. http://genocidewatch.net/genocide-2/8-stages-of-genocide/ : POLARIZATION: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Motivations for targeting a group are indoctrinated through mass media.
I'm afraid I'm with Dominoodle on this one.
Why else do you think they've been working so hard to turn the military over?
They've gotten rid of the people with enough spine to stand up to them, in many cases. But that's different from loading it with people who would point guns at their neighbors and community members. The people who join are still, by and large, in touch with reality. When you've defecated in the field in front of your unit, you are fully aware of the reality of biology and that we are our bodies.
I hope you're right.
> The Republicans have pendulum-swung into extremism on the abortion issue in many states.
Without defending the Republicans here because they *have* gone to extremes, it's not like "I support abortion up until the moment of birth" is particularly *less* extreme.
It's assholes all the way down. All I've ever wanted is just to be left the fuck alone.
And hopefully I won't have to go full Daxin Freeborn to get it.
The percentage of the time that happened for reasons other than dire medical issues was minuscule. Not defending it -- it should never happen trivially -- but it needs to be an option for dire medical circumstances. I know someone who found out at 20 weeks that her son would live a few hours at most. She opted to carry to term, and because it was her choice, the six figure NICU bill that eventually cost her and her husband their house is something she doesn't regret. Can you fathom the rage if it had been forced on them? She wanted the few hours and doesn't regret the decision they made. But giving him a painless death in her womb and handling it another way is morally and ethically justified in these horrible cases of fetuses with conditions incompatible with life.
Again, not trying to defend the Rs here, because I think they went way the hell too far.
But I don't trust the Ds to honor that sort of limit, or *any* limit, on something that many of them seem to consider a sacrament, these days.
A pox on both their houses.
Honor *what* limit? What law do you want to see enforced that you think the Democrats will not enforce? That late term abortion in the case of medical catastrophes should not be permitted?
No. I think they wouldn't honor the limit of it being only for medical catastrophes, if they had their way.
Apologies if I'm being particularly unclear this go around, I've been really incredibly ill and basically asleep since Tuesday night, save for a few hours of wakefulness here and there. And, indeed, I'm about to go right back to sleep.
The irony of what the Republicans have done is that the number of late term abortions is going to go up. The red state overreaction means that people in my friends' shoes, knowing they have to face what she faced, will simply go visit friends in New York or Vermont, as soon as possible. Whereas if there were reasonable limits on the books, they may seek out more specialists and wait to see if the diagnosis holds.
And I think the occasional psychopath who has an elective late term abortion is not justification for punishing all the rape victims, including the children, but I understand that Christians disagree. Many were thrilled when it looked like a 10 year old in Ohio was going to have to give birth.
I agree. This was a stupid, unforced error on the part of the Republicans, that will have completely foreseeable "unintended" consequences of just the sort you mention. And which will primarily impact those without the resources to travel.
Having been subjected to it myself, I certainly have no interest in punishing rape victims, or even those women who became pregnant through purely consensual intercourse. Anyone who does is indulging in sociopathy masquerading beneath the veneer of religion.
The only point I have (apparently, very, very poorly) been trying to make is that left to their own devices, and particularly in the wake of the reversal of Roe, I do not see the same people who tweet about celebrating one's abortion, and who support the mutilation of healthy children in service of trans ideology, setting **any** limits on abortion at all.
Personally, I can't grasp the logic of the God-obsessed anti-abortion folks. Given that He is (by their theology) omniscient, He must have known what was going to occur to a given fetus, and either it is irrelevant for the purposes of ensoulment, or He sent that soul *there* intentionally.
Your "buddy" Sam Harris has a particularly telling tweet on the speech
https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/1565825294459498496
"I love seeing Trumpists condemning the political optics of this image. Admittedly, they are terrible. But they are only bad by reference to values that should lead you to totally repudiate Trump himself. For Biden, this is a gaffe; for Trump, it would be a window into his soul."
Beyond that, I note that most of Trumps speeches are outdoor daylight ones (or if indoors generally in large stadiums etc.) with backdrops of flags flapping in the breeze, home made signs and cheering multitudes. Yes they can look a bit culty but they are positive expressions of a love of country and an optimistic view of the future. Biden can't draw thousands of cheering supports in the first place so his minders have to make different venue choices. But I think we can all agree that this one was particularly bad.
PS https://meme.aho.st/tag/biden/ has many images mocking the speech
Your comments on the political pendulum of Roe V Wade and it's after effects on the coming election I feel is spot on. Most likely we will be dealing with overreach, both from Blue states removing as many barriers and red states putting as many up as they can, for the next few decades before an actual compromise and middle ground is found. The crazies on both sides were given a bloody red meat feast thanks to the way Roe v Wade ended and neither is gonna let go of that particular chew toy anytime soon, especially since they can point to their political opposition and justify their actions based on what they are doing.
As for not voting I do completely understand even though I do not fully agree. Though personally I think this makes even more clear the need for their to always be an option of "None of the Above"
or something to that effect, on every ballot. Perhaps we could start to get some of the politicians to realize just how alienating they are if 25 or 30 percent of the vote was basically "we don't think any of you will represent us properly and don't want any of you to win"
Is the red/black lighting supposed to be a nod to the antifa red/black flags?
I'm rereading the Gulag Archipelago and one passage that I'd never noticed leapt at me, out of the page, and drove a splinter in my mind. He was describing the idea of the 'cult of personality' as a euphemism meant to soften what can be understood more simply, and accurately as atavism. I have much more I'd like to say about this speech, but I've said it all in my head half a dozen times; with the number of comments on this already, I found them best left there. I thought you might find that interesting and relevant, however.