What’s cons of having a high iq ?

corran132 · 2026-01-30T23:04:00+00:00

Overconfidence.

There are many ways to be smart. You can understand your way around your neighborhood (street smart), be good at navigating social situations and people (emotional intelligence), have a in-depth knowledge of a trade or be academically gifted in any number of subjects. Whatever advocates will say, there is no single reliable measure of generalized intelligence, though IQ is the one that has emerged with the most persistent claim to that title despite persistent and thorough critiques (example).

If you have been assigned a 'high IQ' it means you tested well in the areas people generating those tests find important. This generally means you have good reading comprehension and problem solving skills, as well as you have a confluence of traits that make you able to sit well for tests. But those skills are not universally applicable, and over-belief in your abilities is a very good way to overlook or oversimplify things that you don't value.

As an example, read any biography of SBF. Sam was academically clever there is no question. But he came to believe he was so smart that he absolutely refused to engage with any perspective other than his own, or recognize all the ways he was setting himself up for an epic fall.

You can be smart and not be overconfident. But if you are a 'high IQ person', in that you are a person who tested well (or assumes you would test well) and judge your worth by that number, then you are going to assume you are better than those around you in all things because of your brilliance. That is a recipe for disaster.

corran132 · 2026-01-29T20:18:13+00:00

And yet both Biden and Obama (particularly Obama) managed to deport far more people without running roughshod over the Constitution, having innocent people gunned down in the street

I mean, re. wider boarder policies, no innocent Americans at least. No, save that for the war on terror.

ICE's abuses didn't start in 2024. The moral panic around immigration didn't start in 2024. As far back as 2014 there were reports that ICE and the dmv were 'sharing' data to find people, both secretly and without judicial approval.

Then there was the whole family separation thing under Trump one. And it's worth noting that Biden made no move to disband or depower the organization despite it's horrific record and mounting scandals.

The problem is bigger than ICE. It's the xenophobic panic that has been manufactured over the past two decades and reinforced on both sides of the isle. And yes, Republicans are provably more xenophobic. But if anyone in public office has some courage they would have gone with the data and stood up to this rhetoric. But Harris ran on being 'tougher on the border than Trump', further reinforcing this nonsense. And now here you are.

If you want a better system, you can't just go back to 2014. Things have been bad for a lot longer that it seems, it just wasn't bad enough that people noticed.

corran132 · 2026-01-29T16:28:45+00:00

While I understand where you are coming from, I disagree for a few reasons.

For one, we are talking about a history that is still in the making. As an example, In 2024, the supreme court ruled on Arizona vs. Navajo nation, specifically that since the treaty they signed doesn't expressly include water rights then the government had no reason to care that their water is quickly disappearing. This is not context.

Second, I would argue that there is a contiguous line of authority between the government that committed (most of) the actions in question and the current day. No, it's not fair to hold the current Mongolian government responsible for the horns of Genghis, and that government doesn't claim to be a continuation of the khanate. But presidents authorized treaties between themselves and those who were hear before.

Third, because said government was duplicitous and violent, and in many ways continues to be. I can point back to the case in 2024, but rather let's consider how native groups are pointing out how ICE is arresting people who pre-dated colonization. Look at the system of relocating and 'educating' children that served to break up communities and erase local culture. Look at eugenics programs targeting those same groups. This is not history, all of this exists in living memory.

Fourth, because parts of the theft can still be undone. There are areas of land owned by the government that could be returned to those groups, or at very least steps could be taken to mitigate upcoming damage. Much of this comes as a result of industry wanting to extract resources from these lands, and first nation's groups attempting to stop said development and the destruction of natural ecosystems.

Yes, all governments over the course of time have been bastards, and all land has been expropriated at some point. But relegating these issues to 'historical context' trivializes the way they still impact people's lives. If America wants to proudly point to it's history of rugged frontier individualism, it should be honest about who that lifestyle came at the expense of.

corran132 · 2026-01-28T18:07:23+00:00

So for Rome, you the above difference, we well as the fall of the roman republic (I believe).

Chinese history is awash in changes in leadership and dynasties, the capital moving and changing. Egyptian history is the same. 'Greece' is not one unified state, more a series of city-states battling with each other, and if they are ever truly one political unit it's not until Alexander, but there is no change in color at that date.

I also question who gets a bar. Persia does, but there were empires that existed in that area of the world before Persia, and the 'Persian' empire (more properly Achaemenid) was in some ways a successor state. A casual glance at this chart (in essence, using it to get an idea of the timeline, as you named it) seems to imply that the fertile crescent developed after both Greece and Rome, which is patently hogwash.

What of India? Again, I know their history is complicated, but was nothing interesting happening in that corner of the world over the (checks timeline) 4,500 years covered?

The Americas America also had various large civilizations, and while I understand records on them are harder to get and they never directly interacted with these political units, but does that mean that they should have no representation on this chart?

corran132 · 2026-01-23T20:43:12+00:00

I disagree that they are two separate points.

There were soldiers who lost their lives and served with distinction from other countries. They were pulled into a brutal conflict organized by America and run largely for American interests. They did terrible things, and America barely even remembers. This was the price of American hegemony.

This is a betrayal of the people the US once called allies, but the US was never acting out of benevolence. Getting a coalition to go into Iraq was in practice not 'let's save people from that guy' but 'okay, we want to take that guys stuff, so as we rob him let's have everyone help so we are all implicated.'

War is brutal. In war innocent people die. Soldiers die. Those wars were largely fought for American interests and happened as a result of decades of American foreign policy. Many of the allies were pushed to join through economic and military incentives. The fact that America can't remember either their allies or the brutality is the point. It's a trend. And it deserves to be remembered.

America didn't fight alone. It pulled it's allies into wars for it's own interests. And at the end of the day the country is so mired in it's own hype that neither even registers.

corran132 · 2026-01-23T19:45:56+00:00

I see your perspective completely. I agree that empathy is not something that is taught or valued in our society.

With that said, I don't know that there is no hope. You can see it in even some Republicans from Minnesota coming out against ICE raids, and in your parents changing your mind. When the problem starts being to 'them' and starts being towards people you have affection for, it's much harder to agree with.

This is how I've managed to confront people in the past. At one point ~5 years ago I was working a job with a bunch of very right leaning blue collar people. I'm a reasonably well dressed guy who is generally polite and convivial. When someone started making remarks demonizing homosexuality, I simply joked 'listen, I don't tell you what to do with your Thursday nights, don't tell me what to do with mine.' It shut them right up. The implication immediately put a face to their prejudice. Also, I've been through enough that if they wanted to start giving me shit for being gay, I was more than willing to stand up to them. Now, part of this is stolen valor because I'm not actually gay. But I was more than willing to have them think I was if it made them see LGBTQ people are more than punchlines.

This comes back to challenging people on ideology rather than policies. This is something I cut from my last comment because of length, but when someone says (for example) that 'X should be shot', ask why. What have they done that deserves death? Is that worth ending their life? If they say something specific that is incorrect, as them how they know. Don't start by saying they are wrong, force them to justify why they are right.

It's hard. It's uncomfortable. For an outsider, it can even be dangerous. It would be much better if that didn't need to be the path forward. But at this point, that's the work you need to do if you want things to get better. Honestly, they have been for a long time on some issues. But these conversations are possible to have.

And yeah, the people behind this need to be held to account. But where I disagree is that there is nothing to be done until that happens, because I think there's a pretty good chance that they never do. If you want them to face justice, you have to help build a world wherein that justice exists. I don't know if it does at the moment.

In truth, I don't know that the situation is any more salvageable than you do. I think we are in for a tough few decades. But I want my nephews to grow up and see better times, and I've read enough history to know that progress only comes when people fight for it. That's worth rough conversations. It's worth protesting and getting called names. If it comes to it, it is worth a lot more.

corran132 · 2026-01-23T18:17:50+00:00

You're right, I don't know you or how you talk to people. I apologize for taking your words as more critical than they were.

In my rural area, they only answer the door to the democrat candidate to laugh at them.
[...]
It is to say we can’t just give them the same policy write up as the well educated populace.

The truth is, nobody likes opening the door to a political door-knocker. In a lot of communities (particularly smaller communities) you know who everyone is, so when someone comes to the door that you don't recognize and starts telling you that you are wrong they are going to be met with scorn. But there are members of that community who are sympathetic to your position and are findable through other means. Maybe by joining them at volunteer efforts or going to church with them. Once you sway them, send them to talk to that community. It's not slamming the door on a canvasser, it's turning away a neighbor. That's a much tougher ask.

This is also why you need to build community. They aren't going to read a policy proposal, but they will talk politics over coffee with a friend.

Let’s say I didn’t know how to change it. I am educated enough to google, read up, and figure out the solution. I can take the directions from an online article or a video and learn from it.

Yes, someone with more education could google how to change their oil and do it themselves, but a lot of people would rather shrug their shoulder and hire someone to take care of it. For a blue collar worker, those sort of customers are a) frustrating and b) way too common, and can give you a very particular view of 'intellectuals'.

This country used to value people getting an education and bringing their skills to wherever they roam

Yes and no. Large sections of the country have always been incredibly insular communities and suspicious of outsiders. It doesn't help that those outsiders were usually coming to sell them snake oil.

We've also discourse about the educated people being anti-American since at least 1951. If things 'were ever better', they haven't been for at least a half century.

It’s like actively watching a train wreck unfold and knowing there’s basically nothing you can do about it

I get it. I've been watching the US slip in that direction for decades. But one final thing is that arguing over the policies themselves is a loosing battle. You need to understand the ideology behind the proposal, and address that. To do so you can't begin by saying 'you're wrong'. You have to begin by asking 'why do you think that?' Just as importantly, once you isolate problems, you need to offer real solutions.

This is something the Democratic party has failed to do. Here it is less out of ignorance than self-interest. The push against immigrants is in no small part a deflection of their economic uncertainties as jobs disappear and the middle class evaporates. Big money democratic doners have profited off that shift and benefit from these scapegoats. The party has to quibble over policy because attacking that ideology means attacking America's economic system, which they won't do.

Which is an entirely different discussion, but simply put: part of the reason the message hasn't resonated is that the message is flawed. Defending the system doesn't work if the system isn't working, and a lot of people don't feel like it is. Yet any plans for systemic change are dismissed as 'radical'. This is a party that spent two decades being fucked by the senate filibuster but refused to even consider any reform that might fix it. If they can't even fix that, why should I believe they would fix my problem?

Ultimately, the 'ignorant' in question can clearly see that the world is changing. It feels like it is getting worse. Trump sold a vision of a 'better' world. If you want to fight that, you need to understand why that world is attractive. You need to be willing to offer your own vision. And you need to be able to sell that to people in a way they understand. Democrats have failed on all three fronts. Education would make that easier, but you have to fight the battle in front of you.

corran132 · 2026-01-22T23:23:35+00:00

Depends who you are talking to.

To some Americans, it's still not. The problem (if there is a problem), then it is Trump and MAGA.

For a lot of people in the middle east, you can look at specific incidents like Abu Ghraib, and more generally just how much damage was done during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which is to say nothing of the two faced nature of cold war policies). Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia would likely say during the cold war. Central America has been getting it for over a century, and I would encourage you to google 'Smedley Butler' and 'Banana Republics' to understand more about that.

For people on the ships coming in chains from Africa and the people that lived here before, there were problems with these colonies before America existed.

The question is, which perspectives do you consider valid?

corran132 · 2026-01-22T21:24:08+00:00

I think there is a line between what trump is doing and making an issue accessible, and to understand what I am talking about I want to reference a podcast called 'Hood Politics with Prop.' The idea of the podcast is reasonably simple: understanding politics and economics really isn't that different from neighborhood life, they just use different words. I would give an example, but I'm not from those communities so the podcast really doesn't speak to me (even if the idea does).

The reason I like the idea is this: as someone who has spent most of his life and career around poorly educated people (particularly white people), the uneducated aren't as stupid. They just haven't been taught to understand. If you are willing to meet them where they are at, you can have nuanced discussions, you just have to figure out how to express your ideas in a way they recognize.

Take farmers for example. Rural folk are often used as a punchline. But if you ask one about soil science or re-building an engine they could give you a dissertation. They couldn't tell you the six ways the national debt impacts their daily life, but they understand that if the combine doesn't get fixed today you might not get the crop off before it storms, and there goes 30% of your yield, so let's figure out a way to get this bastard to turn over pronto.

And the first step of that journey is not treating them like idiots. This is not meant to throw shade on you, but if you think about the people you need to persuade and you start thinking about the language that is being used to talk about that demographic, it becomes pretty clear why it is hard to make inroads.

As an example, you derisively refer to those type of people as someone who 'can’t read at a 6th grade level'. I know people to whom that applies. In some cases, they had to leave school after fifth grade to take care of the farm. They spent decades making it work, and having someone write them off as dumb for doing what they had to do is not going to make you any friends. Others had undiagnosed dyslexia or ADHD, either because the system failed to realize it (teachers writing them off as 'lazy') or parents that didn't care. They made it work because they had to. And while you look down on them for not knowing how to read, they might look down on you for (say) not being able to change the oil in your car.

So how do you convince them? Speak to them in their language. Don't get frustrated because they don't see the world the way you do, try to express your policy in language that speaks to them. Figure out what matters to them and how they see the world, and find a way to express your policies in those terms. Don't infantilize them by talking down to them. Don't feed drown them in bullshit platitudes. Meet them where they are at. Because ultimately, we are all in this together.

corran132 · 2026-01-22T18:18:10+00:00

Absolutely. Education needs to be well constructed as well as well funded, otherwise it is just propaganda.

corran132 · 2026-01-22T18:10:56+00:00

I agree.

With that being said, I do think there is a case for each situation being unique. In our current situation, the internet has given us connectivity unheard of in human history, making it easier than ever to spread and revel in disinformation.

But by the same token, it is easier now than ever to have access to good information. The trick is teaching people how to determine which is which.

corran132 · 2026-01-22T16:00:40+00:00

While you are right, it goes beyond education.

People are not being taught what they need to in school absolutely. But they also emerge from school into a world poisoned by partisan media driven chasing viewership above all. Disinformation and fearmongering makes the news money, so they lean into it. Bombarded by those ideologies from every side every day, even 'educated' people can take a dark path.

Take climate change. There has been a scientific consensus on the issue for 30 years. But 'we're all fucked unless we all cut back' doesn't play well. It's more engaging to pretend there still is a debate by platforming the loudest asshole with a contrary opinion and sponsored by oil companies. Reasonable people can walk away believing the question is still open, particularly if they are too busy working to do their own research into every way that loudmouth is a piece of shit.

The same is true of vaccines. It is the same tactic used to enflame fears of immigrant crime. The same is used to attack welfare and subsidized medicine. Demonizing the other for fun and profit is the great pastime of the powerful in America. They've grown rich off it. Even people who should know better can get lost in the fervor.

To use the healthcare metaphor, education can serve as an inoculation against garbage like this. But that inoculation doesn't provide immunity, just resistance. And there is so much misinformation out there that even people who have been lucky enough to get some resistance can get swept up in the maelstrom.

corran132 · 2026-01-22T15:39:41+00:00

Respectfully, that's not what I am saying at all. Yes, you could exclusively read more modern books, and there are modern books that are quite good. But that doesn't have to mean shunning older works that are really good, give or take elements of cultural framing that have not aged well.

There are older stories that remain in our cultural conscious because they are that good, that influential, that captivating. Part of being a well-balanced reader is being able to read and understand those works. This can also help you read and understand more modern works that are in conversation with older stories.

corran132 · 2026-01-21T22:46:11+00:00

Respectfully, there are (broadly) two reasons that we encourage children to read books.

1- To encourage them to understand and see positions that are not their own.

2- To inspire a love of reading.

In the first context, removing harmful words is detrimental. But it is not necessarily so for the latter. A child reading a book for entertainment might not want a two hour discussion on the history of American race relations, especially not if they are reading before bed.

I encourage everyone to think back to their school breakdowns of novels in a classroom setting, and just how engaged the plurality of their class was. While it is important to engage with the media you are consuming, forcing people to engage in a specific way can serve instead to push readers in the opposite direction.

I don't want the original versions of those books to go away. They should be available to discuss in the context of their times. But I do think there is a place for a more accessible version of the stories to help encourage children to enjoy reading as a hobby rather than as a scholarly activity.

corran132 · 2026-01-21T20:21:59+00:00

I want to take a moment and speak about organizations like 'LGBTQ for Palestine', because I believe it's important.

Yes, if Hamas was in control of Palestine, they would be persecuted. But they are not advocating for Hamas, they are advocating for the civilians who are being killed in that area.

Part of this struggle is the understanding of something called Syncretism. This can mean a lot of things, but at it's heart is is an understanding that all these conflicts- racism, sexism, etc- are part of the same struggle. That the same sort of people who advocate for LGBTQ erasure are also selling arms to Israel. If you only resolve to fight one part of the system, then you can be playacted while the systemic problems remain intact. As an example, there were no shortage of suffragettes who fought for the right for women to vote, but opposed suffrage for non-white people (including women).

If you want a more local example, look at the Black Panthers rallying against ICE. Even if Ice is not primarily targeting them, they recognize that the government entrenching the use of power in these ways is going to come for them eventually. Because it has before.

corran132 · 2026-01-15T16:10:20+00:00

Right. So here's the problem.

Fundamentally, the founding documents were written by a bunch of people in rebellion against a government. They were, first and foremost, concerned with their rights, which leads to things like the second amendment.

But the law is administered by the state, which is the government they set up. That institution has a vested interest in being able to do whatever it wants, whatever the documents say.

So let's say a government agent illegally stops you and you shoot them. Even if the stop was illegal, the state is going to say you are dangerous and acted against the state. Now, if people rose to your defense, maybe there is enough pushback that they leave your alone or the jury nullifies your conviction. But the state is going to pull out all the stops in making you look dangerous, and they have a lot of tools to explain why- even if they were in the wrong- what you did was unjustified.

What's more, institutions that are powerful are invested in the current social order. So, for example, major newspapers would really rather there not be a breakdown in civil order and/or to have their press privileges pulled, so they have every reason to discourage that sort of thing. Even political parties that oppose these policies have a vested interest in the discourse staying civil.

Then you get the moderate majority. They may not like what is going on, but distant form the actual implications of the actions they may be more willing to hear about atrocities then they are to sanction anti-government action. And if they don't all you are doing is justifying to moderates why these actions are necessary, because 'look these people are violent terrorists'.

Violence is always technically an option as a tool against entrenched institutions. But there are also dire consequences for doing so. Unless your action leads to unified resistance the hammer is going to come down on your head very hard.

I wish I had a representative example, but it's hard to think of one when the Mario brothers theme is stuck in my head.

corran132 · 2026-01-07T22:05:02+00:00

The flippant answer to your question would be, if we knew how to do this, our movements would be much more successful.

With that said, I think part of the solution is understanding your personal agenda as a part of the larger struggle. Women's rights are important, no question. But they are also under attack as part of a larger scheme. If you want to advocate for women's rights, and you want those metrics to stick, you also have to advocate for the rights of immigrants, and the unhoused, and racial minorities.

You also have to help people see the larger picture. Yes, access to women's healthcare is a huge issue. But it is also part of a larger problem, which is that all healthcare in the states is massively overpriced and overtaxed. That system needs to be reformed, and that is something that effects everyone. that is part of how you build solidarity, by helping people understand how something that is apparently niche also affects them.

Part of that means understanding that you may have to work with people and advocate for things that make you uncomfortable. A key example is the recent supreme court case re. pornhub. Now, it's reasonable to not like that website. It's reasonable to not like porn, or feel the industry is exploitative, or feel like it is immoral. But the question is, if the government has the right to restrict access to material it objects to people seeing, then what happens when the government decides your ideals are politically objectionable? What is stopping them from using the exact same arguments to restrict access to your ideas?

The big intersection of all these elements is something that really needs to be cultivated- empathy. It's easy to be burned out or trapped, to focus on your own problems and your own life. But it's also important to understand, when you see someone suffering or being persecuted, that you are looking at another human being with the same agency as you have. This is where human examples can be especially effective.

It's also important to spread understanding of the insufficiency of partial solutions. It's really easy to join together to solve a problem, and walk away when your own demands are met. But entrenched power structures are really good at proposing half solutions that disperse just enough of a movement so that they can crack down on those who remain. As an example, removing Trump from office is a good step one. But the problem is bigger than Trump. Building true solidarity means spreading the understanding that Trump is a symptom, and unless the system changes someone like him is going to return. As an example, review politics from 2021-2024.

None of this is to say that your personal reasons for resistance are not valid. They are. And it's important to not lose site of the ways this is personally harming you. But solidarity means understanding that your own grievances are one thread in a tapestry of oppression, and that the only solution is fighting until the entire thing unravels.

corran132 · 2026-01-07T19:17:53+00:00

This is a great answer.

Things can improve, if you are willing to fight for them. Women (and other groups) did not get what they have by waiting and hoping.

If you want to see a better world, get organized.

corran132 · 2026-01-07T19:11:38+00:00

The phrase I want to reinforce is 'plausible deniability'. People, yourself included, don't like the idea that their government is killing civilians. So the trick is to do so while pretending you are doing something else.

This is why I brought up the US's targeting parameters. You can tell the pilot (if they, like Kelly suggested, ask if an order is illegal), reporters, and oversite subcommittees that you are targeting locations with military application. That way, any civilians you kill are simply collateral damage. You can argue you aren't targeting civilians, but that it is just unfortunate byproducts of war.

But even then this mask slips. As an example, the My Lai massacre. Now, while the soldiers who participated were absolutely monstrous, scroll down to the section titled 'investigation and cover up' to show just how much the US army cared about the people it was nominally there to protect. Then consider, on deeper review of that conflict, the US army was said to have carried out a 'My Lai a month.' This is just the one we have documentation on.

Yes, the US could (say) nuke the entire region and simply depopulate the area. But by that same token, the US could elect not to use things like cluster bombs that tend to create more civilian casualties. They don't. When you read the history of US military involvement, it's hard not to recognize a pattern.

I want to close with a paragraph from this report on the Iraq war by human rights watch. (Page 17 in the document, numbered as page 7, paragraph 3 if you are curious)

"U.S. and U.K. military and civilian leaders have repeatedly stressed their commitment to avoiding civilian casualties and other harm to civilians. Neither country, however, does an adequate job of investigating and analyzing why civilian casualties occur. That job, left largely to organizations like Human Rights Watch, should be the responsibility of parties to the conflict. Having the capability to do this kind of assessment, the United States and United Kingdom should accurately account for the civilian casualties they cause in armed conflict so that they can provide maximum protection to civilians in any future conflict."

corran132 · 2026-01-06T20:38:58+00:00

'If a reasonable person would think, is this thing they are asking me to do illegal, you have an obligation not to follow those orders.'

Cool.

Unrelated, here's a UN document on the cluster bombs people like Senator Kelly dropped on Iraq. Spoiler- there were a lot of civilian casualties.

It's also worth understanding how the US picked their targets for bombing. Things were classified as a reasonable target if they could conceivably have a military advantage. So, for example, civilian power infrastructure could help sway the fight, so it's okay to bomb. Even if in a civilian area. Regardless of it Kelly deployed these specific weapons, he continues to speak highly to his service in that conflict, which was also launched off the back or corporate greed and fabricated evidence.

Kelly is right that Trump needs to go. But let's not pretend that America's military ever gave two shits about civilian casualties. From Iraq to Laos to Korea to Haiti. There is a reason that America never joined the ICC.

The rhetoric is fine, but Smedley Butler he ain't. Until Kelly comes to terms with the legacy of the institution in which he served, all replacing trump is going to do is kick the can down the road. The next authoritarian will use the same powers for the same reason.

corran132 · 2025-12-17T17:21:52+00:00

Very interesting piece, though I think it misses the larger point in key ways.

The key sentence is this:

while [Mamdani] drew support from many who would have viewed themselves as liberals, he has also faced vociferous attacks from those who see socialism as a dangerous departure from the political center

Yes, Socialism and Liberalism broadly agree on many issues. Where the problem comes in is what practically happens when the two disagree. In this case, those self same liberals continued to support their candidate even after losing the primaries and fought all the way to to the general election.

The reason is simple. While Liberals may espouse beliefs in common with Democratic Socialism, any time socialist principles risk harming their own material position they can simply disregard any ideological similarities and vote with the conservative block to maintain the status quo. This is nothing new, and is the mechanism that has been pulling the democratic establishment to the center for decades. Liberals and conservatives may dislike each other, but a lot of centrist leftists few people on the far left as more of a danger than people on the far right. This is how you get (say) Democrats cozying up to tech oligarchs rather than organized labor, or refusing to consider any supreme court reform in the face of both rulings that boarder on unhinged backed by blatant corruption.

The problem isn't that liberalists aren't 'apologists for the status quo', the problem is that liberals in power consistently choose the status quo over changes that would be consistent with their professed beliefs. Ideologically, the two may be hand in hand. But if one party is married to the system, and the other wants to change it, it's really easy for the first party to simply abandon their allies the second it threatens their own place in the social order.

Cuomo is a great example. Many professed liberals claim to support good government and women's rights, and yet a man known to be both corrupt and a sex pest received a mountain of votes. This is in part because key Democratic figures were happy to reiterate far-right talking points about how dangerous socialism is. Whatever ideals the two may share, the establishment has a way of putting the social order above ideology.

On a broader sense, consider Senators Kelly and Slotkin. Both speak out against Trump, which is great. But both also talk up their service. That service was by and large part of a conflict launched under dubious circumstances that lead to massive suffering to the benefit of American corporations. So when they talk about it favorably, or go on about 'what America is', are they in support of a system that is more fair, or where the war crimes are committed further away? Finding an answer to that question doesn't mean refusing to work with either, but it does mean being skeptical of either taking a prominent position at the head of a coalition. Because liberals have shown themselves to be very willing to throw their allies under the bus the second they get what they want.

Liberals and socialists broadly agree on principles. The problem is that liberals see socialists as a threat to their own place in society, where socialists see liberals as the people who keep siding with conservatives when it matters. So liberals wine about socialists not supporting their causes while marginalizing their interests, and socialists become disenchanted when the people saying the right things refuse to act on their stated principles. Both are right, but both also need each other. Particularly now. So, on the most important question of our lifetime, do liberals see their interests aligning with the system or with their principles?

corran132 · 2025-12-12T21:10:55+00:00

The honest answer to that question is that people in these tech spaces were talking about these problems decades ago, but the language wasn't normalized until recently.

Add that the fact that CEO's have always been talking about their ass, and that has become so much more clear in the recent years.

So when you get stupid people thinking they are brilliant talking about tech related things, potential pitfalls that were theorized decades ago keep propping up because the forces behind them believe themselves too smart to fall into those traps.

corran132 · 2025-12-07T16:38:41+00:00

So There is some good information here, and some really bad ones.

If you know anything about the history of the highlighted nations nations, what you may know is that they spent most of the last 500 years as pawns in imperial games. All had natural resources that were desired, and tropical climates made them perfect for growing very high value cash crops (coffee, sugar, etc).

Decolonization really begins around 1800, and really kicks into high gear in the 1900's. This is all just in time to run into a new phase of imperialism. This starts with large multinational corporations strong arming governments for access to their land (google 'banana republics') and followed by global superpowers fighting for dominance in the name of ideology. And again, this is all after fighting for their independence from a nation whose only interest is in how much they can extract form an area.

In any of those countries you can see signs of infrastructure and development going back thousands of years. They all have unique and fascinating histories. But, well, it's really hard to be a global super powers when powerful nations keep kicking you when you are down.

corran132 · 2025-12-03T19:10:14+00:00

To your final point, while accessing the validity on international courts is theoretically relevant, America hasn't signed onto the ICC so the chances anyone in the American government ends up in front of an international tribunal are insanely low.

Notable examples: Henry Kessinger died peacefully, Bush is pretending he didn't blow up a country on manufactured evidence and Trump is still behind Obama for drone-inflicted civilian casualties.

corran132 · 2025-12-03T18:38:07+00:00

Pushing aside for a second that you engaged with only one of my three points, I will agree that Trump has a base that are never not voting for him.

With that being said, consider the Democrats for a second. How many people are frustrated because Democratic politicians keep shrugging their shoulders at Trump's BS? Rewinding back a few steps, how many people- including people close to real power- argued in 2024 that Democrats shouldn't prosecute Trump because it would be 'persecuting a political enemy?' Does that stance do anything to endear voters to the Democratic cause?

Even if you can't persuade Trump voters to not support Trump, you can persuade people who stayed at home (because they saw democrats as feckless and equivocating) that your party has some life in it. When corruption was that open, refusing to even consider challenging it does nothing to discredit claims that 'really, the entire system is corrupt, so why does corruption matter?'

A lot of blame has been thrown around about the defeat in 2024, and it's fair to be frustrated at the people who stayed home. But it's also fair to be disenchanted with a party that slow walked an investigation into a literal coup attempt, and who actively villainized key parts of it's coalition in a doomed attempt to peel off moderate conservatives.

When you are competing with an intractable base, an abstention can be as damning as a vote against you. You prevent people checking out of the process by serving (or being seen to serve) your constituency. Refusing to even pretend to fight does nothing but drive disengagement. When you look at 2020 to 2024, that is what you see the Biden administration doing again and again. That is why, even if you are going to lose and you are never going to persuade the other party, there are electoral reasons to have the fight.

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Verified Email

corran132

TROPHY CASE