R3qn65's recent activity
-
Comment on Choosing hosting and DNS outside US and EU jurisdictions, hedging against repression in ~tech
-
Comment on Swipeblocked: the phrases your iPhone won't suggest in ~tech
R3qn65 Link ParentI hear you, but what's the alternative? A court order saying "Apple, you must include the N-word in your autocorrect library"?but the tendency toward allowing these kinds of decisions is shady.
I hear you, but what's the alternative? A court order saying "Apple, you must include the N-word in your autocorrect library"?
-
Comment on Swipeblocked: the phrases your iPhone won't suggest in ~tech
R3qn65 Link ParentTo be fair, they’re not stopping you from typing any of this. They’re just not recommending it. I’m very sympathetic to the general bias in favor of free speech, but I think this is a reasonable...it's not something a tech company should have a control of, what words people can type to each other.
To be fair, they’re not stopping you from typing any of this. They’re just not recommending it. I’m very sympathetic to the general bias in favor of free speech, but I think this is a reasonable compromise. I should be allowed to type “heil hitler” or whatever, but I don’t have an issue with Apple not autocorrecting to that.
-
Comment on Does Shawarma Law give a more definitive answer on whether or not a Hot Dog is a sandwich? in ~food
R3qn65 Link ParentYeah, Lebanese shawarma (Beirut is the capital of Lebanon) is usually a bit skinnier, doesn't often have lettuce or tomato. Usually just the chicken, toum, pickles, parsley, fries. My favorite...Yeah, Lebanese shawarma (Beirut is the capital of Lebanon) is usually a bit skinnier, doesn't often have lettuce or tomato. Usually just the chicken, toum, pickles, parsley, fries. My favorite style of shawarma and it's not close!
-
Comment on What's your favorite action scene? in ~talk
-
Comment on Does Shawarma Law give a more definitive answer on whether or not a Hot Dog is a sandwich? in ~food
R3qn65 LinkThis is a fantastic thread. Corollary question: does a shawarma have fries in it, or no fries?This is a fantastic thread.
Corollary question: does a shawarma have fries in it, or no fries?
-
Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentOkay, got it. That’s helpful, thanks. I think we probably agree more than we disagree. Part of the misunderstanding is my fault - I started talking in very universalist terms when what I really...Okay, got it. That’s helpful, thanks.
I think we probably agree more than we disagree. Part of the misunderstanding is my fault - I started talking in very universalist terms when what I really meant was something closer to “in a situation like 2026 America….”. For example,
If 90% of the US [as a low priority] wanted "less money in politics" and party A unilaterally enacted it [for personal gain] that seems fine to me.
I would generally agree with this. I would even generally agree if we’re talking about abolishing the electoral college specifically. It’s more of a concern to me when we’re talking about a ~60% majority in favor of doing something, which is about the proportion of Americans who want to abolish the electoral college, per some data LukeZaz shared earlier. That’s much, much farther from a peoples’ mandate.
Now, I wouldn’t want this rule (it’s fine as long as 90% of the population wants it) to be universal either. I do think there’s some merit in having to collaborate with the opposition, even when the will of the people is overwhelmingly in favor. This is kind of a trite example, but Israel’s war against Gaza was overwhelmingly popular among Israelis (at first, anyway); things might have gone very differently if the Knesset/Netanyahu had been forced to incorporate the Arab parties into their decisionmaking nevertheless. Similarly, examples abound of authoritarian parties who gradually accrue more power because they don’t need the buy-in of the liberal minority. (This is one of the major strengths of America’s state-based system for amending the constitution over a pure parliamentary system).
On the other hand, of course, some 10% or whatever of the population will always oppose things that are clearly moral good (e.g. legal gay civil partnerships), so you can’t be held hostage by that segment or you’ll never accomplish anything. You raised that point earlier. This is basically how I arrive at the existing system for constitutional change (2/3rds congress, 3/4ths states) being a pretty good bar. It’s extremely difficult, no doubt, but the fact that there are 27 amendments shows that it’s eminently possible to do, and it’s not “literally everyone,” which means you’re less likely to be held hostage by spoilers.
I was curious if you felt anything changed if the dislike of the NPVIC was from those that didn't respect rule of law or democracy.
Not really. I apply the same heuristic, of course — “wow, how convenient that all your screeching about states’ rights happens to align with keeping the system that benefits you” but I generally remain convinced that changing the way people get into power is not something to be done lightly or unilaterally. If it was 90% of the population and republicans just didn’t like it, sure. I can get there. But that’s very, very far from where we’re at.
-
Comment on AI buildout hits snag as Google and Microsoft hold capex forecasts in ~tech
R3qn65 Link ParentI really have no issues at all with the idea that the AI market is a bubble. I think we differ on the fundamental legitimacy of the technology, but I’ll freely admit that at least some of the...I really have no issues at all with the idea that the AI market is a bubble. I think we differ on the fundamental legitimacy of the technology, but I’ll freely admit that at least some of the numbers are due to hype.
Really, what we’ve sparred over is whether it’s all fraud in the style of Enron.
-
Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentHey, I am sorry but I’m having a really difficult time parsing some of what you’ve written here. For example, I understand this In isolation but I’m really struggling to connect it to the...Hey, I am sorry but I’m having a really difficult time parsing some of what you’ve written here. For example, I understand this
The fact that you vote for the limited options of one of party because they align on you on your perception of the economy or single-issues like guns or abortions does not mean they represent your views on how democracy is best done. Why, if you had access to reasonable polling about this issue, would you ever defer to the party's very self-interested preferences?
In isolation but I’m really struggling to connect it to the conversation we’re having. More broadly there are so many ideas and questions and sort of… accusations in here that I’m not sure how to respond. I’m happy to discuss but could we focus on one thing at a time?
While I sometimes disagree with you (e.g., Biden laptop) I appreciate that you make that effort as well, especially since that isn't always easy on Tildes. But I gotta say the good faith, at least with anyone in MAGA that isn't completely checked out of news, has pretty much eroded, post Trump.
Uh… to be clear, I generally vote democrat, with limited exceptions for local races. I am not MAGA.
-
Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentAre you serious? I’m literally responding to the question “which matters more, a better world or fair play?” lol.At first you talked about it being a "bad political move", then about mattering whether someone stood to benefit from it (of which I'm also curious... if it stands to benefit the average person, but neither party wishes to do it... is that also a bad thing which shouldn't be pushed for?), and now you're talking about morality and proselytizing.
Are you serious? I’m literally responding to the question “which matters more, a better world or fair play?”
I'm not here to tell you what's right and what's wrong here
lol.
-
Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentThanks for looking. Pretty much as expected, I think.Thanks for looking. Pretty much as expected, I think.
-
Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentIn short, I think we should be extremely skeptical of any claim that goes “we need to do X change for moral reasons, and I have it in my power to take the first step in that direction, but if I do...Unless I misunderstand (very likely atm), you're stating why it is at least in the game theory sense an impossibility to do this on a per-state level, while using the plausibility of that same action to critique wanting it done at a national level. Doing this on a state level doesn't "make America more democratic"-- it actively punishes the side wanting it, making it less democratic until the impossible threshold is met.
In short, I think we should be extremely skeptical of any claim that goes “we need to do X change for moral reasons, and I have it in my power to take the first step in that direction, but if I do that the other guy will win, so I can’t.” I don’t disagree that a national change is more plausible for game-theoretic reasons.
The decision isn't unilateral is any Republican supports it, unless you only consider it at the party level. If you don't you have to get into what percent of Republican support do you consider sufficient.
I genuinely think the party level is actually pretty good for something like this. That’s the whole reason we have elected representatives, after all - to represent the will of the people as a whole instead of the will of every individual person. If the two parties can figure out some way to make this work, I don’t think it’s objectionable if some random republican doesn’t like it.
Why? It's unilateral and gives a political benefit to them. What is the difference between electoral changes and something like unilateral tax cuts set to explode on the next party and gain significant donor support?
I think there’s an enormous difference between the two. Electoral changes dictate who gets into power and how. There’s little else as important as that; that’s what wars are fought over. It’s like the republicans gerrymandering - clearly much worse than just passing some tax cut, right? To preempt your next question about “when is a majority big enough,” I think the constitution is more or less spot on. If two-thirds of congress and three-fourths of states agreed to abolish the electoral college, I think that’s a large enough supermajority to forestall concerns about quashing the adversary party.
Also not sure why you aren't considering where, like 2024, the unilateral change that is prosocial doesn't end up benefiting the Democrats, or at least not in perpetuity? Possibly due to the same sort of blowback you anticipate.
I really don’t think the bar needs to be “benefits democrats every single time” for me to reasonably say that it advantages them.
-
Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentYes, as I noted above. Sorry, I really don’t understand what you mean here at all. If you mean “why are you talking about the republican party when some republicans probably don’t like the...How your suggestion plays out is that you end up penalizing "good" actors by essentially watering down their votes on the national level. Sure, they would better represent their constituents--which would happen in that case of the NPVIC-- but if all the supporting blue states switched to being proportional it would always lead to a GOP president, with no real incentive for states already willingly rigging things in their favor to also switch.
Yes, as I noted above.
And why would you partition around parties instead of their constituents? Some on the left wouldn't want it, and some on the right would. Why is what the party wants the relevant bit?
Sorry, I really don’t understand what you mean here at all. If you mean “why are you talking about the republican party when some republicans probably don’t like the electoral college,” I suppose that’s fair, I was using the parties as shorthand. I suspect that democrats overwhelmingly don’t like the electoral college and republicans overwhelmingly like it, but I haven’t looked for actual data on that.
Why choose the categorical imperative instead of a Rawlsian veil of ignorance or other frameworks?
For clarity, I mean a categorical imperative. As in, I told NaraVara that I wasn’t trying to establish a rule that must be followed at all costs.
If M4A was passed with a supermajority would that be unethical, as long as it incidentally led to a strong left party?
No?
-
Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentI mean at this point we’re just debating deontological vs. consequentialist ethics. I’m not going to take a universal position on that, but generally yes, I think fair play matters more. If you...Which matters more, a better world, or fair play?
I mean at this point we’re just debating deontological vs. consequentialist ethics. I’m not going to take a universal position on that, but generally yes, I think fair play matters more.
Let's say you'd be completely right about Democratic politicians doing this solely for selfish reasons (which many certainly would be). In that case... so what?
If you could sum up my ethical instincts in a sentence, it’d be “beware people trying to convince you that the thing that happens to benefit them is a moral imperative.” If you could somehow consult a crystal ball and tell me that doing X thing would lead to a better world, no caveats, then of course I would prefer to do that. But in the context where I don’t think we can really be sure (or agree on) what a better world is, our safer bet is to try to shoot for fair play instead.
I’m talking more broadly, here, you understand, not about the electoral college specifically anymore.
-
Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentWell, yes, I don’t disagree with any of this. My point was more that it’s not a straight line from “Trump is insane” to “abolishing the EC would’ve prevented Trump” if we’re talking about selling...Well, yes, I don’t disagree with any of this. My point was more that it’s not a straight line from “Trump is insane” to “abolishing the EC would’ve prevented Trump” if we’re talking about selling it to the American public (which we were).
-
Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentWell, I can’t argue with that, but aren’t you glad I prepared you for the question?By either definition Rutherford B. Hayes is only relevant as an answer in a bar trivia question for NERDS.
Well, I can’t argue with that, but aren’t you glad I prepared you for the question?
-
Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentI’m going to take some justified flak for this from NaraVara, because I just said I wasn’t arguing a categorical imperative. But your question made me reflect on whether I would be fine with the...I’m going to take some justified flak for this from NaraVara, because I just said I wasn’t arguing a categorical imperative. But your question made me reflect on whether I would be fine with the Democratic party ever unilaterally abolishing the college. On reflection I think unilaterally abolishing the electoral college as the party which would benefit most from said abolishment is universally bad. That is to say that if in 40 years it’s the democrats who win elections via the EC despite losing the popular vote, I would oppose republicans trying to get rid of the college. I get that the EC is a bad system, but it’s the system in place and changing the way the US president is elected is not something to be done lightly or unilaterally. I think it’s just too fraught - politically, yes, but also ethically - for any dominant party to change the way elections are run without consent from the other party.
The main reason I feel this way is that there’s not currently an actual rule saying that states have to follow the winner-take-all system. That’s the primary problem with the electoral college, right? It means battleground states are the most important by far and nobody campaigns in Oklahoma because all of their EC votes are going red no matter what. The thing is that states could currently choose, today, to distribute their electoral votes according to how each house district voted. Nebraska and Maine already do this, and it solves like 90% or more of the problems with the EC system.
The reason most states don’t do this is that it’s pure downside for the party in charge. California is a broadly democratic state with republican congresspeople. If they shifted to a fair electoral college system they would be giving EC votes to republican candidates and the democrats in control don’t want that. The same was true on the other side of the aisle in, say, Texas (until a few days ago, of course). That’s whatever - I get the political motivations - but I raise it because it supports, I think, my argument that this is not a polyannaish move by idealistic Democrats seizing a chance to make America more democratic.
If the primary motivation was democracy, there’s nothing stopping them from making that change today. It has a lot more to do with power. And even though I vote democratic, I think that’s bad.
-
Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentImagine a side-eye emoji here. This has got to be the least charitable interpretation of what I’m trying to say. I’m arguing from a realpolitik perspective, not as a categorical imperative. I will...So you can only reform broken aspects of the political system if the people who benefit from it being broken go along with it? You must understand how silly this sounds.
Imagine a side-eye emoji here. This has got to be the least charitable interpretation of what I’m trying to say. I’m arguing from a realpolitik perspective, not as a categorical imperative.
That those electors' choices are locked into whoever got the majority of the aggregated vote of their state is made-up bullshit.
I will note that this is not actually a rule. Not at a country-wide level, anyway. States currently choose individually how their electoral college distribution works. Maine and Nebraska use different systems whereby they give some EC votes to the winner of the popular vote (in their state) and then distribute the rest based on who won each district. There’s no extant rule that everyone has to use the winner-take-all method that 48 states are currently using. I’m not really sure where I was going with that other than to note that technically the compact would be imposing more rules on the states than currently exist.
The idea of the EC deviating from the popular vote was regarded as a potentially weird thing that could theoretically happen for most of the modern era,
The first time a president won on the electoral college while losing the popular vote was Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876.
part of the reason the country is so divided is BECAUSE the EC skews the game theory of running national campaigns towards focusing on turning out your base in purple states instead of getting the 20% minority party vote in a state to 23%.
Yes, I agree with this.
-
Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentI can see the merits of this argument - though I’d note that Trump won the popular vote in 2024, so a different system would not have prevented his presidency - but I still think it would do more...A different framing is that there may never be a better time for this. Trump is a lightning rod, with the most open corruption and incompetence in history. He may be splitting the party as some begin to see him as politically toxic and weak, and as he is incapable of releasing power or resigning for the good of the GOP. In the face of a public mandate Trump is entertaining nukes and vetoing everything... and if that doesn't make the case for how important it is for the increasingly expansive powers of the POTUS to be democraticly chosen and beholden, nothing will.
I can see the merits of this argument - though I’d note that Trump won the popular vote in 2024, so a different system would not have prevented his presidency - but I still think it would do more harm than good for the democrats to unilaterally (effectively) force a new system to supersede the electoral college.
-
Comment on US Democrats win enough seats nationwide to (potentially) end Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentIf the republicans and democrats jointly agreed to get rid of the EC, that would be great. I’m opposing getting rid of it now, in this way, because to push for it would be a terrible idea...If the republicans and democrats jointly agreed to get rid of the EC, that would be great. I’m opposing getting rid of it now, in this way, because to push for it would be a terrible idea politically.
Also the way the EC works isn't in the Constitution.
I suppose that’s technically true, but article II refers to “electors” and per the US federal archives, the EC was established by the constitution. I will concede that the specific mechanisms are not described in the constitution.
In fact, most people actually think the President is elected by a popular vote
Come on. The EC is massively important every election, especially when republicans win via the college despite losing the popular vote. Most people don’t think the president is elected by a popular vote. That really doesn’t matter for your point at all, so, you know, whatever, but this is a bit of a reach.
Honestly, you’re not coming across as patronizing so much as.. youthful. I really don’t mean this to be quite as insulting as I’m afraid it’ll sound, but it’s like the teenager who’s ultra-atheist because they’ve just realized that no religion is internally consistent. You’ve figured out that the West’s hands are dirty, but the price of that realization is that you’re swallowing the Russian party line uncritically.
Some people - clearly, including yourself, which I mean as a compliment - are open-minded enough to realize that the West’s hands aren’t clean. This is, generally, a very good thing to understand. For better or for worse, though, a lot of people get stuck there. They get stuck at the thought that since the West’s hands aren’t clean, everything is therefore relative and, to quote you, “there are no good guys.” The problem with getting stuck at that realization is that it’s not true. Just because there are no perfect guys doesn’t mean there are no better guys.
For example, you write that the USA was
First, dude, literally, this is from the link you posted to prove this point.
Second, also from your link, here’s what was going on:
Democratic skills and institutions. Civic participation. Good governance. This is not some sort of CIA-backed coup; this is the USA supporting democracy. Not as a political system, but as an idea. How on earth is that violating Ukraine’s sovereignty? And to that point:
My friend, you’re repeatedly equating the NATO to Russia, so of course people are pushing back. In the section I quoted above, you wrote that
The same. The same.
It’s not the bloody same. On the one hand, you have the US promoting civic participation. On the other you have a land invasion that has killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and counting.
More, from your link:
And you’re accusing the West of interfering with Ukraine’s sovereignty?
I have no issue with critically discussing the West’s choices with regard to Ukraine. I have no issue with dispassionately discussing whether NATO unintentionally forced Russia’s hand. The reason you’re getting pushback, from me and others, is that you’re equating the West’s actions to Russia’s actions, and I do take umbrage to that.