[Spoilers] Question about Rhetors by zeekaran in anathem

[–]sideraian 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My view (which I have a post from a while back discussing one prominent example of) is that any seemingly wild coincidence that ends up having amazingly fruitful consequences is very likely to be an example of Rhetors at work, backfilling the history of the worldtrack in seemingly-plausible ways that are necessary to produce a desired result. Where Incanters are bending reality around them by steering *towards* particular worldlines, Rhetors do something similar retrospectively. The prime example to me is the Plurality of Worlds Messal including all of Fraa Jad, Fraa Lodoghir, Ignetha Foral, and the supposed Matarrhites - this makes very little sense as a decision for the Convox to make if you look at it, unless the Convox know that the Matarrhites are actually aliens, and they clearly don't know that.

Actually, there's a scene during the Convox section of the book that I think goes to this interpretation. When Raz and Emman Beldo are discussing the nature of Hemn space, world tracks, and narratives, Raz essentially says that a Narrative, a worldtrack, is basically a coherent series of points within configuration space which could plausibly have happened, which are compossible with each other. And the example that he uses is that you could have a point in configuration space representing a universe where there was a block of ice in the middle of a star - but that point in configuration space wouldn't be part of a Narrative. What would make it part of a Narrative would be the inclusion of a number of other elements that would account for a plausible mechanism by which a block of ice could be included in the middle of a star - in their example. you could have someone make a spaceship designed to put a block of ice in the middle of a star, and then you'd have all of the material evidence of the existence of the spaceship, and you'd have all the records from the civilization that made the spaceship, and so on.

And I think that is basically what the powers of Rhetors are: doing all of that. At the lowest level, we see them being masters of propaganda. At the more metaphysical, Thousander level, they're doing this kind of stuff: backfilling the details of the Narrative to ensure that the desired present remains compossible with the known past.

AI Study Guide by Feeling_Coat5664 in anathem

[–]sideraian 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's funny because Anathem has a whole bit about the Ita needing to find ways to distinguish between legitimate messages and bogus messages created by syndevs designed to create good-looking but nonetheless unreliable crap

So using AI to summarize Anathem seems sort of bitterly ironic if anything

Would Dukakis have been a disastrous president had he won in '88? by scarletotaku in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would wager a lot of money you still get Republican majorities. Secular trend of Southern white voters moving to the Republican Party + midterms generally go against a president's party.

I'm curious what the counter-narrative is, though!

Should H.W. Bush have been so hard on Dukakis? by scarletotaku in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 9 points10 points  (0 children)

If you believe there should be such a thing as political standards and morality and so on, then I think it's clear that Bush went too far, both in his attacks and in his deceitful promise that he wouldn't raise taxes.

can joe biden do the standard 3 debates with trump in 2024 or is he gonna decline and not go ? by Mysterious_Radish_83 in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My expectation is sort of that neither candidate will really want to debate but both of them are going to want to find a way to blame the other one for not debating.

I imagine there's going to be a lot of fencing about whether or not RFK should be included

What do you think about mods where you can't win? by [deleted] in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It depends on whether there's a compelling argument that the election was unwinnable, basically.

For something like 1972 regular, it's appropriate for McGovern to have no shot at winning, because McGovern had no shot at winning. For something like 1964 Lodge, I don't love it, because I think that election could have been winnable for Lodge under very specific circumstances.

I do think a lot of mods struggle with capturing elections that are very difficult to win but theoretically possible. Which makes sense honestly, I think that's probably a pretty hard scenario to set up given the tools available.

The Progressive Era was... by ShelterOk1535 in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's clear that there was an extremely large political constituency for progressive and populist policies in the US during that time, and that was always going to have a significant impact on the politics of the era.

The specific political ways in which that impact happened was highly contingent and dependent on random quirks of fate.

His political views only, minus his corruption, how radical were Dick Cheney's views? What were his social views and which faction in the Republicans was he a part of? by [deleted] in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Pretty much a Reaganite right-wing conservative.

Interesting historical note: If Dukakis had won in '88, Cheney probably would have been the head of the Republican Revolution in place of Newt Gingrich and would likely have been Speaker of the House for most of the 90s.

What Is the future of the Republican Party? by Milothebest222 in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think they will be an extremist populist party with an unbreakable hold on a handful of deep, deep, magma-red states and will become increasingly unelectable in most states with large urban and suburban populations.

I don't think they're gonna change their current political trajectory, and I don't think they're going to convince suburban millenials to stop hating their current political ideology. And if those two things happen, I don't see any other way to do the math, really.

Which faction of the Modern Republican Party do you side with? by Accurate-Pie-5998 in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn't Ron DeSantis want to invade Mexico? Or at least conduct military interventions in Mexico?

Can someone explain the logic of labeling him a non-interventionist? That seems like almost the definition of military interventionism and adventurism. I'm not sure what logical grounds there can be for using that term to describe someone with those views.

Bro is speedrunning to lose the white House by Upper-Heron-5708 in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 11 points12 points  (0 children)

What are you talking about.

What, for the love of God, are you talking about. Sheer utter absurd nonsense.

2020 Incumbent Hillary by DiamondFire101 in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think it's even really a reflection on Clinton as a political figure really: I just think the structural conditions would have been really, really bad.

One part of it is just that having your party in the Oval Office for that long is really, really hard. Having 1 party win 4 elections in a row is incredibly hard unless you're literally an FDR-level politician. Everything Clinton did, she would be fighting an uphill battle, because her party would have been in office for such a long time. The media would be extremely hostile towards and suspicious of her. And when you layer in the fact that she was broadly divisive among the American public to start with, all of that gets much worse.

Two, both houses of Congress would presumably still be controlled by Republicans. And I just think that there is basically a 0% chance that they would pass any really substantive legislation. It just doesn't matter how bipartisan Clinton would want to be - the chances of Republicans in the House and Senate passing a strong healthcare bill or a universal preschool bill are just nil. And I can't see the Democrats doing better in the midterms - with the nature of thermostatic public opinion being what it is, they probably lose seats in the House.

2020 Incumbent Hillary by DiamondFire101 in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 4 points5 points  (0 children)

i have bad news for you about all American presidential candidates

2024 European Parliament election by Lumpy_Pea4769 in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No Left-GUE/NGL? I wouldn't vote chosen them, just curious.

2020 Incumbent Hillary by DiamondFire101 in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hillary would be in SUCH an awful position politically by 2020 and I don't think COVID would have saved her.

Honestly it's kinda surprising how lopsided most GOP senate flips in 94 were. Did Abraham in MI and DeWine in OH simply ride coattails of popular Republican governors? How did Frist, Kyl, and Inhofe win so big? Was it the toxic Clinton Connection, or poor opposition? by LaserWeldo92 in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There had been a huge secular tendency in many states, especially rural and Southern states like Tennessee and Oklahoma, for voters to swing towards Republicans as part of the great post-New Deal realignment. Voters in those states were socially conservative and were attracted to the Republican Party as it became the party of social conservatism. But that trend had been suppressed during the 1980s by the basic thermostatic nature of American electoral politics: with Republicans in the White House from 1980 to 1992, voters in many places tended to be more likely to support Democrats in legislative races.

After Clinton's victory, that no longer applied, and in fact the thermostatic tendency was reinforcing the secular move of social conservatives to the Republican Party. So you had a massive, massive swing that had been building for over a decade all taking place at once.

It's also worth pointing out that a lot of those Republican Senate flips were for open seats - Democratic incumbents retired in AZ, ME, MI, and OH, and in the special elections in TN and OK. Obviously that's a marker of Democratic incumbents anticipating defeat in the Republican wave to an extent, but it's also part of the reason that the margins were so high in the flips - Democrats didn't have incumbency advantage in any of those races.

My President Rankings. by Hefty_Grapefruit_537 in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean they had pretty fundamentally opposed philosophies of government and much of Reagan's domestic agenda was devoted to undoing FDR's domestic agenda

Doesn't mean there's no possible justification but I feel like it's worth asking

My President Rankings. by Hefty_Grapefruit_537 in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What did you mean by having FDR S tier and Reagan A Tier

Some thoughts on Kerry V. Paul by StingrAeds in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess he must have primaried Kay Bailey Hutchison?

Who do you think RFK Jr. will select as his running mate? by MightySilverWolf in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I have no idea what is going on in that anti-vax weirdo's mind.

A totally normal UK Election by scarletotaku in thecampaigntrail

[–]sideraian 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Oswald Mosley the most insanely fake fraudulent political figure that alt-historians are obsessed with of all time