monkeyfun

Access that costs thousands of dollars for a short trip that most people simply don't have the spare money for. The median US income is <40k/year, and healthcare + housing costs dominate most workers' lives.

Also, it's not $18/year like a subscription, it's $165 upfront -- money that could be spent on gas, food, medical bills, desperately saved up for emergencies, etc. and won't provide any benefit whatsoever to their lives unless they're taking a vacation they probably don't feel they can afford financially or in their <2 weeks of vacation time.

You don't seem to have understood their post at all by asking what Ireland did that this is reciprocating. They're saying other countries should reciprocate this upon Americans. The point you make about the purpose from the American pov is valid and correct + clearly meant to be expanded upon or abused in the future, but not their point.

I'd argue it doesn't at all say paradise wouldn't be great -- plenty of people are content with their lives, and there's plenty of options to functionally die or reduce your level of consciousness below one that will really be able to care about the future or be bored.

Rather, it's a nihilistic dream from that place, free and limitless cyberspace; a heaven.

A timeless place at the end of history.

Perhaps read the companion piece (A Casino Odyssey in Cyberspace), which illustrates how one doesn't need to spend centuries to become aware of the Meaninglessness of life, and yet simultaneously how Meaning can be created for individuals even at the end of history.

I think a more interesting avenue to explore is the author's particular leaning toward sadism, as I find it a little unclear if his view is one in which sadism and domination is merely more interesting to explore for the stories, or if his particular view is that the most undiluted pleasure left in cyberspace is sadism or domination.

Something which, for as terrible as it may sound, I think we can actually find possible signs of -- moreso Domination (or far less ominously: Mastery) than Sadism.

I'll cut my comment short-er about here, but those intrigued by the idea can also explore the fact that in MoPI a character like Caroline isn't actually sadistic like many of those she meets, but absolutely spent centuries mastering skills and keeping busy with simple competition against others.

Likewise she ties into my earlier points about Nihilism and Meaning, where it's pretty clear the ending is likely just the moment Prime Intellect's definitions of death blurred just as it also realized it could never make people like Caroline satisfied as long as she thinks she's in cyberspace. Notice she's engaged in many of the exact same activities she spent her time on in cyberspace and would have gladly been happy continuing on that way for countless centuries more while guiding her tribe lamenting her old age at the conclusion.

(Aside: wow I'm so happy to see MoPI mentioned somewhere! It always feels so little-known.)

At risk of speaking too much for someone else: They are not blaming the left, they're blaming the democrat party -- and are far from assigning them total blame imo.

You're overall correct, but made me notice that there is actually an unusually coherent argument (by their standards) being presented by the reactionaries pushing for the things you mention. It goes roughly like:

>The reason these jobs are terrible is because immigrants are doing it for wages that would be intolerably low to anyone else.

>This is also why it's hard to find a decent job in general, our competition is basically cheating!

>But if we remove the immigrants, the employers will surely have to increase wages like they were supposed to

>Now americans will have high paying factory jobs, and if some goods increase in price that's ok, their wages will let them afford it.

>we got to have our cake and eat it too!

Obviously they're missing some key steps and consciousness here in the reasoning, but I feel it's interesting to reflect on in context of how it's almost right -- and surprisingly close to a marxist view of things until it starts assuming things like that individuals have more bargaining power than their employers or that economic agents will always try to set the lowest price they can afford for goods rather than the highest.

So for example they'd believe prices would only go up a little and manufacturing companies would just live with stagnant or reduced profits since they'd have no other choice.

Notice how they have a habit of assuming totally Good behavior from Companies but totally Bad behavior from Immigrants!

I think in context of all that, it becomes more visible both how we could actually resolve this problem other than by just accepting the loss of domestic industry, and what in specific the people falling for this narrative are being hooked on.

Haha, i totally feel that. Maybe people will have little personal balloons for emergencies like that :p

At the same time, do consider how you already count on conventionally supported structures like bridges, buildings, tunnels, etc. not to have any defects or design flaws. Or once-in-100-years storms or earthquakes.

This magnifies further if you've ever flown on a plane or sailed on a ship. It only takes the right series of failures to be plummeting to the bottom. Now imagine people who spend months or years counting on technology and redundancy to keep them alive in space, and might expect to do so indefinitely.

Exposure therapy, baby!

Oh it wouldn't be easier than a moon base or simple orbital habitats. And as for Venus being scifi, anything to do with space colonization period is scifi right now; humans haven't even stepped foot on another celestial body of any kind in over half a century.

Rather my meaning was that it's (a little shockingly) the best suited planet for humans in terms of most closely and reliably resembling conditions humans could survive in, which relates to the terraforming notions I was replying to.

It'd be overwhelmingly harder to make all of Venus Earthlike than to just use the existing relatively Earthlike regions of the upper atmosphere to our advantage along with their unique properties. Cool off Venus and you just get a big ocean of liquid or frozen co2 to have to deal with after a loooong time and a lot of construction. Keep it like it is and a fraction of the resources/effort will yield far more utility while we can still enjoy a segment of the atmosphere.

Scifi? Of course!

Cool? Without a doubt!

If you're interested in human habitation of Venus overall, you may find it interesting to learn Venus is probably preferable kept at about its current temperature or only made a little colder.

See, the atmosphere at ~50 altitude... happens to be about 1 bar (which happens to be Earth's atmospheric pressure ASL)... and happens to have temperatures that can support human and plant life!

And better still, the atmosphere being mostly co2 with a little nitrogen actually means normal Earth air is a lifting gas! Starting to see where this is going?

It's not too hard to imagine the skies of Venus full of floating habitats that move to stay in the sunlight, or occasionally dock with tethers or balloons carrying cargo from extremely reinforced mining facilities deep underground (where they could be much more protected most of the time from the pressure/temperature/corrosion) -- a future where people (or machines!) might scoff at the idea of cooling off Venus and losing out on such an excellent habitation zone, one which could also fairly easily support elevated runways or launch platforms to more cheaply reach space from.

With Venus also having 91% of Earth's gravity, and those atmospheric conditions at high altitudes that add some radiation shielding and would probably let a human worker only need a very limited suit more akin to a hazmat or firefighting suit with SCBA to work outside habitats... Venus is actually easily the single best planet for humans to live on after Earth!

(Can you tell I'm writing a story set there? Hehehe)

>stop calling people from other country's "aliens" fkn disgusting!

You're quick to lie about what I say or do. Just as quick to call me disgusting. Says a lot.

Thanks!

To quote you

>public safety is the number one priority for any government

You blanket-declared that any/all governments have it as their number one priority, with no nuance I might add.

Additionally, are you somehow completely unaware that the American government is sending people to that country's worst prison, and that the current president has said he wishes to send American citizens there? This is why American values are at all being referenced here.

Nobody thus far in this conversation has been defending gitmo, the patriot act, or the illegal and unjust invasion of Iraq -- and personally I'm against all three. Yet you're creating false equivalencies, ascribing strawman views to others, and mostly avoiding any nuance to such matters as if the country's underlying corruption and dysfunction which enabled such lawless conditions is any better (which it might genuinely be, but such points ought be evidenced and argued, not declared).

Instead you've transformed it into something approximating: "now el salvador is safe and everyone is happy, there was no need for liberty or human dignity to be respected then or now."

Therein you make yourself out to argue in poor faith.

Could you link to some of it? Sounds extremely interesting!

Aptly observed. I'm not even sure if it's what I believe is the case, but there's some serious merit in this line of thought.

It could make a lot of sense even if they have better means of access, and even with this attention risking the compromise of said access, simply because of how valuable even slight furthering of any division and political incoherence is right now both mid and long term.

Still wouldn't seem the more likely Plan A, as success would obviously be even better than such an apparently close failure, but I can see it being used to justify acting. Succeed at the intended plan and you win -- fail and you still win, just a little less so.

1. It's a quote, not an expression of the poster's opinions directly.

2. We wouldn't even be talking about that industrial scale genocide this early on Hitler's term, which I don't say to suggest he's going to be Hitler 2 but rather to point out how it can be quite valid to be concerned before someone's getting into full swing with atrocities.

I think we were almost all lulled into a sense of "huh, I guess I slightly misread them..." fueled by the failures to capitalize, the little losses of momentum that almost gave the hopeful impression that maybe people had finally gotten over the bloodlust and the worst of the power grabs.

By the way, the ending of what you wrote is beautiful.

Yeah, this is a man who literally says he has the greatest memory in human history but then constantly says he can't remember stuff a day or two later or coincidentally was living under a rock and has no idea what's going on in his cabinet.

So far they've already detained a lawyer who is an american citizen when he was reentering the country, and tried to grill him for inside information on cases he's actively working and people he knows. They eventually let him go, but they targeted him specifically and knew his name and significance, and he was defending one of the student protesters.

They even called a "tactical terrorism response team".

Oh, and check out how you can find them being used in already opaque and sinister ways back in 2021 under Biden, and earlier.

You do the math.

Wow! Thank you for sharing this! I probably never would have heard of it otherwise, having had to focus so much of my energies on America lately.

It's especially such a farce because what do they expect? If trump said the sky is green and the ocean is red, you'd find scores of these useless faux-intellectuals trying to "prove" the truth, and each data point of evidence would simply be met with various forms of "no it isn't! The sky is green! The ocean is red!"

In their world, any "evidence" to the contrary must be manipulated or misinterpreted, because as we all know the sky is green, the ocean is -- oh, he said it's yellow now? And the sky is red? Hah, of course! We knew it all along, it was the plan, stupid!

And meanwhile...

Most of the democrats' tiny minds struggle to operate outside of a context of rigid rules and procedures. A context of arguing a point and getting at least some degree of fair debate in return.

But this is another age of populism. It doesn't matter what you argue, on either side. Debate transforms, serving only to transmit your message to your side, ideally while inspiring them and demoralizing the enemy. It matters that you seem confident and powerful while you say whatever you're saying. It matters that you seem invincible and indefatigable.

Their world won't be back for quite some time, assuming something at all like it sticks around. They'll keep operating like robots, not understanding why an excellent diss or crude mockery matters more than 1000 additional volumes of "proof" about something in contention.

Others have mentioned good points. I'd like to also add that a completely stagnant legislature that literally can't get anything done unless republicans agree on it to start with -- and magnified greatly by an ineffectual democrat party that concedes virtually everything just for instance to approve a temporary spending bill against their own interests as a party and as individuals -- altogether it should say a LOT.

Especially wrt how you suggested "polarizing" legislation will just get filibustered, as polarizing doesn't cut it, and the democrats in congress somehow have this magical ability to mostly do nothing and yet be terrified of doing nothing. Besides, if they do nothing, the republicans still essentially act with impunity. They're already dipping their toes in dark waters by ignoring some court orders and rulings. All while following the playbook of accusing others of what they do far more/worse, but never allowing even a drop of guilt to weigh on them.

Perhaps this is all to say that congressional gridlock hardly fixes any of the damage, can be exploited politically, and won't undo the sort of damage that be done even just in the remaining ~2 years before midterms. And at this point people are getting seriously afraid about what'll happen if they don't like the outcome of those midterms, let alone the next presidential election.

I agree greatly though about what you note with states' separation of powers meaning particularly bold governors+legislature can resist a lot of federal authority.

It's the one solid fallback, but even then it's got some limitations. Look at a state like California that subsidizes conservative states by paying more in taxes to the federal government than it receives in funding.

How long until people from outside the Trump bloc start questioning why they're stuck saddled with their baggage, which produces next to no value for them but is impairing their political freedom, and which extracts tax money to be spent against their political and popular interests?

How long until federal interests might simply decide to retaliate against those states' attempts to bypass and ignore them? Especially if they start making accusations of rebellion, secessionism, "radical leftism" or some other senile babble.

Wow, I can't believe I actually appreciate the direction and overall production value of an airline safety video.

Probably serves its function better for it too! I can't imagine nearly as many people would tune it out or just feign attention, but it's not totally sacrificing the focus on what matters.

Don't forget that bigballs was fired from one of his last jobs for... selling company secrets to a competitor.

But how do you explain an uninhabited semi-independent (as i understand it) island with no trade with the US getting higher tariffs than Australia, the country it's broadly part of?

Yeah, I can agree with who you're replying to on the fact that the lack of much perceived economic substance is certainly what made more of the "anti-woke" rhetoric work out so strongly, but Project 2025 is so ridiculous real and being enacted that it's comical to even suggest it was baseless fearmongering.

I mean literally day one a slurry of orders practically taken straight from it were made, and it's clearly been the playbook they're operating off of.

It's not astroturfed, some of us spotted what's going on and tried to draw attention!

I 100% get you, genuinely, but you have to realize that even mentioning that in most people's eyes legitimately makes you look at a glance like you're going to talk about Bill Gates' 5G rna vaccine autism microchips and how soros is a reptile infiltrator.

Naturally and as we all know, Zuckerberg is actually the reptile. And more to the point, it really was and still is next to nobody but some right wingers who were complaining about NGOs in that fashion -- it's an optics hurdle that has to be overcome, especially as it's usually only focused in on a couple offenders but ignoring many more.

Generally, it'll take more effort and tact to explain yourself as a result, and if we're talking about where it came from, it really does appear like it's just appeared suddenly out of the rightwing-o-sphere to many.

And of course, one of the other dirty aspects to this is that if you're willing to emotionally jerk off and manipulate your base to the extreme, that basic perception of material conditions can distort away from reality. Not completely so, but it's part of what makes populism so powerful, and unless they can find ways to embrace elements of populism they're going to find nobody's receptive to their messages.

Well for starters they could've not voted on the spending bill and reversed exactly what the conservatives would do constantly under Obama, not until getting at least some kind of serious concession, while painting it as republicans being unwilling to compromise.

Similarly, only a handful of democrats (and ex-democrats) are actually doing anything to make big public statements, to direct people as to what a useful usage of their energies could be.

Oh, and they could do things like not put David Hogg as a vice chair in a way that not only looks corrupt, but far more importantly has absolutely no strategic sense at all -- who asked for that guy?! He's looked like a complete idiot at virtually every debate he's been to, believes in virtually nothing except total gun control conveyed in a sanctimonious, tactless, trivially hateable manner that instantly alienates many americans who might be willing to listen to nearly anyone else in context of all that's going on... I could keep going, the point is this is a guy with absolutely no redeeming qualities except his well-off family with a father in the FBI, which just confirms narratives while not even providing an otherwise competent person.

Most importantly though, they don't know how to fix their behavior or optics as a conservative-lite party that only moves to the right now, that only "compromises" by giving ground for nothing in return.

If you're a socialist

If you're LGBTQ

If you're an environmentalist

If you're single-issue on healthcare

If you're bothered by the situation in Palestine

If you're a voting reformer

If you're any one of these things

Then you have NOTHING at this point, just a party where people who tried to speak for you and usually did so tactlessly and poorly, then started blaming you for the election saying "if only we were a little more conservative! Then we would have won the election!"

Sorry for the rather rambling post, but I think it should do a good job of expressing the core anger and dissatisfaction that's being felt, and why they're both not doing enough + look unpalatable to a huge chunk of their own voters now.

Out of curiosity: how come only LGB? I'm trans, and I'd be quick to complain about how bad the narratives are there. Especially in terms of people over-focusing on such a small issue when hardly any trans people are in competitive sports and there's issues 1000x more important to our daily lives and safety that need to be handled sooner than "competitive sports teams".

I'm not the only trans person like this, so it seems odd to exclude a whole group from even the possibility of agreement.

Your patience and clarity of speaking in an understanding and respectful way is truly impressive. If things are going to get any better, more people like you are needed. I'm certainly taking notes.

Fwiw you pretty much nailed what being trans is in terms of a concise and unattached summary. There's usually a lot of extreme discomfort with your birth sex too, among other things, but yours is a pretty good starting definition.

Of note on the "2 sexes" subject btw:

- are there actually "only 2 sexes" in context of the genetically intersex?

- the dialogue usually isn't "there's no such thing as a simple biological sex of male or female for most people!!!!", and most people seem to confuse gender with sex or are just seeking excuses to hate on other people.

- many have been trying to suppress reasonable conversation, which is making it harder to just explain things to people. But a lot of us don't even bother trying to explain personally for ourselves when most conversations end up being exhausting bad-faith arguments just to justify our existence to someone spitting some points they heard on a podcast once. So it does tend to mean not a lot of us are going around just trying to explain to everyone like glorified jehovah's witnesses, and the popular perception is pretty distorted from the actual situation on the ground.