Mollyycolllinss's Categories
Mollyycolllinss's Authors
Latest Saves
I think there needs to be precision in categorizing sets of authoritarian political ideas - responses also vary according to the nature of the authoritarian political ideas.
Fascism is ideological in ways Trump isn't - Trump is still a danger in terms of democratic backsliding
An important difference between 20th century fascism and 21st century right-wing authoritarian populism is that fascism was explicitly deadset on exposing democracy as bad - people like Orbàn or Erdogan or Trump are fine with the superficial trappings of democracy.
Mussolini shut down true accusations of voter intimidation through the intimidation of his critics, which led to the assassination of Giacomo Matteotti, who had exposed the fascist intimidation at the polls. Trump spread and encouraged conspiracy theories about voter fraud.
Why does this matter? Because right-wing populist supporters make arguments that THEY are the ones defending not just the abstract "will of the people" (that's common in fascism too) but the procedures of democracy itself. They accuse their rivals of authoritarianism.
People like Mussolini or Hitler made no secret that they thought of democracy as decadent and corrupt, not just morally, but politically, as a system. Trump or Erdogan or Orbàn (or to a lesser extent Putin) claim that it's LIBERALISM which is decadent and corrupt.
Fascism is ideological in ways Trump isn't - Trump is still a danger in terms of democratic backsliding
Let's say all agree Trumpism is fascism. What flows from that?
— Nicholas Grossman (@NGrossman81) January 19, 2021
I advocate precision in categorizing terrorism because it informs strategy. Responding to not-terrorism with counterterrorism can fail or backfire.
What changes if people call Trump "fascist" instead of, say, "bad"? https://t.co/yv9byQWKnR
An important difference between 20th century fascism and 21st century right-wing authoritarian populism is that fascism was explicitly deadset on exposing democracy as bad - people like Orbàn or Erdogan or Trump are fine with the superficial trappings of democracy.
Mussolini shut down true accusations of voter intimidation through the intimidation of his critics, which led to the assassination of Giacomo Matteotti, who had exposed the fascist intimidation at the polls. Trump spread and encouraged conspiracy theories about voter fraud.
Why does this matter? Because right-wing populist supporters make arguments that THEY are the ones defending not just the abstract "will of the people" (that's common in fascism too) but the procedures of democracy itself. They accuse their rivals of authoritarianism.
People like Mussolini or Hitler made no secret that they thought of democracy as decadent and corrupt, not just morally, but politically, as a system. Trump or Erdogan or Orbàn (or to a lesser extent Putin) claim that it's LIBERALISM which is decadent and corrupt.
1/OK, so. Let's talk about Left-NIMBYism.
We all know about Right-NIMBYs, rabidly protecting their white-flight suburbs from Those People. And there are plenty of liberal NIMBYs too.
But NIMBYs of the Left are also a force to be reckoned
2/Left-NIMBYs have developed a canon of interlocking, mutually reinforcing beliefs about housing and urbanism.
These beliefs are mostly false, but they form a powerful "canon" that quickly ossifies into a hardened worldview.
It looks something like this:
3/Fortunately, Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs has written an article that perfectly encapsulates the Left-NIMBY worldview (and quotes me in it!).
So this is a teachable
4/Robinson selectively quotes a Bloomberg article of mine (https://t.co/iamRrW6oei).
Look at the part he quoted, vs. what I actually wrote!
Pretty different, eh? 😉
5/In fact, as I wrote in the article that Robinson failed to read more than one line of, it's theoretically possible that Left-NIMBYs COULD be right that allowing market-rate housing drives up local rents.
I take that possibility very seriously, as do YIMBYs.
We all know about Right-NIMBYs, rabidly protecting their white-flight suburbs from Those People. And there are plenty of liberal NIMBYs too.
But NIMBYs of the Left are also a force to be reckoned
2/Left-NIMBYs have developed a canon of interlocking, mutually reinforcing beliefs about housing and urbanism.
These beliefs are mostly false, but they form a powerful "canon" that quickly ossifies into a hardened worldview.
It looks something like this:
3/Fortunately, Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs has written an article that perfectly encapsulates the Left-NIMBY worldview (and quotes me in it!).
So this is a teachable
4/Robinson selectively quotes a Bloomberg article of mine (https://t.co/iamRrW6oei).
Look at the part he quoted, vs. what I actually wrote!
Pretty different, eh? 😉
5/In fact, as I wrote in the article that Robinson failed to read more than one line of, it's theoretically possible that Left-NIMBYs COULD be right that allowing market-rate housing drives up local rents.
I take that possibility very seriously, as do YIMBYs.
There is very little glamorous about the average western woman. No grace. No subtlety. No shyness, cuteness or warmth. Not sophisticated nor classy.
Coarse, obnoxious, aggressive, and openly, shamelessly promiscuous.
This is what "women's freedom" looks like.
Take a good look.
Perhaps if she had been a little less free to live life on her own terms, she may have retained some of the natural features of femininity that could endear a man to marry her for life.
The moral of the story here is too much freedom is even worse than too little for a woman.
Yes we may denounce the practices of more authoritarian cultures in how they limit their women, and how those women suffer at the hands of abuses of patriarchal power. But at least those women still resemble something that actually looks like a woman. They stay feminine & unugly.
Free women suffer an altogether different abuse, one only comparable to something akin to childhood neglect. Unattended, they lose their warmth and grace in their bid for self-reliance, stripping their femininity bare of all but its ugliest parts.
Free women are feral women.
And a feral woman is what you see in the video at the beginning of this thread.
An unmarriageable husk, an abomination that has all the negative qualities of the feminine, and all of the negative qualities of the masculine, with none of the positives of either
Neglect is abuse.
Coarse, obnoxious, aggressive, and openly, shamelessly promiscuous.
This is what "women's freedom" looks like.
Take a good look.
The ruse is up pic.twitter.com/Wq68n9QIwE
— CCide (@chimericide) January 19, 2021
Perhaps if she had been a little less free to live life on her own terms, she may have retained some of the natural features of femininity that could endear a man to marry her for life.
The moral of the story here is too much freedom is even worse than too little for a woman.
Yes we may denounce the practices of more authoritarian cultures in how they limit their women, and how those women suffer at the hands of abuses of patriarchal power. But at least those women still resemble something that actually looks like a woman. They stay feminine & unugly.
Free women suffer an altogether different abuse, one only comparable to something akin to childhood neglect. Unattended, they lose their warmth and grace in their bid for self-reliance, stripping their femininity bare of all but its ugliest parts.
Free women are feral women.
And a feral woman is what you see in the video at the beginning of this thread.
An unmarriageable husk, an abomination that has all the negative qualities of the feminine, and all of the negative qualities of the masculine, with none of the positives of either
Neglect is abuse.
A fun fact on the wikipedia page for the metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor:
it is the most frequently manufactured device in history, and the total number manufactured from 1960-2018 is 13 sextillion.
That's 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Though this picture is a bit misleading.
Even with devices this small, we couldn't make 13 sextillion of them in 60 years.
So imagine a chip like this. It's the 555 timer, which is one of the most popular integrated circuits ever made.
In 2017, it was estimated a billion are made every year.
And at the heart of it is the die, which looks like this:
(from Ken Shirriff's blog)
https://t.co/mz5PQDjYqF
And that's fundamentally a bunch of CMOS transistors (along with some diodes and resistors), which are a type of MOSFET. How many of them are on a 555?
about 25. Not many, but it's a very simple chip.
it is the most frequently manufactured device in history, and the total number manufactured from 1960-2018 is 13 sextillion.
That's 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Though this picture is a bit misleading.
Even with devices this small, we couldn't make 13 sextillion of them in 60 years.
So imagine a chip like this. It's the 555 timer, which is one of the most popular integrated circuits ever made.
In 2017, it was estimated a billion are made every year.
And at the heart of it is the die, which looks like this:
(from Ken Shirriff's blog)
https://t.co/mz5PQDjYqF
And that's fundamentally a bunch of CMOS transistors (along with some diodes and resistors), which are a type of MOSFET. How many of them are on a 555?
about 25. Not many, but it's a very simple chip.
