Post Aq8zR0wLr6a1FTMgO8 by _dm@infosec.exchange
(DIR) More posts by _dm@infosec.exchange
(DIR) Post #Aq8z8m5oJr7rzI5lbs by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-01-16T15:34:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
the forgotten man and women of our country. https://toad.social/@wdlindsy/113838755463069652
(DIR) Post #Aq8zR0wLr6a1FTMgO8 by _dm@infosec.exchange
2025-01-16T15:38:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity I think there's an interpretation here where Trump is sort of "the peoples' tribune", and he has made these oligarchs come and kowtow to him. Whereas, in prior administrations, those rich guys are so powerful they don't have to bow or respect the People (in the form of their representative, the President) to the same extent.
(DIR) Post #Aq8zehRBAB6coeJHAe by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-01-16T15:40:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_dm i don’t know. they are occupying positions traditionally help by people like former Presidents. it’d be interesting if they were placed in some manner suggesting subservience, but i don’t think that’s the plan. i don’t think many observers could conclude he’s brought Musk to heel or kowtow.
(DIR) Post #Aq90JMqsbWb8qOitjU by _dm@infosec.exchange
2025-01-16T15:47:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity I was thinking more about the pilgrimage to Mar a Lago than the inauguration, I suppose. But I think if I were a Trump fan, I would see it this way: the People's President has brought the tech elite to heel. As a critic, of course, I see it as, well, "Obvious corruption! Those rich guys are colluding!"But it's important to see how someone with different assumptions could perceive it.
(DIR) Post #Aq90ZCasVlHlf8mz7w by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-01-16T15:50:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_dm yeah. i agree it’s an interesting perspective, worth considering, though one would have to have priors quite different from mine to give it credence.and again, even with priors very flattering of Trump, Elon would become the source of a lot of cognitive dissonance.
(DIR) Post #Aq90lN3fQmKNam3cgK by _dm@infosec.exchange
2025-01-16T15:52:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity I think Trump superfans will see it, for a time at least, as what I said--plus, evidence that these rich guys see how great Trump will be for the US economy and growth, hence they are supporting him. And I expect at some point everyone sees Trump for a greedy self-dealing fraudster, and that the blatant oligopolist corruption brings him down. But maybe I'm an optimist.
(DIR) Post #Aq90rmXraFN8NOEqMi by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-01-16T15:54:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_dm or a pessimist! for everyone to see that, things would have to go badly askew!
(DIR) Post #Aq92KcER6iGgk4Sr0C by _dm@infosec.exchange
2025-01-16T16:10:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity I am convinced things will go badly askew, and optimistic enough to believe people will see it. In all seriousness, and a point I have been blathering about for a while now, the state of American politics does make me really question the causal relationship between policy outcomes and electoral outcomes. In order for democracy to work well, it must be true that:Voters can understand and attribute the results of policy choices......in time for the next electionI think it's reasonable to assume that, in a country that's two orders of magnitude larger than it was at its inception, with a vastly more complex government and economy, (1) is untrue, or, if it is true, 4 years is insufficient for (2).
(DIR) Post #Aq92nqAsLe4wNkjb1M by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-01-16T16:15:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_dm it’s a problem of collective epistemology. it would be via trusted representation, likely mediated by participatory political parties that closely reflect voters’ values and interests that (1) could become true. under two massive political parties and “representation” (often anti-representation) as one representative for 760,000, no (1) will not hold. 1/
(DIR) Post #Aq932z77OU0iS1CM1w by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-01-16T16:18:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_dm until we restructure to a form of democracy able to think coherently, we’re left with (2), delivering tangible, material benefits within a tightly compressed electoral time frame, front-loading benefits perhaps inefficiently, choosing fast tricks like sending checks over forms of public investment that take time to ripen. 2/
(DIR) Post #Aq93RsT7EnQj54MD2W by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-01-16T16:23:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_dm Democrats, a party dominated by people who style themselves expert, good-government professionals, are particular bad at (2). if “the right thing” would be a Gantt Chart stretching forward several years, of course we’re not going to just hand out quick goodies, in addition or instead. that would be, like, corrupt machine politics! So they feel virtuous and blame the public and lose.We really need electoral reform to resuscitate (1). /fin
(DIR) Post #Aq944n3hHlrNb01Tvc by _dm@infosec.exchange
2025-01-16T16:30:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity Yeah. I agree. I wonder a bit about how democracies can truly function if, among the electorate, there isn't a keen interest in the process evolution necessary to keep them functioning. And in the US, there is no such interest. In fact, quite the opposite: there's a ritualistic belief that whatever the Framers meant is correct. Perhaps that's a silver lining of Trump's rise. Trump supporters don't believe that the status quo or institutions are inherently correct--perhaps we should let him run for a third term, etc!--and Trump opponents see the outcome of the last election as evidence of the need for reform!
(DIR) Post #Aq9Gs1BckK613HyFBA by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-01-16T18:53:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_dm ironically, the founders didn’t mean for a two-party system emerging, and nothing in the Constitution constrains us to the electoral system that causes it to emerge…