Specifically to the Application: Guns part: At the state level, the Democrats are every bit as all-in on gun control as the national-level Republicans are (referencing Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Colorado mostly), and they seem to be winning with this formula. Maybe my perception is off, but what I'm seeing doesn't seem to match up with your application.
This could be a bait-and-switch, where the Democrats ran and won on other issues (probably abortion) and now have pivoted to the issue that they actually care about, hoping to get some AWBs and magazine bans in place before they get wiped out of office in the next elections.
Or, taking a more sinister view, the Democrats could know that the electoral system is no longer honest, and once they have a majority in a given polity, they can do whatever they want because they no longer have to worry about an electoral reversal.
Let's not pretend that it's only the Democrats that have caught on to the bait and switch idea. Until Trump got elected almost every national Republican campaigned on repeal of Obamacare. They passed bills repealing it while Obama was in office. As soon as it was a realistic possibility, the Republican controlled congress abandoned it. Lying on the campaign trail is just how politics works.
I don't know if that particular example was a deliberate bait-and-switch, or a perfect display of abject political incompetence. But one thing that I've learned from being alive and mostly conscious these past thirty years is that you'll never go broke underestimating the acumen of the GOP.
I think it was a deliberate lie. They were simply surprised by Trump's election and got caught by circumstances. After 2012, it was widely assumed that the Republicans would never hold the WH again. The bulk of them never expected to emerge from the easiest position in politics, opposition without effective strength.
You can get wealthy betting on their lack of courage.
There is a much longer term shift with the decrease in use of rationality terms and increase in intuitive terms that started well before Fox (1996), mass internet or social media. It coincides with post-Pill surge in female higher education participation and the beginning of cable news (CNN 1980). One wonders how much the shift to more emotionality in language fits in. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2107848118
Do you think that the workings of a specific attractor (in this case your clear position on guns) is responsible for the fact that despite your (at least declared, I'm slightly dubious here, but definitely more so) neutrality on other issues, your audience, or at least your commentariat, is significantly shifted towards what would, I believe, be considered "loony right" and away from "loony left" of the United States politics?
100% yes. The fact that we are (mathematically) pro-gun around here brings more loony right boys to the yard than loony left boys to the yard. But you'd be surprised - a fair chunk of traffic to HWFO, particularly in the early days, came from r/liberalgunowners and r/2Aliberals, because mathematical instead of cultural arguments for gun ownership were easier for them to share with their peers.
FWIW, I can have deep and respectful discussions with folks of all political and cultural stripes, because I limit my discussion to systems dynamics and efficacy. Basically, "none of this shit is real, it's all made up, culture is just an invention so no culture is inherently 'right,' so let's weigh efficacy."
Feb 20·edited Feb 20Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery
It's very interesting for me, because being a European, the US take on guns seems inherently insane to me on a purely emotional level, but on the other hand I can totally imagine being an American and pro-gun on "the social price is worth paying" libertarian and "it would be really hand to have easy access to effective and very fast means of suicide that doesn't involve jumping off very high structures" personal grounds, and the possible thing here is that taking that position could potentially shift ALL my politics right, which would be super weird. Tho abortion (and universal health care, possibly) are probably much stronger attractors, ultimately, than the ability to blow my brains out when/if the time comes. But still.
The main point here being that such singular factors can really make all the difference to what people sometimes consider their overall, core identities.
I think once you include that, the "social price" compares quite favorably. I also think if Ukraine had the same gun ownership rate that the USA does then Russia never would have dreamed of invading, because the whole thing would have been over in a day as their supply lines got wrecked. Ditto for Taiwan - with USA style gun ownership that place would be an impregnable fortress.
Ultimately, gun control only controls homicide if you can eliminate almost every gun in the country. You have to make guns so rare that not even a criminal can find one. And since the ratio of criminals to non-criminals is so low, there's no bivariate correlation here or globally between gun proliferation and homicide.
I remember that genocide-incluiding post as very interesting, and had Proper Thoughts but never got round to commenting, might go back to that at some point.
On abortion, most of the USA is actually far more permissive than most of Europe, although we do have more in the prohibited category than Europe does as well. Graph on that here:
It will be more than interesting seeing how the effects of The Great Awakening impact the trend. It seems that Our President has a 150 million popular vote target in mind that would result in an historic popular vote total and difference.
In 2020 Trump gained more ground among black voters and latin voters than any Republican in history. I expect that trend to continue this year no matter who the Republican nominee is. Latin voters and black men are going to continue to shift. Where everyone else lands is going to be questionable, but Trump's major underperformance area in 2020 was in the elderly, who were under Covid fear at the time.
So we'll see. I wouldn't lay money on who wins until we find out who's actually running, which IMO is absolutely not set in stone at this point, but I would definitely lay money against a blowout in any direction. The only shot at a true blowout I think is if the Ds keep Biden but the Rs replace Trump.
Specifically to the Application: Guns part: At the state level, the Democrats are every bit as all-in on gun control as the national-level Republicans are (referencing Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Colorado mostly), and they seem to be winning with this formula. Maybe my perception is off, but what I'm seeing doesn't seem to match up with your application.
This could be a bait-and-switch, where the Democrats ran and won on other issues (probably abortion) and now have pivoted to the issue that they actually care about, hoping to get some AWBs and magazine bans in place before they get wiped out of office in the next elections.
Or, taking a more sinister view, the Democrats could know that the electoral system is no longer honest, and once they have a majority in a given polity, they can do whatever they want because they no longer have to worry about an electoral reversal.
Let's not pretend that it's only the Democrats that have caught on to the bait and switch idea. Until Trump got elected almost every national Republican campaigned on repeal of Obamacare. They passed bills repealing it while Obama was in office. As soon as it was a realistic possibility, the Republican controlled congress abandoned it. Lying on the campaign trail is just how politics works.
I don't know if that particular example was a deliberate bait-and-switch, or a perfect display of abject political incompetence. But one thing that I've learned from being alive and mostly conscious these past thirty years is that you'll never go broke underestimating the acumen of the GOP.
I think it was a deliberate lie. They were simply surprised by Trump's election and got caught by circumstances. After 2012, it was widely assumed that the Republicans would never hold the WH again. The bulk of them never expected to emerge from the easiest position in politics, opposition without effective strength.
You can get wealthy betting on their lack of courage.
There is a much longer term shift with the decrease in use of rationality terms and increase in intuitive terms that started well before Fox (1996), mass internet or social media. It coincides with post-Pill surge in female higher education participation and the beginning of cable news (CNN 1980). One wonders how much the shift to more emotionality in language fits in. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2107848118
Astute.
Do you think that the workings of a specific attractor (in this case your clear position on guns) is responsible for the fact that despite your (at least declared, I'm slightly dubious here, but definitely more so) neutrality on other issues, your audience, or at least your commentariat, is significantly shifted towards what would, I believe, be considered "loony right" and away from "loony left" of the United States politics?
100% yes. The fact that we are (mathematically) pro-gun around here brings more loony right boys to the yard than loony left boys to the yard. But you'd be surprised - a fair chunk of traffic to HWFO, particularly in the early days, came from r/liberalgunowners and r/2Aliberals, because mathematical instead of cultural arguments for gun ownership were easier for them to share with their peers.
FWIW, I can have deep and respectful discussions with folks of all political and cultural stripes, because I limit my discussion to systems dynamics and efficacy. Basically, "none of this shit is real, it's all made up, culture is just an invention so no culture is inherently 'right,' so let's weigh efficacy."
It's very interesting for me, because being a European, the US take on guns seems inherently insane to me on a purely emotional level, but on the other hand I can totally imagine being an American and pro-gun on "the social price is worth paying" libertarian and "it would be really hand to have easy access to effective and very fast means of suicide that doesn't involve jumping off very high structures" personal grounds, and the possible thing here is that taking that position could potentially shift ALL my politics right, which would be super weird. Tho abortion (and universal health care, possibly) are probably much stronger attractors, ultimately, than the ability to blow my brains out when/if the time comes. But still.
The main point here being that such singular factors can really make all the difference to what people sometimes consider their overall, core identities.
We include police homicides in our numbers, so I don't think it's honest to exclude genocide from Europe's numbers. I did some math on that here:
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/weighing-us-homicide-rates-vs-european
I think once you include that, the "social price" compares quite favorably. I also think if Ukraine had the same gun ownership rate that the USA does then Russia never would have dreamed of invading, because the whole thing would have been over in a day as their supply lines got wrecked. Ditto for Taiwan - with USA style gun ownership that place would be an impregnable fortress.
Ultimately, gun control only controls homicide if you can eliminate almost every gun in the country. You have to make guns so rare that not even a criminal can find one. And since the ratio of criminals to non-criminals is so low, there's no bivariate correlation here or globally between gun proliferation and homicide.
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between
I find that in the gun discussion, the left often presumes a social cost to gun ownership that simply doesn't show up in the numbers.
I remember that genocide-incluiding post as very interesting, and had Proper Thoughts but never got round to commenting, might go back to that at some point.
On abortion, most of the USA is actually far more permissive than most of Europe, although we do have more in the prohibited category than Europe does as well. Graph on that here:
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/us-europe-abortion-law-comparisons
It will be more than interesting seeing how the effects of The Great Awakening impact the trend. It seems that Our President has a 150 million popular vote target in mind that would result in an historic popular vote total and difference.
In 2020 Trump gained more ground among black voters and latin voters than any Republican in history. I expect that trend to continue this year no matter who the Republican nominee is. Latin voters and black men are going to continue to shift. Where everyone else lands is going to be questionable, but Trump's major underperformance area in 2020 was in the elderly, who were under Covid fear at the time.
So we'll see. I wouldn't lay money on who wins until we find out who's actually running, which IMO is absolutely not set in stone at this point, but I would definitely lay money against a blowout in any direction. The only shot at a true blowout I think is if the Ds keep Biden but the Rs replace Trump.
Great Awakening or Great Awokening? You’re not talking about the 18th Century religious movements, are you?
Nope, I'm talking about the plan to save the greatest nation in history from perhaps the greatest evil in history.