Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Thank you Glen. Eric > On Nov 11, 2024, at 10:53, glen wrote: > > I have not. But Claude has. 8^D Below are first, Claude's summary of > summaries. What follows are Claude's summaries of Parts I, II, & III, which > were part of the prompt for the summary of summaries. Temperature = 0. I had > to do it in parts because the entire book was longer than Claude's context > window. IDK if it's accurate or helpful. > > --- Summary of Summaries - > Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism traces the evolution of the > American-dominated global economic order from World War I through the early > 21st century. The book argues that the United States has used its unique > position as the issuer of the world's reserve currency to gain economic and > political power, often at the expense of other nations. > > In Part I, covering 1914-1946, Hudson shows how the U.S. emerged as the > world's major creditor after World War I, but its financial policies sowed > instability and division. The U.S. refused to reduce war debts owed by allies > or provide aid to the Soviet Union after World War II, setting the stage for > the Cold War and a divided world economy. > > Part II examines the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank, GATT) that > emerged after World War II. These institutions were dominated by U.S. > interests and often benefited the U.S. at the expense of developing > countries. The IMF, in particular, maintained the dollar's hegemony while > imposing austerity on deficit countries. > > In Part III, Hudson argues that the U.S. has used its debtor position as > leverage since the 1960s, threatening to disrupt the global monetary system > if other countries don't finance its deficits. The lack of a viable > alternative to the dollar allows the U.S. to continue running deficits while > pressuring trade partners to keep their markets open. Europe and Asia have > failed to challenge this "monetary imperialism," which remains the foundation > of U.S. global power. > > Overall, Super Imperialism presents a critical analysis of how the U.S. has > used its economic and monetary dominance to shape the global economic order > in its own interests over the past century, often with negative consequences > for other nations. The book highlights the asymmetries and inequities > inherent in this system and the lack of a functional alternative to dollar > hegemony. > > - Summary of Part I -- > Part I covers the period from 1914-1946 and the birth of the American world > order. The key developments were: > > - World War I transformed the global financial system from one dominated by > private capital flows to one dominated by flows between governments, with the > U.S. emerging as the world's major creditor. The U.S. extended loans to its > allies that they could not realistically repay, sowing the seeds for > financial instability. > > - In the interwar period of 1921-1933, the U.S. refused to reduce the war > debts owed by the Allies, while also raising tariffs. This made it impossible > for the Allies to earn the dollars needed to repay the U.S., leading to the > breakdown of the international financial system and contributing to the Great > Depression and the rise of fascism. The U.S. failed to take on Britain's > former role in stabilizing the global economy. > > - During World War II, the U.S. again extended loans to the Allies through > the Lend-Lease program. As the war ended, the U.S. abruptly terminated > Lend-Lease aid. At the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, the U.S. established > the IMF and World Bank on terms highly favorable to U.S. interests, giving it > veto power over their policies. > > - After the war, the U.S. aimed to create an open world economy centered > around the U.S. and the dollar. However, it refused to provide loans or aid > to the Soviet Union, pushing the USSR to withdraw from the capitalist world > system. This laid the foundations for the Cold War and the splintering of the > world economy into rival blocs. > > In summary, U.S. financial policies from 1914-1946 established its dominant > global creditor position, but also sowed instability and division by placing > U.S. national interests ahead of its responsibilities as the new hegemonic > power. This set the stage for many of the economic tensions of the postwar > era. > > --- Summary of Part II > Part II focuses on the institutions of the American empire that emerged after > World War II, specifically the World Bank, U.S. foreign aid programs, the > General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the International Monetary > Fund (IMF). > > The World Bank was dominated by U.S. interests from the start, despite > British attempts to make it more independent. Its lending focused on > infrastructure and export sectors in developing countries rather than > agricultural modernization, thereby increasing
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
EricS wrote: So my question to the list is: has any of you read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Super-Imperialism-Origin-Fundamentals-Dominance/dp/0745319890 so: glen wrote: ... then Claude wrote: In Part III, Hudson argues that the U.S. has used its debtor position as leverage since the 1960s, threatening to disrupt the global monetary system if other countries don't finance its deficits. The lack of a viable alternative to the dollar allows the U.S. to continue running deficits while pressuring trade partners to keep their markets open. Europe and Asia have failed to challenge this "monetary imperialism," which remains the foundation of U.S. global power. In my superficial layman's way, I feel that much of the history of the "modern" (3000BCE to date) has been strangely driven or pulled or forced by "debt". The tension between the Aristocracies and the Merchants? Borrowers borrow and Lenders lend what Producers produce, and thus Power flows? I suppose I should (re)read Graeber's /Debt/? Since everything is about the recent US Presidential election, one might look at whether Trump's various types of "bankruptcy" from the most literal to the most figurative somehow help to explain his ascendency? .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Isolationism seems to be what many voters want. When they go to the gas pump or to Costco, will they like the consequences of lost U.S. hegemony? Mean salaries in the U.S. are dramatically higher than in other countries, except for Switzerland. From: Friam on behalf of glen Date: Monday, November 11, 2024 at 7:54 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die I have not. But Claude has. 8^D Below are first, Claude's summary of summaries. What follows are Claude's summaries of Parts I, II, & III, which were part of the prompt for the summary of summaries. Temperature = 0. I had to do it in parts because the entire book was longer than Claude's context window. IDK if it's accurate or helpful. --- Summary of Summaries - Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism traces the evolution of the American-dominated global economic order from World War I through the early 21st century. The book argues that the United States has used its unique position as the issuer of the world's reserve currency to gain economic and political power, often at the expense of other nations. In Part I, covering 1914-1946, Hudson shows how the U.S. emerged as the world's major creditor after World War I, but its financial policies sowed instability and division. The U.S. refused to reduce war debts owed by allies or provide aid to the Soviet Union after World War II, setting the stage for the Cold War and a divided world economy. Part II examines the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank, GATT) that emerged after World War II. These institutions were dominated by U.S. interests and often benefited the U.S. at the expense of developing countries. The IMF, in particular, maintained the dollar's hegemony while imposing austerity on deficit countries. In Part III, Hudson argues that the U.S. has used its debtor position as leverage since the 1960s, threatening to disrupt the global monetary system if other countries don't finance its deficits. The lack of a viable alternative to the dollar allows the U.S. to continue running deficits while pressuring trade partners to keep their markets open. Europe and Asia have failed to challenge this "monetary imperialism," which remains the foundation of U.S. global power. Overall, Super Imperialism presents a critical analysis of how the U.S. has used its economic and monetary dominance to shape the global economic order in its own interests over the past century, often with negative consequences for other nations. The book highlights the asymmetries and inequities inherent in this system and the lack of a functional alternative to dollar hegemony. - Summary of Part I -- Part I covers the period from 1914-1946 and the birth of the American world order. The key developments were: - World War I transformed the global financial system from one dominated by private capital flows to one dominated by flows between governments, with the U.S. emerging as the world's major creditor. The U.S. extended loans to its allies that they could not realistically repay, sowing the seeds for financial instability. - In the interwar period of 1921-1933, the U.S. refused to reduce the war debts owed by the Allies, while also raising tariffs. This made it impossible for the Allies to earn the dollars needed to repay the U.S., leading to the breakdown of the international financial system and contributing to the Great Depression and the rise of fascism. The U.S. failed to take on Britain's former role in stabilizing the global economy. - During World War II, the U.S. again extended loans to the Allies through the Lend-Lease program. As the war ended, the U.S. abruptly terminated Lend-Lease aid. At the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, the U.S. established the IMF and World Bank on terms highly favorable to U.S. interests, giving it veto power over their policies. - After the war, the U.S. aimed to create an open world economy centered around the U.S. and the dollar. However, it refused to provide loans or aid to the Soviet Union, pushing the USSR to withdraw from the capitalist world system. This laid the foundations for the Cold War and the splintering of the world economy into rival blocs. In summary, U.S. financial policies from 1914-1946 established its dominant global creditor position, but also sowed instability and division by placing U.S. national interests ahead of its responsibilities as the new hegemonic power. This set the stage for many of the economic tensions of the postwar era. --- Summary of Part II Part II focuses on the institutions of the American empire that emerged after World War II, specifically the World Bank, U.S. foreign aid programs, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The World Bank was dominated by U.S
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I have not. But Claude has. 8^D Below are first, Claude's summary of summaries. What follows are Claude's summaries of Parts I, II, & III, which were part of the prompt for the summary of summaries. Temperature = 0. I had to do it in parts because the entire book was longer than Claude's context window. IDK if it's accurate or helpful. --- Summary of Summaries - Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism traces the evolution of the American-dominated global economic order from World War I through the early 21st century. The book argues that the United States has used its unique position as the issuer of the world's reserve currency to gain economic and political power, often at the expense of other nations. In Part I, covering 1914-1946, Hudson shows how the U.S. emerged as the world's major creditor after World War I, but its financial policies sowed instability and division. The U.S. refused to reduce war debts owed by allies or provide aid to the Soviet Union after World War II, setting the stage for the Cold War and a divided world economy. Part II examines the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank, GATT) that emerged after World War II. These institutions were dominated by U.S. interests and often benefited the U.S. at the expense of developing countries. The IMF, in particular, maintained the dollar's hegemony while imposing austerity on deficit countries. In Part III, Hudson argues that the U.S. has used its debtor position as leverage since the 1960s, threatening to disrupt the global monetary system if other countries don't finance its deficits. The lack of a viable alternative to the dollar allows the U.S. to continue running deficits while pressuring trade partners to keep their markets open. Europe and Asia have failed to challenge this "monetary imperialism," which remains the foundation of U.S. global power. Overall, Super Imperialism presents a critical analysis of how the U.S. has used its economic and monetary dominance to shape the global economic order in its own interests over the past century, often with negative consequences for other nations. The book highlights the asymmetries and inequities inherent in this system and the lack of a functional alternative to dollar hegemony. - Summary of Part I -- Part I covers the period from 1914-1946 and the birth of the American world order. The key developments were: - World War I transformed the global financial system from one dominated by private capital flows to one dominated by flows between governments, with the U.S. emerging as the world's major creditor. The U.S. extended loans to its allies that they could not realistically repay, sowing the seeds for financial instability. - In the interwar period of 1921-1933, the U.S. refused to reduce the war debts owed by the Allies, while also raising tariffs. This made it impossible for the Allies to earn the dollars needed to repay the U.S., leading to the breakdown of the international financial system and contributing to the Great Depression and the rise of fascism. The U.S. failed to take on Britain's former role in stabilizing the global economy. - During World War II, the U.S. again extended loans to the Allies through the Lend-Lease program. As the war ended, the U.S. abruptly terminated Lend-Lease aid. At the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, the U.S. established the IMF and World Bank on terms highly favorable to U.S. interests, giving it veto power over their policies. - After the war, the U.S. aimed to create an open world economy centered around the U.S. and the dollar. However, it refused to provide loans or aid to the Soviet Union, pushing the USSR to withdraw from the capitalist world system. This laid the foundations for the Cold War and the splintering of the world economy into rival blocs. In summary, U.S. financial policies from 1914-1946 established its dominant global creditor position, but also sowed instability and division by placing U.S. national interests ahead of its responsibilities as the new hegemonic power. This set the stage for many of the economic tensions of the postwar era. --- Summary of Part II Part II focuses on the institutions of the American empire that emerged after World War II, specifically the World Bank, U.S. foreign aid programs, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The World Bank was dominated by U.S. interests from the start, despite British attempts to make it more independent. Its lending focused on infrastructure and export sectors in developing countries rather than agricultural modernization, thereby increasing their dependence on food imports, mainly from the U.S. The Bank's operations benefited the U.S. balance of payments significantly. U.S. foreign aid was used as an economic and political tool to secure U.S. geopolitical interests abroad.
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I’m wonder what people hope will happen. I don’t see that inequality in Pacifica or anywhere is going to go down from Trump. The reverse seems much more likely. Sure, neoliberalism will likely collapse as a viable national political force, but nothing better I can see could take its place. For example, in Oakland, the DA and mayor who were elected under an equity banner were just recalled for law-and-order concerns. I expect more back-and-forth like this that break along racial lines. So-called liberals vote for equity until they see glass on the ground outside their house. Yeah, it is a country full of babies. I only hope there’s an AGI breakthrough and the good parts of this species can be scribbled away on some tertiary storage system. Marcus From: Friam on behalf of steve smith Date: Sunday, November 10, 2024 at 3:05 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die California is 5th largest economy but including the "rest" of Pacifica (OR, WA, BC) it ranks 4th just behind Germany. What would an informal but powerful union of North Pacific rim "states" (Panama to BC), the bulk of Canada, and the northeast Atlantic Seaboard and (eventually?) the upper midwest (MN, WI, MI ...) look like economically, controlling Pacific trade, etc. ? JP/Korea, the UK, the EU would all be obvious good trade/defense allies, no matter what "Gilead" chose to do? As for Musk, I predict Space Force will be spun up with an unprecedented accelerated "Colonize Mars" agenda. Maybe Bezos will be allowed to play an O'Neill Colony fantasy out to complement this... do we leave the Moon to Saudi Arabia, japan and China? Remember how fast we went from Vanguard to Moon Landing in the 60s? The mission is much bigger but the resources and sophistication of the supporting systems are also (multiplicatively, geometrically, exponentially,??? ) greater? And Zuckerberg will provide the Fentanyl of the Masses with VR rigs and virtual worlds to live out the full spectrum of fantasies? On 11/9/24 10:15 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: I’ve already identified some things that could come from a Trump administration. 1. It will stimulate New York, New England and the west coast and other states to create further civil rights protections from the federal government. Health maintenance arrangements may be further secured by the states. When Social Security and Medicare fail, these states will be better prepared. The result of all this is that smart people in backward states will leave those states and take residence in states where they are valued. Money will be kept in progressive states and not wasted on an ignorant, self-destructive collective. 2. It will motivate these states to reach out to other countries to negotiate special relationships on trade and climate. California, being the 5th largest economy in the world, can bypass the federal government in making deals. This will limit the power of the federal government. 3. Elon Musk’s interests may keep progress going on electrification. Yes, the U.S. may indeed use Ukraine to secure access to the country’s natural resources. 4. Elon Musk’s interests in space colonization may force the Republican party to adopt some more forward-looking projects that will employ angry young men and mitigate their despair. The problem with stretching out the war in Ukraine is that they will run out of manpower. Otherwise, it is arguably a good thing for the U.S. to keep Russian losses high and to undermine their economy. That’s how to break an authoritarian regime. Unfortunately, now we will have to first have to break our own. From: Friam <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp <mailto:piet...@randcontrols.co.za> Date: Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 8:07 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <mailto:friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die I think many of you dislike Trump so much that it’s hard to see he might actually do some good for the US and the world. Let me share my thinking. I see Trump a bit like King Leopold II of Belgium. King Leopold did horrible things in the Congo, but he did a lot of good for his own country. Back then, people in Belgium didn’t know the terrible stuff happening in Africa because news travelled differently. Now, don’t get me wrong—Trump’s a flawed person, and I think we can agree on that. But, in his first term, he actually achieved some good things for the US and globally. For example, his administration was successful in the Middle East. If you’re interested in a deeper look, Lex Fridman’s interview with Jared Kushner offers some insights (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_MeKSnyAo <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_MeKSnyAo>). It's fair to say that Biden’s administration didn’t build on Trump’s progress there - in fact they messed up seriousl
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
California is 5th largest economy but including the "rest" of Pacifica (OR, WA, BC) it ranks 4th just behind Germany. What would an informal but powerful union of North Pacific rim "states" (Panama to BC), the bulk of Canada, and the northeast Atlantic Seaboard and (eventually?) the upper midwest (MN, WI, MI ...) look like economically, controlling Pacific trade, etc. ? JP/Korea, the UK, the EU would all be obvious good trade/defense allies, no matter what "Gilead" chose to do? As for Musk, I predict Space Force will be spun up with an unprecedented accelerated "Colonize Mars" agenda. Maybe Bezos will be allowed to play an O'Neill Colony fantasy out to complement this... do we leave the Moon to Saudi Arabia, japan and China? Remember how fast we went from Vanguard to Moon Landing in the 60s? The mission is much bigger but the resources and sophistication of the supporting systems are also (multiplicatively, geometrically, exponentially,??? ) greater? And Zuckerberg will provide the Fentanyl of the Masses with VR rigs and virtual worlds to live out the full spectrum of fantasies? On 11/9/24 10:15 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: I’ve already identified some things that could come from a Trump administration. 1. It will stimulate New York, New England and the west coast and other states to create further civil rights protections from the federal government. Health maintenance arrangements may be further secured by the states. When Social Security and Medicare fail, these states will be better prepared. The result of all this is that smart people in backward states will leave those states and take residence in states where they are valued. Money will be kept in progressive states and not wasted on an ignorant, self-destructive collective. 2. It will motivate these states to reach out to other countries to negotiate special relationships on trade and climate. California, being the 5^th largest economy in the world, can bypass the federal government in making deals. This will limit the power of the federal government. 3. Elon Musk’s interests may keep progress going on electrification. Yes, the U.S. may indeed use Ukraine to secure access to the country’s natural resources. 4. Elon Musk’s interests in space colonization may force the Republican party to adopt some more forward-looking projects that will employ angry young men and mitigate their despair. The problem with stretching out the war in Ukraine is that they will run out of manpower. Otherwise, it is arguably a good thing for the U.S. to keep Russian losses high and to undermine their economy. That’s how to break an authoritarian regime. Unfortunately, now we will have to first have to break our own. *From: *Friam on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp *Date: *Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 8:07 AM *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die I think many of you dislike Trump so much that it’s hard to see he might actually do some good for the US and the world. Let me share my thinking. I see Trump a bit like King Leopold II of Belgium. King Leopold did horrible things in the Congo, but he did a lot of good for his own country. Back then, people in Belgium didn’t know the terrible stuff happening in Africa because news travelled differently. Now, don’t get me wrong—Trump’s a flawed person, and I think we can agree on that. But, in his first term, he actually achieved some good things for the US and globally. For example, his administration was successful in the Middle East. If you’re interested in a deeper look, Lex Fridman’s interview with Jared Kushner offers some insights (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_MeKSnyAo). It's fair to say that Biden’s administration didn’t build on Trump’s progress there - in fact they messed up seriously. If we keep an open mind, it’s possible to see that Biden’s approach in Ukraine will stretch out the war and cost US taxpayers more over many years and the citizens of Ukraine will be the big losers. Given Trump’s previous success in the Middle East, it’s not crazy to think he could find a faster way to help end the war in Ukraine without a mess, like what happened with Biden’s exit from Afghanistan. Sure, Trump’s not a saint. But he’s not looking to go down as a failure either—he wants to be remembered as a winner. On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 at 16:43, Marcus Daniels wrote: Trump’s reads the room. If he feels his people would tolerate Russia using chemical weapons at a massive scale in Ukraine, then he’d be fine with that. Remember he was fine separating immigrant children from their parents. This property may well cause some deals to be made because they are afraid of the consequences. That’s not a skill in negotiation, that’s just the kind o
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I do want to second a variant of one of Pieter’s comments here, and to ask a question: > On Nov 10, 2024, at 12:01 AM, Pieter Steenekamp > wrote: > > It will be fascinating to observe the outcome of the new Trump > administration, and I genuinely hope it won’t bring us the kind of > “interesting times” referenced in the old (supposedly) Chinese curse. While I > anticipate a mix of both positive and negative developments, it’s essential > to remember that there’s no objective way to compare this administration’s > impact to the alternate reality in which Harris was elected. Opinions will > naturally differ: one person might argue that Harris would have steered the > world in a better direction, while another could assert that Trump’s approach > was preferable. In the end, both viewpoints are subjective and speculative, > with each side needing to acknowledge that neither can claim a definitive > answer. One could (and I might) characterize the U.S. Democractic Party governance program as “deer in the headlights of the coming implosion of neoliberalism”, with the good-faith actors doing what they can around the edges. By roughly the same parameters, one could (and I certainly do) characterize the U.S. trump party (formerly Republican) governanance program as arsonist: break things because people will support you to do that, and steal what you can on your way out the door. I think there were at times Republicans like Bob Corker, who were clearly smart, pretty arrogant and domineering, but in the end holding some responsible positions, but those are largely gone now, replaced by people of other stripes. Various arguments that this is what the major decision is about come from the loss by all incumbent parties in the politico-economic “west” in the last election cycle, and the citation of price increases as the main driver. I heard (but didn’t remember all details) that over some interval (1970s to present?), U.S. stock-market valuations increased by 50x, while median wages increased by 1.14x. And when, confronted with complaints about price multipliers, economists answer that the inflation rate is back down, that is a clear act of bad faith for which I wish they could get clobbered, because it burns trust that we needed to do what we could do. (the footnote: a price multiplier from time A to time B is the integral of the inflation rate from A to B. When asked about the integral, if one answers about the integrand, that is bad faith, unless it comes packaged as “Yeah, we know this isn’t the problem, but it is something we can do, and better than letting the amplification continue.) If one entertains this as the choice, what one thinks of it depends on: 1. Whether one views the coming implosion of neoliberalization as inescapable; and 2. Whether in such cases one favors an accelerationist strategy. Questions about accelerationism would apply to Ukraine too if one took the premise that being overrun by Russia was certain. I am keenly aware that I cannot make good cause-effect arguments for any of these questions. So my question to the list is: has any of you read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Super-Imperialism-Origin-Fundamentals-Dominance/dp/0745319890 A work colleague with whom I was having a conversation about sanctions policies, history and consequences of reserve currency status and the control that comes with it (and whether China has any serious intention to take on that role) sent it. Many things about the history sound important enough that they are what we should be taught in schools (and obviously are not). Whether the book does a good job of explaining circumstances and how these choices get made, or is just written to support the point of view “Everything ever done by anyone in U.S. public office is Evil! and they are all EXACTLY The Same” which would be less helpful. I am too far behind to read it until I am put into hospice and have time, but should understand what I can of it. Eric .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Eric writes: < Have to think about how to keep that functioning in a context that is meant to exhaust it. Don’t want to be a pancreatic beta-cell in a world full of sugar. It’s an interesting management question, and I don’t know how I will end up trying to place myself w.r.t. it. > A way to flood the zone in reverse are use of LLM-based robots that counter misinformation. It is too time consuming and draining to devote people to that. A difference from 2016 is that discussion has degenerated to shorter slogans and attention is even more limited. On the other hand, simply taking away the counter narrative might help reduce engagement by Trump bros. Marcus smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
> and golf clubs and made money from the federal government by this, because > his company billed the US government millions for it - including overpriced > bills for Secret Service agents who stayed at his properties while protecting > him. > > The irony is that the people who try to make a country great again always > destroy it. For a land of the free what could be worse than a demagogue who > takes away that freedom and destroys freedom of speech? We know an > authoritarian system means the oppression of opponents. His vision of a > Trumpistan is such a system without "enemies within" and without freedom of > speech. > > -J. > > > Original message > From: Pieter Steenekamp > Date: 11/9/24 5:07 PM (GMT+01:00) > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > I think many of you dislike Trump so much that it’s hard to see he might > actually do some good for the US and the world. Let me share my thinking. > > I see Trump a bit like King Leopold II of Belgium. King Leopold did horrible > things in the Congo, but he did a lot of good for his own country. Back then, > people in Belgium didn’t know the terrible stuff happening in Africa because > news travelled differently. > > Now, don’t get me wrong—Trump’s a flawed person, and I think we can agree on > that. But, in his first term, he actually achieved some good things for the > US and globally. For example, his administration was successful in the Middle > East. If you’re interested in a deeper look, Lex Fridman’s interview with > Jared Kushner offers some insights > (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_MeKSnyAo). It's fair to say that Biden’s > administration didn’t build on Trump’s progress there - in fact they messed > up seriously. > > If we keep an open mind, it’s possible to see that Biden’s approach in > Ukraine will stretch out the war and cost US taxpayers more over many years > and the citizens of Ukraine will be the big losers. Given Trump’s previous > success in the Middle East, it’s not crazy to think he could find a faster > way to help end the war in Ukraine without a mess, like what happened with > Biden’s exit from Afghanistan. > > Sure, Trump’s not a saint. But he’s not looking to go down as a failure > either—he wants to be remembered as a winner. > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 at 16:43, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Trump’s reads the room. If he feels his people would tolerate Russia using > chemical weapons at a massive scale in Ukraine, then he’d be fine with that. > Remember he was fine separating immigrant children from their parents. > This property may well cause some deals to be made because they are afraid of > the consequences. That’s not a skill in negotiation, that’s just the kind > of terror that an organized crime boss might elicit. > > > > The U.S. doesn’t have a boundless number of Tomahawk missiles to give > Ukraine, even if we authorized firing into Russia. They run a couple > million U.S. dollars each. We aren’t even keeping up with Russia’s > artillery manufacturing. Putin knows all this. For better or worse, Biden > doesn’t want a war. > > > > From: Friam on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp > > Date: Friday, November 8, 2024 at 11:49 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > Trump's the kind of guy you should take seriously, not literally. When he > says something big like, “I’ll end the war in Ukraine on day one,” he means > he's dead set on making peace happen there. Anyone with half a brain knows he > can’t actually snap his fingers and stop the war on his first day. That’s up > to Russia and Ukraine to figure out, after all. But does Trump have a unique > knack for pushing people toward a deal? Oh, you bet he does. > > In fact, William Spaniel, a professor over at the University of Pittsburgh, > mentioned in a podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKH-QeRJBU8 that Putin > seems to believe Trump will lay down a deal that both sides can live with. > (And yeah, Spaniel seems to know his stuff.) > > So, here’s my hunch on what Trump might say to Ukraine and Russia, in my own > words: “Alright, fellas, here’s the deal. Ukraine, let’s be real—Russia needs > to keep a little slice of land to save face. It might sting, but if you don’t > settle, Russia’s going to drag this war out and make it miserable for > everyone. And Russia, let’s stop the drama now. You can keep a few bits, but > if you keep pushing, we’re going to load up Ukraine with so many weapons > it’ll make your head spin. Then, you’re gonna lose big time,
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
It will be fascinating to observe the outcome of the new Trump administration, and I genuinely hope it won’t bring us the kind of “interesting times” referenced in the old (supposedly) Chinese curse. While I anticipate a mix of both positive and negative developments, it’s essential to remember that there’s no objective way to compare this administration’s impact to the alternate reality in which Harris was elected. Opinions will naturally differ: one person might argue that Harris would have steered the world in a better direction, while another could assert that Trump’s approach was preferable. In the end, both viewpoints are subjective and speculative, with each side needing to acknowledge that neither can claim a definitive answer. On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 at 01:25, Marcus Daniels wrote: > He validated and exacerbated feeling of frustration. That’s why he was > elected. > > His appeal is anti-intellectual, so it didn’t matter that Harris handily > beat him in the debate. > > > > *From: *Friam on behalf of Jochen Fromm < > j...@cas-group.net> > *Date: *Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 3:11 PM > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > What good things did Mr. Trump actually achieve for the US? I don't see > any. He mismanaged a pandemic and encouraged people to use bleach against > it. He withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, ignoring the most > important crisis we face globally. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict did not > become better by Trump's decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem. It > intensified the conflict. What success in the Middle East are you talking > about? > > > > He certainly achieved good things for himself and his core family. He > became richer, directly and indirectly. He spent a lot of time at his own > ressorts and golf clubs and made money from the federal government by this, > because his company billed the US government millions for it - including > overpriced bills for Secret Service agents who stayed at his properties > while protecting him. > > > > The irony is that the people who try to make a country great again always > destroy it. For a land of the free what could be worse than a demagogue who > takes away that freedom and destroys freedom of speech? We know an > authoritarian > system means the oppression of opponents. His vision of a Trumpistan is > such a system without "enemies within" and without freedom of speech. > > > > -J. > > > > > > ---- Original message > > From: Pieter Steenekamp > > Date: 11/9/24 5:07 PM (GMT+01:00) > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > > > I think many of you dislike Trump so much that it’s hard to see he might > actually do some good for the US and the world. Let me share my thinking. > > I see Trump a bit like King Leopold II of Belgium. King Leopold did > horrible things in the Congo, but he did a lot of good for his own country. > Back then, people in Belgium didn’t know the terrible stuff happening in > Africa because news travelled differently. > > Now, don’t get me wrong—Trump’s a flawed person, and I think we can agree > on that. But, in his first term, he actually achieved some good things for > the US and globally. For example, his administration was successful in the > Middle East. If you’re interested in a deeper look, Lex Fridman’s interview > with Jared Kushner offers some insights ( > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_MeKSnyAo). It's fair to say that > Biden’s administration didn’t build on Trump’s progress there - in fact > they messed up seriously. > > If we keep an open mind, it’s possible to see that Biden’s approach in > Ukraine will stretch out the war and cost US taxpayers more over many years > and the citizens of Ukraine will be the big losers. Given Trump’s previous > success in the Middle East, it’s not crazy to think he could find a faster > way to help end the war in Ukraine without a mess, like what happened with > Biden’s exit from Afghanistan. > > Sure, Trump’s not a saint. But he’s not looking to go down as a failure > either—he wants to be remembered as a winner. > > > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 at 16:43, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Trump’s reads the room. If he feels his people would tolerate Russia > using chemical weapons at a massive scale in Ukraine, then he’d be fine > with that. Remember he was fine separating immigrant children from their > parents. This property may well cause some deals to be made because they > are afraid of the consequences. That’s not a skill in negotiation, that’s >
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
He validated and exacerbated feeling of frustration. That’s why he was elected. His appeal is anti-intellectual, so it didn’t matter that Harris handily beat him in the debate. From: Friam on behalf of Jochen Fromm Date: Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 3:11 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die What good things did Mr. Trump actually achieve for the US? I don't see any. He mismanaged a pandemic and encouraged people to use bleach against it. He withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, ignoring the most important crisis we face globally. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict did not become better by Trump's decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem. It intensified the conflict. What success in the Middle East are you talking about? He certainly achieved good things for himself and his core family. He became richer, directly and indirectly. He spent a lot of time at his own ressorts and golf clubs and made money from the federal government by this, because his company billed the US government millions for it - including overpriced bills for Secret Service agents who stayed at his properties while protecting him. The irony is that the people who try to make a country great again always destroy it. For a land of the free what could be worse than a demagogue who takes away that freedom and destroys freedom of speech? We know an authoritarian system means the oppression of opponents. His vision of a Trumpistan is such a system without "enemies within" and without freedom of speech. -J. Original message From: Pieter Steenekamp Date: 11/9/24 5:07 PM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die I think many of you dislike Trump so much that it’s hard to see he might actually do some good for the US and the world. Let me share my thinking. I see Trump a bit like King Leopold II of Belgium. King Leopold did horrible things in the Congo, but he did a lot of good for his own country. Back then, people in Belgium didn’t know the terrible stuff happening in Africa because news travelled differently. Now, don’t get me wrong—Trump’s a flawed person, and I think we can agree on that. But, in his first term, he actually achieved some good things for the US and globally. For example, his administration was successful in the Middle East. If you’re interested in a deeper look, Lex Fridman’s interview with Jared Kushner offers some insights (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_MeKSnyAo <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_MeKSnyAo>). It's fair to say that Biden’s administration didn’t build on Trump’s progress there - in fact they messed up seriously. If we keep an open mind, it’s possible to see that Biden’s approach in Ukraine will stretch out the war and cost US taxpayers more over many years and the citizens of Ukraine will be the big losers. Given Trump’s previous success in the Middle East, it’s not crazy to think he could find a faster way to help end the war in Ukraine without a mess, like what happened with Biden’s exit from Afghanistan. Sure, Trump’s not a saint. But he’s not looking to go down as a failure either—he wants to be remembered as a winner. On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 at 16:43, Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote: Trump’s reads the room. If he feels his people would tolerate Russia using chemical weapons at a massive scale in Ukraine, then he’d be fine with that. Remember he was fine separating immigrant children from their parents. This property may well cause some deals to be made because they are afraid of the consequences. That’s not a skill in negotiation, that’s just the kind of terror that an organized crime boss might elicit. The U.S. doesn’t have a boundless number of Tomahawk missiles to give Ukraine, even if we authorized firing into Russia. They run a couple million U.S. dollars each. We aren’t even keeping up with Russia’s artillery manufacturing. Putin knows all this. For better or worse, Biden doesn’t want a war. From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp mailto:piet...@randcontrols.co.za>> Date: Friday, November 8, 2024 at 11:49 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Trump's the kind of guy you should take seriously, not literally. When he says something big like, “I’ll end the war in Ukraine on day one,” he means he's dead set on making peace happen there. Anyone with half a brain knows he can’t actually snap his fingers and stop the war on his first day. That’s up to Russia and Ukraine to figure out, after all. But does Trump have a unique knack for pushing people toward a deal? Oh, you bet he does. In fact, William Spaniel, a professor over at the University of Pi
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
What good things did Mr. Trump actually achieve for the US? I don't see any. He mismanaged a pandemic and encouraged people to use bleach against it. He withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, ignoring the most important crisis we face globally. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict did not become better by Trump's decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem. It intensified the conflict. What success in the Middle East are you talking about?He certainly achieved good things for himself and his core family. He became richer, directly and indirectly. He spent a lot of time at his own ressorts and golf clubs and made money from the federal government by this, because his company billed the US government millions for it - including overpriced bills for Secret Service agents who stayed at his properties while protecting him.The irony is that the people who try to make a country great again always destroy it. For a land of the free what could be worse than a demagogue who takes away that freedom and destroys freedom of speech? We know an authoritarian system means the oppression of opponents. His vision of a Trumpistan is such a system without "enemies within" and without freedom of speech. -J. Original message From: Pieter Steenekamp Date: 11/9/24 5:07 PM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die I think many of you dislike Trump so much that it’s hard to see he might actually do some good for the US and the world. Let me share my thinking.I see Trump a bit like King Leopold II of Belgium. King Leopold did horrible things in the Congo, but he did a lot of good for his own country. Back then, people in Belgium didn’t know the terrible stuff happening in Africa because news travelled differently.Now, don’t get me wrong—Trump’s a flawed person, and I think we can agree on that. But, in his first term, he actually achieved some good things for the US and globally. For example, his administration was successful in the Middle East. If you’re interested in a deeper look, Lex Fridman’s interview with Jared Kushner offers some insights (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_MeKSnyAo). It's fair to say that Biden’s administration didn’t build on Trump’s progress there - in fact they messed up seriously.If we keep an open mind, it’s possible to see that Biden’s approach in Ukraine will stretch out the war and cost US taxpayers more over many years and the citizens of Ukraine will be the big losers. Given Trump’s previous success in the Middle East, it’s not crazy to think he could find a faster way to help end the war in Ukraine without a mess, like what happened with Biden’s exit from Afghanistan.Sure, Trump’s not a saint. But he’s not looking to go down as a failure either—he wants to be remembered as a winner.On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 at 16:43, Marcus Daniels wrote:Trump’s reads the room. If he feels his people would tolerate Russia using chemical weapons at a massive scale in Ukraine, then he’d be fine with that. Remember he was fine separating immigrant children from their parents. This property may well cause some deals to be made because they are afraid of the consequences. That’s not a skill in negotiation, that’s just the kind of terror that an organized crime boss might elicit. The U.S. doesn’t have a boundless number of Tomahawk missiles to give Ukraine, even if we authorized firing into Russia. They run a couple million U.S. dollars each. We aren’t even keeping up with Russia’s artillery manufacturing. Putin knows all this. For better or worse, Biden doesn’t want a war. From: Friam on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp Date: Friday, November 8, 2024 at 11:49 PMTo: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies dieTrump's the kind of guy you should take seriously, not literally. When he says something big like, “I’ll end the war in Ukraine on day one,” he means he's dead set on making peace happen there. Anyone with half a brain knows he can’t actually snap his fingers and stop the war on his first day. That’s up to Russia and Ukraine to figure out, after all. But does Trump have a unique knack for pushing people toward a deal? Oh, you bet he does.In fact, William Spaniel, a professor over at the University of Pittsburgh, mentioned in a podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKH-QeRJBU8 that Putin seems to believe Trump will lay down a deal that both sides can live with. (And yeah, Spaniel seems to know his stuff.)So, here’s my hunch on what Trump might say to Ukraine and Russia, in my own words: “Alright, fellas, here’s the deal. Ukraine, let’s be real—Russia needs to keep a little slice of land to save face. It might sting, but if you don’t settle, Russia’s going to drag this war out and make it miserable for everyone. And Russia, let’s stop the drama now. You can keep a few bits, b
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
You know, I bet the U.S. will restart underground testing. From: Friam On Behalf Of steve smith Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2024 9:06 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die On 11/9/24 7:42 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: Trump’s reads the room. If he feels his people would tolerate Russia using chemical weapons at a massive scale in Ukraine, then he’d be fine with that. Remember he was fine separating immigrant children from their parents. This property may well cause some deals to be made because they are afraid of the consequences. That’s not a skill in negotiation, that’s just the kind of terror that an organized crime boss might elicit. And some would conflate the two. I resist. The U.S. doesn’t have a boundless number of Tomahawk missiles to give Ukraine, even if we authorized firing into Russia. They run a couple million U.S. dollars each. Most of which flows into US arms-manufacturer's corporate pockets and a little into the communities where they are manufactured (e.g. good jobs). 1. Tomahawk Missiles * Raytheon Missiles & Defense manufactures Tomahawk missiles primarily in Tucson, Arizona. This facility focuses on producing a variety of precision-guided missiles, including the Tomahawk. 2. Javelin Anti-Tank Missiles * The Javelin Joint Venture, a partnership between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, manufactures Javelin missiles. The main production occurs at Lockheed Martin’s facility in Troy, Alabama, and Raytheon’s production support in Tucson, Arizona. 3. HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) * Lockheed Martin manufactures HIMARS at its facilities in Camden, Arkansas. This location is dedicated to the production of various missile and artillery systems, including HIMARS and its associated rockets. 4. Patriot Missiles * Patriot missile systems, which have been promised to Ukraine, are manufactured by Raytheon primarily at facilities in Andover, Massachusetts, and Tucson, Arizona. 5. Switchblade Drones * AeroVironment Inc., the manufacturer of Switchblade drones, produces these loitering munitions in Simi Valley, California. 6. Other Small Arms and Ammunition * Several small arms and types of ammunition come from multiple facilities in the U.S., especially those associated with General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (with locations in Marion, Illinois, and St. Petersburg, Florida), and Winchester Ammunition in Oxford, Mississippi. We aren’t even keeping up with Russia’s artillery manufacturing. Putin knows all this. Not too long ago, a dark-spirited friend of mine used the phrase "an atmospheric river of drones and missiles". I don't know what the material comparison is in the Ukraine war to past regional/global conflicts but the amount of Lead, Depleted Uranium, Nitro Compounds and Oxidizers must be significant. Vietnam scholars might remember the AC-47 (Puff the Magic Dragon) which could lay down a "carpet of lead" (nominally one round per square foot?) followed by napalm if desired. And the "bomb trains" moving Napalm across the US from manufacturing locations (rust belt?) to Pacific shipping ports (CA/OR/WA)? While I would love to see an opportunity for the cessation of warfare/death in Ukraine, I don't know what to do about the inhumanity that Putin (and his boys and girls) were allowed to impose on the Ukrainians. Geopolitics of "NATO and Western encroachment) aside, I don't know how that translates into the wickedness wrought against the people. And how was/is any of this particularly good for Russians? I was prepared to leave my country (for good) when I turned 18 to avoid being made into a killer (murderer in some cases) against my will. What is to become of those Russian soldiers who survived being foddered into the Ukrainian front lines and will return "shattered heroes" at best (see. Tom Cruise in Born on the 4th of July). At least the Ukrainian dead and surviving soldiers will have a somewhat clear sense of what they were fighting (and dying) for? And need I even reference Israel/Palestine? Similar to the inhumanity of our flawed "gated community" immigration policies and our own (US/W. Europe) expansionaism/exploitation/empire only baldly more brutal? Trump aleady did the kids-in-cages thing and has proposed (shoot them in the legs) to deter border crossings... Two "kids" I went to high school with (1 and 3 years older) were tried/sentenced for torturing (binding, branding and forcing them to walk naked back to the border) young men seeking employment on their ranch within a few miles of the border. And this was in the 70s before the current MAGA style rhetoric was afoot. It would seem we are "wicked turtles all the way down"? (I'll go back to drinking my own acidic libe
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Another example that riled up the right was the removal of confederate monuments after murder of George Floyd. To me it is a stronger form of taking down a picture of an ex or removing a book from the bookshelf you know you won’t read or use, but it seeing it reminds of you of bad times. And to me it resonates to the objection to cancel culture.A group canceling someone is a collective securing psychological safety rather than an individual. A perceived noise source is disconnected. Perhaps there is signal in that noise, but it is deemed not worth the cycles to filter it. These things, I’d argue, are like a cleaning-out dirty records from a database (or attenuating weights on the connections of a neuron, etc.), and directing attention elsewhere. It’s necessary because attention can’t be given to everything. Some axioms contradict other axioms. However, it means relearning how to interact in a world without those people or objects. Learning is hard, and people resist doing it. They’d rather have their dirty database and expect others to conform to it. From: Friam On Behalf Of steve smith Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2024 9:46 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die On 11/9/24 9:06 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: Someone I know decided to legally change their name (not their gender) when they were relatively young. Their family (young and old) simply refused to respect this change, and to this day continues to use their given name. It’s malicious and I see it causes pain. It seems to me the discomfort with trans people in part comes from refusing to revise knowledge and let people that wish to divorce aspects of the past. I am not sure whether this is a preference or a cognitive limitation of the people that do it. I think some of both. And I know (of) several people who have entirely turned their backs on their families of origin, sometimes just on their parents, other times on specific siblings, and other times the entire nuclear family-of-origin. In most cases, as best I can tell, this was not over any singular incident or grievance but in fact a pattern of the group entirely denying the reality of the individual? It seems more rare for an individual to be excommunicated from the (family) group entirely, just avoided/shunned somewhat (e.g. Q/MAGA-ranting uncle given the wrong time for T-day dinner so those who want to leave early can avoid him entirely). I suspect those who extracted themselves from the toxicity of their family-of-origin so completely knew something the rest of the group was willfully ignorant of about themselves. I've been "threatened" by others' self-image/identity before... sometimes because it is a belligerent, threatening identity (e.g. EricS's "performative cruelty" admonition), and sometimes because it reflects back to me something about myself I don't want to see (including possible streaks of "performative cruelty"). But in the long run, I think it has provided me with some reflective guidance on "who *I* want to be" (whatever that agentic-free-will concept grounds to). The current fetish for (toxic-levels) of alpha-masculinity (Trump/Rogan/Musk weird-energy-triumvirate?) seem to be (everything) phobic... I have ideated on each of their brands of "success" (wealth, power, influence, physical prowess) and even obtained little-fish/big-puddle quantities from time to time, but fundamentally it did not satisfy (or maybe the grapes were just sour?). smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
On 11/9/24 9:06 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: Someone I know decided to legally change their name (not their gender) when they were relatively young. Their family (young and old) simply refused to respect this change, and to this day continues to use their given name. It’s malicious and I see it causes pain. It seems to me the discomfort with trans people in part comes from refusing to revise knowledge and let people that wish to divorce aspects of the past. I am not sure whether this is a preference or a cognitive limitation of the people that do it. I think some of both. And I know (of) several people who have entirely turned their backs on their families of origin, sometimes just on their parents, other times on specific siblings, and other times the entire nuclear family-of-origin. In most cases, as best I can tell, this was not over any singular incident or grievance but in fact a pattern of the group entirely denying the reality of the individual? It seems more rare for an individual to be excommunicated from the (family) group entirely, just avoided/shunned somewhat (e.g. Q/MAGA-ranting uncle given the wrong time for T-day dinner so those who want to leave early can avoid him entirely). I suspect those who extracted themselves from the toxicity of their family-of-origin so completely knew something the rest of the group was willfully ignorant of about themselves. I've been "threatened" by others' self-image/identity before... sometimes because it is a belligerent, threatening identity (e.g. EricS's "performative cruelty" admonition), and sometimes because it reflects back to me something about myself I don't want to see (including possible streaks of "performative cruelty"). But in the long run, I think it has provided me with some reflective guidance on "who *I* want to be" (whatever that agentic-free-will concept grounds to). The current fetish for (toxic-levels) of alpha-masculinity (Trump/Rogan/Musk weird-energy-triumvirate?) seem to be (everything) phobic... I have ideated on each of their brands of "success" (wealth, power, influence, physical prowess) and even obtained little-fish/big-puddle quantities from time to time, but fundamentally it did not satisfy (or maybe the grapes were just sour?). .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I’ve already identified some things that could come from a Trump administration. 1. It will stimulate New York, New England and the west coast and other states to create further civil rights protections from the federal government. Health maintenance arrangements may be further secured by the states. When Social Security and Medicare fail, these states will be better prepared. The result of all this is that smart people in backward states will leave those states and take residence in states where they are valued. Money will be kept in progressive states and not wasted on an ignorant, self-destructive collective. 2. It will motivate these states to reach out to other countries to negotiate special relationships on trade and climate. California, being the 5th largest economy in the world, can bypass the federal government in making deals. This will limit the power of the federal government. 3. Elon Musk’s interests may keep progress going on electrification. Yes, the U.S. may indeed use Ukraine to secure access to the country’s natural resources. 4. Elon Musk’s interests in space colonization may force the Republican party to adopt some more forward-looking projects that will employ angry young men and mitigate their despair. The problem with stretching out the war in Ukraine is that they will run out of manpower. Otherwise, it is arguably a good thing for the U.S. to keep Russian losses high and to undermine their economy. That’s how to break an authoritarian regime. Unfortunately, now we will have to first have to break our own. From: Friam on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp Date: Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 8:07 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die I think many of you dislike Trump so much that it’s hard to see he might actually do some good for the US and the world. Let me share my thinking. I see Trump a bit like King Leopold II of Belgium. King Leopold did horrible things in the Congo, but he did a lot of good for his own country. Back then, people in Belgium didn’t know the terrible stuff happening in Africa because news travelled differently. Now, don’t get me wrong—Trump’s a flawed person, and I think we can agree on that. But, in his first term, he actually achieved some good things for the US and globally. For example, his administration was successful in the Middle East. If you’re interested in a deeper look, Lex Fridman’s interview with Jared Kushner offers some insights (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_MeKSnyAo <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_MeKSnyAo>). It's fair to say that Biden’s administration didn’t build on Trump’s progress there - in fact they messed up seriously. If we keep an open mind, it’s possible to see that Biden’s approach in Ukraine will stretch out the war and cost US taxpayers more over many years and the citizens of Ukraine will be the big losers. Given Trump’s previous success in the Middle East, it’s not crazy to think he could find a faster way to help end the war in Ukraine without a mess, like what happened with Biden’s exit from Afghanistan. Sure, Trump’s not a saint. But he’s not looking to go down as a failure either—he wants to be remembered as a winner. On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 at 16:43, Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote: Trump’s reads the room. If he feels his people would tolerate Russia using chemical weapons at a massive scale in Ukraine, then he’d be fine with that. Remember he was fine separating immigrant children from their parents. This property may well cause some deals to be made because they are afraid of the consequences. That’s not a skill in negotiation, that’s just the kind of terror that an organized crime boss might elicit. The U.S. doesn’t have a boundless number of Tomahawk missiles to give Ukraine, even if we authorized firing into Russia. They run a couple million U.S. dollars each. We aren’t even keeping up with Russia’s artillery manufacturing. Putin knows all this. For better or worse, Biden doesn’t want a war. From: Friam > on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp > Date: Friday, November 8, 2024 at 11:49 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Trump's the kind of guy you should take seriously, not literally. When he says something big like, “I’ll end the war in Ukraine on day one,” he means he's dead set on making peace happen there. Anyone with half a brain knows he can’t actually snap his fingers and stop the war on his first day. That’s up to Russia and Ukraine to figure out, after all. But does Trump have a unique knack for pushing people toward a deal? Oh, you bet he does. In fact, William Spaniel, a professor over at the University of Pittsburgh, mentioned in a podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKH-QeRJBU8 <_blank> that Putin seems to believe Trump will lay down a deal
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
On 11/9/24 7:42 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: Trump’s reads the room. If he feels his people would tolerate Russia using chemical weapons at a massive scale in Ukraine, then he’d be fine with that. Remember he was fine separating immigrant children from their parents. This property may well cause some deals to be made because they are afraid of the consequences. That’s not a skill in negotiation, that’s just the kind of terror that an organized crime boss might elicit. And some would conflate the two. I resist. The U.S. doesn’t have a boundless number of Tomahawk missiles to give Ukraine, even if we authorized firing into Russia. They run a couple million U.S. dollars each. Most of which flows into US arms-manufacturer's corporate pockets and a little into the communities where they are manufactured (e.g. good jobs). 1. *Tomahawk Missiles* * *Raytheon Missiles & Defense* manufactures Tomahawk missiles primarily in *Tucson, Arizona*. This facility focuses on producing a variety of precision-guided missiles, including the Tomahawk. 2. *Javelin Anti-Tank Missiles* * The *Javelin Joint Venture*, a partnership between *Raytheon and Lockheed Martin*, manufactures Javelin missiles. The main production occurs at *Lockheed Martin’s facility in Troy, Alabama*, and Raytheon’s production support in Tucson, Arizona. 3. *HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System)* * *Lockheed Martin* manufactures HIMARS at its facilities in *Camden, Arkansas*. This location is dedicated to the production of various missile and artillery systems, including HIMARS and its associated rockets. 4. *Patriot Missiles* * *Patriot missile systems*, which have been promised to Ukraine, are manufactured by Raytheon primarily at facilities in *Andover, Massachusetts*, and *Tucson, Arizona*. 5. *Switchblade Drones* * *AeroVironment Inc.*, the manufacturer of Switchblade drones, produces these loitering munitions in *Simi Valley, California*. 6. *Other Small Arms and Ammunition* * Several small arms and types of ammunition come from multiple facilities in the U.S., especially those associated with *General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems* (with locations in *Marion, Illinois*, and *St. Petersburg, Florida*), and *Winchester Ammunition* in *Oxford, Mississippi*. We aren’t even keeping up with Russia’s artillery manufacturing. Putin knows all this. Not too long ago, a dark-spirited friend of mine used the phrase "an atmospheric river of drones and missiles". I don't know what the material comparison is in the Ukraine war to past regional/global conflicts but the amount of Lead, Depleted Uranium, Nitro Compounds and Oxidizers must be significant. Vietnam scholars might remember the AC-47 (Puff the Magic Dragon) which could lay down a "carpet of lead" (nominally one round per square foot?) followed by napalm if desired. And the "bomb trains" moving Napalm across the US from manufacturing locations (rust belt?) to Pacific shipping ports (CA/OR/WA)? While I would love to see an opportunity for the cessation of warfare/death in Ukraine, I don't know what to do about the inhumanity that Putin (and his boys and girls) were allowed to impose on the Ukrainians. Geopolitics of "NATO and Western encroachment) aside, I don't know how that translates into the wickedness wrought against the people. And how was/is any of this particularly good for Russians? I was prepared to leave my country (for good) when I turned 18 to avoid being made into a killer (murderer in some cases) against my will. What is to become of those Russian soldiers who survived being foddered into the Ukrainian front lines and will return "shattered heroes" at best (see. Tom Cruise in /Born on the 4th of July/). At least the Ukrainian dead and surviving soldiers will have a somewhat clear sense of what they were fighting (and dying) for? And need I even reference Israel/Palestine? Similar to the inhumanity of our flawed "gated community" immigration policies and our own (US/W. Europe) expansionaism/exploitation/empire only baldly more brutal? Trump aleady did the kids-in-cages thing and has proposed (shoot them in the legs) to deter border crossings... Two "kids" I went to high school with (1 and 3 years older) were tried/sentenced for torturing (binding, branding and forcing them to walk naked back to the border) young men seeking employment on their ranch within a few miles of the border. And this was in the 70s before the current MAGA style rhetoric was afoot. It would seem we are "wicked turtles all the way down"? (I'll go back to drinking my own acidic liberal tears of rage and grief now and try not to spill too many over here). And btw, it isn't clear that "the other side" would
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
d of social systems that can be sustained. Actual conservatives, on the other hand, believe that there is an evolved social system that is not engineered, but nonetheless is of some quality and should be protected. The lefties and righties I think you are speaking of don’t care about regulatory social systems at all. They have diverse goals and values that perhaps could form coalitions, but do those coalitions that have more depth than list of grievances? This is the new world: Not just total social atomization, which would be fine with me, but a lack of modeling of others. None of that cognitive dissonance to deal with if we must march to the same drum of Project 2025. Marcus From: Friam on behalf of glen Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 7:58 AM To:friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die It's funny, actually. The overwhelming majority of my liberal friends either object (through passive aggressive tactics or outright accusations of "nit-picking") or distance themselves from my "moralizing". Nick once did this in a vFriAM, suggesting that I'm too willing to jump to discussing the moral or ethical value/consequence of some sentiment or activity. My attempts to unpack and demonstrate that their liberalism is *founded* in the assumption of individuality and organismal agency fall on deaf ears because they'd rather commit to the in-group and avoid the navel-gazing. But in order to distinguish between a lefty and a liberal, you have to dig down into your navel, pry out the lint, and make an attempt at analyzing agency, where it lies, how it's [de]constructed, etc. My conservative friends are more willing to do that than my liberal friends, at least to the extent of a taxonomy of moralized positions. It's right to do this, wrong to do that, etc. They're less individualist than the liberals. Although the liberals actively engage with in-groups and disengage with out-groups, they drop moralized issues like hot potatoes. The opportunity I see in Trump's 2nd term is for the lefties and the righties to band together against the liberals. With 8 billion people on the planet, liberalism is a fantasy, or perhaps just a fossilized ideology we have to grow out of as the old people die. Of course, we could depopulate the earth and resuscitate liberalism that way. But that sounds more painful than changing our minds. Hm. Maybe it is easier to kill and die than it is to change one's mind? IDK. On 11/6/24 07:18, Marcus Daniels wrote: Harris wasn’t a candidate of the left she was a moderate applying the technique of triangulation to get elected to keep our institutions from being abused and damaged by an inappropriate candidate.I’m not sure what else she could have done short of finding a way to push Biden out earlier. As for me, I’m not shedding any liberal tears. In a way I’m looking forward to how Trump will betray his voters and the suffering they will feel at his hands. They certainly deserve it. *From: *Friam on behalf of glen *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 6:58 AM *To: *friam@redfish.com *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Just for reference, my antifa friends don't recognize any difference. Nothing's changed from yesterday to today. And while that may seem myopic, there's a lot of truth to it. Harris is fairly right-leaning with her record as a prosecutor in CA, position on fracking, failure to denounce the actions of Israel, etc. The local antifa has been active in things like blocking ports of entry (particularly for Boeing-related shipments and such). DDoSecrets has been steadily accumulating data from bad actors. Unicorn Riot consistently publishes about ongoing abuse of indigenous communities. Etc. W.r.t. deeper changes, a break from status quo *liberalism* (the main boogeyman of the lefties), could be hastened by another Trump term. I see it as an opportunity for actual lefty strategists (as opposed to a warmed over righty like Harris) to design a [de|re]construction plan similar to Project 2025, but for sane people. Literally *any* of the tactics used by the Trump backers could be used by an organized effort from the left. But the problem is that those with the real strategy skills aren't revolutionaries. As Eric lays out, they're too addicted to the institutional game to strategize around or to blast through institutions. That's what makes the tiny antifa efforts like blocking ports (for a tiny few hours) or breaking windows on main street seem so stupid and indulgent, like the temper tantrums of an undisciplined child. And in this regard, I join both my antifa friends and my MAGA friends in scoffing at the liberal tears. If you actually want change, then buck up and make it happen. Politics is not a day job you leave at the office at 6pm. Granted, I'm a tourist in both of those groups - all groups, actu
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Someone I know decided to legally change their name (not their gender) when they were relatively young. Their family (young and old) simply refused to respect this change, and to this day continues to use their given name. It’s malicious and I see it causes pain. It seems to me the discomfort with trans people in part comes from refusing to revise knowledge and let people that wish to divorce aspects of the past. I am not sure whether this is a preference or a cognitive limitation of the people that do it. I think some of both. From: Friam on behalf of Prof David West Date: Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 7:31 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die title nine - trans women in sports On Sat, Nov 9, 2024, at 12:43 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: The Democrats do keep people like Bernie Sanders and Rashida Tlaib at a distance. Perhaps you could provide a concrete example during the Biden administration where a specific policy gained traction that was far left of center. From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 1:02 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Agreeing with everything you say. I still believe, however, that unless both sides reject or severely moderate their respective radical fringe, all those who simply want to work to solve hard problems, are spinning their wheels. davew On Fri, Nov 8, 2024, at 12:12 PM, Santafe wrote: This feels a bit to the side of the operative point, to me. The Atlantic article Marcus forwarded was good, and useful. People complaining (very intelligently and groundedly, it seemed to me) about trying to solve problems that they understood well, and getting brushed off or used. That’s not by any means the whole story, but it is part of the important story. Another important part of the story is that the Ds gained vote share with suburban educated whites, while losing it with border Tejanos, various working class, and some others who probably aren’t fascist enthusiasts. And then the big one in the room: why so much noise about amplification of group identification, cultural haranguing, and grievance? Here would be a take: 1. We face some hard problems at the moment. Dealing with border crossing, when the circumstances that drive people to it are getting more intense, is one. Figuring out, politically, how to keep a coalition together to contain the concentration of wealth and power, and the loss of agency for almost-everybody, is another. I’m sure there are more. (There are things like Climate that it is not hard to talk about; we can come back later to how much of the talk is backed up by being concretely useful. Those problems are not at the center of what I write for this note. They apply after you have dealt with the things in this note.) 2. What is true about hard problems? If you try to solve them, often it doesn’t work and you end up frustrated, while the problem hasn’t gone away. You also probably get blamed by anybody somewhat remote, and even some of those who are local. Though if you made an honest, hard, and sensible effort, the others working with you might appreciate you. 3. What do courageous people do w.r.t. hard problems? After being beaten one day, they come back and try again (and probably get beaten again); repeat. But the sense that it is necessary, so you don’t get to drop it, binds them. 4. What is an alternative to courageous work on hard problems? Performative distractions, pandering, lot of focus on grievance as its own end. 5. Who falls for the items in 4? People who aren’t currently underwater dealing with one or another of the hard problems. Up until the recent past and even the present, that has included a lot of suburban educated whites, lots of people in academic environments, people relatively protected in cities. Probably other groups one could argue for. What the Ds have been doing is, of course, complicated and not of just one kind. The ACA did absolute concrete good for some tens of millions of people immediately, and it realigned incentives a little bit so the insurers were more aligned with people who need medical services, and less with those who gouge to provide it. Biden’s spending of federal money on blue-collar, unionized jobs, and re-localization of some production that was hazardous to outsource, did concrete good. It’s all kind of stuff around the edges, as most political activity is, but I give credit to them. One can argue whether electrification is really going to solve important problems (and I know people on both sides of that argument who argue from evidence), but within the choices now, and the mostly-short term of political actors, it seems a legitimate political activity to try to build that out. That’s the good side of things the Ds have done. But a lot of the performative culture stuff, to the extent that it has become
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I think many of you dislike Trump so much that it’s hard to see he might actually do some good for the US and the world. Let me share my thinking. I see Trump a bit like King Leopold II of Belgium. King Leopold did horrible things in the Congo, but he did a lot of good for his own country. Back then, people in Belgium didn’t know the terrible stuff happening in Africa because news travelled differently. Now, don’t get me wrong—Trump’s a flawed person, and I think we can agree on that. But, in his first term, he actually achieved some good things for the US and globally. For example, his administration was successful in the Middle East. If you’re interested in a deeper look, Lex Fridman’s interview with Jared Kushner offers some insights ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co_MeKSnyAo). It's fair to say that Biden’s administration didn’t build on Trump’s progress there - in fact they messed up seriously. If we keep an open mind, it’s possible to see that Biden’s approach in Ukraine will stretch out the war and cost US taxpayers more over many years and the citizens of Ukraine will be the big losers. Given Trump’s previous success in the Middle East, it’s not crazy to think he could find a faster way to help end the war in Ukraine without a mess, like what happened with Biden’s exit from Afghanistan. Sure, Trump’s not a saint. But he’s not looking to go down as a failure either—he wants to be remembered as a winner. On Sat, 9 Nov 2024 at 16:43, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Trump’s reads the room. If he feels his people would tolerate Russia > using chemical weapons at a massive scale in Ukraine, then he’d be fine > with that. Remember he was fine separating immigrant children from their > parents. This property may well cause some deals to be made because they > are afraid of the consequences. That’s not a skill in negotiation, that’s > just the kind of terror that an organized crime boss might elicit. > > > > The U.S. doesn’t have a boundless number of Tomahawk missiles to give > Ukraine, even if we authorized firing into Russia. They run a couple > million U.S. dollars each. We aren’t even keeping up with Russia’s > artillery manufacturing. Putin knows all this. For better or worse, > Biden doesn’t want a war. > > > > *From: *Friam on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp < > piet...@randcontrols.co.za> > *Date: *Friday, November 8, 2024 at 11:49 PM > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > Trump's the kind of guy you should take seriously, not literally. When he > says something big like, “I’ll end the war in Ukraine on day one,” he means > he's dead set on making peace happen there. Anyone with half a brain knows > he can’t actually snap his fingers and stop the war on his first day. > That’s up to Russia and Ukraine to figure out, after all. But does Trump > have a unique knack for pushing people toward a deal? Oh, you bet he does. > > In fact, William Spaniel, a professor over at the University of > Pittsburgh, mentioned in a podcast > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKH-QeRJBU8 that Putin seems to believe > Trump will lay down a deal that both sides can live with. (And yeah, > Spaniel seems to know his stuff.) > > So, here’s my hunch on what Trump might say to Ukraine and Russia, in my > own words: “Alright, fellas, here’s the deal. Ukraine, let’s be real—Russia > needs to keep a little slice of land to save face. It might sting, but if > you don’t settle, Russia’s going to drag this war out and make it miserable > for everyone. And Russia, let’s stop the drama now. You can keep a few > bits, but if you keep pushing, we’re going to load up Ukraine with so many > weapons it’ll make your head spin. Then, you’re gonna lose big time, and > Ukraine will take back everything. But hey, it’s up to you, sweethearts!” > > > > On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 07:04, steve smith wrote: > > > > Marcuswrote: > > Seems like a lot of people will try to leave Africa because of climate > change. I suppose they’ll end up in Europe, creating yet more folks like > Trump to rile people up about it. > > Until the AMOC turns over and plunges Northern Europe into the kind of > winter cold Maine-Nova Scotia currently "enjoy"? > > there was some B post-apocalypse movie starring a polar vortex which ended > with all of Canada/US lined up at the MX border asking to be let in to > avoid turning into popsicles... of course, the style of the movie had the > sweet long-suffering people in the land of Manana politely inviting all the > Karen's and Matt Gaetz's into their (now overwhelmed? country)... > > > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > .
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
So long as trans kids get hormonal intervention early, their muscle and skeletal development will follow their gender identification. Address the problem early, and there is no problem. From: Friam on behalf of Prof David West Date: Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 7:31 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die title nine - trans women in sports On Sat, Nov 9, 2024, at 12:43 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: The Democrats do keep people like Bernie Sanders and Rashida Tlaib at a distance. Perhaps you could provide a concrete example during the Biden administration where a specific policy gained traction that was far left of center. From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 1:02 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Agreeing with everything you say. I still believe, however, that unless both sides reject or severely moderate their respective radical fringe, all those who simply want to work to solve hard problems, are spinning their wheels. davew On Fri, Nov 8, 2024, at 12:12 PM, Santafe wrote: This feels a bit to the side of the operative point, to me. The Atlantic article Marcus forwarded was good, and useful. People complaining (very intelligently and groundedly, it seemed to me) about trying to solve problems that they understood well, and getting brushed off or used. That’s not by any means the whole story, but it is part of the important story. Another important part of the story is that the Ds gained vote share with suburban educated whites, while losing it with border Tejanos, various working class, and some others who probably aren’t fascist enthusiasts. And then the big one in the room: why so much noise about amplification of group identification, cultural haranguing, and grievance? Here would be a take: 1. We face some hard problems at the moment. Dealing with border crossing, when the circumstances that drive people to it are getting more intense, is one. Figuring out, politically, how to keep a coalition together to contain the concentration of wealth and power, and the loss of agency for almost-everybody, is another. I’m sure there are more. (There are things like Climate that it is not hard to talk about; we can come back later to how much of the talk is backed up by being concretely useful. Those problems are not at the center of what I write for this note. They apply after you have dealt with the things in this note.) 2. What is true about hard problems? If you try to solve them, often it doesn’t work and you end up frustrated, while the problem hasn’t gone away. You also probably get blamed by anybody somewhat remote, and even some of those who are local. Though if you made an honest, hard, and sensible effort, the others working with you might appreciate you. 3. What do courageous people do w.r.t. hard problems? After being beaten one day, they come back and try again (and probably get beaten again); repeat. But the sense that it is necessary, so you don’t get to drop it, binds them. 4. What is an alternative to courageous work on hard problems? Performative distractions, pandering, lot of focus on grievance as its own end. 5. Who falls for the items in 4? People who aren’t currently underwater dealing with one or another of the hard problems. Up until the recent past and even the present, that has included a lot of suburban educated whites, lots of people in academic environments, people relatively protected in cities. Probably other groups one could argue for. What the Ds have been doing is, of course, complicated and not of just one kind. The ACA did absolute concrete good for some tens of millions of people immediately, and it realigned incentives a little bit so the insurers were more aligned with people who need medical services, and less with those who gouge to provide it. Biden’s spending of federal money on blue-collar, unionized jobs, and re-localization of some production that was hazardous to outsource, did concrete good. It’s all kind of stuff around the edges, as most political activity is, but I give credit to them. One can argue whether electrification is really going to solve important problems (and I know people on both sides of that argument who argue from evidence), but within the choices now, and the mostly-short term of political actors, it seems a legitimate political activity to try to build that out. That’s the good side of things the Ds have done. But a lot of the performative culture stuff, to the extent that it has become excessive (let me speak from the inside of universities, so I remain somewhat concrete), is IMO part of the performative vote-getting from people who want to tell themselves they are being humane, while not getting real about understanding or figuring out how to help with a variety of problems that they themselves aren’t currently drowning in
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
title nine - trans women in sports On Sat, Nov 9, 2024, at 12:43 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > The Democrats do keep people like Bernie Sanders and Rashida Tlaib at a > distance.Perhaps you could provide a concrete example during the Biden > administration where a specific policy gained traction that was far left of > center. > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Prof David West > *Sent:* Friday, November 8, 2024 1:02 PM > *To:* friam@redfish.com > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > Agreeing with everything you say. > > I still believe, however, that unless both sides reject or severely moderate > their respective radical fringe, all those who simply want to work to solve > hard problems, are spinning their wheels. > > davew > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2024, at 12:12 PM, Santafe wrote: >> This feels a bit to the side of the operative point, to me. >> >> The Atlantic article Marcus forwarded was good, and useful. People >> complaining (very intelligently and groundedly, it seemed to me) about >> trying to solve problems that they understood well, and getting brushed off >> or used. That’s not by any means the whole story, but it is part of the >> important story. >> >> Another important part of the story is that the Ds gained vote share with >> suburban educated whites, while losing it with border Tejanos, various >> working class, and some others who probably aren’t fascist enthusiasts. >> >> And then the big one in the room: why so much noise about amplification of >> group identification, cultural haranguing, and grievance? >> >> Here would be a take: >> >> 1. We face some hard problems at the moment. Dealing with border crossing, >> when the circumstances that drive people to it are getting more intense, is >> one. Figuring out, politically, how to keep a coalition together to contain >> the concentration of wealth and power, and the loss of agency for >> almost-everybody, is another. I’m sure there are more. (There are things >> like Climate that it is not hard to talk about; we can come back later to >> how much of the talk is backed up by being concretely useful. Those >> problems are not at the center of what I write for this note. They apply >> after you have dealt with the things in this note.) >> >> 2. What is true about hard problems? If you try to solve them, often it >> doesn’t work and you end up frustrated, while the problem hasn’t gone away. >> You also probably get blamed by anybody somewhat remote, and even some of >> those who are local. Though if you made an honest, hard, and sensible >> effort, the others working with you might appreciate you. >> >> 3. What do courageous people do w.r.t. hard problems? After being beaten >> one day, they come back and try again (and probably get beaten again); >> repeat. But the sense that it is necessary, so you don’t get to drop it, >> binds them. >> >> 4. What is an alternative to courageous work on hard problems? Performative >> distractions, pandering, lot of focus on grievance as its own end. >> >> 5. Who falls for the items in 4? People who aren’t currently underwater >> dealing with one or another of the hard problems. Up until the recent past >> and even the present, that has included a lot of suburban educated whites, >> lots of people in academic environments, people relatively protected in >> cities. Probably other groups one could argue for. >> >> What the Ds have been doing is, of course, complicated and not of just one >> kind. The ACA did absolute concrete good for some tens of millions of >> people immediately, and it realigned incentives a little bit so the insurers >> were more aligned with people who need medical services, and less with those >> who gouge to provide it. Biden’s spending of federal money on blue-collar, >> unionized jobs, and re-localization of some production that was hazardous to >> outsource, did concrete good. It’s all kind of stuff around the edges, as >> most political activity is, but I give credit to them. One can argue >> whether electrification is really going to solve important problems (and I >> know people on both sides of that argument who argue from evidence), but >> within the choices now, and the mostly-short term of political actors, it >> seems a legitimate political activity to try to build that out. That’s the >> good side of things the Ds have done. But a lot of the performative culture >> stuff, to the extent that it has become excessive (let me speak from the >> ins
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Trump’s reads the room. If he feels his people would tolerate Russia using chemical weapons at a massive scale in Ukraine, then he’d be fine with that. Remember he was fine separating immigrant children from their parents. This property may well cause some deals to be made because they are afraid of the consequences. That’s not a skill in negotiation, that’s just the kind of terror that an organized crime boss might elicit. The U.S. doesn’t have a boundless number of Tomahawk missiles to give Ukraine, even if we authorized firing into Russia. They run a couple million U.S. dollars each. We aren’t even keeping up with Russia’s artillery manufacturing. Putin knows all this. For better or worse, Biden doesn’t want a war. From: Friam on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp Date: Friday, November 8, 2024 at 11:49 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Trump's the kind of guy you should take seriously, not literally. When he says something big like, “I’ll end the war in Ukraine on day one,” he means he's dead set on making peace happen there. Anyone with half a brain knows he can’t actually snap his fingers and stop the war on his first day. That’s up to Russia and Ukraine to figure out, after all. But does Trump have a unique knack for pushing people toward a deal? Oh, you bet he does. In fact, William Spaniel, a professor over at the University of Pittsburgh, mentioned in a podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKH-QeRJBU8 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKH-QeRJBU8> that Putin seems to believe Trump will lay down a deal that both sides can live with. (And yeah, Spaniel seems to know his stuff.) So, here’s my hunch on what Trump might say to Ukraine and Russia, in my own words: “Alright, fellas, here’s the deal. Ukraine, let’s be real—Russia needs to keep a little slice of land to save face. It might sting, but if you don’t settle, Russia’s going to drag this war out and make it miserable for everyone. And Russia, let’s stop the drama now. You can keep a few bits, but if you keep pushing, we’re going to load up Ukraine with so many weapons it’ll make your head spin. Then, you’re gonna lose big time, and Ukraine will take back everything. But hey, it’s up to you, sweethearts!” On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 07:04, steve smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote: Marcuswrote: Seems like a lot of people will try to leave Africa because of climate change. I suppose they’ll end up in Europe, creating yet more folks like Trump to rile people up about it. Until the AMOC turns over and plunges Northern Europe into the kind of winter cold Maine-Nova Scotia currently "enjoy"? there was some B post-apocalypse movie starring a polar vortex which ended with all of Canada/US lined up at the MX border asking to be let in to avoid turning into popsicles... of course, the style of the movie had the sweet long-suffering people in the land of Manana politely inviting all the Karen's and Matt Gaetz's into their (now overwhelmed? country)... .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <_blank> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <_blank> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <_blank> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <_blank> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <_blank> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I should amend one thing I said earlier. I can see a reason trump would try to drag it out, and pretend that there is something to negotiate. Zelensky, though he may be showing flaws as he gets entrenched, has in different important periods shown courage, something trump knows he has never had. Zelensky also managed to hold off one of trump’s earlier extortions. That must goad trump terribly. And one of the things about not having any actual values is that personal things wind up being easily more significant than national things. So I can see trump dangling Zelensky for a while, trying to make him grovel, not even by threatening him, but extorsion by threatening the people who Zelensky knows will blame him for their misery, no matter how much else one can get inside his head to know the kind of commitment he has to them outside that. And I can see Putin giving trump his approval to go along with such a game for a while. Putin, of all people, knows that the ones you torture eventually get killed off anyway, once the demoralization value you can gain from killing them outweighs whatever you were getting by extending the torture. I am sure, since all human events get filtered through interpretation, that if such a sequence of events were to unroll, in the immediate present as they do, interpretations would be put forth about how this is a humanitarian negotiation strategy. If you are far outside, you can never close that discussion. If, over a longer span of history, Putin comes back and says; Okay, you got what you wanted, now I take the rest of it, then that would be evidence even from the outside that this was the game. It’s all very complicated, how specific actions get taken in a time and place. Eric > On Nov 9, 2024, at 5:06 AM, Santafe wrote: > > I don’t think that’s right. > > I don’t think trump is dead set on anything, except self-aggrandizement and > acting out his resentments. He really is that small. There may be people > behind him who have “policy commitments” or something like that, which have > some definiteness; Michael Bolton was of that kind it seems. But the > figurehead himself, no. This to me is the thing that comes up over and over > again about a structure. Most of them are just bad people, but within > understandable ranges. Bullies, opportunists, some sadists, deep deep > cynics. But they aren’t sociopaths per se. There is a special role for the > sociopath in such organizations, and it is somewhat different from roles of > the others, even if there are some overlapping characteristics. > > I was thinking of something different. The U.S. air force and navy are the > two largest air forces in the world, and the only two that could, with > conventional weapons, sink the entire Russian Baltic fleet in a day. They > would take losses doing it, but I don’t think anything in the Russian arsenal > would be sufficient to prevent it. I have imagined — and who the hell am I; > I don’t really know anything — that those kinds of deterrents have been the > thing to keep Russia from threatening, and really intending to use, > battlefield nuclear weapons in areas where they start running low on people. > Whoever does that first crosses a line to making nuclear deployment thinkable > and just a matter of pricing, which hasn’t been crossed after the recoil from > their use following WWII. > > trump would announce immediatly that he won’t do anything directly against > Russia, under any scenario for what they do. That would look like a stance > of american isolationism that is quite standard, and repeated in many eras, > so wouldn’t eve make him look that special from a long view. Then there is > no deterrance at all. They can roll battlefield nuclear warheads up to > striking distance and say “surrender now; our terms”. Maybe they do or maybe > they don’t ever use them; once the threat is unimpeded, what options does > Ukraine have? There’s not really anything Ukraine has to offer trump at this > point, so I don’t see why he would do anything to protect any sovereignty in > them at all. > > That kind of play-out sounds entirely within what is administratively > possible. The thing that, up until now, has kept it from happening, is that > there are some things people value, and some things people are afraid of. > trump doesn’t really value anything, and there is nothing for him to be > afraid of at this point. Through the remainder of his life, nothing will > ever happen to him again. > > > It isn’t to Pieter’s thread, but it has been in my mind and we haven’t > discussed it. > > When do the J6 rioters get pardoned? My guess has been, not right away. One > could talk of it as a “thank you” from trump to the people who put him in > office. But trump doesn’t say thank you. He does things when he can get > something from them. > > The reason I don’t see the timing on it now is that, in the pa
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
This one is funny (as in odd, not comical). I understand that Glen is glossing liberalism as a kind of (trivialized-individual)-indulgentism. But I wouldn’t gloss the word that way. Liberalism should have been about enabling the possible freedoms, and curbing the uses of power that we consider exploitative and abusive, which in an ungoverned system would always be cropping up and entrenching and concentrating themselves. The core being some notion of freedom that needs to be understood, and is not immediately conflated with individual concepts. I do agree that the west, with the US in the vanguard, has departed from the rather complex and sensible notion of individualism that one finds in Scots like Adam Smith, toward a quite trivialized notion of the individual and of freedom somewhat interpreted in those terms (although even what that relation is would take some thought to try to articulate). But there can be a complex notion of the self, and the relation of its development to the social context, without which nothing like a normal human self can even form. The gloss I gave above for liberalism seems quite compatible with a complex notion of self, and then it isn’t in an opposition to syndicalism, or whatever other evocative words one can recruit from the common language to characterize the situated self in a webwork of relations, groups, obligations, and so forth. The splits would then go along somewhat different axes, it seems to me. Eric > On Nov 6, 2024, at 12:10 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > There’s some unstated assumption you must have. For the lefties and righties > to band together, they’d have to have some basis for a coalition. What is > it beyond the price of milk? For example, as a liberal I’m in favor of high > gas taxes. High gas taxes discourage use of internal combustion cars, > thereby reducing CO2 and mitigating climate change. In California, the taxes > on gas and tolls on bridges help to pay to maintain the roads and mass > transit. And I’d say go ahead and phase out natural gas stoves and furnaces > too. Other liberals I know hate that idea because they believe that will > drive up the cost of living which is already high here. Still other > liberals just voted out the local DA because they thought she was soft on > crime. Earlier she was voted in to give young minorities a fairer shot > navigating the legal system. Liberalism is hardly a rigid system of thought. > > > Being inclined to adopt a political philosophy gives scaffolding for what > goals are important, how to achieve those goals, and considerations of the > greater good where one might put aside their selfish interests. What I see > in last night’s results is just collective selfishness. I should want to > work with such people, so they don’t go ahead and burn everything down? I > expect that many of these folks in the rust belt will need Social Security > and Medicare more than I will. By the time I need it, most of my loved ones > will be gone. Yeah, let’s do this! > > Perhaps I am a liberal in your definition and not a lefty because I don’t > care about what happens to them as people (they aren’t my friends or family), > but I do care about the kind of social systems that can be sustained. > Actual conservatives, on the other hand, believe that there is an evolved > social system that is not engineered, but nonetheless is of some quality and > should be protected. The lefties and righties I think you are speaking of > don’t care about regulatory social systems at all. They have diverse goals > and values that perhaps could form coalitions, but do those coalitions that > have more depth than list of grievances? This is the new world: Not just > total social atomization, which would be fine with me, but a lack of modeling > of others. None of that cognitive dissonance to deal with if we must march > to the same drum of Project 2025. > > Marcus > > From: Friam on behalf of glen > > Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 7:58 AM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > It's funny, actually. The overwhelming majority of my liberal friends either > object (through passive aggressive tactics or outright accusations of > "nit-picking") or distance themselves from my "moralizing". Nick once did > this in a vFriAM, suggesting that I'm too willing to jump to discussing the > moral or ethical value/consequence of some sentiment or activity. My attempts > to unpack and demonstrate that their liberalism is *founded* in the > assumption of individuality and organismal agency fall on deaf ears because > they'd rather commit to the in-group and avoid the navel-gazing. > > But in order to dist
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think trump is dead set on anything, except self-aggrandizement and acting out his resentments. He really is that small. There may be people behind him who have “policy commitments” or something like that, which have some definiteness; Michael Bolton was of that kind it seems. But the figurehead himself, no. This to me is the thing that comes up over and over again about a structure. Most of them are just bad people, but within understandable ranges. Bullies, opportunists, some sadists, deep deep cynics. But they aren’t sociopaths per se. There is a special role for the sociopath in such organizations, and it is somewhat different from roles of the others, even if there are some overlapping characteristics. I was thinking of something different. The U.S. air force and navy are the two largest air forces in the world, and the only two that could, with conventional weapons, sink the entire Russian Baltic fleet in a day. They would take losses doing it, but I don’t think anything in the Russian arsenal would be sufficient to prevent it. I have imagined — and who the hell am I; I don’t really know anything — that those kinds of deterrents have been the thing to keep Russia from threatening, and really intending to use, battlefield nuclear weapons in areas where they start running low on people. Whoever does that first crosses a line to making nuclear deployment thinkable and just a matter of pricing, which hasn’t been crossed after the recoil from their use following WWII. trump would announce immediatly that he won’t do anything directly against Russia, under any scenario for what they do. That would look like a stance of american isolationism that is quite standard, and repeated in many eras, so wouldn’t eve make him look that special from a long view. Then there is no deterrance at all. They can roll battlefield nuclear warheads up to striking distance and say “surrender now; our terms”. Maybe they do or maybe they don’t ever use them; once the threat is unimpeded, what options does Ukraine have? There’s not really anything Ukraine has to offer trump at this point, so I don’t see why he would do anything to protect any sovereignty in them at all. That kind of play-out sounds entirely within what is administratively possible. The thing that, up until now, has kept it from happening, is that there are some things people value, and some things people are afraid of. trump doesn’t really value anything, and there is nothing for him to be afraid of at this point. Through the remainder of his life, nothing will ever happen to him again. It isn’t to Pieter’s thread, but it has been in my mind and we haven’t discussed it. When do the J6 rioters get pardoned? My guess has been, not right away. One could talk of it as a “thank you” from trump to the people who put him in office. But trump doesn’t say thank you. He does things when he can get something from them. The reason I don’t see the timing on it now is that, in the past, he has used mobilization of political violence when there was something he wanted and wasn’t being given. At the moment, he has been given everything, so I don’t know what else he might want and feel he is being denied. The kinds of things I can envision are the first time some blue-state governer actually refuses to submit to him on something. Then there’s a string of public messaging along the lines of: How big do you think their state national guards really are? They couldn’t manage “protests” at all the large cities at once, you know. And their buildings aren’t that hardened. Then release of a bolus of J6 protesters to make it explicit that national resources will not be called in to help, and there won’t be any federal prosecutions no matter what gets done. Something like that. Of course, as long as it hasn’t happened, anybody who talks about it as being possible can be scornfully dissed as being histerical or whatever. But that dismissal doesn’t have any logic that I can see. People have done all sorts of monstrous things in the past, and so there’s no prima facie argument that they can’t. The only argument at the moment is that certain ones of them haven’t done certain things at this place or time. I wouldn’t use that kind of argument to seal water in a jar. The question is: can they? And is there any strongly persuasive evidence that they wouldn’t? I don’t see either as a negative argument at the moment. We’ll find out, I guess, whether I am categorically wrong about everything, or whether the impression of the picture is somewhat right even if they come up with details that wouldn’t occur to somebody like me. Eric > On Nov 9, 2024, at 2:48 AM, Pieter Steenekamp > wrote: > > Trump's the kind of guy you should take seriously, not literally. When he > says something big like, “I’ll end the war in Ukraine on day one,” he means > he's dead
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Trump's the kind of guy you should take seriously, not literally. When he says something big like, “I’ll end the war in Ukraine on day one,” he means he's dead set on making peace happen there. Anyone with half a brain knows he can’t actually snap his fingers and stop the war on his first day. That’s up to Russia and Ukraine to figure out, after all. But does Trump have a unique knack for pushing people toward a deal? Oh, you bet he does. In fact, William Spaniel, a professor over at the University of Pittsburgh, mentioned in a podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKH-QeRJBU8 that Putin seems to believe Trump will lay down a deal that both sides can live with. (And yeah, Spaniel seems to know his stuff.) So, here’s my hunch on what Trump might say to Ukraine and Russia, in my own words: “Alright, fellas, here’s the deal. Ukraine, let’s be real—Russia needs to keep a little slice of land to save face. It might sting, but if you don’t settle, Russia’s going to drag this war out and make it miserable for everyone. And Russia, let’s stop the drama now. You can keep a few bits, but if you keep pushing, we’re going to load up Ukraine with so many weapons it’ll make your head spin. Then, you’re gonna lose big time, and Ukraine will take back everything. But hey, it’s up to you, sweethearts!” On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 07:04, steve smith wrote: > > Marcuswrote: > > Seems like a lot of people will try to leave Africa because of climate > change. I suppose they’ll end up in Europe, creating yet more folks like > Trump to rile people up about it. > > Until the AMOC turns over and plunges Northern Europe into the kind of > winter cold Maine-Nova Scotia currently "enjoy"? > > there was some B post-apocalypse movie starring a polar vortex which ended > with all of Canada/US lined up at the MX border asking to be let in to > avoid turning into popsicles... of course, the style of the movie had the > sweet long-suffering people in the land of Manana politely inviting all the > Karen's and Matt Gaetz's into their (now overwhelmed? country)... > > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
The Democrats do keep people like Bernie Sanders and Rashida Tlaib at a distance.Perhaps you could provide a concrete example during the Biden administration where a specific policy gained traction that was far left of center. From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 1:02 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Agreeing with everything you say. I still believe, however, that unless both sides reject or severely moderate their respective radical fringe, all those who simply want to work to solve hard problems, are spinning their wheels. davew On Fri, Nov 8, 2024, at 12:12 PM, Santafe wrote: This feels a bit to the side of the operative point, to me. The Atlantic article Marcus forwarded was good, and useful. People complaining (very intelligently and groundedly, it seemed to me) about trying to solve problems that they understood well, and getting brushed off or used. That’s not by any means the whole story, but it is part of the important story. Another important part of the story is that the Ds gained vote share with suburban educated whites, while losing it with border Tejanos, various working class, and some others who probably aren’t fascist enthusiasts. And then the big one in the room: why so much noise about amplification of group identification, cultural haranguing, and grievance? Here would be a take: 1. We face some hard problems at the moment. Dealing with border crossing, when the circumstances that drive people to it are getting more intense, is one. Figuring out, politically, how to keep a coalition together to contain the concentration of wealth and power, and the loss of agency for almost-everybody, is another. I’m sure there are more. (There are things like Climate that it is not hard to talk about; we can come back later to how much of the talk is backed up by being concretely useful. Those problems are not at the center of what I write for this note. They apply after you have dealt with the things in this note.) 2. What is true about hard problems? If you try to solve them, often it doesn’t work and you end up frustrated, while the problem hasn’t gone away. You also probably get blamed by anybody somewhat remote, and even some of those who are local. Though if you made an honest, hard, and sensible effort, the others working with you might appreciate you. 3. What do courageous people do w.r.t. hard problems? After being beaten one day, they come back and try again (and probably get beaten again); repeat. But the sense that it is necessary, so you don’t get to drop it, binds them. 4. What is an alternative to courageous work on hard problems? Performative distractions, pandering, lot of focus on grievance as its own end. 5. Who falls for the items in 4? People who aren’t currently underwater dealing with one or another of the hard problems. Up until the recent past and even the present, that has included a lot of suburban educated whites, lots of people in academic environments, people relatively protected in cities. Probably other groups one could argue for. What the Ds have been doing is, of course, complicated and not of just one kind. The ACA did absolute concrete good for some tens of millions of people immediately, and it realigned incentives a little bit so the insurers were more aligned with people who need medical services, and less with those who gouge to provide it. Biden’s spending of federal money on blue-collar, unionized jobs, and re-localization of some production that was hazardous to outsource, did concrete good. It’s all kind of stuff around the edges, as most political activity is, but I give credit to them. One can argue whether electrification is really going to solve important problems (and I know people on both sides of that argument who argue from evidence), but within the choices now, and the mostly-short term of political actors, it seems a legitimate political activity to try to build that out. That’s the good side of things the Ds have done. But a lot of the performative culture stuff, to the extent that it has become excessive (let me speak from the inside of universities, so I remain somewhat concrete), is IMO part of the performative vote-getting from people who want to tell themselves they are being humane, while not getting real about understanding or figuring out how to help with a variety of problems that they themselves aren’t currently drowning in. What would a political organization understand, if it believed it couldn’t hide in performance? Some of these things: 1. Everybody has a limited scope. Like, very very limited. 2. Most people’s scope is limited in horizon in time and in society to the pretty immediate-present and ultra-local network and place. 3. Ergo, nothing coordinated gets done except through putting quite a lot of weight
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I'm still confused why you say Hossenfelder isn't an academic. Scholar.google.com doesn't see it that way: Cited by 5,426. She has recent publications. -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of glen Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 1:19 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die 1. What does "98% binary" even mean? Is that similar to "a little bit pregnant"? >8^D What I infer is you're claiming that 98% of humans are disjointly [fe]male. That's a reasonable estimate. But what's our confidence in that number right now? 1000 years ago? 1000 years from now? It's just not a scientific statement even in its generous form. 2a. As for "trans turning out biological", I'm forced to assume you mean trans-gender because trans-sexual is fairly well understood as biological. It's more than a little irritating when people say "trans" without specifying which one they mean, kinda like assuming research on rodents trans-lates to humans. (Sorry. I couldn't help myself.) 2b. I'll go ahead and assert that individual "choices" of profession are just as biological as everything else. A common refrain amongst the heavier drinkers at ALife conferences is "It's all biology." The decoupling between what some rando on the street asserts as a sociological "choice" and, say, a microorganism following a gradient has neither been demonstrated nor well-justified. For example, I doubt I could have "chosen" to be a professional football player (either meaning of "football"). I also could not have "chosen" to be an astronaut. Arnold Schwarzenegger could not have "chosen" to be POTUS. (Even Harris can't "choose" to be president.) So suffice it to say this certainty you hold about these "choices" seems inflated. Speaking of *admitting* our failures, Sabine fired back at Professor Dave. And Dave fired back at Sabine. It was rewarding for me: https://youtu.be/6P_tceoHUH4 It highlights how sloppy language encourages sloppy comprehension. We're *all* susceptible to it and guilty of it, to greater or lesser extent. But what's important is how we fold it into our world ... or don't. On 11/8/24 09:21, Prof David West wrote: >- the left must admit that sex is 98% binary and gender is nothing more > than an individual choice that may or may not conform to local cultural > 'norms'. Individual choices as to gender deserve no more and no less > attention, and certainly not legal protection, than individual choices as to > profession. (Homosexuality is biological, but independent, so far as we > currently know, of sex determining genes. Trans will probably also turn out > to be biological, but probably only peripherally related to sex-determinant > genes.) -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Agreeing with everything you say. I still believe, however, that unless both sides reject or severely moderate their respective radical fringe, all those who simply want to work to solve hard problems, are spinning their wheels. davew On Fri, Nov 8, 2024, at 12:12 PM, Santafe wrote: > This feels a bit to the side of the operative point, to me. > > The Atlantic article Marcus forwarded was good, and useful. People > complaining (very intelligently and groundedly, it seemed to me) about trying > to solve problems that they understood well, and getting brushed off or used. > That’s not by any means the whole story, but it is part of the important > story. > > Another important part of the story is that the Ds gained vote share with > suburban educated whites, while losing it with border Tejanos, various > working class, and some others who probably aren’t fascist enthusiasts. > > And then the big one in the room: why so much noise about amplification of > group identification, cultural haranguing, and grievance? > > Here would be a take: > > 1. We face some hard problems at the moment. Dealing with border crossing, > when the circumstances that drive people to it are getting more intense, is > one. Figuring out, politically, how to keep a coalition together to contain > the concentration of wealth and power, and the loss of agency for > almost-everybody, is another. I’m sure there are more. (There are things > like Climate that it is not hard to talk about; we can come back later to how > much of the talk is backed up by being concretely useful. Those problems are > not at the center of what I write for this note. They apply after you have > dealt with the things in this note.) > > 2. What is true about hard problems? If you try to solve them, often it > doesn’t work and you end up frustrated, while the problem hasn’t gone away. > You also probably get blamed by anybody somewhat remote, and even some of > those who are local. Though if you made an honest, hard, and sensible > effort, the others working with you might appreciate you. > > 3. What do courageous people do w.r.t. hard problems? After being beaten one > day, they come back and try again (and probably get beaten again); repeat. > But the sense that it is necessary, so you don’t get to drop it, binds them. > > 4. What is an alternative to courageous work on hard problems? Performative > distractions, pandering, lot of focus on grievance as its own end. > > 5. Who falls for the items in 4? People who aren’t currently underwater > dealing with one or another of the hard problems. Up until the recent past > and even the present, that has included a lot of suburban educated whites, > lots of people in academic environments, people relatively protected in > cities. Probably other groups one could argue for. > > What the Ds have been doing is, of course, complicated and not of just one > kind. The ACA did absolute concrete good for some tens of millions of people > immediately, and it realigned incentives a little bit so the insurers were > more aligned with people who need medical services, and less with those who > gouge to provide it. Biden’s spending of federal money on blue-collar, > unionized jobs, and re-localization of some production that was hazardous to > outsource, did concrete good. It’s all kind of stuff around the edges, as > most political activity is, but I give credit to them. One can argue whether > electrification is really going to solve important problems (and I know > people on both sides of that argument who argue from evidence), but within > the choices now, and the mostly-short term of political actors, it seems a > legitimate political activity to try to build that out. That’s the good side > of things the Ds have done. But a lot of the performative culture stuff, to > the extent that it has become excessive (let me speak from the inside of > universities, so I remain somewhat concrete), is IMO part of the performative > vote-getting from people who want to tell themselves they are being humane, > while not getting real about understanding or figuring out how to help with a > variety of problems that they themselves aren’t currently drowning in. > > What would a political organization understand, if it believed it couldn’t > hide in performance? Some of these things: > > 1. Everybody has a limited scope. Like, very very limited. > > 2. Most people’s scope is limited in horizon in time and in society to the > pretty immediate-present and ultra-local network and place. > > 3. Ergo, nothing coordinated gets done except through putting quite a lot of > weight on reputation through some channels. > > 4. People run across ranges. Some with a lot of time in education, some with > little. Likewise for every other dimension of lived development. Most of > average ability in thinking, some smarter, some dumber (notably, probably a > completely
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
1. What does "98% binary" even mean? Is that similar to "a little bit pregnant"? >8^D What I infer is you're claiming that 98% of humans are disjointly [fe]male. That's a reasonable estimate. But what's our confidence in that number right now? 1000 years ago? 1000 years from now? It's just not a scientific statement even in its generous form. 2a. As for "trans turning out biological", I'm forced to assume you mean trans-gender because trans-sexual is fairly well understood as biological. It's more than a little irritating when people say "trans" without specifying which one they mean, kinda like assuming research on rodents trans-lates to humans. (Sorry. I couldn't help myself.) 2b. I'll go ahead and assert that individual "choices" of profession are just as biological as everything else. A common refrain amongst the heavier drinkers at ALife conferences is "It's all biology." The decoupling between what some rando on the street asserts as a sociological "choice" and, say, a microorganism following a gradient has neither been demonstrated nor well-justified. For example, I doubt I could have "chosen" to be a professional football player (either meaning of "football"). I also could not have "chosen" to be an astronaut. Arnold Schwarzenegger could not have "chosen" to be POTUS. (Even Harris can't "choose" to be president.) So suffice it to say this certainty you hold about these "choices" seems inflated. Speaking of *admitting* our failures, Sabine fired back at Professor Dave. And Dave fired back at Sabine. It was rewarding for me: https://youtu.be/6P_tceoHUH4 It highlights how sloppy language encourages sloppy comprehension. We're *all* susceptible to it and guilty of it, to greater or lesser extent. But what's important is how we fold it into our world ... or don't. On 11/8/24 09:21, Prof David West wrote: - the left must admit that sex is 98% binary and gender is nothing more than an individual choice that may or may not conform to local cultural 'norms'. Individual choices as to gender deserve no more and no less attention, and certainly not legal protection, than individual choices as to profession. (Homosexuality is biological, but independent, so far as we currently know, of sex determining genes. Trans will probably also turn out to be biological, but probably only peripherally related to sex-determinant genes.) -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Yes, I think that’s right too. You are responsible to police your own. Many conversations along that line in the house and among friends and colleagues in recent times. > On Nov 8, 2024, at 16:01, Prof David West wrote: > > Agreeing with everything you say. > > I still believe, however, that unless both sides reject or severely moderate > their respective radical fringe, all those who simply want to work to solve > hard problems, are spinning their wheels. > > davew > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2024, at 12:12 PM, Santafe wrote: >> This feels a bit to the side of the operative point, to me. >> >> The Atlantic article Marcus forwarded was good, and useful. People >> complaining (very intelligently and groundedly, it seemed to me) about >> trying to solve problems that they understood well, and getting brushed off >> or used. That’s not by any means the whole story, but it is part of the >> important story. >> >> Another important part of the story is that the Ds gained vote share with >> suburban educated whites, while losing it with border Tejanos, various >> working class, and some others who probably aren’t fascist enthusiasts. >> >> And then the big one in the room: why so much noise about amplification of >> group identification, cultural haranguing, and grievance? >> >> Here would be a take: >> >> 1. We face some hard problems at the moment. Dealing with border crossing, >> when the circumstances that drive people to it are getting more intense, is >> one. Figuring out, politically, how to keep a coalition together to contain >> the concentration of wealth and power, and the loss of agency for >> almost-everybody, is another. I’m sure there are more. (There are things >> like Climate that it is not hard to talk about; we can come back later to >> how much of the talk is backed up by being concretely useful. Those >> problems are not at the center of what I write for this note. They apply >> after you have dealt with the things in this note.) >> >> 2. What is true about hard problems? If you try to solve them, often it >> doesn’t work and you end up frustrated, while the problem hasn’t gone away. >> You also probably get blamed by anybody somewhat remote, and even some of >> those who are local. Though if you made an honest, hard, and sensible >> effort, the others working with you might appreciate you. >> >> 3. What do courageous people do w.r.t. hard problems? After being beaten >> one day, they come back and try again (and probably get beaten again); >> repeat. But the sense that it is necessary, so you don’t get to drop it, >> binds them. >> >> 4. What is an alternative to courageous work on hard problems? Performative >> distractions, pandering, lot of focus on grievance as its own end. >> >> 5. Who falls for the items in 4? People who aren’t currently underwater >> dealing with one or another of the hard problems. Up until the recent past >> and even the present, that has included a lot of suburban educated whites, >> lots of people in academic environments, people relatively protected in >> cities. Probably other groups one could argue for. >> >> What the Ds have been doing is, of course, complicated and not of just one >> kind. The ACA did absolute concrete good for some tens of millions of >> people immediately, and it realigned incentives a little bit so the insurers >> were more aligned with people who need medical services, and less with those >> who gouge to provide it. Biden’s spending of federal money on blue-collar, >> unionized jobs, and re-localization of some production that was hazardous to >> outsource, did concrete good. It’s all kind of stuff around the edges, as >> most political activity is, but I give credit to them. One can argue >> whether electrification is really going to solve important problems (and I >> know people on both sides of that argument who argue from evidence), but >> within the choices now, and the mostly-short term of political actors, it >> seems a legitimate political activity to try to build that out. That’s the >> good side of things the Ds have done. But a lot of the performative culture >> stuff, to the extent that it has become excessive (let me speak from the >> inside of universities, so I remain somewhat concrete), is IMO part of the >> performative vote-getting from people who want to tell themselves they are >> being humane, while not getting real about understanding or figuring out how >> to help with a variety of problems that they themselves aren’t currently >> drowning in. >> >> What would a political organization understand, if it believed it couldn’t >> hide in performance? Some of these things: >> >> 1. Everybody has a limited scope. Like, very very limited. >> >> 2. Most people’s scope is limited in horizon in time and in society to the >> pretty immediate-present and ultra-local network and place. >> >> 3. Ergo, nothing coordinated gets done except
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
you are correct. A book I read in college, the *Harrad Experiment*, ended with the protagonists planning a move to Montana to take over local government and install their version of an ideal society. Eastern Oregon would be even better; although it did not work for the Bagwhan. davew On Fri, Nov 8, 2024, at 12:13 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > There aren’t that many people there. It wouldn’t take much of an infusion of > people to complete negate that influence. > They are crazy like the secessionist folks of Shasta county here in > California. > (I’m from Oregon.) > > *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Prof David West > *Sent:* Friday, November 8, 2024 9:25 AM > *To:* friam@redfish.com > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > The eastern half of Oregon is hell bent on seceding and annexing to Idaho. > Not very receptive to liberal immigration. > > davew > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2024, at 9:55 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> People make fun of the high-speed rail project in California, but it will >> first pass through parts of the state that are growing but not yet densely >> populated. Real estate there is not out of reach. >> >> California could have a much bigger population and more economic power with >> the right policies. Another area I could imagine population growth is >> central Oregon like the city of Bend. (High desert like Santa Fe.) Really >> most of Oregon is just empty – the question is how to nucleate economic >> activity. >> >> >> >> New Mexico is another place where growth could occur, but it is so dependent >> on federal funding it will probably have do whatever the Trump >> administration wants. I think that could be a problem in the Kennewick, >> Pasco, and Richland area of Washington state too, due to PNNL. >> >> >> >> I’m torn whether it is better for people to stay where they are to prevent >> their states from going farther right (e.g. Texas), or to help them to head >> west. Highly educated women from cities like Austin and Houston come to >> mind as potential recruits! >> >> >> >> *From: *Friam on behalf of Sarbajit Roy >> >> *Date: *Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 10:04 PM >> *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die >> >> Steve >> >> Just recalled a PBS "skit" (preserved on Youtube) from 2007. Just replace >> "Bush" with "Trump". >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Phr5TC_v_g >> >> Sarbajit >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 11:18 AM steve smith wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sarbajit wrote: >>> >>>> "> ..,The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt or >>>> Levitsky and Ziblat ..." >>>> The people who voted for him don't read... >>>> >>>> We have a similar problem in India, the great semi-literate masses have >>>> been handed cheap smartp[hiones with cheap data plans so they are >>>> connected 24x7 to the Matrix. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Thank you for this pithy bit of parallax, it cuts at least two ways. >>> >>> I believe that we 'elites' make the mistake of wanting the >>> unwashed/semi-literate/??? masses to share our perspectives (whether we be >>> progressive/conservative, liberal/authoritative) and support our vision for >>> *their* future. We then get upset when *they* listen to the *other* >>> elites rather than us. >>> >>> I was completely convinced that Kamala & Co had made such a good argument >>> for *our* vision of a future for humanity (American Exceptional Centric of >>> course) that it would *overwhelmingly* (at least by the margin Trump took >>> over Harris but vice-versa) persuade the folks whose future we are hoping >>> to define. As it turns out, the *other* camp of elites managed to find >>> the right chords to strike, notes to hit to resonate with 74M voters? >>> >>> I'm probably misusing "elite" here (or at least idiosyncratically) to >>> reference those with agency in society above some arbitrary threshold. >>> Education, Social Status, Professional/Trade Status, Ability, Insight, all >>> combine to support this Agency-in-Context, and even more relevant perhaps >>> is the *perception* of Agency? When those who wield >>> economic/political/practical p
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Here’s another Atlantic commentary that might be helpful. I’m not sure I agree but it at least is another take. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/11/election-forward-results-hindsight/680571/?gift=IwTom6kf_sPDx8WzuZ66adbglh0fwod84X82UEBuTwQ&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share I consider myself part of the nihilistic core, but I’m proud of that. If everyone were nihilists, we would understand that every axiom must be negotiated. But people believe random stuff, and for essentially no reason. From: Friam On Behalf Of Santafe Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 10:12 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die This feels a bit to the side of the operative point, to me. The Atlantic article Marcus forwarded was good, and useful. People complaining (very intelligently and groundedly, it seemed to me) about trying to solve problems that they understood well, and getting brushed off or used. That’s not by any means the whole story, but it is part of the important story. Another important part of the story is that the Ds gained vote share with suburban educated whites, while losing it with border Tejanos, various working class, and some others who probably aren’t fascist enthusiasts. And then the big one in the room: why so much noise about amplification of group identification, cultural haranguing, and grievance? Here would be a take: 1. We face some hard problems at the moment. Dealing with border crossing, when the circumstances that drive people to it are getting more intense, is one. Figuring out, politically, how to keep a coalition together to contain the concentration of wealth and power, and the loss of agency for almost-everybody, is another. I’m sure there are more. (There are things like Climate that it is not hard to talk about; we can come back later to how much of the talk is backed up by being concretely useful. Those problems are not at the center of what I write for this note. They apply after you have dealt with the things in this note.) 2. What is true about hard problems? If you try to solve them, often it doesn’t work and you end up frustrated, while the problem hasn’t gone away. You also probably get blamed by anybody somewhat remote, and even some of those who are local. Though if you made an honest, hard, and sensible effort, the others working with you might appreciate you. 3. What do courageous people do w.r.t. hard problems? After being beaten one day, they come back and try again (and probably get beaten again); repeat. But the sense that it is necessary, so you don’t get to drop it, binds them. 4. What is an alternative to courageous work on hard problems? Performative distractions, pandering, lot of focus on grievance as its own end. 5. Who falls for the items in 4? People who aren’t currently underwater dealing with one or another of the hard problems. Up until the recent past and even the present, that has included a lot of suburban educated whites, lots of people in academic environments, people relatively protected in cities. Probably other groups one could argue for. What the Ds have been doing is, of course, complicated and not of just one kind. The ACA did absolute concrete good for some tens of millions of people immediately, and it realigned incentives a little bit so the insurers were more aligned with people who need medical services, and less with those who gouge to provide it. Biden’s spending of federal money on blue-collar, unionized jobs, and re-localization of some production that was hazardous to outsource, did concrete good. It’s all kind of stuff around the edges, as most political activity is, but I give credit to them. One can argue whether electrification is really going to solve important problems (and I know people on both sides of that argument who argue from evidence), but within the choices now, and the mostly-short term of political actors, it seems a legitimate political activity to try to build that out. That’s the good side of things the Ds have done. But a lot of the performative culture stuff, to the extent that it has become excessive (let me speak from the inside of universities, so I remain somewhat concrete), is IMO part of the performative vote-getting from people who want to tell themselves they are being humane, while not getting real about understanding or figuring out how to help with a variety of problems that they themselves aren’t currently drowning in. What would a political organization understand, if it believed it couldn’t hide in performance? Some of these things: 1. Everybody has a limited scope. Like, very very limited. 2. Most people’s scope is limited in horizon in time and in society to the pretty immediate-present and ultra-local network and place. 3. Ergo, nothing coordinat
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
There aren’t that many people there. It wouldn’t take much of an infusion of people to complete negate that influence. They are crazy like the secessionist folks of Shasta county here in California. (I’m from Oregon.) From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 9:25 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die The eastern half of Oregon is hell bent on seceding and annexing to Idaho. Not very receptive to liberal immigration. davew On Fri, Nov 8, 2024, at 9:55 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: People make fun of the high-speed rail project in California, but it will first pass through parts of the state that are growing but not yet densely populated. Real estate there is not out of reach. California could have a much bigger population and more economic power with the right policies. Another area I could imagine population growth is central Oregon like the city of Bend. (High desert like Santa Fe.) Really most of Oregon is just empty – the question is how to nucleate economic activity. New Mexico is another place where growth could occur, but it is so dependent on federal funding it will probably have do whatever the Trump administration wants. I think that could be a problem in the Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland area of Washington state too, due to PNNL. I’m torn whether it is better for people to stay where they are to prevent their states from going farther right (e.g. Texas), or to help them to head west. Highly educated women from cities like Austin and Houston come to mind as potential recruits! From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > on behalf of Sarbajit Roy mailto:sroy...@gmail.com> > Date: Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 10:04 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Steve Just recalled a PBS "skit" (preserved on Youtube) from 2007. Just replace "Bush" with "Trump". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Phr5TC_v_g Sarbajit On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 11:18 AM steve smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com> > wrote: Sarbajit wrote: "> ..,The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt or Levitsky and Ziblat ..." The people who voted for him don't read... We have a similar problem in India, the great semi-literate masses have been handed cheap smartp[hiones with cheap data plans so they are connected 24x7 to the Matrix. Thank you for this pithy bit of parallax, it cuts at least two ways. I believe that we 'elites' make the mistake of wanting the unwashed/semi-literate/??? masses to share our perspectives (whether we be progressive/conservative, liberal/authoritative) and support our vision for *their* future. We then get upset when *they* listen to the *other* elites rather than us. I was completely convinced that Kamala & Co had made such a good argument for *our* vision of a future for humanity (American Exceptional Centric of course) that it would *overwhelmingly* (at least by the margin Trump took over Harris but vice-versa) persuade the folks whose future we are hoping to define. As it turns out, the *other* camp of elites managed to find the right chords to strike, notes to hit to resonate with 74M voters? I'm probably misusing "elite" here (or at least idiosyncratically) to reference those with agency in society above some arbitrary threshold. Education, Social Status, Professional/Trade Status, Ability, Insight, all combine to support this Agency-in-Context, and even more relevant perhaps is the *perception* of Agency? When those who wield economic/political/practical power (the wealthy, the successful politician or rhetoritician, the champion fighter or consummate craftsman) speak, we listen. Trump had Musk and Rogan and Hulk Hogan and the threat/promise of "the STRONG people" (Bikers, LEO, Soldiers, Truckers, Cowboys, ... ) while Harris had all the big name entertainment talent (except Lee Greenwood?) and Academics (except Dennis Prager and 6 other similar wankers) and the Generals ( who the rank and file can be taught or reminded to resent) and the intelligencia. I'm still waiting/hoping/ideating on a better way to achieve collective emergent "wisdom". Glen's references to the tension between "liberal" individuality and any of the extant brands of collectivism (party membership, military marshalling, religious faithing, culting, etc) gestures in a useful direction. Well formed (if not always understood) variations on Swarming (nod to Glen and Marcus) in biology are interesting and maybe the best route in, but I'm still stalled and the smash into a new era of explicit Trumpism is distracting me, even if it somehow forces the parallax I'm missing. Mumble, - Steve .- .
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
This feels a bit to the side of the operative point, to me. The Atlantic article Marcus forwarded was good, and useful. People complaining (very intelligently and groundedly, it seemed to me) about trying to solve problems that they understood well, and getting brushed off or used. That’s not by any means the whole story, but it is part of the important story. Another important part of the story is that the Ds gained vote share with suburban educated whites, while losing it with border Tejanos, various working class, and some others who probably aren’t fascist enthusiasts. And then the big one in the room: why so much noise about amplification of group identification, cultural haranguing, and grievance? Here would be a take: 1. We face some hard problems at the moment. Dealing with border crossing, when the circumstances that drive people to it are getting more intense, is one. Figuring out, politically, how to keep a coalition together to contain the concentration of wealth and power, and the loss of agency for almost-everybody, is another. I’m sure there are more. (There are things like Climate that it is not hard to talk about; we can come back later to how much of the talk is backed up by being concretely useful. Those problems are not at the center of what I write for this note. They apply after you have dealt with the things in this note.) 2. What is true about hard problems? If you try to solve them, often it doesn’t work and you end up frustrated, while the problem hasn’t gone away. You also probably get blamed by anybody somewhat remote, and even some of those who are local. Though if you made an honest, hard, and sensible effort, the others working with you might appreciate you. 3. What do courageous people do w.r.t. hard problems? After being beaten one day, they come back and try again (and probably get beaten again); repeat. But the sense that it is necessary, so you don’t get to drop it, binds them. 4. What is an alternative to courageous work on hard problems? Performative distractions, pandering, lot of focus on grievance as its own end. 5. Who falls for the items in 4? People who aren’t currently underwater dealing with one or another of the hard problems. Up until the recent past and even the present, that has included a lot of suburban educated whites, lots of people in academic environments, people relatively protected in cities. Probably other groups one could argue for. What the Ds have been doing is, of course, complicated and not of just one kind. The ACA did absolute concrete good for some tens of millions of people immediately, and it realigned incentives a little bit so the insurers were more aligned with people who need medical services, and less with those who gouge to provide it. Biden’s spending of federal money on blue-collar, unionized jobs, and re-localization of some production that was hazardous to outsource, did concrete good. It’s all kind of stuff around the edges, as most political activity is, but I give credit to them. One can argue whether electrification is really going to solve important problems (and I know people on both sides of that argument who argue from evidence), but within the choices now, and the mostly-short term of political actors, it seems a legitimate political activity to try to build that out. That’s the good side of things the Ds have done. But a lot of the performative culture stuff, to the extent that it has become excessive (let me speak from the inside of universities, so I remain somewhat concrete), is IMO part of the performative vote-getting from people who want to tell themselves they are being humane, while not getting real about understanding or figuring out how to help with a variety of problems that they themselves aren’t currently drowning in. What would a political organization understand, if it believed it couldn’t hide in performance? Some of these things: 1. Everybody has a limited scope. Like, very very limited. 2. Most people’s scope is limited in horizon in time and in society to the pretty immediate-present and ultra-local network and place. 3. Ergo, nothing coordinated gets done except through putting quite a lot of weight on reputation through some channels. 4. People run across ranges. Some with a lot of time in education, some with little. Likewise for every other dimension of lived development. Most of average ability in thinking, some smarter, some dumber (notably, probably a completely independent coordinate from the former). 5. A livable democratic society, if possible at all, is only possible if people with all those limits can be coordinated to make roughly reasonable choices enough of the time. 6. People won’t trust you on problems they don’t understand, unless you have already built up relations of trust with them by being useful and helpful w.r.t. problems they do understand. Point 6 is the huge one where polit
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
It’s both. The ignorant part is the same as 2). Gender dysphoria is a condition that some people experience and supporting them can ensure they remain, healthy productive people. It is absurd to put social norms above an established diagnosis.In any case, and Harris even mentioned this during the campaign, it is not that common and doesn’t figure that much in anyone’s day-to-day life. It’s just a bit of divisiveness that is folded into the racist anti-DEI talk. IMO the best thing to do now is to circle the wagons and protect the people that can still think.Saddle up, lock and load. Marcus From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 9:21 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Reading the post-election pundits, I see two major themes: 1) She lost because the electorate is overwhelmingly misogynistic, racist, and ignorant. 2) He won because he "gave the appearance of" listening to the electorate. Eight years ago I lost my credibility among the FRIAM group meeting at St. John's when I stated that Trump would win (after listening to one of his first rallies a week or so after he declared) because Democrats were so focused on the obvious flaws of the individual and asserting that anyone voting for him had to share those same flaws. No one could possibly vote for Trump unless they were in the "basket of deplorables." I believe the same thing happened this year. One party almost totally ignored the electorate (vast majorities of both parties) and the other "gave the appearance of" listening to them. Both parties allowed themselves to be defined in terms of their most radical fringe elements and attempted to demonize the other side on the basis of that characterization. A substantial portion of voters in both parties voted out of fear of the other side based on that demonization. No one listened to anyone except their respective fringes, supposedly their "base." (Trump, mostly, only appeared to listen, IMO.) I fear for the future of this country as much as many of those on this list, but for different reasons. Fascism is not a realistic fear (just as silly as the comments I heard at FRIAM that we would be in a nuclear war within months of Trump's inauguration—and yes, gentlemen, you did say that). The fear comes from the perception that neither side is willing to confront their respective radicals and demand reason. For example: (deliberately chose as most polarizing) - the right must recognize that abortion, pre-viability, should be legal, safe, and private. (The notion that life begins at conception is a modern, 1869, invention, via Pope Pius (who did NOT speak ex cathedra) and a radical contradiction of Aquinas, Augustine, and Church dogma. - the left must admit that sex is 98% binary and gender is nothing more than an individual choice that may or may not conform to local cultural 'norms'. Individual choices as to gender deserve no more and no less attention, and certainly not legal protection, than individual choices as to profession. (Homosexuality is biological, but independent, so far as we currently know, of sex determining genes. Trans will probably also turn out to be biological, but probably only peripherally related to sex-determinant genes.) I see warfare as our future. Not bullets and bombs, probably; but within every aspect of our legal, administrative, and legislative system. (Not to mention the unrelenting screaming from traditional and contemporary media.) davew On Thu, Nov 7, 2024, at 11:48 PM, steve smith wrote: Sarbajit wrote: "> ..,The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt or Levitsky and Ziblat ..." The people who voted for him don't read... We have a similar problem in India, the great semi-literate masses have been handed cheap smartp[hiones with cheap data plans so they are connected 24x7 to the Matrix. Thank you for this pithy bit of parallax, it cuts at least two ways. I believe that we 'elites' make the mistake of wanting the unwashed/semi-literate/??? masses to share our perspectives (whether we be progressive/conservative, liberal/authoritative) and support our vision for *their* future. We then get upset when *they* listen to the *other* elites rather than us. I was completely convinced that Kamala & Co had made such a good argument for *our* vision of a future for humanity (American Exceptional Centric of course) that it would *overwhelmingly* (at least by the margin Trump took over Harris but vice-versa) persuade the folks whose future we are hoping to define. As it turns out, the *other* camp of elites managed to find the right chords to strike, notes to hit to resonate with 74M voters? I'm probably misusing "elite" here (or at leas
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
The eastern half of Oregon is hell bent on seceding and annexing to Idaho. Not very receptive to liberal immigration. davew On Fri, Nov 8, 2024, at 9:55 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > People make fun of the high-speed rail project in California, but it will > first pass through parts of the state that are growing but not yet densely > populated. Real estate there is not out of reach. > California could have a much bigger population and more economic power with > the right policies. Another area I could imagine population growth is > central Oregon like the city of Bend. (High desert like Santa Fe.) Really > most of Oregon is just empty – the question is how to nucleate economic > activity. > > New Mexico is another place where growth could occur, but it is so dependent > on federal funding it will probably have do whatever the Trump administration > wants. I think that could be a problem in the Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland > area of Washington state too, due to PNNL. > > I’m torn whether it is better for people to stay where they are to prevent > their states from going farther right (e.g. Texas), or to help them to head > west. Highly educated women from cities like Austin and Houston come to mind > as potential recruits! > > *From: *Friam on behalf of Sarbajit Roy > > *Date: *Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 10:04 PM > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > Steve > > Just recalled a PBS "skit" (preserved on Youtube) from 2007. Just replace > "Bush" with "Trump". > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Phr5TC_v_g > > Sarbajit > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 11:18 AM steve smith wrote: >> >> >> Sarbajit wrote: >>> "> ..,The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt or >>> Levitsky and Ziblat ..." >>> The people who voted for him don't read... >>> >>> We have a similar problem in India, the great semi-literate masses have >>> been handed cheap smartp[hiones with cheap data plans so they are connected >>> 24x7 to the Matrix. >>> >> Thank you for this pithy bit of parallax, it cuts at least two ways. >> >> I believe that we 'elites' make the mistake of wanting the >> unwashed/semi-literate/??? masses to share our perspectives (whether we be >> progressive/conservative, liberal/authoritative) and support our vision for >> *their* future. We then get upset when *they* listen to the *other* elites >> rather than us. >> >> I was completely convinced that Kamala & Co had made such a good argument >> for *our* vision of a future for humanity (American Exceptional Centric of >> course) that it would *overwhelmingly* (at least by the margin Trump took >> over Harris but vice-versa) persuade the folks whose future we are hoping to >> define. As it turns out, the *other* camp of elites managed to find the >> right chords to strike, notes to hit to resonate with 74M voters? >> >> I'm probably misusing "elite" here (or at least idiosyncratically) to >> reference those with agency in society above some arbitrary threshold. >> Education, Social Status, Professional/Trade Status, Ability, Insight, all >> combine to support this Agency-in-Context, and even more relevant perhaps is >> the *perception* of Agency? When those who wield >> economic/political/practical power (the wealthy, the successful politician >> or rhetoritician, the champion fighter or consummate craftsman) speak, we >> listen. Trump had Musk and Rogan and Hulk Hogan and the threat/promise of >> "the STRONG people" (Bikers, LEO, Soldiers, Truckers, Cowboys, ... ) while >> Harris had all the big name entertainment talent (except Lee Greenwood?) and >> Academics (except Dennis Prager and 6 other similar wankers) and the >> Generals ( who the rank and file can be taught or reminded to resent) and >> the intelligencia. >> >> I'm still waiting/hoping/ideating on a better way to achieve collective >> emergent "wisdom". Glen's references to the tension between "liberal" >> individuality and any of the extant brands of collectivism (party >> membership, military marshalling, religious faithing, culting, etc) gestures >> in a useful direction. Well formed (if not always understood) variations >> on Swarming (nod to Glen and Marcus) in biology are interesting and maybe >> the best route in, but I'm still stalled and the smash into a new era of >> explicit Trump
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Reading the post-election pundits, I see two major themes: 1) She lost because the electorate is overwhelmingly misogynistic, racist, and ignorant. 2) He won because he "gave the appearance of" listening to the electorate. Eight years ago I lost my credibility among the FRIAM group meeting at St. John's when I stated that Trump would win (after listening to one of his first rallies a week or so after he declared) because Democrats were so focused on the obvious flaws of the individual and asserting that anyone voting for him had to share those same flaws. No one could possibly vote for Trump unless they were in the "basket of deplorables." I believe the same thing happened this year. One party almost totally ignored the electorate (vast majorities of both parties) and the other "gave the appearance of" listening to them. Both parties allowed themselves to be defined in terms of their most radical fringe elements and attempted to demonize the other side on the basis of that characterization. A substantial portion of voters in both parties voted out of fear of the other side based on that demonization. No one listened to anyone except their respective fringes, supposedly their "base." (Trump, mostly, only appeared to listen, IMO.) I fear for the future of this country as much as many of those on this list, but for different reasons. Fascism is not a realistic fear (just as silly as the comments I heard at FRIAM that we would be in a nuclear war within months of Trump's inauguration—and yes, gentlemen, you did say that). The fear comes from the perception that neither side is willing to confront their respective radicals and demand reason. For example: (deliberately chose as most polarizing) - the right must recognize that abortion, pre-viability, should be legal, safe, and **_private_**. (The notion that life begins at conception is a modern, 1869, invention, via Pope Pius (who did NOT speak ex cathedra) and a radical contradiction of Aquinas, Augustine, and Church dogma. - the left must admit that sex is 98% binary and gender is nothing more than an individual choice that may or may not conform to local cultural 'norms'. Individual choices as to gender deserve no more and no less attention, and certainly not legal protection, than individual choices as to profession. (Homosexuality is biological, but independent, so far as we currently know, of sex determining genes. Trans will probably also turn out to be biological, but probably only peripherally related to sex-determinant genes.) I see warfare as our future. Not bullets and bombs, *probably*; but within every aspect of our legal, administrative, and legislative system. (Not to mention the unrelenting screaming from traditional and contemporary media.) davew On Thu, Nov 7, 2024, at 11:48 PM, steve smith wrote: > > > Sarbajit wrote: >> "> ..,The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt or >> Levitsky and Ziblat ..." >> The people who voted for him don't read... >> >> We have a similar problem in India, the great semi-literate masses have been >> handed cheap smartp[hiones with cheap data plans so they are connected 24x7 >> to the Matrix. > Thank you for this pithy bit of parallax, it cuts at least two ways. > > I believe that we 'elites' make the mistake of wanting the > unwashed/semi-literate/??? masses to share our perspectives (whether we be > progressive/conservative, liberal/authoritative) and support our vision for > *their* future. We then get upset when *they* listen to the *other* elites > rather than us. > > I was completely convinced that Kamala & Co had made such a good argument for > *our* vision of a future for humanity (American Exceptional Centric of > course) that it would *overwhelmingly* (at least by the margin Trump took > over Harris but vice-versa) persuade the folks whose future we are hoping to > define. As it turns out, the *other* camp of elites managed to find the > right chords to strike, notes to hit to resonate with 74M voters? > > I'm probably misusing "elite" here (or at least idiosyncratically) to > reference those with agency in society above some arbitrary threshold. > Education, Social Status, Professional/Trade Status, Ability, Insight, all > combine to support this Agency-in-Context, and even more relevant perhaps is > the *perception* of Agency? When those who wield > economic/political/practical power (the wealthy, the successful politician or > rhetoritician, the champion fighter or consummate craftsman) speak, we > listen. Trump had Musk and Rogan and Hulk Hogan and the threat/promise of > "the STRONG people" (Bikers, LEO, Soldiers, Truckers, Cowboys, ... ) while > Harris had all the big name entertainment talent (except Lee Greenwood?) and > Academics (except Dennis Prager and 6 other similar wankers) and the Generals > ( who the rank and file can be taught or reminded to resent) and the > intelligenci
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
People make fun of the high-speed rail project in California, but it will first pass through parts of the state that are growing but not yet densely populated. Real estate there is not out of reach. California could have a much bigger population and more economic power with the right policies. Another area I could imagine population growth is central Oregon like the city of Bend. (High desert like Santa Fe.) Really most of Oregon is just empty – the question is how to nucleate economic activity. New Mexico is another place where growth could occur, but it is so dependent on federal funding it will probably have do whatever the Trump administration wants. I think that could be a problem in the Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland area of Washington state too, due to PNNL. I’m torn whether it is better for people to stay where they are to prevent their states from going farther right (e.g. Texas), or to help them to head west. Highly educated women from cities like Austin and Houston come to mind as potential recruits! From: Friam on behalf of Sarbajit Roy Date: Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 10:04 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Steve Just recalled a PBS "skit" (preserved on Youtube) from 2007. Just replace "Bush" with "Trump". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Phr5TC_v_g <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Phr5TC_v_g> Sarbajit On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 11:18 AM steve smith mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote: Sarbajit wrote: "> ..,The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt or Levitsky and Ziblat ..." The people who voted for him don't read... We have a similar problem in India, the great semi-literate masses have been handed cheap smartp[hiones with cheap data plans so they are connected 24x7 to the Matrix. Thank you for this pithy bit of parallax, it cuts at least two ways. I believe that we 'elites' make the mistake of wanting the unwashed/semi-literate/??? masses to share our perspectives (whether we be progressive/conservative, liberal/authoritative) and support our vision for *their* future. We then get upset when *they* listen to the *other* elites rather than us. I was completely convinced that Kamala & Co had made such a good argument for *our* vision of a future for humanity (American Exceptional Centric of course) that it would *overwhelmingly* (at least by the margin Trump took over Harris but vice-versa) persuade the folks whose future we are hoping to define. As it turns out, the *other* camp of elites managed to find the right chords to strike, notes to hit to resonate with 74M voters? I'm probably misusing "elite" here (or at least idiosyncratically) to reference those with agency in society above some arbitrary threshold. Education, Social Status, Professional/Trade Status, Ability, Insight, all combine to support this Agency-in-Context, and even more relevant perhaps is the *perception* of Agency? When those who wield economic/political/practical power (the wealthy, the successful politician or rhetoritician, the champion fighter or consummate craftsman) speak, we listen. Trump had Musk and Rogan and Hulk Hogan and the threat/promise of "the STRONG people" (Bikers, LEO, Soldiers, Truckers, Cowboys, ... ) while Harris had all the big name entertainment talent (except Lee Greenwood?) and Academics (except Dennis Prager and 6 other similar wankers) and the Generals ( who the rank and file can be taught or reminded to resent) and the intelligencia. I'm still waiting/hoping/ideating on a better way to achieve collective emergent "wisdom". Glen's references to the tension between "liberal" individuality and any of the extant brands of collectivism (party membership, military marshalling, religious faithing, culting, etc) gestures in a useful direction. Well formed (if not always understood) variations on Swarming (nod to Glen and Marcus) in biology are interesting and maybe the best route in, but I'm still stalled and the smash into a new era of explicit Trumpism is distracting me, even if it somehow forces the parallax I'm missing. Mumble, - Steve .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <_blank> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <_blank> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <_blank> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <_blank> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <_blank> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - .
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Steve Just recalled a PBS "skit" (preserved on Youtube) from 2007. Just replace "Bush" with "Trump". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Phr5TC_v_g Sarbajit On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 11:18 AM steve smith wrote: > > Sarbajit wrote: > > "> ..,The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt or > Levitsky and Ziblat ..." > The people who voted for him don't read... > > We have a similar problem in India, the great semi-literate masses have > been handed cheap smartp[hiones with cheap data plans so they are connected > 24x7 to the Matrix. > > Thank you for this pithy bit of parallax, it cuts at least two ways. > > I believe that we 'elites' make the mistake of wanting the > unwashed/semi-literate/??? masses to share our perspectives (whether we be > progressive/conservative, liberal/authoritative) and support our vision for > *their* future. We then get upset when *they* listen to the *other* > elites rather than us. > > I was completely convinced that Kamala & Co had made such a good argument > for *our* vision of a future for humanity (American Exceptional Centric of > course) that it would *overwhelmingly* (at least by the margin Trump took > over Harris but vice-versa) persuade the folks whose future we are hoping > to define. As it turns out, the *other* camp of elites managed to find > the right chords to strike, notes to hit to resonate with 74M voters? > > I'm probably misusing "elite" here (or at least idiosyncratically) to > reference those with agency in society above some arbitrary threshold. > Education, Social Status, Professional/Trade Status, Ability, Insight, all > combine to support this Agency-in-Context, and even more relevant perhaps > is the *perception* of Agency? When those who wield > economic/political/practical power (the wealthy, the successful politician > or rhetoritician, the champion fighter or consummate craftsman) speak, we > listen. Trump had Musk and Rogan and Hulk Hogan and the threat/promise of > "the STRONG people" (Bikers, LEO, Soldiers, Truckers, Cowboys, ... ) while > Harris had all the big name entertainment talent (except Lee Greenwood?) > and Academics (except Dennis Prager and 6 other similar wankers) and the > Generals ( who the rank and file can be taught or reminded to resent) and > the intelligencia. > > I'm still waiting/hoping/ideating on a better way to achieve collective > emergent "wisdom". Glen's references to the tension between "liberal" > individuality and any of the extant brands of collectivism (party > membership, military marshalling, religious faithing, culting, etc) > gestures in a useful direction. Well formed (if not always understood) > variations on Swarming (nod to Glen and Marcus) in biology are interesting > and maybe the best route in, but I'm still stalled and the smash into a new > era of explicit Trumpism is distracting me, even if it somehow forces the > parallax I'm missing. > > Mumble, > > - Steve > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Sarbajit wrote: "> ..,The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt or Levitsky and Ziblat ..." The people who voted for him don't read... We have a similar problem in India, the great semi-literate masses have been handed cheap smartp[hiones with cheap data plans so they are connected 24x7 to the Matrix. Thank you for this pithy bit of parallax, it cuts at least two ways. I believe that we 'elites' make the mistake of wanting the unwashed/semi-literate/??? masses to share our perspectives (whether we be progressive/conservative, liberal/authoritative) and support our vision for *their* future. We then get upset when *they* listen to the *other* elites rather than us. I was completely convinced that Kamala & Co had made such a good argument for *our* vision of a future for humanity (American Exceptional Centric of course) that it would *overwhelmingly* (at least by the margin Trump took over Harris but vice-versa) persuade the folks whose future we are hoping to define. As it turns out, the *other* camp of elites managed to find the right chords to strike, notes to hit to resonate with 74M voters? I'm probably misusing "elite" here (or at least idiosyncratically) to reference those with agency in society above some arbitrary threshold. Education, Social Status, Professional/Trade Status, Ability, Insight, all combine to support this Agency-in-Context, and even more relevant perhaps is the *perception* of Agency? When those who wield economic/political/practical power (the wealthy, the successful politician or rhetoritician, the champion fighter or consummate craftsman) speak, we listen. Trump had Musk and Rogan and Hulk Hogan and the threat/promise of "the STRONG people" (Bikers, LEO, Soldiers, Truckers, Cowboys, ... ) while Harris had all the big name entertainment talent (except Lee Greenwood?) and Academics (except Dennis Prager and 6 other similar wankers) and the Generals ( who the rank and file can be taught or reminded to resent) and the intelligencia. I'm still waiting/hoping/ideating on a better way to achieve collective emergent "wisdom". Glen's references to the tension between "liberal" individuality and any of the extant brands of collectivism (party membership, military marshalling, religious faithing, culting, etc) gestures in a useful direction. Well formed (if not always understood) variations on Swarming (nod to Glen and Marcus) in biology are interesting and maybe the best route in, but I'm still stalled and the smash into a new era of explicit Trumpism is distracting me, even if it somehow forces the parallax I'm missing. Mumble, - Steve .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Marcuswrote: Seems like a lot of people will try to leave Africa because of climate change. I suppose they’ll end up in Europe, creating yet more folks like Trump to rile people up about it. Until the AMOC turns over and plunges Northern Europe into the kind of winter cold Maine-Nova Scotia currently "enjoy"? there was some B post-apocalypse movie starring a polar vortex which ended with all of Canada/US lined up at the MX border asking to be let in to avoid turning into popsicles... of course, the style of the movie had the sweet long-suffering people in the land of Manana politely inviting all the Karen's and Matt Gaetz's into their (now overwhelmed? country)... .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Narcissistic Personality Disorder is not unusual. Malignant Narcissism, which Trump has in my nonprofessional opinion, is more severe. But what do I know? --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Nov 6, 2024, 1:33 PM glen wrote: > Gemini needs to check its sources. 8^D > > "Typical features of narcissistic personality disorder are variable and > vulnerable self esteem, with attempts at regulation through attention and > approval seeking, and either overt or covert grandiosity." > > Like grandiosity, attention and approval seeking can be overt or covert, > as well. One type of covert attention seeking is claiming that you're > "worthy" whereas others are not, especially in a room full of those the > narcissist thinks are not worthy. > > On 11/6/24 12:11, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Ah, as Gemini explains.. I meant the latter. A covert action can’t be > NPD because it could not receive admiration nor be presented as boastful. > (In the series he has some conspirators, I don’t recall they were very > cult-like.) > > > > *Normal narcissism* > > > > A healthy or exaggerated narcissism that is not a psychiatric disorder. > It can be characterized by self-determination, arrogance, and intolerance > of obstacles. > > > > > > *Narcissistic personality disorder* > > > > A mental health condition that is characterized by a pervasive pattern > of grandiosity, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. People with > NPD may appear arrogant, boastful, or unlikeable. They may also have an > inflated sense of their own importance, and lack the ability to understand > or care about the feelings of others. NPD is a lifelong condition that can > be treated, but there is no cure. > > > > *From: *Friam on behalf of glen < > geprope...@gmail.com> > > *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:53 AM > > *To: *friam@redfish.com > > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > > > Nah. I've met a lot of covert narcissists who take cover behind things > like "the spectrum" or "awkwardness" or whatever. And narcissism need not > be debilitating (diagnosable) to have a canalizing impact. A hallmark is > the arrogant claim they *know* what the greater good is, much less how to > get there. > > > > On 11/6/24 11:44, Marcus Daniels wrote: > >> I didn’t get that from the character. A sociopath, sure, but for the > greater good and not out for attention. > >> > >> *From: *Friam on behalf of glen < > geprope...@gmail.com> > >> *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:40 AM > >> *To: *friam@redfish.com > >> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > >> > >> IDK. I don't really analyze cultural artifacts much or very well. But > the next sentence might be helpful: "Everything I do is a cure for our > current situation." So it's less about cutting his audience/herd into the > meritorious versus the meritless and more about his narcissism or > arrogance. It's an elevation of him above the herd. > >> > >> On 11/6/24 11:28, steve smith wrote: > >>> glen wrote: > >>> > >>>> I agree. The crossover terms constrain the ungrounded phrases. The > more crossover terms, the more constrained the ungrounded terms. Had Kevin > said "What have you done to land you in that place in the world?", then it > would imply a more constrained space of possible groundings. Prolly > wouldn't have the necessary moralized narrative, though. > >>> > >>> I took it to be specifically manipulative, suggesting both credit and > blame to double-team the person being confronted with a "header and a > heeler", "a carrot and a stick"... > >>> > >>> Is that in fact, the point of moralized narratives? To "herd" ? > >>> > >>> Though I think Kevin's goal was actually "cutting" or "singling" in > the herding vernacular. > >>> > > > > > -- > ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Seems like a lot of people will try to leave Africa because of climate change. I suppose they’ll end up in Europe, creating yet more folks like Trump to rile people up about it. From: Friam on behalf of Barry MacKichan Date: Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 8:03 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Actually, depopulation is already underway. Birth rates are below the equilibrium value in many countries, and most of the others are headed in that direction. I believe that the current estimate is that 2050 will be the peak year for the world population. How we manage this is an important task. As we transition into this stage, the ratio of the populations of the various groups will depend strongly on when and how much their birth rates decline. One estimate is that by 2100, the population of Sub-Saharan Africa, as a fraction of the world population, will be six times what it is now. This link is unfortunately paywalled The Age of Depopulation: Surviving a World Gone Gray <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/age-depopulation-surviving-world-gone-gray-nicholas-eberstadt> (you can read it if you give your email address to them), but if you have the time, the author gave a lecture in Australia. The Coming Global Depopulation | Nicholas Eberstadt | John Bonython Lecture - YouTube <https://youtu.be/ahjdeDhP09o> — Barry On 6 Nov 2024, at 10:58, glen wrote: With 8 billion people on the planet, liberalism is a fantasy, or perhaps just a fossilized ideology we have to grow out of as the old people die. Of course, we could depopulate the earth and resuscitate liberalism that way. But that sounds more painful than changing our minds. Hm. Maybe it is easier to kill and die than it is to change one's mind? IDK. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Actually, depopulation is already underway. Birth rates are below the equilibrium value in many countries, and most of the others are headed in that direction. I believe that the current estimate is that 2050 will be the peak year for the world population. How we manage this is an important task. As we transition into this stage, the ratio of the populations of the various groups will depend strongly on when and how much their birth rates decline. One estimate is that by 2100, the population of Sub-Saharan Africa, as a fraction of the world population, will be six times what it is now. This link is unfortunately paywalled [The Age of Depopulation: Surviving a World Gone Gray](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/age-depopulation-surviving-world-gone-gray-nicholas-eberstadt) (you can read it if you give your email address to them), but if you have the time, the author gave a lecture in Australia. [The Coming Global Depopulation | Nicholas Eberstadt | John Bonython Lecture - YouTube](https://youtu.be/ahjdeDhP09o) — Barry On 6 Nov 2024, at 10:58, glen wrote: With 8 billion people on the planet, liberalism is a fantasy, or perhaps just a fossilized ideology we have to grow out of as the old people die. Of course, we could depopulate the earth and resuscitate liberalism that way. But that sounds more painful than changing our minds. Hm. Maybe it is easier to kill and die than it is to change one's mind? IDK..- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
ck of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements). 2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love. 3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions). 4. Requires excessive admiration. 5. Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).6. Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends). 7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others. 8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her. 9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes. On 11/7/24 06:01, Frank Wimberly wrote: Narcissistic Personality Disorder is not unusual. Malignant Narcissism, which Trump has in my nonprofessional opinion, is more severe. But what do I know? --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Nov 6, 2024, 1:33 PM glen mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote: Gemini needs to check its sources. 8^D "Typical features of narcissistic personality disorder are variable and vulnerable self esteem, with attempts at regulation through attention and approval seeking, and either overt or covert grandiosity." Like grandiosity, attention and approval seeking can be overt or covert, as well. One type of covert attention seeking is claiming that you're "worthy" whereas others are not, especially in a room full of those the narcissist thinks are not worthy. On 11/6/24 12:11, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Ah, as Gemini explains.. I meant the latter. A covert action can’t be NPD because it could not receive admiration nor be presented as boastful. (In the series he has some conspirators, I don’t recall they were very cult-like.) > > *Normal narcissism* > > A healthy or exaggerated narcissism that is not a psychiatric disorder. It can be characterized by self-determination, arrogance, and intolerance of obstacles. > > > *Narcissistic personality disorder* > > A mental health condition that is characterized by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. People with NPD may appear arrogant, boastful, or unlikeable. They may also have an inflated sense of their own importance, and lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. NPD is a lifelong condition that can be treated, but there is no cure. > > *From: *Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on behalf of glen mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> > *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:53 AM > *To: *friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> mailto:friam@redfish.com>> > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > Nah. I've met a lot of covert narcissists who take cover behind things like "the spectrum" or "awkwardness" or whatever. And narcissism need not be debilitating (diagnosable) to have a canalizing impact. A hallmark is the arrogant claim they *know* what the greater good is, much less how to get there. > > On 11/6/24 11:44, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> I didn’t get that from the character. A sociopath, sure, but for the greater good and not out for attention. >> >> *From: *Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> on behalf of glen mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> >> *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:40 AM >> *To: *friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> mailto:friam@redfish.com>> >> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die >> >> IDK. I don't really analyze cultural artifacts much or very well. But the next sentence might be helpful: "Everything I do is a cure for our current situation." So it's less about cutting his audience/herd into the meritorious versus the meritless and more about his narcissism or arrogance. It's an elevation of him above the herd. >> >> On 11/6/24 11:28, steve smith wrote: >>> glen wrote: >>> >>>> I agree. The crossover terms constrain the ungrounded phrases. The more crossover terms, the more constrained the ungrounded terms. Had Kevin said "What have you done to land you in that place in the world?", then it would imply a more constrain
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
"> ..,The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt or Levitsky and Ziblat ..." The people who voted for him don't read... We have a similar problem in India, the great semi-literate masses have been handed cheap smartp[hiones with cheap data plans so they are connected 24x7 to the Matrix. On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 2:04 PM Jochen Fromm wrote: > I woke up today and saw the horrific news on TV that Trump has won again. > It is incredibly bad on many levels. It is bad for the environment. The > world will not be able to stop global warming without the U.S. It is bad > for Ukraine as well. To me it feels like the end of civilization and > democracy. The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt > or Levitsky and Ziblatt. Or do not care. > > https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562246/how-democracies-die-by-steven-levitsky-and-daniel-ziblatt/ > > I was wondering how this is possible. If we define populism as an > ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts > them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving then > this could be a reason why Trump is so successful. He is good at populism > because he is corrupt and self-serving himself, and uses projection to > accuse others. > > > https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/308163/what-is-populism-by-muller-jan-werner/9780141987378 > > What do you think? Why have people voted for him although they know what > kind of person he his? Are we doomed now? > > -J. > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
As Wan noodler to another, I don\t give a damn. Seriously Steve, I am going to give it a month before I entertain any political thoughts. See you in December. On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 6:06 PM steve smith wrote: > > Nick Wrote: > > I have gone swimming in Egypt. > > > Me, I'm swimming in a river of my own "liberal tears" > > The current in your (de)Nile, I suspect is slow enough that upstream and > downstream are indistinguishable unless you lay back really still and pick > a landmark? > > And if you *are* paddling upstream, do they have elderly-academic-ladders > at Aswan to facilitate the urge to return to one's spawning grounds? I'm > betting there is a rush... > > But corporeally, are you back in NM? > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -- Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University nthomp...@clarku.edu https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Nick Wrote: I have gone swimming in Egypt. Me, I'm swimming in a river of my own "liberal tears" The current in your (de)Nile, I suspect is slow enough that upstream and downstream are indistinguishable unless you lay back really still and pick a landmark? And if you *are* paddling upstream, do they have elderly-academic-ladders at Aswan to facilitate the urge to return to one's spawning grounds? I'm betting there is a rush... But corporeally, are you back in NM? .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I think there is a significant component of misogyny as there was with Hillary. And this isn’t good: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/11/hispanic-voters-fleeing-democratic-party/671851/?gift=IwTom6kf_sPDx8WzuZ66aVn98hxjIoTSsvXwC0B1XRw&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share <https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/11/hispanic-voters-fleeing-democratic-party/671851/?gift=IwTom6kf_sPDx8WzuZ66aVn98hxjIoTSsvXwC0B1XRw&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share> From: Friam on behalf of Jochen Fromm Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 2:26 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Yes, it feels like it. It is depressing. I really hoped Kamala would win. If inflation was one of the main reasons behind the outcome of the election then people have made a mistake. It is a problem here in Europe too. The reasons have been as far as I know the Coronavirus pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the low interest rates to stabilize the economy after the pandemic. It was not the fault of Biden and Harris. There was a documentary in TV recently where the journalist interviewed an American couple somewhere in one of the swing states if they could imagine voting for Harris, and the woman said no, because there would be only male leaders in the Bible, and therefore she could not vote for a woman. I was a bit shocked to here this attitude in the 21th century. -J. Original message From: Merle Lefkoff Date: 11/6/24 10:40 PM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Yes, of course we're doomed. Our living systems (including human governance and compassion) began collapsing long before now. On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 1:34 AM Jochen Fromm mailto:j...@cas-group.net>> wrote: I woke up today and saw the horrific news on TV that Trump has won again. It is incredibly bad on many levels. It is bad for the environment. The world will not be able to stop global warming without the U.S. It is bad for Ukraine as well. To me it feels like the end of civilization and democracy. The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt or Levitsky and Ziblatt. Or do not care. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562246/how-democracies-die-by-steven-levitsky-and-daniel-ziblatt/ <https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562246/how-democracies-die-by-steven-levitsky-and-daniel-ziblatt/> I was wondering how this is possible. If we define populism as an ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving then this could be a reason why Trump is so successful. He is good at populism because he is corrupt and self-serving himself, and uses projection to accuse others. https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/308163/what-is-populism-by-muller-jan-werner/9780141987378 <https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/308163/what-is-populism-by-muller-jan-werner/9780141987378> What do you think? Why have people voted for him although they know what kind of person he his? Are we doomed now? -J. .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> -- Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. Center for Emergent Diplomacy emergentdiplomacy.org <http://emergentdiplomacy.org> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA mobile: (303) 859-5609 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Yes, it feels like it. It is depressing. I really hoped Kamala would win. If inflation was one of the main reasons behind the outcome of the election then people have made a mistake. It is a problem here in Europe too. The reasons have been as far as I know the Coronavirus pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the low interest rates to stabilize the economy after the pandemic. It was not the fault of Biden and Harris.There was a documentary in TV recently where the journalist interviewed an American couple somewhere in one of the swing states if they could imagine voting for Harris, and the woman said no, because there would be only male leaders in the Bible, and therefore she could not vote for a woman. I was a bit shocked to here this attitude in the 21th century.-J. Original message From: Merle Lefkoff Date: 11/6/24 10:40 PM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Yes, of course we're doomed. Our living systems (including human governance and compassion) began collapsing long before now.On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 1:34 AM Jochen Fromm wrote:I woke up today and saw the horrific news on TV that Trump has won again. It is incredibly bad on many levels. It is bad for the environment. The world will not be able to stop global warming without the U.S. It is bad for Ukraine as well. To me it feels like the end of civilization and democracy. The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt or Levitsky and Ziblatt. Or do not care.https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562246/how-democracies-die-by-steven-levitsky-and-daniel-ziblatt/I was wondering how this is possible. If we define populism as an ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving then this could be a reason why Trump is so successful. He is good at populism because he is corrupt and self-serving himself, and uses projection to accuse others.https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/308163/what-is-populism-by-muller-jan-werner/9780141987378What do you think? Why have people voted for him although they know what kind of person he his? Are we doomed now? -J..- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ -- Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.Center for Emergent Diplomacyemergentdiplomacy.orgSanta Fe, New Mexico, USAmobile: (303) 859-5609 .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Yes, of course we're doomed. Our living systems (including human governance and compassion) began collapsing long before now. On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 1:34 AM Jochen Fromm wrote: > I woke up today and saw the horrific news on TV that Trump has won again. > It is incredibly bad on many levels. It is bad for the environment. The > world will not be able to stop global warming without the U.S. It is bad > for Ukraine as well. To me it feels like the end of civilization and > democracy. The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt > or Levitsky and Ziblatt. Or do not care. > > https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562246/how-democracies-die-by-steven-levitsky-and-daniel-ziblatt/ > > I was wondering how this is possible. If we define populism as an > ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts > them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving then > this could be a reason why Trump is so successful. He is good at populism > because he is corrupt and self-serving himself, and uses projection to > accuse others. > > > https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/308163/what-is-populism-by-muller-jan-werner/9780141987378 > > What do you think? Why have people voted for him although they know what > kind of person he his? Are we doomed now? > > -J. > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -- Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. Center for Emergent Diplomacy emergentdiplomacy.org Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA mobile: (303) 859-5609 .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Yeah, we watched it. But you're right, it was not memorable. On 11/6/24 12:56, Marcus Daniels wrote: I feel like you didn’t see the series. *From: *Friam on behalf of glen *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 12:33 PM *To: *friam@redfish.com *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Gemini needs to check its sources. 8^D "Typical features of narcissistic personality disorder are variable and vulnerable self esteem, with attempts at regulation through attention and approval seeking, and either overt or covert grandiosity." Like grandiosity, attention and approval seeking can be overt or covert, as well. One type of covert attention seeking is claiming that you're "worthy" whereas others are not, especially in a room full of those the narcissist thinks are not worthy. On 11/6/24 12:11, Marcus Daniels wrote: Ah, as Gemini explains.. I meant the latter. A covert action can’t be NPD because it could not receive admiration nor be presented as boastful. (In the series he has some conspirators, I don’t recall they were very cult-like.) *Normal narcissism* A healthy or exaggerated narcissism that is not a psychiatric disorder. It can be characterized by self-determination, arrogance, and intolerance of obstacles. *Narcissistic personality disorder* A mental health condition that is characterized by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. People with NPD may appear arrogant, boastful, or unlikeable. They may also have an inflated sense of their own importance, and lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. NPD is a lifelong condition that can be treated, but there is no cure. *From: *Friam on behalf of glen *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:53 AM *To: *friam@redfish.com *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Nah. I've met a lot of covert narcissists who take cover behind things like "the spectrum" or "awkwardness" or whatever. And narcissism need not be debilitating (diagnosable) to have a canalizing impact. A hallmark is the arrogant claim they *know* what the greater good is, much less how to get there. On 11/6/24 11:44, Marcus Daniels wrote: I didn’t get that from the character. A sociopath, sure, but for the greater good and not out for attention. *From: *Friam on behalf of glen *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:40 AM *To: *friam@redfish.com *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die IDK. I don't really analyze cultural artifacts much or very well. But the next sentence might be helpful: "Everything I do is a cure for our current situation." So it's less about cutting his audience/herd into the meritorious versus the meritless and more about his narcissism or arrogance. It's an elevation of him above the herd. On 11/6/24 11:28, steve smith wrote: glen wrote: I agree. The crossover terms constrain the ungrounded phrases. The more crossover terms, the more constrained the ungrounded terms. Had Kevin said "What have you done to land you in that place in the world?", then it would imply a more constrained space of possible groundings. Prolly wouldn't have the necessary moralized narrative, though. I took it to be specifically manipulative, suggesting both credit and blame to double-team the person being confronted with a "header and a heeler", "a carrot and a stick"... Is that in fact, the point of moralized narratives? To "herd" ? Though I think Kevin's goal was actually "cutting" or "singling" in the herding vernacular. -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I feel like you didn’t see the series. From: Friam on behalf of glen Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 12:33 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Gemini needs to check its sources. 8^D "Typical features of narcissistic personality disorder are variable and vulnerable self esteem, with attempts at regulation through attention and approval seeking, and either overt or covert grandiosity." Like grandiosity, attention and approval seeking can be overt or covert, as well. One type of covert attention seeking is claiming that you're "worthy" whereas others are not, especially in a room full of those the narcissist thinks are not worthy. On 11/6/24 12:11, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Ah, as Gemini explains.. I meant the latter. A covert action can’t be NPD > because it could not receive admiration nor be presented as boastful. (In the > series he has some conspirators, I don’t recall they were very cult-like.) > > *Normal narcissism* > > A healthy or exaggerated narcissism that is not a psychiatric disorder. It > can be characterized by self-determination, arrogance, and intolerance of > obstacles. > > > *Narcissistic personality disorder* > > A mental health condition that is characterized by a pervasive pattern of > grandiosity, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. People with NPD > may appear arrogant, boastful, or unlikeable. They may also have an inflated > sense of their own importance, and lack the ability to understand or care > about the feelings of others. NPD is a lifelong condition that can be > treated, but there is no cure. > > *From: *Friam on behalf of glen > > *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:53 AM > *To: *friam@redfish.com > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > Nah. I've met a lot of covert narcissists who take cover behind things like > "the spectrum" or "awkwardness" or whatever. And narcissism need not be > debilitating (diagnosable) to have a canalizing impact. A hallmark is the > arrogant claim they *know* what the greater good is, much less how to get > there. > > On 11/6/24 11:44, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> I didn’t get that from the character. A sociopath, sure, but for the greater >> good and not out for attention. >> >> *From: *Friam on behalf of glen >> >> *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:40 AM >> *To: *friam@redfish.com >> *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die >> >> IDK. I don't really analyze cultural artifacts much or very well. But the >> next sentence might be helpful: "Everything I do is a cure for our current >> situation." So it's less about cutting his audience/herd into the >> meritorious versus the meritless and more about his narcissism or arrogance. >> It's an elevation of him above the herd. >> >> On 11/6/24 11:28, steve smith wrote: >>> glen wrote: >>> >>>> I agree. The crossover terms constrain the ungrounded phrases. The more >>>> crossover terms, the more constrained the ungrounded terms. Had Kevin said >>>> "What have you done to land you in that place in the world?", then it >>>> would imply a more constrained space of possible groundings. Prolly >>>> wouldn't have the necessary moralized narrative, though. >>> >>> I took it to be specifically manipulative, suggesting both credit and blame >>> to double-team the person being confronted with a "header and a heeler", "a >>> carrot and a stick"... >>> >>> Is that in fact, the point of moralized narratives? To "herd" ? >>> >>> Though I think Kevin's goal was actually "cutting" or "singling" in the >>> herding vernacular. >>> > -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Gemini needs to check its sources. 8^D "Typical features of narcissistic personality disorder are variable and vulnerable self esteem, with attempts at regulation through attention and approval seeking, and either overt or covert grandiosity." Like grandiosity, attention and approval seeking can be overt or covert, as well. One type of covert attention seeking is claiming that you're "worthy" whereas others are not, especially in a room full of those the narcissist thinks are not worthy. On 11/6/24 12:11, Marcus Daniels wrote: Ah, as Gemini explains.. I meant the latter. A covert action can’t be NPD because it could not receive admiration nor be presented as boastful. (In the series he has some conspirators, I don’t recall they were very cult-like.) *Normal narcissism* A healthy or exaggerated narcissism that is not a psychiatric disorder. It can be characterized by self-determination, arrogance, and intolerance of obstacles. *Narcissistic personality disorder* A mental health condition that is characterized by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. People with NPD may appear arrogant, boastful, or unlikeable. They may also have an inflated sense of their own importance, and lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. NPD is a lifelong condition that can be treated, but there is no cure. *From: *Friam on behalf of glen *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:53 AM *To: *friam@redfish.com *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Nah. I've met a lot of covert narcissists who take cover behind things like "the spectrum" or "awkwardness" or whatever. And narcissism need not be debilitating (diagnosable) to have a canalizing impact. A hallmark is the arrogant claim they *know* what the greater good is, much less how to get there. On 11/6/24 11:44, Marcus Daniels wrote: I didn’t get that from the character. A sociopath, sure, but for the greater good and not out for attention. *From: *Friam on behalf of glen *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:40 AM *To: *friam@redfish.com *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die IDK. I don't really analyze cultural artifacts much or very well. But the next sentence might be helpful: "Everything I do is a cure for our current situation." So it's less about cutting his audience/herd into the meritorious versus the meritless and more about his narcissism or arrogance. It's an elevation of him above the herd. On 11/6/24 11:28, steve smith wrote: glen wrote: I agree. The crossover terms constrain the ungrounded phrases. The more crossover terms, the more constrained the ungrounded terms. Had Kevin said "What have you done to land you in that place in the world?", then it would imply a more constrained space of possible groundings. Prolly wouldn't have the necessary moralized narrative, though. I took it to be specifically manipulative, suggesting both credit and blame to double-team the person being confronted with a "header and a heeler", "a carrot and a stick"... Is that in fact, the point of moralized narratives? To "herd" ? Though I think Kevin's goal was actually "cutting" or "singling" in the herding vernacular. -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Ah, as Gemini explains.. I meant the latter. A covert action can’t be NPD because it could not receive admiration nor be presented as boastful. (In the series he has some conspirators, I don’t recall they were very cult-like.) Normal narcissism A healthy or exaggerated narcissism that is not a psychiatric disorder. It can be characterized by self-determination, arrogance, and intolerance of obstacles. Narcissistic personality disorder A mental health condition that is characterized by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. People with NPD may appear arrogant, boastful, or unlikeable. They may also have an inflated sense of their own importance, and lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. NPD is a lifelong condition that can be treated, but there is no cure. From: Friam on behalf of glen Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:53 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Nah. I've met a lot of covert narcissists who take cover behind things like "the spectrum" or "awkwardness" or whatever. And narcissism need not be debilitating (diagnosable) to have a canalizing impact. A hallmark is the arrogant claim they *know* what the greater good is, much less how to get there. On 11/6/24 11:44, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I didn’t get that from the character. A sociopath, sure, but for the greater > good and not out for attention. > > *From: *Friam on behalf of glen > > *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:40 AM > *To: *friam@redfish.com > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > IDK. I don't really analyze cultural artifacts much or very well. But the > next sentence might be helpful: "Everything I do is a cure for our current > situation." So it's less about cutting his audience/herd into the meritorious > versus the meritless and more about his narcissism or arrogance. It's an > elevation of him above the herd. > > On 11/6/24 11:28, steve smith wrote: >> glen wrote: >> >>> I agree. The crossover terms constrain the ungrounded phrases. The more >>> crossover terms, the more constrained the ungrounded terms. Had Kevin said >>> "What have you done to land you in that place in the world?", then it would >>> imply a more constrained space of possible groundings. Prolly wouldn't have >>> the necessary moralized narrative, though. >> >> I took it to be specifically manipulative, suggesting both credit and blame >> to double-team the person being confronted with a "header and a heeler", "a >> carrot and a stick"... >> >> Is that in fact, the point of moralized narratives? To "herd" ? >> >> Though I think Kevin's goal was actually "cutting" or "singling" in the >> herding vernacular. >> -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Nah. I've met a lot of covert narcissists who take cover behind things like "the spectrum" or "awkwardness" or whatever. And narcissism need not be debilitating (diagnosable) to have a canalizing impact. A hallmark is the arrogant claim they *know* what the greater good is, much less how to get there. On 11/6/24 11:44, Marcus Daniels wrote: I didn’t get that from the character. A sociopath, sure, but for the greater good and not out for attention. *From: *Friam on behalf of glen *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:40 AM *To: *friam@redfish.com *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die IDK. I don't really analyze cultural artifacts much or very well. But the next sentence might be helpful: "Everything I do is a cure for our current situation." So it's less about cutting his audience/herd into the meritorious versus the meritless and more about his narcissism or arrogance. It's an elevation of him above the herd. On 11/6/24 11:28, steve smith wrote: glen wrote: I agree. The crossover terms constrain the ungrounded phrases. The more crossover terms, the more constrained the ungrounded terms. Had Kevin said "What have you done to land you in that place in the world?", then it would imply a more constrained space of possible groundings. Prolly wouldn't have the necessary moralized narrative, though. I took it to be specifically manipulative, suggesting both credit and blame to double-team the person being confronted with a "header and a heeler", "a carrot and a stick"... Is that in fact, the point of moralized narratives? To "herd" ? Though I think Kevin's goal was actually "cutting" or "singling" in the herding vernacular. -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
IDK. I don't really analyze cultural artifacts much or very well. But the next sentence might be helpful: "Everything I do is a cure for our current situation." So it's less about cutting his audience/herd into the meritorious versus the meritless and more about his narcissism or arrogance. It's an elevation of him above the herd. On 11/6/24 11:28, steve smith wrote: glen wrote: I agree. The crossover terms constrain the ungrounded phrases. The more crossover terms, the more constrained the ungrounded terms. Had Kevin said "What have you done to land you in that place in the world?", then it would imply a more constrained space of possible groundings. Prolly wouldn't have the necessary moralized narrative, though. I took it to be specifically manipulative, suggesting both credit and blame to double-team the person being confronted with a "header and a heeler", "a carrot and a stick"... Is that in fact, the point of moralized narratives? To "herd" ? Though I think Kevin's goal was actually "cutting" or "singling" in the herding vernacular. -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I didn’t get that from the character. A sociopath, sure, but for the greater good and not out for attention. From: Friam on behalf of glen Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 11:40 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die IDK. I don't really analyze cultural artifacts much or very well. But the next sentence might be helpful: "Everything I do is a cure for our current situation." So it's less about cutting his audience/herd into the meritorious versus the meritless and more about his narcissism or arrogance. It's an elevation of him above the herd. On 11/6/24 11:28, steve smith wrote: > glen wrote: > >> I agree. The crossover terms constrain the ungrounded phrases. The more >> crossover terms, the more constrained the ungrounded terms. Had Kevin said >> "What have you done to land you in that place in the world?", then it would >> imply a more constrained space of possible groundings. Prolly wouldn't have >> the necessary moralized narrative, though. > > I took it to be specifically manipulative, suggesting both credit and blame > to double-team the person being confronted with a "header and a heeler", "a > carrot and a stick"... > > Is that in fact, the point of moralized narratives? To "herd" ? > > Though I think Kevin's goal was actually "cutting" or "singling" in the > herding vernacular. > -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I have gone swimming in Egypt. n On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 12:36 PM Marcus Daniels wrote: > Steve writes: > > < I just (minutes ago) gave my "firewood guy" an extra large tip/bonus, > knowing he and his are likely to be on somebody's "hit list" (your > performative cruelty idiom) in spite of their very upright, diligent, > serious contributors to the (local) community and economy. I already pay > them a small premium (santa fe prices when I could probably scrounge for > el-rito prices) because I like their wood, their work ethic and have a > loyalty to them with an eye to them being around in the future. > > > I’ve had dozens of pages of Google translate conversations with my > construction guy that is now (at retirement) heading back to his home > country. His partner, an older white guy, had the job of driving the > truck and translation and presents himself as the contractor, even though > he mostly complicates matter. I would be much better off if the > construction guy could have been here with his family, and got a driver’s > license, instead of hiding in plain sight and sending money back home. > The governor here (Newsom) is one of the few that is outspoken about the > value of immigrants here in California. Accepting the premise that these > people cause harm rather than bring value is one way Trump managed to > control the conversation, and it is incorrect. > > Marcus > > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -- Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University nthomp...@clarku.edu https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Steve writes: < I just (minutes ago) gave my "firewood guy" an extra large tip/bonus, knowing he and his are likely to be on somebody's "hit list" (your performative cruelty idiom) in spite of their very upright, diligent, serious contributors to the (local) community and economy. I already pay them a small premium (santa fe prices when I could probably scrounge for el-rito prices) because I like their wood, their work ethic and have a loyalty to them with an eye to them being around in the future. > I’ve had dozens of pages of Google translate conversations with my construction guy that is now (at retirement) heading back to his home country. His partner, an older white guy, had the job of driving the truck and translation and presents himself as the contractor, even though he mostly complicates matter. I would be much better off if the construction guy could have been here with his family, and got a driver’s license, instead of hiding in plain sight and sending money back home. The governor here (Newsom) is one of the few that is outspoken about the value of immigrants here in California. Accepting the premise that these people cause harm rather than bring value is one way Trump managed to control the conversation, and it is incorrect. Marcus smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
glen wrote: I agree. The crossover terms constrain the ungrounded phrases. The more crossover terms, the more constrained the ungrounded terms. Had Kevin said "What have you done to land you in that place in the world?", then it would imply a more constrained space of possible groundings. Prolly wouldn't have the necessary moralized narrative, though. I took it to be specifically manipulative, suggesting both credit and blame to double-team the person being confronted with a "header and a heeler", "a carrot and a stick"... Is that in fact, the point of moralized narratives? To "herd" ? Though I think Kevin's goal was actually "cutting" or "singling" in the herding vernacular. .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I agree. The crossover terms constrain the ungrounded phrases. The more crossover terms, the more constrained the ungrounded terms. Had Kevin said "What have you done to land you in that place in the world?", then it would imply a more constrained space of possible groundings. Prolly wouldn't have the necessary moralized narrative, though. On 11/6/24 10:49, Marcus Daniels wrote: In logic programming one could have, A) a few axioms, and a complex set of interwoven predicates that predict many properties of the world based on those properties. For example, the potential ramifications of killing someone: Malfunctioning families, lost economic productivity, simulations of violence leading to more violence, etc. Situational ethics, parallax, etc. B) more specific axioms, with no complex of interwoven predicates. "Thou shalt not kill." (unless you are the president) The metaphysics of B in isolation is not explained and thus is less developed and has less "merit" (putting free will aside). -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of glen Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 10:28 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Hm. Implicit in the question "what have you done to earn" is will power or free will or somesuch. But the denial of (free) will is *not* the denial of development, nor is it the denial that credit/blame can be ascribed to people (regardless of whether they deserve it or not). Moral luck posits that you can both be awarded and blamed for consequences for which you're the primary agent without positing that you deserve the award or blame. But whatever constructive "axioms" underly development are still there, still operative ... just without the metaphysics. On 11/6/24 10:12, Marcus Daniels wrote: If we deny that value can be developed from simple axioms, then one can certainly deny value that is asserted without that development. The collective nor the individual have any inherent value. *From: *Friam on behalf of glen *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 9:57 AM *To: *friam@redfish.com *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die My answer? Nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy> And anyone who thinks they have done something to earn their place is sorely mistaken, whether the earning takes the form of credit or blame, whether their place is high or low. On 11/6/24 09:44, Marcus Daniels wrote: "What have you done to earn your place in this crowded world?" Dr. Kevin Christie -- -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
EricS wrote: If they eliminate the ACA — and I don’t see anything now that keeps them from doing that, very quickly — I’m going to get clobbered. Not only episodically for myself, but full-time for others for whom I have responsibility. Not sure how long I can provide an umbrella against the U.S. medical system, at my current capacity. It’s unfortunate. They will likely suffer. But fairy tales seem to be the only places where sufferers learn anything. Learning is a much more complicated project, which takes some investment across the life-course. Works better in a stable environment. Like "spare the rod, spoil the child" is it the case that it is the "punctuation marks" which deliver the lessons but it is during the "equilibrium" before and after where the "learning" happens? Differentiation and (re)Synthesis... Annealing Schedules... I am scrambling to understand which of a myriad of lessons this little pass-through a diffraction barrier is offering me. In the spirit of our previous/parallel discussion it is *at least* a lesson in /which/ lossy compression (through projection?) is the fitness function I should be paying attention to, and what that high dimensional Pareto frontier (manifold) might look like? I'm much more a satisficer than an optimizer so it is easier for me to let those collapse to a practical level, but still shocking when the weighting gets scrambled. Along side Gibson's "Jackpot" sits Doctorow's "enshittification"... which reminds me, I should check to see what signal he is emitting today... < firewood anecdote> I just (minutes ago) gave my "firewood guy" an extra large tip/bonus, knowing he and his are likely to be on somebody's "hit list" (your performative cruelty idiom) in spite of their very upright, diligent, serious contributors to the (local) community and economy. I already pay them a small premium (santa fe prices when I could probably scrounge for el-rito prices) because I like their wood, their work ethic and have a loyalty to them with an eye to them being around in the future. I'm ahead by 1.5 winters in my firewood (partly due to a 1/2 cord giant limb from my huge Russian Olive giving up last spring). I was ready to skip a year (my Solar carries my heating load with about 1 cord per year for boost and cheer and dark weeks) but as things were sliding toward the MAGA abyss I felt it would be prudent to be 1% more self sufficient in these times as well as supporting some folks who might be marginal in context (I don't ask, they don't tell). It was mildly cold/snowy outside but of the three guys, two who I've met before wore face-coverings... I can't help but wonder if they are already worrying about being "identifiable". They usually banter with me in my broken Spanglish but this time they were careful not to engage in Spanish, the youngest having very good English but even he pretended not to understand my broken Spanish. I didn't want to push them, on the off chance it would be undermining their passive immune systems. .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
In logic programming one could have, A) a few axioms, and a complex set of interwoven predicates that predict many properties of the world based on those properties. For example, the potential ramifications of killing someone: Malfunctioning families, lost economic productivity, simulations of violence leading to more violence, etc. Situational ethics, parallax, etc. B) more specific axioms, with no complex of interwoven predicates. "Thou shalt not kill." (unless you are the president) The metaphysics of B in isolation is not explained and thus is less developed and has less "merit" (putting free will aside). -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of glen Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 10:28 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Hm. Implicit in the question "what have you done to earn" is will power or free will or somesuch. But the denial of (free) will is *not* the denial of development, nor is it the denial that credit/blame can be ascribed to people (regardless of whether they deserve it or not). Moral luck posits that you can both be awarded and blamed for consequences for which you're the primary agent without positing that you deserve the award or blame. But whatever constructive "axioms" underly development are still there, still operative ... just without the metaphysics. On 11/6/24 10:12, Marcus Daniels wrote: > If we deny that value can be developed from simple axioms, then one can > certainly deny value that is asserted without that development. The > collective nor the individual have any inherent value. > > *From: *Friam on behalf of glen > > *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 9:57 AM > *To: *friam@redfish.com > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > My answer? Nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy> And anyone who thinks > they have done something to earn their place is sorely mistaken, whether the > earning takes the form of credit or blame, whether their place is high or low. > > On 11/6/24 09:44, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> "What have you done to earn your place in this crowded world?" Dr. Kevin >> Christie > -- -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Marcus quoted: "What have you done to earn your place in this crowded world?" Dr. Kevin Christie I love me the acutely cold-stare that Cusack can affect in various roles. his early "Say Anything" comes to mind in the mildest form "Grosse Point Blank" and "War Inc" puts a darker (darkly comic) twist... and Christie in Utopia... I forget the details of the character and narrative but that cold stare still haunts FWIW I just saw the 67M vs 72M popular count estimate... I don't know the real reason for so much popular populism this time 'round really but my first quip was "a lot of disaffected men and the women they can intimidate"... probably wrong and in some obvious ways "wrong-headed". .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Hm. Implicit in the question "what have you done to earn" is will power or free will or somesuch. But the denial of (free) will is *not* the denial of development, nor is it the denial that credit/blame can be ascribed to people (regardless of whether they deserve it or not). Moral luck posits that you can both be awarded and blamed for consequences for which you're the primary agent without positing that you deserve the award or blame. But whatever constructive "axioms" underly development are still there, still operative ... just without the metaphysics. On 11/6/24 10:12, Marcus Daniels wrote: If we deny that value can be developed from simple axioms, then one can certainly deny value that is asserted without that development. The collective nor the individual have any inherent value. *From: *Friam on behalf of glen *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 9:57 AM *To: *friam@redfish.com *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die My answer? Nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy> And anyone who thinks they have done something to earn their place is sorely mistaken, whether the earning takes the form of credit or blame, whether their place is high or low. On 11/6/24 09:44, Marcus Daniels wrote: "What have you done to earn your place in this crowded world?" Dr. Kevin Christie -- -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Vance has already spoken of high-risk pools. I thought that the [Harris] at-home elder health care under Medicare would be very attractive to people 50 and over. I know those costs. They are unreal to people that have not confronted them. Now instead, we’ll go in the opposite direction and revoke pre-existing protection conditions. Might as well destroy the financial integrity of younger people too. From: Friam on behalf of Santafe Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 9:58 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die If they eliminate the ACA — and I don’t see anything now that keeps them from doing that, very quickly — I’m going to get clobbered. Not only episodically for myself, but full-time for others for whom I have responsibility. Not sure how long I can provide an umbrella against the U.S. medical system, at my current capacity. It’s unfortunate. They will likely suffer. But fairy tales seem to be the only places where sufferers learn anything. Learning is a much more complicated project, which takes some investment across the life-course. Works better in a stable environment. On Nov 6, 2024, at 10:18, Marcus Daniels wrote: Harris wasn’t a candidate of the left she was a moderate applying the technique of triangulation to get elected to keep our institutions from being abused and damaged by an inappropriate candidate. I’m not sure what else she could have done short of finding a way to push Biden out earlier. As for me, I’m not shedding any liberal tears. In a way I’m looking forward to how Trump will betray his voters and the suffering they will feel at his hands. They certainly deserve it. From: Friam on behalf of glen Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 6:58 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Just for reference, my antifa friends don't recognize any difference. Nothing's changed from yesterday to today. And while that may seem myopic, there's a lot of truth to it. Harris is fairly right-leaning with her record as a prosecutor in CA, position on fracking, failure to denounce the actions of Israel, etc. The local antifa has been active in things like blocking ports of entry (particularly for Boeing-related shipments and such). DDoSecrets has been steadily accumulating data from bad actors. Unicorn Riot consistently publishes about ongoing abuse of indigenous communities. Etc. W.r.t. deeper changes, a break from status quo *liberalism* (the main boogeyman of the lefties), could be hastened by another Trump term. I see it as an opportunity for actual lefty strategists (as opposed to a warmed over righty like Harris) to design a [de|re]construction plan similar to Project 2025, but for sane people. Literally *any* of the tactics used by the Trump backers could be used by an organized effort from the left. But the problem is that those with the real strategy skills aren't revolutionaries. As Eric lays out, they're too addicted to the institutional game to strategize around or to blast through institutions. That's what makes the tiny antifa efforts like blocking ports (for a tiny few hours) or breaking windows on main street seem so stupid and indulgent, like the temper tantrums of an undisciplined child. And in this regard, I join both my antifa friends and my MAGA friends in scoffing at the liberal tears. If you actually want change, then buck up and make it happen. Politics is not a day job you leave at the office at 6pm. Granted, I'm a tourist in both of those groups - all groups, actually, and would be happier if Harris had won. But being a tourist allows me to say such things without too much hypocrisy. On 11/6/24 02:55, Santafe wrote: > A change that I think can happen, and I don’t know how fully it can change in > four years, which is the time to find out whether the whole electoral system > and federal judiciary can be completely rewired, is that Americans become a > lot more like Russians. Small, localized, and trying to hunker down and get > through one’s own little day and little life, and not be visible enough to > become a target for anything. Everything that is a problem and that needs to > change, is a problem because it brings together a lot of actors. To change, > it needs coordinated commitments. That’s what wasn’t great in the U.S. > already, but gets very very hard in an atomized society. I do expect the > bullying and belligerent behavior from the MAGA faction, which has already > been getting systematically worse over the past 9 years, to undergo a large > increase. Maybe by about the same factor as cannabis use increased when it > got legalized, and for sort of similar reasons. There will continue to be > people who don’t like it, as there are now, and as there are lots of Chinese > who still have global and humane views and don’t
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
If we deny that value can be developed from simple axioms, then one can certainly deny value that is asserted without that development. The collective nor the individual have any inherent value. From: Friam on behalf of glen Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 9:57 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die My answer? Nothing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy> And anyone who thinks they have done something to earn their place is sorely mistaken, whether the earning takes the form of credit or blame, whether their place is high or low. On 11/6/24 09:44, Marcus Daniels wrote: > "What have you done to earn your place in this crowded world?" Dr. Kevin > Christie -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
If they eliminate the ACA — and I don’t see anything now that keeps them from doing that, very quickly — I’m going to get clobbered. Not only episodically for myself, but full-time for others for whom I have responsibility. Not sure how long I can provide an umbrella against the U.S. medical system, at my current capacity. It’s unfortunate. They will likely suffer. But fairy tales seem to be the only places where sufferers learn anything. Learning is a much more complicated project, which takes some investment across the life-course. Works better in a stable environment. > On Nov 6, 2024, at 10:18, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > Harris wasn’t a candidate of the left she was a moderate applying the > technique of triangulation to get elected to keep our institutions from being > abused and damaged by an inappropriate candidate.I’m not sure what else > she could have done short of finding a way to push Biden out earlier. As > for me, I’m not shedding any liberal tears. In a way I’m looking forward to > how Trump will betray his voters and the suffering they will feel at his > hands. They certainly deserve it. > > From: Friam on behalf of glen > > Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 6:58 AM > To: friam@redfish.com > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > Just for reference, my antifa friends don't recognize any difference. > Nothing's changed from yesterday to today. And while that may seem myopic, > there's a lot of truth to it. Harris is fairly right-leaning with her record > as a prosecutor in CA, position on fracking, failure to denounce the actions > of Israel, etc. The local antifa has been active in things like blocking > ports of entry (particularly for Boeing-related shipments and such). > DDoSecrets has been steadily accumulating data from bad actors. Unicorn Riot > consistently publishes about ongoing abuse of indigenous communities. Etc. > > W.r.t. deeper changes, a break from status quo *liberalism* (the main > boogeyman of the lefties), could be hastened by another Trump term. I see it > as an opportunity for actual lefty strategists (as opposed to a warmed over > righty like Harris) to design a [de|re]construction plan similar to Project > 2025, but for sane people. Literally *any* of the tactics used by the Trump > backers could be used by an organized effort from the left. > > But the problem is that those with the real strategy skills aren't > revolutionaries. As Eric lays out, they're too addicted to the institutional > game to strategize around or to blast through institutions. That's what makes > the tiny antifa efforts like blocking ports (for a tiny few hours) or > breaking windows on main street seem so stupid and indulgent, like the temper > tantrums of an undisciplined child. > > And in this regard, I join both my antifa friends and my MAGA friends in > scoffing at the liberal tears. If you actually want change, then buck up and > make it happen. Politics is not a day job you leave at the office at 6pm. > Granted, I'm a tourist in both of those groups - all groups, actually, and > would be happier if Harris had won. But being a tourist allows me to say such > things without too much hypocrisy. > > On 11/6/24 02:55, Santafe wrote: > > A change that I think can happen, and I don’t know how fully it can change > > in four years, which is the time to find out whether the whole electoral > > system and federal judiciary can be completely rewired, is that Americans > > become a lot more like Russians. Small, localized, and trying to hunker > > down and get through one’s own little day and little life, and not be > > visible enough to become a target for anything. Everything that is a > > problem and that needs to change, is a problem because it brings together a > > lot of actors. To change, it needs coordinated commitments. That’s what > > wasn’t great in the U.S. already, but gets very very hard in an atomized > > society. I do expect the bullying and belligerent behavior from the MAGA > > faction, which has already been getting systematically worse over the past > > 9 years, to undergo a large increase. Maybe by about the same factor as > > cannabis use increased when it got legalized, and for sort of similar > > reasons. There will continue to be people who don’t like it, as there are > > now, and as there are lots of Chinese who still have global and humane > > views and don’t like the rise of belligerence being driven in their > > society, but aren’t doing anything effective against it. > > > > -- > ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .-
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
"What have you done to earn your place in this crowded world?" Dr. Kevin Christie From: Friam on behalf of glen Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 9:35 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die You're right that the consequences of anti-liberal (including populist) positions are difficult to unify. But, as you point out, so are the consequences of liberal positions. Liberality requires a kind of universality, the ability to translate some principle across seemingly contradictory consequences (e.g. pro or anti natural gas furnaces). What unifies the anti-liberal left and right is the principle that individuals are less salient than collectives. And that collectivism is also somewhat universal. One can target, say, unified healthcare (a lefty consequence) or unified religion (a righty consequence). But whether it's a target of healthcare or religion, it's still collectivist, anti-liberal, a sacrifice of individuality to the collective. The collectivists could band together around principles that take collectivism seriously, which I don't see as that different from syndicalism, the ability to assemble groups. Disassembly is always a problem, of course. But from a collectivist perspective, disassembly should be difficult. So the lefties and righties I'm talking about *do* very much care about regulatory social systems. They care about them *more* than liberals do. But it's easy to think they don't because they express dissatisfaction with the liberal-based social systems upon which the US (and the Enlightenment, I suppose) are built upon. Protecting some moron's ability to use a leaf blower as long as they pay a tax is liberal. Committing to publicly funded infrastructure like healthy humans is socialist, anti-liberal. The problem with social democracy or democratic socialism is that the liberals want to have the cake and eat it too. They don't want to sacrifice their individuality to the collective. (Or, more honestly, they cherry pick which ones to shame others about.) To be clear, I'm a liberal to the core. The position I'm arguing here has little to do with me, personally. I'm just trying to describe the opportunity I see for the collectivists out there. Luckily, I'll be dead soon. And my liberalism will die with me, making room for the kids to make good with their groupthink. On 11/6/24 09:10, Marcus Daniels wrote: > There’s some unstated assumption you must have. For the lefties and righties > to band together, they’d have to have some basis for a coalition. What is it > beyond the price of milk? For example, as a liberal I’m in favor of high gas > taxes. High gas taxes discourage use of internal combustion cars, thereby > reducing CO2 and mitigating climate change. In California, the taxes on gas > and tolls on bridges help to pay to maintain the roads and mass transit. And > I’d say go ahead and phase out natural gas stoves and furnaces too. Other > liberals I know hate that idea because they believe that will drive up the > cost of living which is already high here. Still other liberals just voted > out the local DA because they thought she was soft on crime. Earlier she was > voted in to give young minorities a fairer shot navigating the legal system. > Liberalism is hardly a rigid system of thought. > > Being inclined to adopt a political philosophy gives scaffolding for what > goals are important, how to achieve those goals, and considerations of the > greater good where one might put aside their selfish interests. What I see in > last night’s results is just collective selfishness. I should want to work > with such people, so they don’t go ahead and burn everything down? I expect > that many of these folks in the rust belt will need Social Security and > Medicare more than I will. By the time I need it, most of my loved ones will > be gone. Yeah, let’s do this! > > Perhaps I am a liberal in your definition and not a lefty because I don’t > care about what happens to them as people (they aren’t my friends or family), > but I do care about the kind of social systems that can be sustained. Actual > conservatives, on the other hand, believe that there is an evolved social > system that is not engineered, but nonetheless is of some quality and should > be protected. The lefties and righties I think you are speaking of don’t care > about regulatory social systems at all. They have diverse goals and values > that perhaps could form coalitions, but do those coalitions that have more > depth than list of grievances? This is the new world: Not just total social > atomization, which would be fine with me, but a lack of modeling of others. > None of that cognitive dissonance to deal with if we must march to the same > drum of Project 202
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
You're right that the consequences of anti-liberal (including populist) positions are difficult to unify. But, as you point out, so are the consequences of liberal positions. Liberality requires a kind of universality, the ability to translate some principle across seemingly contradictory consequences (e.g. pro or anti natural gas furnaces). What unifies the anti-liberal left and right is the principle that individuals are less salient than collectives. And that collectivism is also somewhat universal. One can target, say, unified healthcare (a lefty consequence) or unified religion (a righty consequence). But whether it's a target of healthcare or religion, it's still collectivist, anti-liberal, a sacrifice of individuality to the collective. The collectivists could band together around principles that take collectivism seriously, which I don't see as that different from syndicalism, the ability to assemble groups. Disassembly is always a problem, of course. But from a collectivist perspective, disassembly should be difficult. So the lefties and righties I'm talking about *do* very much care about regulatory social systems. They care about them *more* than liberals do. But it's easy to think they don't because they express dissatisfaction with the liberal-based social systems upon which the US (and the Enlightenment, I suppose) are built upon. Protecting some moron's ability to use a leaf blower as long as they pay a tax is liberal. Committing to publicly funded infrastructure like healthy humans is socialist, anti-liberal. The problem with social democracy or democratic socialism is that the liberals want to have the cake and eat it too. They don't want to sacrifice their individuality to the collective. (Or, more honestly, they cherry pick which ones to shame others about.) To be clear, I'm a liberal to the core. The position I'm arguing here has little to do with me, personally. I'm just trying to describe the opportunity I see for the collectivists out there. Luckily, I'll be dead soon. And my liberalism will die with me, making room for the kids to make good with their groupthink. On 11/6/24 09:10, Marcus Daniels wrote: There’s some unstated assumption you must have. For the lefties and righties to band together, they’d have to have some basis for a coalition. What is it beyond the price of milk? For example, as a liberal I’m in favor of high gas taxes. High gas taxes discourage use of internal combustion cars, thereby reducing CO2 and mitigating climate change. In California, the taxes on gas and tolls on bridges help to pay to maintain the roads and mass transit. And I’d say go ahead and phase out natural gas stoves and furnaces too. Other liberals I know hate that idea because they believe that will drive up the cost of living which is already high here. Still other liberals just voted out the local DA because they thought she was soft on crime. Earlier she was voted in to give young minorities a fairer shot navigating the legal system. Liberalism is hardly a rigid system of thought. Being inclined to adopt a political philosophy gives scaffolding for what goals are important, how to achieve those goals, and considerations of the greater good where one might put aside their selfish interests. What I see in last night’s results is just collective selfishness. I should want to work with such people, so they don’t go ahead and burn everything down? I expect that many of these folks in the rust belt will need Social Security and Medicare more than I will. By the time I need it, most of my loved ones will be gone. Yeah, let’s do this! Perhaps I am a liberal in your definition and not a lefty because I don’t care about what happens to them as people (they aren’t my friends or family), but I do care about the kind of social systems that can be sustained. Actual conservatives, on the other hand, believe that there is an evolved social system that is not engineered, but nonetheless is of some quality and should be protected. The lefties and righties I think you are speaking of don’t care about regulatory social systems at all. They have diverse goals and values that perhaps could form coalitions, but do those coalitions that have more depth than list of grievances? This is the new world: Not just total social atomization, which would be fine with me, but a lack of modeling of others. None of that cognitive dissonance to deal with if we must march to the same drum of Project 2025. Marcus *From: *Friam on behalf of glen *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 7:58 AM *To: *friam@redfish.com *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die It's funny, actually. The overwhelming majority of my liberal friends either object (through passive aggressive tactics or outright accusations of "nit-picking") or distance themselves from my &
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
There’s some unstated assumption you must have. For the lefties and righties to band together, they’d have to have some basis for a coalition. What is it beyond the price of milk? For example, as a liberal I’m in favor of high gas taxes. High gas taxes discourage use of internal combustion cars, thereby reducing CO2 and mitigating climate change. In California, the taxes on gas and tolls on bridges help to pay to maintain the roads and mass transit. And I’d say go ahead and phase out natural gas stoves and furnaces too. Other liberals I know hate that idea because they believe that will drive up the cost of living which is already high here. Still other liberals just voted out the local DA because they thought she was soft on crime. Earlier she was voted in to give young minorities a fairer shot navigating the legal system. Liberalism is hardly a rigid system of thought. Being inclined to adopt a political philosophy gives scaffolding for what goals are important, how to achieve those goals, and considerations of the greater good where one might put aside their selfish interests. What I see in last night’s results is just collective selfishness. I should want to work with such people, so they don’t go ahead and burn everything down? I expect that many of these folks in the rust belt will need Social Security and Medicare more than I will. By the time I need it, most of my loved ones will be gone. Yeah, let’s do this! Perhaps I am a liberal in your definition and not a lefty because I don’t care about what happens to them as people (they aren’t my friends or family), but I do care about the kind of social systems that can be sustained. Actual conservatives, on the other hand, believe that there is an evolved social system that is not engineered, but nonetheless is of some quality and should be protected. The lefties and righties I think you are speaking of don’t care about regulatory social systems at all. They have diverse goals and values that perhaps could form coalitions, but do those coalitions that have more depth than list of grievances? This is the new world: Not just total social atomization, which would be fine with me, but a lack of modeling of others. None of that cognitive dissonance to deal with if we must march to the same drum of Project 2025. Marcus From: Friam on behalf of glen Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 7:58 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die It's funny, actually. The overwhelming majority of my liberal friends either object (through passive aggressive tactics or outright accusations of "nit-picking") or distance themselves from my "moralizing". Nick once did this in a vFriAM, suggesting that I'm too willing to jump to discussing the moral or ethical value/consequence of some sentiment or activity. My attempts to unpack and demonstrate that their liberalism is *founded* in the assumption of individuality and organismal agency fall on deaf ears because they'd rather commit to the in-group and avoid the navel-gazing. But in order to distinguish between a lefty and a liberal, you have to dig down into your navel, pry out the lint, and make an attempt at analyzing agency, where it lies, how it's [de]constructed, etc. My conservative friends are more willing to do that than my liberal friends, at least to the extent of a taxonomy of moralized positions. It's right to do this, wrong to do that, etc. They're less individualist than the liberals. Although the liberals actively engage with in-groups and disengage with out-groups, they drop moralized issues like hot potatoes. The opportunity I see in Trump's 2nd term is for the lefties and the righties to band together against the liberals. With 8 billion people on the planet, liberalism is a fantasy, or perhaps just a fossilized ideology we have to grow out of as the old people die. Of course, we could depopulate the earth and resuscitate liberalism that way. But that sounds more painful than changing our minds. Hm. Maybe it is easier to kill and die than it is to change one's mind? IDK. On 11/6/24 07:18, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Harris wasn’t a candidate of the left she was a moderate applying the > technique of triangulation to get elected to keep our institutions from being > abused and damaged by an inappropriate candidate. I’m not sure what else she > could have done short of finding a way to push Biden out earlier. As for me, > I’m not shedding any liberal tears. In a way I’m looking forward to how Trump > will betray his voters and the suffering they will feel at his hands. They > certainly deserve it. > > *From: *Friam on behalf of glen > > *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 6:58 AM > *To: *friam@redfish.com > *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > Just for reference, my antifa friends don't recognize
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
It's funny, actually. The overwhelming majority of my liberal friends either object (through passive aggressive tactics or outright accusations of "nit-picking") or distance themselves from my "moralizing". Nick once did this in a vFriAM, suggesting that I'm too willing to jump to discussing the moral or ethical value/consequence of some sentiment or activity. My attempts to unpack and demonstrate that their liberalism is *founded* in the assumption of individuality and organismal agency fall on deaf ears because they'd rather commit to the in-group and avoid the navel-gazing. But in order to distinguish between a lefty and a liberal, you have to dig down into your navel, pry out the lint, and make an attempt at analyzing agency, where it lies, how it's [de]constructed, etc. My conservative friends are more willing to do that than my liberal friends, at least to the extent of a taxonomy of moralized positions. It's right to do this, wrong to do that, etc. They're less individualist than the liberals. Although the liberals actively engage with in-groups and disengage with out-groups, they drop moralized issues like hot potatoes. The opportunity I see in Trump's 2nd term is for the lefties and the righties to band together against the liberals. With 8 billion people on the planet, liberalism is a fantasy, or perhaps just a fossilized ideology we have to grow out of as the old people die. Of course, we could depopulate the earth and resuscitate liberalism that way. But that sounds more painful than changing our minds. Hm. Maybe it is easier to kill and die than it is to change one's mind? IDK. On 11/6/24 07:18, Marcus Daniels wrote: Harris wasn’t a candidate of the left she was a moderate applying the technique of triangulation to get elected to keep our institutions from being abused and damaged by an inappropriate candidate. I’m not sure what else she could have done short of finding a way to push Biden out earlier. As for me, I’m not shedding any liberal tears. In a way I’m looking forward to how Trump will betray his voters and the suffering they will feel at his hands. They certainly deserve it. *From: *Friam on behalf of glen *Date: *Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 6:58 AM *To: *friam@redfish.com *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Just for reference, my antifa friends don't recognize any difference. Nothing's changed from yesterday to today. And while that may seem myopic, there's a lot of truth to it. Harris is fairly right-leaning with her record as a prosecutor in CA, position on fracking, failure to denounce the actions of Israel, etc. The local antifa has been active in things like blocking ports of entry (particularly for Boeing-related shipments and such). DDoSecrets has been steadily accumulating data from bad actors. Unicorn Riot consistently publishes about ongoing abuse of indigenous communities. Etc. W.r.t. deeper changes, a break from status quo *liberalism* (the main boogeyman of the lefties), could be hastened by another Trump term. I see it as an opportunity for actual lefty strategists (as opposed to a warmed over righty like Harris) to design a [de|re]construction plan similar to Project 2025, but for sane people. Literally *any* of the tactics used by the Trump backers could be used by an organized effort from the left. But the problem is that those with the real strategy skills aren't revolutionaries. As Eric lays out, they're too addicted to the institutional game to strategize around or to blast through institutions. That's what makes the tiny antifa efforts like blocking ports (for a tiny few hours) or breaking windows on main street seem so stupid and indulgent, like the temper tantrums of an undisciplined child. And in this regard, I join both my antifa friends and my MAGA friends in scoffing at the liberal tears. If you actually want change, then buck up and make it happen. Politics is not a day job you leave at the office at 6pm. Granted, I'm a tourist in both of those groups - all groups, actually, and would be happier if Harris had won. But being a tourist allows me to say such things without too much hypocrisy. On 11/6/24 02:55, Santafe wrote: A change that I think can happen, and I don’t know how fully it can change in four years, which is the time to find out whether the whole electoral system and federal judiciary can be completely rewired, is that Americans become a lot more like Russians. Small, localized, and trying to hunker down and get through one’s own little day and little life, and not be visible enough to become a target for anything. Everything that is a problem and that needs to change, is a problem because it brings together a lot of actors. To change, it needs coordinated commitments. That’s what wasn’t great in the U.S. already, but gets very very hard in an atomized societ
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Marcus wrote: ? Perhaps the talk about saving democracy can be put away for now? I am sure tired of hearing it. If Trump wins the popular vote, especially. the ole "tyranny of the majority over the minority" with the twist that our voter participation is still tragically low, no matter how seemingly high the stakes? I've been bashing around for predictions on the popular vote and whether it ballooned like it did in 2020 but not finding it. The aether is filled with *other* chaff? We have been playing a near-balanced bimodal distribution in our "populist sentiments" and party affiliations for a very long time... maybe it is a key feature of the dynamics of a system such as ours. Is it possibly more interesting if not more stable with systems that encourage/allow multiple parties/factions more better? Not clear, maybe just a false alternative? Gotta revisit "3 body system"... Folks here who are more deeply steeped in Anthropology, Ethnology, Game Theory, Dynamical Systems, EcoBiology, Evolutionary Theory, etc. might be able to ideate more concisely and meaningfully than I on what a "better" system than Democracy might be? My instincts are to look deep into the "wisdom" of deeply evolved biological systems (maybe best at the scale of ecosystems, probably global scale?)... but my skills (at least discipline) are sadly lacking to do more than scuff the surface. Maybe ML/AI are in fact the substrate for much faster evolution, frothing with fecundity on top of the Compost that is the human record of expression (storytelling through Language, Imagery, yet more?). Back to the "rage and grief" - Steve .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
EricS wrote: I will stop now. Even if any part of what I said above is roughly right, it is an epsilon of what needs to be understood, and others here will do much better than I can. Bravo for another concise yet expansive analysis in an otherwise acutely disturbing moment... a diffraction/reflectoin barrier which has already set up a huge amount of "ringing". This along with the aspiration for this community being an "antenna complex" for filtering the overwhelmingly loud and large signals in an echoic chamber into something cogent and relevant gives me hope. I apologize for the "ringy" noise I injected with my "Bros in Broville drinking Liberal Tears"... but as with Eric, I am hearing the echoes of "Grief and Rage" echoing through my home and social networks. Even the dog is barking louder at the MAGA flag flapping in the wind next door! - SteveS .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I think Pieter’s “brace yourself” is the right expression. It’s like the hurricane forecast is now fairly clear, and the thing that was your house is on the beach at landfall. So what plans are you making? People are mostly institutional, and not so scrappy in finding ways to get things done on their own. That is going to become a big personal liability. It certainly describes me. I don’t think that “all the immigrants” will be deported, not because he does or doesn’t want to, and very likely not because there will be a meaningful backlash. Americans haven’t got used to enough personal loss to be that brave in large numbers. The reason it won’t happen is that it isn’t logistically feasible, and it isn’t the point anyway. The point will be to find a subset and make very visible performative cruelty, which has always been the point. These things are not about content, but about performance and building a certain fictional world. Of course, Steven Miller’s a sadist, and if he could expand it without bound, he would. But logistics will be the thing that determines what he actually does. Somehow, the desires of one sadist are, while on the surface and in the direction of the action central, not the real issue. Like the sociopath is the focal actor, but not the issue. The issue is the cast of the society, and what they do with the movements of the sadist and the sociopath. That is like an epileptic siezure, which I think only stops when the cells performing it have been exhausted. Who they can deport is a very large swath of the competent and good-faith civil servants. The thousand cuts that currently don’t happen to people, and that they don’t think about for the same reason they don’t want to fund public health programs, can now start to accumulate. The model would be mismanagement in Weimar, as nearly as I can think of one. Recall Louis deJoy’s shutting down of post-office capabilities to try to delay ballot delivery in the 2020 election. That kind of thing, except in every department and function. Food safety and water regulation, already under-funded, become very unreliable. Transportation safety, whether rail, road, or air, probably further corrupted. Tax enforcement completely ended for the wealthy, as opposed to merely severely inadequate, as it is now. Public education, again already badly under-funded and uneven, really strangled, so that it is hard to staff, with money redirected to whichever loyalsts make the most attractive bid for it (in the form of “private” institutions). They could succeed this time in reversing the ACA (Obamacare), which will throw some tens of millions of people off health insurance again, and relieve what modest pressure there had been against price inflation in pharma and medical services, as the insurance companies will now be less subject to paying them. Surely much more, but I don’t spend my time here and can’t rattle it off the tip of my tongue. A thing that is personally immediate for me is going blind. Being in the community I am in, I am used to being able to see. I don’t think much of the mainstream media. For interpretation it is next to useless, and they fill a lot of time with crap and ignore a lot that should be reported. Public broadcasting does better, but it is less distinctive than I wish it were. But if a ship drives into a bridge somewhere, or there is a large power outage, or some group of poeple shoot many other people, it is unlikely I wouldn’t hear about it. Then I can go looking for more content elsewhere. All that can get closed off, so it becomes like Russian state media. Not immediately, but incrementally and not all that slowly. North Korean media is so hilariously self-cartooning, that one doesn’t quickly convert the whole U.S. to that. But to attenuate anything that isn’t like the current right-wing outlets, and to expand them, would be quite feasible. Half the country already chooses that, so it’s just a matter of hemming in the other half so it gets harder and harder to escape from it. If I have no sort of baseline that, within modest time, can give me a skeleton, then I am out in the open ocean, looking for sources, and trying to find out what is factually accurate and interpretively reasonable. That takes a of time for even small things, and it probably becomes infeasible for a larger worldview, unless it is all you do. See above comment about Americans’ being too institutionalized and passive, and not knowing how to scrap. Steve G., keep FRIAM open, and let the community be a kind of antenna complex that can do some filtering. I do think U.S. foreign policy will become more consistent. Feed Ukrain to the lions, and support the worse part of Israel’s destructiveness. I don’t like to bring up Israel, because it is a subject that can absolutely be talked about well but rarely is, in its full nightmarish complexity, with acknowledgement of
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Harris wasn’t a candidate of the left she was a moderate applying the technique of triangulation to get elected to keep our institutions from being abused and damaged by an inappropriate candidate. I’m not sure what else she could have done short of finding a way to push Biden out earlier. As for me, I’m not shedding any liberal tears. In a way I’m looking forward to how Trump will betray his voters and the suffering they will feel at his hands. They certainly deserve it. From: Friam on behalf of glen Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 6:58 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Just for reference, my antifa friends don't recognize any difference. Nothing's changed from yesterday to today. And while that may seem myopic, there's a lot of truth to it. Harris is fairly right-leaning with her record as a prosecutor in CA, position on fracking, failure to denounce the actions of Israel, etc. The local antifa has been active in things like blocking ports of entry (particularly for Boeing-related shipments and such). DDoSecrets has been steadily accumulating data from bad actors. Unicorn Riot consistently publishes about ongoing abuse of indigenous communities. Etc. W.r.t. deeper changes, a break from status quo *liberalism* (the main boogeyman of the lefties), could be hastened by another Trump term. I see it as an opportunity for actual lefty strategists (as opposed to a warmed over righty like Harris) to design a [de|re]construction plan similar to Project 2025, but for sane people. Literally *any* of the tactics used by the Trump backers could be used by an organized effort from the left. But the problem is that those with the real strategy skills aren't revolutionaries. As Eric lays out, they're too addicted to the institutional game to strategize around or to blast through institutions. That's what makes the tiny antifa efforts like blocking ports (for a tiny few hours) or breaking windows on main street seem so stupid and indulgent, like the temper tantrums of an undisciplined child. And in this regard, I join both my antifa friends and my MAGA friends in scoffing at the liberal tears. If you actually want change, then buck up and make it happen. Politics is not a day job you leave at the office at 6pm. Granted, I'm a tourist in both of those groups - all groups, actually, and would be happier if Harris had won. But being a tourist allows me to say such things without too much hypocrisy. On 11/6/24 02:55, Santafe wrote: > A change that I think can happen, and I don’t know how fully it can change in > four years, which is the time to find out whether the whole electoral system > and federal judiciary can be completely rewired, is that Americans become a > lot more like Russians. Small, localized, and trying to hunker down and get > through one’s own little day and little life, and not be visible enough to > become a target for anything. Everything that is a problem and that needs to > change, is a problem because it brings together a lot of actors. To change, > it needs coordinated commitments. That’s what wasn’t great in the U.S. > already, but gets very very hard in an atomized society. I do expect the > bullying and belligerent behavior from the MAGA faction, which has already > been getting systematically worse over the past 9 years, to undergo a large > increase. Maybe by about the same factor as cannabis use increased when it > got legalized, and for sort of similar reasons. There will continue to be > people who don’t like it, as there are now, and as there are lots of Chinese > who still have global and humane views and don’t like the rise of > belligerence being driven in their society, but aren’t doing anything > effective against it. > -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam <https://bit.ly/virtualfriam> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/vir
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Just for reference, my antifa friends don't recognize any difference. Nothing's changed from yesterday to today. And while that may seem myopic, there's a lot of truth to it. Harris is fairly right-leaning with her record as a prosecutor in CA, position on fracking, failure to denounce the actions of Israel, etc. The local antifa has been active in things like blocking ports of entry (particularly for Boeing-related shipments and such). DDoSecrets has been steadily accumulating data from bad actors. Unicorn Riot consistently publishes about ongoing abuse of indigenous communities. Etc. W.r.t. deeper changes, a break from status quo *liberalism* (the main boogeyman of the lefties), could be hastened by another Trump term. I see it as an opportunity for actual lefty strategists (as opposed to a warmed over righty like Harris) to design a [de|re]construction plan similar to Project 2025, but for sane people. Literally *any* of the tactics used by the Trump backers could be used by an organized effort from the left. But the problem is that those with the real strategy skills aren't revolutionaries. As Eric lays out, they're too addicted to the institutional game to strategize around or to blast through institutions. That's what makes the tiny antifa efforts like blocking ports (for a tiny few hours) or breaking windows on main street seem so stupid and indulgent, like the temper tantrums of an undisciplined child. And in this regard, I join both my antifa friends and my MAGA friends in scoffing at the liberal tears. If you actually want change, then buck up and make it happen. Politics is not a day job you leave at the office at 6pm. Granted, I'm a tourist in both of those groups - all groups, actually, and would be happier if Harris had won. But being a tourist allows me to say such things without too much hypocrisy. On 11/6/24 02:55, Santafe wrote: A change that I think can happen, and I don’t know how fully it can change in four years, which is the time to find out whether the whole electoral system and federal judiciary can be completely rewired, is that Americans become a lot more like Russians. Small, localized, and trying to hunker down and get through one’s own little day and little life, and not be visible enough to become a target for anything. Everything that is a problem and that needs to change, is a problem because it brings together a lot of actors. To change, it needs coordinated commitments. That’s what wasn’t great in the U.S. already, but gets very very hard in an atomized society. I do expect the bullying and belligerent behavior from the MAGA faction, which has already been getting systematically worse over the past 9 years, to undergo a large increase. Maybe by about the same factor as cannabis use increased when it got legalized, and for sort of similar reasons. There will continue to be people who don’t like it, as there are now, and as there are lots of Chinese who still have global and humane views and don’t like the rise of belligerence being driven in their society, but aren’t doing anything effective against it. -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
Exactly; each point Jochen makes here is accurate I think. Pieter also mentioned U.S. spending. From the data, if I understand it correctly, there isn’t any reduction in spending when the republicans take power. There are cuts to social services, but the deficits remain large because the tax cuts and non-enforcement on the wealthy result in equal or larger decreases in revenue. I don’t think it is entirely useful to compare early republican administrations to what we might expect going forward, because the overt venality will presumably be larger now. How much that matters, relative to the back-door venality before, I don’t know. I do expect that, for the next floods, fires, and hurricanes, the disaster relief will work less well, and will be withdrawn faster. Part from incompetence, part from defunding, and part because it will be used for political leverage and vindictiveness. That will be one way of “saving money”. I think that is Musk’s method. One of the things that I wonder about (and could understand better if I put effort into it) is how much of the stability of the dollar depends on foreign investment in bonds by other countries. I think China currently contributes a lot. I don’t know how much that depends on confidence. If it is a lot — new investment needed to maintain interest payments on existing investment — then the shutoff of the new investment could (I imagine) result in a fast unwind of the debt leverage, of the kind we often see in these ramp-crash ratchets. Does that lead to the abandonment of the U.S. dollar as the main reserve currency, as Marcus forecast? When, and how fast? That strikes me as possible, and within the worse-end of the plausible futures. Eric > On Nov 6, 2024, at 6:25 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > > I don't see any bright side. Yes, I agree that "Trump does what's good for > Trump - he doesn’t care much about what’s best for the U.S. or the world". > Exactly. My impression is he is a grifter, cheater and liar. What is good for > him is not good for Americans. Somehow his voters failed to see it. > > In my opinion the immigrants were a big factor that made America great. Trump > has demonized them in his campaign. Another factor that made America great > was that it helped to liberate Europe from Nazism and defended it against > totalitarian forms of communism. Trump longs to have power like a dictator in > an authoritarian system and generals like Hitler. > > The one thing that will become great is pollution. Even more CO2 emissions, > more nuclear waste, and more plastic waste which pollute land, air and sea. > Global warming will spiral upwards out of control. More and bigger hurricanes > will devaste the heartland and floods will wreak havoc in the cities at the > coast. > > -J. > > > Original message > From: Pieter Steenekamp > Date: 11/6/24 10:25 AM (GMT+01:00) > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > I totally agree that Trump isn’t exactly a beacon of virtue. But on the > bright side (if we can call it that), he’s not driven by a political > ideology. Trump does what’s good for Trump—he doesn’t care much about what’s > best for the U.S. or the world. And if he needs to throw a country or two > under the bus (hello, South Africa?), he won’t think twice. So, South Africa, > brace yourself! > > But let’s try to find some good in this situation. Here are a few thoughts: > > a) I’m admittedly a bit of an open-borders extremist—within reason! But I get > that many Americans feel differently, just as South Africans are divided > about immigration, especially with some of our neighbors facing near-state > collapse. The question is, what positives could come from cracking down on > illegal immigration? Perhaps it could help those who feel their jobs are at > risk or their neighborhoods are changing too quickly. Realistically, though, > I don’t see Trump deporting everyone; the backlash would be enormous. More > likely, there’ll be tighter border control and screening, which might even > turn out to be a net positive. > > b) On Ukraine, I saw Trump’s claim that he’d stop the war in a day, which... > let’s just say sounds optimistic. But maybe there’s room for a different > approach. Endless funding isn’t exactly resolving things quickly. Could > Trump’s, er, unconventional diplomacy (or hardball bullying) possibly shake > things up and push for a ceasefire? I’m not predicting peace overnight, but > could he use his style to negotiate a better outcome? Stranger things have > happened. > > c) Finally, the U.S. economy seems to be on an “endless spending” spree. The > national debt’s ballooning, and maybe a financial r
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I wonder what the impact on Europe and the world economy will be. Of course, Ukraine will have to surrender. The expanded NATO can hold hands and make serious statements as the U.S. does nothing in response to further Russian aggression there, and probably elsewhere. So much caution in Europe waiting to see how things play out. Keep those Taurus missiles tucked away, Germany, you may need them. Speaking of caution, I think both Biden and Harris both have suffered from too much of it. Years ago, before deterioration from age, Biden was reportedly skeptical about the raid on bin Laden. While we were spending billions on weapons packages for Ukraine, he couldn’t approve using them to destroy military assets in Russia. I wonder if his caution it rubbed off on Harris. In the last weeks, Harris stuck with her stump speeches and tried so hard not to alienate anyone. (Ok, sure, partly because of different unfair expectations of women.) While she was disciplined, she came off as inauthentic. Trump, having no filter, did not have that problem. Rather than break the mold, Democrats just complain about a double standard. A lot of good that did. The whole thing is so petty and pointless. Something about the price of bacon? Besides white supremacy, I think it is about the layers of inequality in the United States and a power struggle over who gets to put up the fences. Some of the fences may be appropriate, looking at the judgement of our citizens. Oh, is that too soon to say? Perhaps the talk about saving democracy can be put away for now? I am sure tired of hearing it. If Trump wins the popular vote, especially. Marcus From: Friam on behalf of Santafe Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 3:50 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die Exactly; each point Jochen makes here is accurate I think. Pieter also mentioned U.S. spending. From the data, if I understand it correctly, there isn’t any reduction in spending when the republicans take power. There are cuts to social services, but the deficits remain large because the tax cuts and non-enforcement on the wealthy result in equal or larger decreases in revenue. I don’t think it is entirely useful to compare early republican administrations to what we might expect going forward, because the overt venality will presumably be larger now. How much that matters, relative to the back-door venality before, I don’t know. I do expect that, for the next floods, fires, and hurricanes, the disaster relief will work less well, and will be withdrawn faster. Part from incompetence, part from defunding, and part because it will be used for political leverage and vindictiveness. That will be one way of “saving money”. I think that is Musk’s method. One of the things that I wonder about (and could understand better if I put effort into it) is how much of the stability of the dollar depends on foreign investment in bonds by other countries. I think China currently contributes a lot. I don’t know how much that depends on confidence. If it is a lot — new investment needed to maintain interest payments on existing investment — then the shutoff of the new investment could (I imagine) result in a fast unwind of the debt leverage, of the kind we often see in these ramp-crash ratchets. Does that lead to the abandonment of the U.S. dollar as the main reserve currency, as Marcus forecast? When, and how fast? That strikes me as possible, and within the worse-end of the plausible futures. Eric > On Nov 6, 2024, at 6:25 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > > I don't see any bright side. Yes, I agree that "Trump does what's good for > Trump - he doesn’t care much about what’s best for the U.S. or the world". > Exactly. My impression is he is a grifter, cheater and liar. What is good for > him is not good for Americans. Somehow his voters failed to see it. > > In my opinion the immigrants were a big factor that made America great. Trump > has demonized them in his campaign. Another factor that made America great > was that it helped to liberate Europe from Nazism and defended it against > totalitarian forms of communism. Trump longs to have power like a dictator in > an authoritarian system and generals like Hitler. > > The one thing that will become great is pollution. Even more CO2 emissions, > more nuclear waste, and more plastic waste which pollute land, air and sea. > Global warming will spiral upwards out of control. More and bigger hurricanes > will devaste the heartland and floods will wreak havoc in the cities at the > coast. > > -J. > > > Original message > From: Pieter Steenekamp > Date: 11/6/24 10:25 AM (GMT+01:00) > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die > > I totally agree that Tru
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I don't see any bright side. Yes, I agree that "Trump does what's good for Trump - he doesn’t care much about what’s best for the U.S. or the world". Exactly. My impression is he is a grifter, cheater and liar. What is good for him is not good for Americans. Somehow his voters failed to see it. In my opinion the immigrants were a big factor that made America great. Trump has demonized them in his campaign. Another factor that made America great was that it helped to liberate Europe from Nazism and defended it against totalitarian forms of communism. Trump longs to have power like a dictator in an authoritarian system and generals like Hitler.The one thing that will become great is pollution. Even more CO2 emissions, more nuclear waste, and more plastic waste which pollute land, air and sea. Global warming will spiral upwards out of control. More and bigger hurricanes will devaste the heartland and floods will wreak havoc in the cities at the coast. -J. Original message From: Pieter Steenekamp Date: 11/6/24 10:25 AM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die I totally agree that Trump isn’t exactly a beacon of virtue. But on the bright side (if we can call it that), he’s not driven by a political ideology. Trump does what’s good for Trump—he doesn’t care much about what’s best for the U.S. or the world. And if he needs to throw a country or two under the bus (hello, South Africa?), he won’t think twice. So, South Africa, brace yourself!But let’s try to find some good in this situation. Here are a few thoughts:a) I’m admittedly a bit of an open-borders extremist—within reason! But I get that many Americans feel differently, just as South Africans are divided about immigration, especially with some of our neighbors facing near-state collapse. The question is, what positives could come from cracking down on illegal immigration? Perhaps it could help those who feel their jobs are at risk or their neighborhoods are changing too quickly. Realistically, though, I don’t see Trump deporting everyone; the backlash would be enormous. More likely, there’ll be tighter border control and screening, which might even turn out to be a net positive.b) On Ukraine, I saw Trump’s claim that he’d stop the war in a day, which... let’s just say sounds optimistic. But maybe there’s room for a different approach. Endless funding isn’t exactly resolving things quickly. Could Trump’s, er, unconventional diplomacy (or hardball bullying) possibly shake things up and push for a ceasefire? I’m not predicting peace overnight, but could he use his style to negotiate a better outcome? Stranger things have happened.c) Finally, the U.S. economy seems to be on an “endless spending” spree. The national debt’s ballooning, and maybe a financial reckoning is coming? Cutting government waste might actually do some good. Elon Musk claims he could save a trillion dollars—he’s said a few wild things, but maybe he’s onto something here. A leaner, more efficient government wouldn’t hurt.On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 at 10:34, Jochen Fromm wrote:I woke up today and saw the horrific news on TV that Trump has won again. It is incredibly bad on many levels. It is bad for the environment. The world will not be able to stop global warming without the U.S. It is bad for Ukraine as well. To me it feels like the end of civilization and democracy. The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt or Levitsky and Ziblatt. Or do not care.https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562246/how-democracies-die-by-steven-levitsky-and-daniel-ziblatt/I was wondering how this is possible. If we define populism as an ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving then this could be a reason why Trump is so successful. He is good at populism because he is corrupt and self-serving himself, and uses projection to accuse others.https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/308163/what-is-populism-by-muller-jan-werner/9780141987378What do you think? Why have people voted for him although they know what kind of person he his? Are we doomed now? -J..- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group lists
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
I totally agree that Trump isn’t exactly a beacon of virtue. But on the bright side (if we can call it that), he’s not driven by a political ideology. Trump does what’s good for Trump—he doesn’t care much about what’s best for the U.S. or the world. And if he needs to throw a country or two under the bus (hello, South Africa?), he won’t think twice. So, South Africa, brace yourself! But let’s try to find some good in this situation. Here are a few thoughts: a) I’m admittedly a bit of an open-borders extremist—within reason! But I get that many Americans feel differently, just as South Africans are divided about immigration, especially with some of our neighbors facing near-state collapse. The question is, what positives could come from cracking down on illegal immigration? Perhaps it could help those who feel their jobs are at risk or their neighborhoods are changing too quickly. Realistically, though, I don’t see Trump deporting everyone; the backlash would be enormous. More likely, there’ll be tighter border control and screening, which might even turn out to be a net positive. b) On Ukraine, I saw Trump’s claim that he’d stop the war in a day, which... let’s just say sounds optimistic. But maybe there’s room for a different approach. Endless funding isn’t exactly resolving things quickly. Could Trump’s, er, unconventional diplomacy (or hardball bullying) possibly shake things up and push for a ceasefire? I’m not predicting peace overnight, but could he use his style to negotiate a better outcome? Stranger things have happened. c) Finally, the U.S. economy seems to be on an “endless spending” spree. The national debt’s ballooning, and maybe a financial reckoning is coming? Cutting government waste might actually do some good. Elon Musk claims he could save a trillion dollars—he’s said a few wild things, but maybe he’s onto something here. A leaner, more efficient government wouldn’t hurt. On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 at 10:34, Jochen Fromm wrote: > I woke up today and saw the horrific news on TV that Trump has won again. > It is incredibly bad on many levels. It is bad for the environment. The > world will not be able to stop global warming without the U.S. It is bad > for Ukraine as well. To me it feels like the end of civilization and > democracy. The people who voted for him probably do not read Paxton, Arendt > or Levitsky and Ziblatt. Or do not care. > > https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562246/how-democracies-die-by-steven-levitsky-and-daniel-ziblatt/ > > I was wondering how this is possible. If we define populism as an > ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts > them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving then > this could be a reason why Trump is so successful. He is good at populism > because he is corrupt and self-serving himself, and uses projection to > accuse others. > > > https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/308163/what-is-populism-by-muller-jan-werner/9780141987378 > > What do you think? Why have people voted for him although they know what > kind of person he his? Are we doomed now? > > -J. > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
Re: [FRIAM] How democracies die
"Eight years, two impeachments, four indictments, 34 felony convictions, and one attempted coup later, the GOP is now fully 100% Trump’s party, and that speaks less to Trump’s strength, and much more to Republican fear and cowardice"https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-republican-takeover_n_66998a0ae4b047588a4b2aac-J. Original message From: Jochen Fromm Date: 7/19/24 9:45 PM (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] How democracies die I am reading "How democracies die" from Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky who warn that modern democracies die slowly and from the inside. They particularly warn about Trump and argue that political parties in the US play an essential role in the defense of democracy, because they have a gatekeeper function. By nominating Trump again as a presidential candidate the Republican party has failed to fulfill this function as if the Jan 6 Capitol attack never happened. https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/306746/how-democracies-die-by-ziblatt-steven-levitsky-and-daniel/9780241381359-J.-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
