Zompist Bboard Again

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 1:15 am I don't think that horseshoe theory really equates the far left and the far right. If it did that, it would have to be called ring theory. The idea is that the far left and the far right are in some ways closer to each other than some might think at first, not that they're the same.

Wikipedia says: "Proponents of horseshoe theory argue that the far-left and the far-right are closer to each other than either is to the political center." That's close enough, right?

What does it matter when today's political center is to the right of Hitler? I know people in this forum don't believe me, but if you read history carefully, you'll find even the Nazis tried to hide their mass murder. The reasonable 21st century politician celebrates it.

If a reasonable right-winger is to the right of Satan, and a reasonable populist is to the right of Cthulhu, isn't it time to throw reason itself out with the trash?

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 1:29 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 1:15 am I don't think that horseshoe theory really equates the far left and the far right. If it did that, it would have to be called ring theory. The idea is that the far left and the far right are in some ways closer to each other than some might think at first, not that they're the same.

Wikipedia says: "Proponents of horseshoe theory argue that the far-left and the far-right are closer to each other than either is to the political center." That's close enough, right?

It's still different from saying they're the same.

What does it matter when today's political center is to the right of Hitler? I know people in this forum don't believe me, but if you read history carefully, you'll find even the Nazis tried to hide their mass murder. The reasonable 21st century politician celebrates it.

Examples? Evidence?

If a reasonable right-winger is to the right of Satan, and a reasonable populist is to the right of Cthulhu, isn't it time to throw reason itself out with the trash?

I don't really accept the claim that there are reasonable right-wingers or reasonable populists who fit your description. At most, there might be people like that who try to dress up as reasonable people. Doesn't mean they are, any more than Hugh Laurie is a doctor.

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 1:57 am

What does it matter when today's political center is to the right of Hitler? I know people in this forum don't believe me, but if you read history carefully, you'll find even the Nazis tried to hide their mass murder. The reasonable 21st century politician celebrates it.

Examples? Evidence?

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 10:40 pm Is Starmer really centrist?

...

He said Israel has the right to cut off Palestine's food supply.

Personally, I think this also counts:

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 10:40 pm He also seems to be economically conservative.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 1:29 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 1:15 am I don't think that horseshoe theory really equates the far left and the far right. If it did that, it would have to be called ring theory. The idea is that the far left and the far right are in some ways closer to each other than some might think at first, not that they're the same.

Wikipedia says: "Proponents of horseshoe theory argue that the far-left and the far-right are closer to each other than either is to the political center." That's close enough, right?

I don't think horseshoe theory usually applies, at least not in a late-20th C/early 21-C Western democracy. In France specifically, what is happening though is that LFI is deliberately trying to be as bad as the far-right.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 11:05 pm I don't know details about Melenchon, but I agree that leftist parties should do more to eject Islamist and Arab nationalist infiltrators. As for what you say about the lack of internal democracy, the same thing applies to the Democratic Party in the US.

Right wingers see Islamism inflitration in LFI but I don't agree with them. There's very little evidence of it, if at all.
As for the Democrats... no. At least there are different tendancies with the Democratic Party; there are primary elections; at least they keep up appearances. Not so with LFI which is purely a vehicle for Mélenchon's ambitions.

What does it matter when today's political center is to the right of Hitler?

That's complete nonsense, and I think you're smart enough to realize that.
If you think about it for a second, I think you'll find it self-evident that it's better to deal with Starmer, Macron or the Democrats than with, say, Narendra Modi.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:27 am

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 1:29 am What does it matter when today's political center is to the right of Hitler?

That's complete nonsense, and I think you're smart enough to realize that.
If you think about it for a second, I think you'll find it self-evident that it's better to deal with Starmer, Macron or the Democrats than with, say, Narendra Modi.

rotting bones seems to like making hyperbolic statements like these based on minimal evidence. Let's just say (I have not checked) Starmer said what rotting bones said he said -- the thing is that is one thing one politician said, and not real evidence that the entire political spectrum excluding dyed-in-the-wool leftists are to the right of Hitler as rotting bones so insists.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 2:27 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 1:57 am Examples? Evidence?

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 10:40 pm Is Starmer really centrist?

...

He said Israel has the right to cut off Palestine's food supply.

If you're talking about the incident I think you are, a few days into the war, when Israel had cut off Gaza's water supply¹, he was asked in an interview whether Israel had the right to do that, and replied with some waffle about about Israel having the right to defend itself and then backtracked in a few days. It's certainly not taking a principled stand², but I wouldn't say that your summery is accurate.

Personally, I think this also counts:

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 10:40 pm He also seems to be economically conservative.

This has a much better chance of being true. Labour have definitely done economically conservative things. Even Gordon Brown has been doing the rounds lately saying they need to do more on child poverty. Personally I'm waiting for the coming budget as a last chance to prove they are really Labour – there are rumours of them raising a wealth tax to fill a funding gap rather than their up-till-now standard strategy of picking a random part of government spending to cut and then backtracking.

¹ And electricity, I think. Not food, but close enough for the purpose
² Especially since he used to be a literal human rights lawyer

Over on Mastodon, zompist boosted a post linking to this piece: https://kennethreitz.org/essays/2025-08 ... heir-young

If we want to talk about that piece, I'd say this thread would be the best place on the ZBB to do this.

I myself mostly agree with the piece, although I think it would have been better without the *shudder* Hayek quote.

But to be blunt, zompist, I'm positively surprised that you boosted a link to that piece. I had long suspected you of being at least partly in favor of the things the piece criticizes.

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 1:10 am I myself mostly agree with the piece, although I think it would have been better without the *shudder* Hayek quote.

But to be blunt, zompist, I'm positively surprised that you boosted a link to that piece. I had long suspected you of being at least partly in favor of the things the piece criticizes.

I'm in favor of things going wrong?

Quite the opposite. I think good ideals are not an acceptable excuse for bad practices, and anyone with a cause (not just leftists) should be aware of the things the author talks about.

It reminds me of analyses of what went wrong at the open meetings of the Occupy movement. Or, for that matter, of a dysfunctional church I once knew all too well. People designing systems-- or concultures-- need to be aware of these subtle failure states.

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 1:10 am Over on Mastodon, zompist boosted a post linking to this piece: https://kennethreitz.org/essays/2025-08 ... heir-young

If we want to talk about that piece, I'd say this thread would be the best place on the ZBB to do this.

I myself mostly agree with the piece, although I think it would have been better without the *shudder* Hayek quote.

But to be blunt, zompist, I'm positively surprised that you boosted a link to that piece. I had long suspected you of being at least partly in favor of the things the piece criticizes.

I must say that I, even if I wouldn't agree with the choices of whom to quote, agree in general with that piece. It really illustrates a lot of the problems with 'progressive' and especially 'social justice' groups (and the more 'progressive' or the more 'social justice'-y, the moreso) and what to do about them.

Things like this are why I find myself opposing things like 'Codes of Conduct', because they seem to be inviting these sorts of problems. (Look at what happened when they attempted to expel Theodore Ts'o from the Linux kernel two days after the Linux CoC was adopted, after those pushing it had assured everyone that it was oh-so-benign and whatnot.)

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:27 am In France specifically, what is happening though is that LFI is deliberately trying to be as bad as the far-right. ... Not so with LFI which is purely a vehicle for Mélenchon's ambitions.

If it's just regular chauvinism, isn't it better to appeal to leftist goals like solidarity or anti-Napoleonism? You are dealing with a faction that has no power in today's world. Of course, actual bigots must be excluded. I'm willing to make allowances for Jewish groups containing people who naively support Zionism in countries where they are minorities, even though that ideology has much more institutional backing than leftism.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:27 am Right wingers see Islamism inflitration in LFI but I don't agree with them. There's very little evidence of it, if at all.

I don't know about parties, but I have seen videos of these people at pro-Palestine protests (assuming they weren't all provocateurs).

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:27 am As for the Democrats... no. At least there are different tendancies with the Democratic Party; there are primary elections; at least they keep up appearances.

It has been argued that because of the non-transparent way the Democratic Party chooses its leaders, it exists to attract American anti-imperialists and neuter them.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:27 am That's complete nonsense, and I think you're smart enough to realize that.

No, I really am not. You are mistaking minor bean counting for agency like LLM newbies.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 3:27 am If you think about it for a second, I think you'll find it self-evident that it's better to deal with Starmer, Macron or the Democrats than with, say, Narendra Modi.

1. I admitted Hitler was more left-wing than eldritch abominations like the "populists".

2. If I get to be a non-Palestinian under mainstream globalist politics, do I also get to be a rich Brahmin under Modi?

3. If so, then is it better to spend my life running around in a gig economy than being killed quickly? I don't know.

On the other hand, Cthulhu might not kill me quickly. That's the real danger. That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 1:10 am Over on Mastodon, zompist boosted a post linking to this piece: https://kennethreitz.org/essays/2025-08 ... heir-young

If we want to talk about that piece, I'd say this thread would be the best place on the ZBB to do this.

I myself mostly agree with the piece, although I think it would have been better without the *shudder* Hayek quote.

But to be blunt, zompist, I'm positively surprised that you boosted a link to that piece. I had long suspected you of being at least partly in favor of the things the piece criticizes.

Overall, I agree that moralizing has limited utility in designing social systems. This is the main lesson I draw from Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, and his lesson is more refined than the Iron Law of Institutions. Authoritarianism promoted by leftists, such as by planning instead of asking, is responsible for our degradation today. That's why my proposal is strictly based on analysis, not moralizing.

Having said I agree, and that my whole proposal is built on this assumption, I would like to argue the other side of the issue:

1. Was the criticism really always thoughtful? The author wants me to take his word for it, but people can be blind to how victims are affected by issues.

2. How often is this behavior a product of the system vs. a result of emotional immaturity leading to bad judgment about what is or isn't rude? E.g. Natalie Wynn pointed out that progressive movements often attract wounded people who take their trauma out on each other. Tech also attracts people with mental health issues. And if the "toxic" people are being triggered by trauma, doesn't this article paradoxically tear them down while accusing others of doing that?

3. I feel like this article conflates many different phenomena that shouldn't be lumped together. For example, it seems to conflate pile-ons from below with corporate bureaucracy in the "Personal Experience" section. The former is usually a response to the latter.

4. As for the Hoffer quote, I don't know if he realizes that turning into a racket is what businesses aim to do under today's capitalist system. That's the success state. The part where it appears to be a "business" to the outside world is when it's buoyed up by hopes and dreams. IIRC: https://youtu.be/p7Lo0sZfdHE https://youtu.be/-V9yPGdubHQ https://youtu.be/4hUvyLgZOFM ...

Hayek and mainstream economists are wrong, and this can be demonstrated through argument (Cockshott's analyses) and practice (e.g. the documented failures of microfinance). We can redesign current systems to work better for most people.

But Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind might be the worst of the cited works.

5. I think conflict-averse people imagine some kind of pre-established harmony that we can return to if we would just stop trying to exert control over social systems. In some cases, that's the real delusion. As the article acknowledges, without any kind of pushback, the people in charge will take advantage of their power. Linux development is particularly toxic, and Torvalds is not even hard right. He has said he is a "Marxist" in the sense Americans use the word because he supports trans rights.

Maybe we can go further than just: "The alternative is worse. Communities without stated values don't avoid these problems—they just make them invisible. At least a hypocritical community can be called out on its hypocrisy. A community that never claimed to care about inclusion can exclude with impunity."

Most people in junior positions could prefer that their seniors live in a state of Stalinist terror rather than spending hours in a community that's essentially 4chan. This might not be a minor preference. They could leave if they are crushed under the boot, even if the alternative feels like a totalitarian dystopia.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 9:10 am rotting bones seems to like making hyperbolic statements like these based on minimal evidence. Let's just say (I have not checked) Starmer said what rotting bones said he said -- the thing is that is one thing one politician said, and not real evidence that the entire political spectrum excluding dyed-in-the-wool leftists are to the right of Hitler as rotting bones so insists.

Let's say? Why don't you Google it? This reminds me of the time I said 1+2=3 or something and someone on the ZBB asked me to prove it based on the foundations of math. It's like the Nietzsche quote about staring into the abyss.

The UK is now arresting pro-Palestine protestors. Germany is even worse: https://youtu.be/XOLdKtT8w1Y I don't even know what to say about the Democratic Party, people who were actually arming the IDF as they were committing war crimes.

I can't reproduce all the evidence in the world. You have to read foreign policy news, watch independent media like Secular Talk or read books like One Day, Everyone Will Always Have Been Against This or The World After Gaza.

Also, I said the "center" is to the right of Hitler.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Wed Sep 17, 2025 6:04 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 9:10 am rotting bones seems to like making hyperbolic statements like these based on minimal evidence. Let's just say (I have not checked) Starmer said what rotting bones said he said -- the thing is that is one thing one politician said, and not real evidence that the entire political spectrum excluding dyed-in-the-wool leftists are to the right of Hitler as rotting bones so insists.

Let's say? Why don't you Google it? This reminds me of the time I said 1+2=3 or something and someone on the ZBB asked me to prove it based on the foundations of math. It's like the Nietzsche quote about staring into the abyss.

The UK is now arresting pro-Palestine protestors. Germany is even worse: https://youtu.be/XOLdKtT8w1Y I don't even know what to say about the Democratic Party, people who were actually arming the IDF as they were committing war crimes.

I can't reproduce all the evidence in the world. You have to read foreign policy news, watch independent media like Secular Talk or read books like One Day, Everyone Will Always Have Been Against This or The World After Gaza.

Also, I said the "center" is to the right of Hitler.

What Israel has been doing is utterly atrocious, and the center in the West's support of Israel in this department has been very willful blindness at best, but to propose that the center outside Israel's support for Israel is to the right of Hitler requires stronger support than you have given here (and sorry, you can't just say "read X, Y, and Z").

This is what I mean by "hyperbolic statements" -- you could simply state what the center has been doing for what it is, but instead you make a statement that sounds like it has more impact (because obviously to be "to the right of Hitler" must be the worst thing ever, amirite?) but which actually weakens your argument (because it is hard to state that simply sending Israel arms, in the case of the Democrats, trying to suppress demonstrations against Israel, and making statements in support of Israel, as bad as they are, are worse than directly setting up networks of concentration camps and death camps and using them for mass extermination and enslavement on an industrial scale, carrying out mass executions with mobile killing units, carrying out mass euthanasia of disabled people, carrying out large-scale medical experimentation, etc. etc. etc.).

@rotting bones: I can't make sense of what you're saying.
Or rather, I hope I can't understand it, and I hope you don't fully realize the full implications.

Are you aware of the very unfortunate implications of you ranting about 'Zionism', stating in another topic that the Holocaust was 'marketed' and assorted comments about everything being worse than Hitler?

(To wit:

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 9:29 pmA reminder of how recently the Holocaust was marketed to promote Israeli nationalism.

)

---

Now on to something lighter:

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 1:10 am Over on Mastodon, zompist boosted a post linking to this piece: https://kennethreitz.org/essays/2025-08 ... heir-young

If we want to talk about that piece, I'd say this thread would be the best place on the ZBB to do this.

I myself mostly agree with the piece, although I think it would have been better without the *shudder* Hayek quote.

But to be blunt, zompist, I'm positively surprised that you boosted a link to that piece. I had long suspected you of being at least partly in favor of the things the piece criticizes.

One thing that strikes me is that it treats, in the same breath, very different institutions: free software, activism, churches. What sort of conclusions could you draw from this? Except very broad ones that apply to any group of people?

Or, to put it another way, tech projects and free software are important; but maybe not that important in the great scheme of things.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Sep 17, 2025 9:35 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 1:10 am Over on Mastodon, zompist boosted a post linking to this piece: https://kennethreitz.org/essays/2025-08 ... heir-young

If we want to talk about that piece, I'd say this thread would be the best place on the ZBB to do this.

I myself mostly agree with the piece, although I think it would have been better without the *shudder* Hayek quote.

But to be blunt, zompist, I'm positively surprised that you boosted a link to that piece. I had long suspected you of being at least partly in favor of the things the piece criticizes.

One thing that strikes me is that it treats, in the same breath, very different institutions: free software, activism, churches. What sort of conclusions could you draw from this? Except very broad ones that apply to any group of people?

Or, to put it another way, tech projects and free software are important; but maybe not that important in the great scheme of things.

It's about the failure modes of values-driven organizations, and free software projects, activist groups, and churches all provide good examples of values-driven organizations.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Sep 17, 2025 9:35 am @rotting bones: I can't make sense of what you're saying.
Or rather, I hope I can't understand it, and I hope you don't fully realize the full implications.

Are you aware of the very unfortunate implications of you ranting about 'Zionism', stating in another topic that the Holocaust was 'marketed' and assorted comments about everything being worse than Hitler?

(To wit:

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 9:29 pmA reminder of how recently the Holocaust was marketed to promote Israeli nationalism.

)

As I said, it seems like rotting bones likes to make hyperbolic statements without entirely thinking them through.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 17, 2025 10:22 am
It's about the failure modes of values-driven organizations, and free software projects, activist groups, and churches all provide good examples of values-driven organizations.

That's where I have to disagree I feel that software projects are not value-driven; certainly not in the way an activist group is. And I'd argue a church is yet different.

A software project aim is to produce code that solves some kind of practical problem. The aim of the Linux kernel project is to provide a state of the art OS kernel a computer can run without noticeable bugs. Extinction Rebellion aims to affect political change towards limiting climate change. A church aims at the supernatural salvation of its members. All three are very different things!

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Sep 17, 2025 10:39 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 17, 2025 10:22 am It's about the failure modes of values-driven organizations, and free software projects, activist groups, and churches all provide good examples of values-driven organizations.

That's where I have to disagree I feel that software projects are not value-driven; certainly not in the way an activist group is. And I'd argue a church is yet different.

A software project aim is to produce code that solves some kind of practical problem. The aim of the Linux kernel project is to provide a state of the art OS kernel a computer can run without noticeable bugs. Extinction Rebellion aims to affect political change towards limiting climate change. A church aims at the supernatural salvation of its members. All three are very different things!

Software projects don't have to be values-driven, but there are those who want them to be, particularly those with an activist mindset. The kind of failure modes discussed in this piece are why they shouldn't be values-driven, and why those who want them to be should be kept out no matter how good their intentions. (This is a big part of why I oppose CoC's and those who push them.)

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Sep 17, 2025 9:35 am @rotting bones: I can't make sense of what you're saying.
Or rather, I hope I can't understand it, and I hope you don't fully realize the full implications.

I'm saying people should vote center-left because populists like Trump and Modi will probably torture us for years and years instead of killing us outright. Low reading comprehension sure takes the fun out of suicidal ideation.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Sep 17, 2025 9:35 am Are you aware of the very unfortunate implications of you ranting about 'Zionism'

Mainstream politicians around the globe are condoning genocide in the name of Zionism, i.e. Israeli nationalism. (Again, I am explicitly saying said leftists must exclude actual antisemitic bigotry.) Vague insinuations of nefarious intentions on my part when PEOPLE ARE DYING AS WE SPEAK, and I'm complaining about a widespread conspiracy in the political center to comply with perpetrators of genocide, is pure narcissism.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Sep 17, 2025 9:35 am , stating in another topic that the Holocaust was 'marketed' and assorted comments about everything being worse than Hitler?

What makes the center worse than Hitler is that, unlike the pit of ignorance that passes for common sense on the ZBB, actual history says the Nazis tried to cover up the Holocaust, whereas mainstream 21st century politicians, according to Jewish leftists, are shamed if they don't condone mass murder.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Sep 17, 2025 9:35 am (To wit:

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Sep 14, 2025 9:29 pmA reminder of how recently the Holocaust was marketed to promote Israeli nationalism.

)

Here, I'm referring to a historical work that explicitly goes into the history about how Israel initially looked down on victims of the Holocaust, calling them dogs, and how they did an about turn on that issue a few decades ago. This book goes out of its way to be sympathetic to victims of the Holocaust, and unlike me, even Zionism, meaning, as it usually does on the left, Israeli nationalism, me being a socialist critic of all nationalist politics. I found this book on the blog of a Jewish leftist, John Ganz.

The fact that you haven't read this book, and therefore don't know what you are talking about, and yet you feel like you are in a superior vantage point to lecture me, is precisely what's wrong with this conversation, and by extension, center-left politics in the 21st century.

Despite all this, people should vote for the center-left. Hitlers like you, which almost everyone is these days, are still better than Cthulhu.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 17, 2025 10:45 am Software projects don't have to be values-driven, but there are those who want them to be, particularly those with an activist mindset. The kind of failure modes discussed in this piece are why they shouldn't be values-driven, and why those who want them to be should be kept out no matter how good their intentions. (This is a big part of why I oppose CoC's and those who push them.)

The article doesn't argue that software projects shouldn't be values-driven. It argues that we need to put more effort into actually making the community follow the values instead of just doing ideological purity testing. It gives a short list on how to go about this towards the end.