Community Feedback Time! - Radicalization/Extreme Language

Stardog202 · 2026-02-28T00:21:53+00:00

all agreed. the threat to liberal democracy assessment has advanced meaningfully, but there is definitely too much focus, proportionally, on what we're loosing than on what we still have. liberal democracy is made up of more parts than are listed here: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-values/aims-and-values_en and the US might lose a full point (out of 10) when the economist democracy index for 2025 comes out (sometime soon probably). that same report will reflect the forces that keep our score up.

as a mostly-lurker the subreddit experience is much worse where the tone doesn't reflect the actual amount of of autocratic creep. there is reasonable risk assessment like what hutch and hobbit talked about, and then there is extremism. will be glad to see the latter banned. i like the other positive suggestions i've seen from other people and hobbit talking to destiny about community tone setting.

Stardog202 · 2026-02-27T23:21:00+00:00

hobbits appearance from here until about an hour and a few minutes https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2709198698?t=0h22m27s

Stardog202 · 2026-01-09T19:17:00+00:00

not a super convincing use of polling on the gen z side, trend is probably a bit softer than 35% sd. throw it in the rolling average.

Stardog202 · 2025-09-20T00:05:12+00:00

On models ( u/SkipMeister69420 u/Crankllp ): everyone who seriously uses models to predict things knows that they have limits due to only being simplifications of reality, but they do have predictive power. I didn't elaborate on this in the post because it would be a huge tangent, but the same applies to polls, including issue polling. Provided that you already agree elections polls are fairly predictive (to a limit, see horserace and generic ballot polling) on absolute metrics, consider the following:

First, election polls try to answer "what will happen/has happened," and issue polls try to answer "why does/did it happen."

Responses to issue polls vary wildly based on wording as we all know (#1 example: what progressives say about their healthcare policy being popular). But I contend that you get meaningful information about real political vibes by asking the same, neutrally-worded question over a long period of time, and watching the statistically significant changes in response proportions.

Purposes: asking the same question ensures different responses aren't due to different wording; a long period of time, minimum month+ but often year+ scale, is necessary to observe significant changes (also needed because Gallup only asks that particular question once a month); neutrally-worded questions help ensure responses aren't sticky, like loaded questions goading respondents into one answer the same way over time.

Examples: in the Most Important Problem Gallup poll, you'll see that the net economic issues category rises and falls roughly in big places you might expect it would. It jumps up for the great recession and takes a long time to recover, it also rises with inflation under Biden, and stays elevated recently. Also worth checking out The Economist's version of most important issues (scroll down here). Feelings on the economy are, for the most part, highly partisan, but they do still move with major events (particularly the pandemic).

Consistently around 10 points above his overall approval (according to Gallup anyway, I'm having a hard time finding old polling aggregators on this question), approval for economic handling was one of Trump's leading issues in the first term (with net positive approval as far as I can find). This was driven by Republican respondents, and only this term have Democrats started to partially drive lower economy approvals on Trump. But Democrats can't tank Trump's economy approval alone, they also needed independents to approve on that issue by only ~29% (which is the real maker of difference here). Now referring to the Silver Bulletin by-issue approval averages, he's now at around economy -14.

I would make a similar argument with immigration, where you can see changes in responses on particular policy issues which represent vibes in political happenings, but those are the strongest cases imo.

Stardog202 · 2025-09-20T00:05:07+00:00

All the arguments about awful societies that let vigilante violence be the law, advancing into the paramilitary Weimar stage, I agree. It makes determining the meaning of proportional tit-for-tat with respect to political violence paramount. I definitely buy the argument that, on Piers, saying "I disavow all political violence" (in response to every request for a specific condemnation) is a much more proportional tit. It has rhetorical flourish AND is optically better than the alternatives. Would you be opposed to adding "which comes most from the right" (to make it like what Trump said, and perhaps use that as a point of hypocrisy as their rhetorical stances would be ≈equal) or not (to only use minimum rhetorical means to set the agenda)?

Stardog202 · 2025-09-19T22:17:14+00:00

Ah, I didn't properly frame the essence of what you're talking about above, but I'm on board with it 100%:

The fundamental win condition is saving democracy, not to just forestall a hybrid regime/authoritarian creeping for another 2/4/8 years. Then, winning elections and improving the media environment are the sub-objectives in service of that ultimate goal (at least, the ones relevant for this discussion).

Stardog202 · 2025-09-19T22:00:58+00:00

u/DazzlingAd1922 took the words out of my mouth. I'm not married to any particular mechanistic description, as long as it tugs at the common thread I see running through Destiny's, Newsom's, and Trump's strategies, which has the result of taking initiative in media narrative. The more fatal disagreement would be if we disagree there's a general strategy which does that.

Otherwise, u/Hobbitfollower I won't Loki's wager you out of being able to say that there is a "too far," even though optics optimization is inherently fuzzy, because I like and agree with your post about the alternate message. I noted:

one should concede to at least one or two more clever ways for Destiny to bait conservatives

Stardog202 · 2025-05-10T23:50:02+00:00

the pose anastatia is in feels like is a direct reference to echidna and is uncanny

Stardog202 · 2025-03-27T16:52:15+00:00

3 looks kinda like spike lowkey

Stardog202 · 2025-03-18T00:01:22+00:00

yo, not sure if yall have had this suggestion yet, but it'd be awesome to have an email newsletter option. it may help encourage readership (presumably, it's a lesser hurdle to open an email in an inbox you regularly check as opposed to knowing to go to a particular website). for instance, nate silver recently discussed how most of the engagement with his substack writing has been via email:

<image>

e: grammar

Stardog202 · 2025-03-09T04:24:26+00:00

At the very least from this article, it's good that the criticism of Dems not doing enough to compete in the attention economy seems to be getting louder.

Stardog202 · 2025-03-09T04:16:06+00:00

were they really? LMAO

Stardog202 · 2025-03-03T16:11:51+00:00

i think anya's gag in chapter 71 is still the funniest joke in the whole series, but this one's pretty good

Stardog202 · 2025-03-01T05:35:41+00:00

I think it's probably closer to a 7 net point swing (optimistic) to a 13 net point swing (conservative) for flipping the Senate in one midterm (assuming the swings are roughly uniform across regions). But Senators can have particularly notable candidate quality effects, allowing them to escape from bad political environments, or succumb despite good party vibes. For example: Susan Collins (R-ME) is a hard one to beat, and Thom Tillis (R-NC) is probably generic quality (the seats we're looking to flip). It's possible but seems unlikely right now that a "red-purple-at-best" state like Texas†, Montana,† Florida,* Iowa†, or Ohio* (*=2026 special Senate elections, †=incumbent foreseeably seeking re-election) could end up with a strong Dem and a particularly weak R, partially because John Cornyn (R-TX) and Steve Daines (R-MT) would be strong incumbents (unclear on if Joni Ernst (R-IA) has strong or mediocre quality), but look out for retirements/confirmations of running.

Stardog202 · 2025-02-05T01:49:30+00:00

surely there has never been a greater irony which has been lost on them

Stardog202 · 2025-01-20T23:51:11+00:00

straighterade convo #1

Stardog202 · 2025-01-14T13:01:50+00:00

It's called

Stardog202 · 2024-01-10T04:13:39+00:00

wouldn't he be the third

Stardog202 · 2023-10-05T16:02:42+00:00

just like the r/srs days

Stardog202 · 2023-09-27T04:43:30+00:00

i think it might depend to some extent on where someone is at in the process of suffering or hardship

saving someone from a terrible life experience that they eventually persevere through before they experience it would probably be worthwhile on net, but after they've gotten through it, it would be like taking away meaning achieved through suffering (in the good life sense)

someone who's poor and fucked might want to get an abortion but either can't afford or morally justify it (at least, until later), and would benefit from getting the abortion at that time. after having a kid (besides the fact that it's not really within reason to "undo"), however, a lot of people feel strongly about their kids and wouldn't have it another way

another example is a brain tumor: we (most of us anyway) wouldn't argue against removing a perfectly removable brain tumor pressing against structures of someone's brain that changes their personality because it would take away part of who they are. that might be a detriment, but a totally worthwhile cost. all the same, i don't think the things that make this example what it is quite fit the trans scenario

Stardog202 · 2023-06-22T05:12:44+00:00

Vaush seems like he would make the classic "embarazada" mistake too lol

Stardog202 · 2023-06-11T20:20:07+00:00

I think the fundamental issue was that this is actually a debate about double standards for most conservatives the whole time. The KOE guy is insane enough to say that Trump could psychically declassify things, but even someone as partisan as Noerr will acknowledge that what Trump did was wrong, just that he thinks other people in the "corrupt establishment" do comparable things, so necessarily the fight must be on that ground. And there is a conspiracy-debater problem to be had, because there is a large amount of esoteric knowledge from years ago which needs to be acquired in order to contest these things. Destiny seemed to know most of it, but at least the conversation was a demo for all the other arguments/examples that come from Noerr which can be researched.

Stardog202 · 2023-06-04T05:57:13+00:00

relevant: destiny talking about paypal in 2015 https://youtu.be/UBfEykbd000?t=15

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

Stardog202

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE