@quantskull.bsky.social
"Abundance hasn't worked." -> "I'm not making a claim about if abundance policies are effective or better, but there is a difference I constructed."
Anyone can call a puddle as ocean, and then get defensive when someone pokes a stick into it, repeating "you don't get it" doesn't change the depth.
Anyone can call a puddle as ocean, and then get defensive when someone pokes a stick into it, repeating "you don't get it" doesn't change the depth.
June 4, 2025 at 8:18 PM
"Abundance hasn't worked." -> "I'm not making a claim about if abundance policies are effective or better, but there is a difference I constructed."
Anyone can call a puddle as ocean, and then get defensive when someone pokes a stick into it, repeating "you don't get it" doesn't change the depth.
Anyone can call a puddle as ocean, and then get defensive when someone pokes a stick into it, repeating "you don't get it" doesn't change the depth.
There isn't anything to read into because you literally only made a singular 300 character post. There's no deeper substance or broader argument because you are unwilling (or unable) to provide elaboration or even attempt a response to critique of what you said other than say "not what I meant".
June 4, 2025 at 7:38 PM
There isn't anything to read into because you literally only made a singular 300 character post. There's no deeper substance or broader argument because you are unwilling (or unable) to provide elaboration or even attempt a response to critique of what you said other than say "not what I meant".
You can't read like 1500 characters, aka about 1 paragraph?
Glad you admit you don't have a serious argument.
Glad you admit you don't have a serious argument.
June 4, 2025 at 1:52 AM
You can't read like 1500 characters, aka about 1 paragraph?
Glad you admit you don't have a serious argument.
Glad you admit you don't have a serious argument.
Inference time compute though (or the equivalent for humans, thinking about it for a long time with multiple people).
June 4, 2025 at 12:29 AM
Inference time compute though (or the equivalent for humans, thinking about it for a long time with multiple people).
But even accepting your arbitrarily assigned labels as you assigned them, 'aspirational first order effect' is really not a useful measure. As with the health example, the runner almost certainly has a stronger desire to be healthy than the person repeating a verbal health mantra.
June 4, 2025 at 12:28 AM
But even accepting your arbitrarily assigned labels as you assigned them, 'aspirational first order effect' is really not a useful measure. As with the health example, the runner almost certainly has a stronger desire to be healthy than the person repeating a verbal health mantra.
And similarly for changing housing regulations, if you do the reverse and zoom out, the first order effect is to construct more housing.
June 4, 2025 at 12:25 AM
And similarly for changing housing regulations, if you do the reverse and zoom out, the first order effect is to construct more housing.
For instance, you could say the real aspirational first order effects of building housing is to purchase lumber, since if you break down housing construction into more detail, you need to first acquire building materials.
June 4, 2025 at 12:23 AM
For instance, you could say the real aspirational first order effects of building housing is to purchase lumber, since if you break down housing construction into more detail, you need to first acquire building materials.
The 'aspirational first order effects' analysis is not even a meaningful or effective way to measure distinctions in the first place, it's massively over-determined because you can always change what the first order effects are by just looking at it differently.
June 4, 2025 at 12:19 AM
The 'aspirational first order effects' analysis is not even a meaningful or effective way to measure distinctions in the first place, it's massively over-determined because you can always change what the first order effects are by just looking at it differently.
If you're going to claim that the 'first order aspirational effect' shows that they secretly just want deregulation and the housing is just a cover for that; that's nonsense.
June 4, 2025 at 12:18 AM
If you're going to claim that the 'first order aspirational effect' shows that they secretly just want deregulation and the housing is just a cover for that; that's nonsense.
which of the policies are better*
I agree that I don't understand the argument you're making, because if that distinction is truly unrelated to the qualities of the policies, then it seems vacuous, which I showed with an example.
I agree that I don't understand the argument you're making, because if that distinction is truly unrelated to the qualities of the policies, then it seems vacuous, which I showed with an example.
June 4, 2025 at 12:09 AM
which of the policies are better*
I agree that I don't understand the argument you're making, because if that distinction is truly unrelated to the qualities of the policies, then it seems vacuous, which I showed with an example.
I agree that I don't understand the argument you're making, because if that distinction is truly unrelated to the qualities of the policies, then it seems vacuous, which I showed with an example.
Ok, so this analytical distinction you have constructed has been established. Explain what relevant implication that has for the discussion about the policies besides noting that this distinction exists.
If you're not making claims about which the policies, what is the point of the distinction?
If you're not making claims about which the policies, what is the point of the distinction?
June 4, 2025 at 12:06 AM
Ok, so this analytical distinction you have constructed has been established. Explain what relevant implication that has for the discussion about the policies besides noting that this distinction exists.
If you're not making claims about which the policies, what is the point of the distinction?
If you're not making claims about which the policies, what is the point of the distinction?
"Aspirational first order effects" seems like made up rhetoric to sidestep the actual effects of different policies. NYC has the most public housing in the country yet Austin is vastly more affordable and has rents actively shrinking with higher population growth www.costar.com/article/7723...
www.costar.com
June 3, 2025 at 7:14 PM
"Aspirational first order effects" seems like made up rhetoric to sidestep the actual effects of different policies. NYC has the most public housing in the country yet Austin is vastly more affordable and has rents actively shrinking with higher population growth www.costar.com/article/7723...
The aspirational first order effect of saying "I want to become healthy" is becoming healthy, whereas the aspirational first order effect of running is that you go for a run, yet someone who regularly goes for runs is going to be a healthier than someone who regularly says "I want to become healthy"
June 3, 2025 at 7:11 PM
The aspirational first order effect of saying "I want to become healthy" is becoming healthy, whereas the aspirational first order effect of running is that you go for a run, yet someone who regularly goes for runs is going to be a healthier than someone who regularly says "I want to become healthy"
Fair enough, I misinterpreted your original reply. We agree that Trump should have lost.
June 3, 2025 at 4:15 AM
Fair enough, I misinterpreted your original reply. We agree that Trump should have lost.
It's valuable to bring up the election to emphasize how important it is to turn out against Trump and Republicans.
As for her attendance at that conference, I think it's bad, but I reject the implication that it puts her or her hypothetical presidency anywhere in the realm of Trump.
As for her attendance at that conference, I think it's bad, but I reject the implication that it puts her or her hypothetical presidency anywhere in the realm of Trump.
June 3, 2025 at 4:10 AM
It's valuable to bring up the election to emphasize how important it is to turn out against Trump and Republicans.
As for her attendance at that conference, I think it's bad, but I reject the implication that it puts her or her hypothetical presidency anywhere in the realm of Trump.
As for her attendance at that conference, I think it's bad, but I reject the implication that it puts her or her hypothetical presidency anywhere in the realm of Trump.
That doesn't change the substance of your point, which is minimizing the serious tragedy of that pivotal moment.
June 3, 2025 at 4:04 AM
That doesn't change the substance of your point, which is minimizing the serious tragedy of that pivotal moment.
Trump would have actively pushed for even stronger violations, and he has and is with several anti-trans rights federal bills currently in congress that he is actively supporting. That's not including executive orders where Biden actively pushed forward trans rights and Trump is actively going back.
June 3, 2025 at 3:58 AM
Trump would have actively pushed for even stronger violations, and he has and is with several anti-trans rights federal bills currently in congress that he is actively supporting. That's not including executive orders where Biden actively pushed forward trans rights and Trump is actively going back.
The only bill he signed that had anti trans provisions was the one that prevented military health insurance covering gender affirming care for minors. That was the worst thing he did on trans rights, but notably it was part of a larger bill, and he specifically opposed that provision.
June 3, 2025 at 3:56 AM
The only bill he signed that had anti trans provisions was the one that prevented military health insurance covering gender affirming care for minors. That was the worst thing he did on trans rights, but notably it was part of a larger bill, and he specifically opposed that provision.
How can you claim or imagine that the experience of trans people in America would be even close to the same if the other candidate won. It simply wouldn't.
June 3, 2025 at 3:49 AM
How can you claim or imagine that the experience of trans people in America would be even close to the same if the other candidate won. It simply wouldn't.
The other presidential candidate (Trump) is currently literally sending the FBI after parents that provide their kids with gender affirming therapy, putting transgender inmates in the wrong prison, actively making it government policy that trans people don't exist, preventing passport self id, etc.
June 3, 2025 at 3:48 AM
The other presidential candidate (Trump) is currently literally sending the FBI after parents that provide their kids with gender affirming therapy, putting transgender inmates in the wrong prison, actively making it government policy that trans people don't exist, preventing passport self id, etc.
I honestly do not understand your mindset. One presidential candidate (Kamala) actively supported and helped pass legislation and actions by the executive to protect gay marriage, prevent discrimination on the basis of gender identity, stop conversion therapy, allow passport self id, etc.
June 3, 2025 at 3:44 AM
I honestly do not understand your mindset. One presidential candidate (Kamala) actively supported and helped pass legislation and actions by the executive to protect gay marriage, prevent discrimination on the basis of gender identity, stop conversion therapy, allow passport self id, etc.
It's not 'dickriding' to celebrate and encourage when good policy happens, that's literally how good policies get passed. In fact, it's actively harmful to pretend like a party is not doing anything on trans rights when they actively are. Ignoring the difference helps the harmful polices.
June 3, 2025 at 3:35 AM
It's not 'dickriding' to celebrate and encourage when good policy happens, that's literally how good policies get passed. In fact, it's actively harmful to pretend like a party is not doing anything on trans rights when they actively are. Ignoring the difference helps the harmful polices.
They literally are though, komonews.com/news/local/w... here's something passed in 2025
housedemocrats.wa.gov/macri/2025/0... and another one
coloradonewsline.com/2025/05/06/l... or another one (this one in Colorado)
and these are just the ones off the top of my head
housedemocrats.wa.gov/macri/2025/0... and another one
coloradonewsline.com/2025/05/06/l... or another one (this one in Colorado)
and these are just the ones off the top of my head
June 3, 2025 at 3:32 AM
They literally are though, komonews.com/news/local/w... here's something passed in 2025
housedemocrats.wa.gov/macri/2025/0... and another one
coloradonewsline.com/2025/05/06/l... or another one (this one in Colorado)
and these are just the ones off the top of my head
housedemocrats.wa.gov/macri/2025/0... and another one
coloradonewsline.com/2025/05/06/l... or another one (this one in Colorado)
and these are just the ones off the top of my head
Right now in the budget vote, Republicans are all voting to cut medicare for millions of low income Americans, while all Democrats are voting against that.
People who discourage voting in the 2024 election against Donald Trump are directly showing they didn't care about the resultant suffering.
People who discourage voting in the 2024 election against Donald Trump are directly showing they didn't care about the resultant suffering.
June 3, 2025 at 2:53 AM
Right now in the budget vote, Republicans are all voting to cut medicare for millions of low income Americans, while all Democrats are voting against that.
People who discourage voting in the 2024 election against Donald Trump are directly showing they didn't care about the resultant suffering.
People who discourage voting in the 2024 election against Donald Trump are directly showing they didn't care about the resultant suffering.
I'm not blaming the lower class at all, there are tons of low income people that voted for Kamala. I'm blaming the people that voted for and campaigned for Trump, and that actively discouraged voting against Trump. Those people's actions directly empowered elites like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, etc.
June 3, 2025 at 2:51 AM
I'm not blaming the lower class at all, there are tons of low income people that voted for Kamala. I'm blaming the people that voted for and campaigned for Trump, and that actively discouraged voting against Trump. Those people's actions directly empowered elites like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, etc.