Assorted links


Interfluidity's post is idiotic. So that untested hypothesis really makes a lot of sense!

I dunno, I feel like a few more f-bombs would have convinced me.

Thats because you just don't get the "the alchemical conversion of obvious anger into vulgar humor" that one person in the comments section praised.

The tragedy is that I am willing to buy the "altruistic punishment" theory. I just wan't willing to actually read the post.

Yes, his post was weird and angry nonsense. Stick to commenting on economics rather than on baltimore riots from Silicon Valley

Is the concept of "altruistic punishment" or the idea it might apply to these riots weird, angry nonsense.

My guess is his post was method writing. He's writing about emotional, not tactical behavior, behavior that humans are hard-wired for, because without it we wouldn't have societies with a high sense of justice. A complex individual saying Fuck You in a complex situation is not simple.

But not surprised the usual MR fags are incapable of seeing beyond their own skirts on this one.

The dumb part of his post and the rioters short sightedness is that both sides can play the same game and the side that isn't playing yet has all the guns. Risking their eventual ire over shoes and toiletries is incredibly short sighted.

Dirk. The rioters gain global fame, admiration, mates and material benefits from the rioting. How is that altruistic. I think the concept ignores indirect benefits and certainly does not apply in this case.

dirk May 3, 2015 at 1:03 am

You really, honestly, think they achieved a material gain?

Well the ones that lifted all those TVs certainly gained. And given that pretty much all the demands are not for people to be fired or for the elected officials to resign, but for massive Federal aid to Baltimore, then yes, I think they achieved a material gain.

Yes, emotionally they may have experienced the bliss of chaos at the moment of riot. Why? Interfluidity explains that why as a fundamental part of human nature. We react to a certain degree of injustice even when it is not in our best interests.

More to the point, bullying other people is fun. Bullies enjoy themselves a lot. So do rapists. And rioters. They do not need an injustice to enjoy a riot. They just need an excuse.

Rioters are always rewarded. More money flows in. Many poor communities depend on that flow of money. The only way to keep it flowing is to remain on your knees shaking your fist - threatening violence while begging for other people's pity. Hence the riots. So yes, they make an economically rational sort of sense.

Tell us how you feel Dirk.

Shut your fucking face, dirk, and go lick another Democrat's boot.

My "fuck" is super complex, so fuck yourself if your thinking of criticizing it; I realize you're a moron like that.

Go suck a cock, Mr Fag.

It's hard to distinguish fags from Republicans, but at least you've made it clear you are both. Big surprise.

The latter. The concept itself might have some basis in human social psychology, I really don't know. But these days we have things like laws, elections, and what I call "the perfectly reasonable option of moving to Baltimore County" that make burning down and looting your own city an unnecessary and rather poor choice of means to address one's grievances.

5+7=don't live in cities.

And I thought the financial and economic commentary at Interfluidity was bad...

The refuse of Baltimore rioted because Soros and friends have been stirring up riots and racial strife across the country as part of a "get out the vote" campaign. My Facebook feed is full of privileged white acquaintances cheering on the violence, or at least condemning anyone condemning it. Once you push things this far, no one even stops to consider the absurdity of rioting against the "racism" of a half-black group of cops in a mostly black city with a mostly black government.

I... can't tell if you're joking. Soros?

George Soros and Pepe Silivia, bro! They're behind it all!!!!1!!

Let's see. Let's say you were an unpopular candidate running for office that relied heavily on identity politics to attract voters.

Wouldn't it be in your interest to make sure those voters were motivated to vote somehow?

I'll start with an example from the right to break into this gently: Back in the early 2000's the GOP used gay marriage bans as a way to get out the vote.

Now fast forward to 2012 and now 2016 elections. 2012, Obama really needed his ethnic base to turn out. So of course, any story involving race needed to be pushed big time in the media. So, Trayvon Martin case becomes news for a year. The media labels a dark, hispanic guy with an Afro-Peruvian grandma as "white Hispanic." The DOJ sends in a huge team, and the media arrives as well. The media helps out by doctoring tapes (NBC, IIRC) and to feed the flames. But you could easily imagine this case not being of any interest to the nation if Zimmerman was named Gonzalez. Obama of course nationalized the story, too, with his comments about Trayvon being like his son, if he had one.

Now in 2015, Hillary will be even MORE desperate for black votes. I mean, I doubt Obama really needed to pump up Trayvon's case that much to get the black vote to show up. But Hillary?

Therefore you can expect any potential racist incident to be pushed hard by activists and the media will play along. (They always do - including editing tapes to suggest Zimmerman used an ethnic slur when he did not.)

In fact, now we see that 50% of the officers involved were black, including the driver who killed Freddie Gray. I wonder why this wasn't mentioned right away. Huh. Its almost like they want to make black people very angry about police racism to keep those identity politics fires at full bore.

Now, I'm sure you will protest, but the fact is that the Democratic party does way better when African-Americans vote heavily. Thus its in their interest, and their activists's interest to promote these sorts of issues. Even twist them, so that most people assumed it was all white cops who hurt Freddie Gray.

This is why identity politics is very dangerous, and I wish the Democrats and the GOP to the extent they do it too, should avoid this. When you divide our nation up into Tutsis and Hutus or Catholic and Protestant and have everyone vote based on this, expect bad outcomes.

>The refuse of Baltimore rioted because Soros and friends have been stirring up riots and racial strife across the country as part of a “get out the vote” campaign.

LOL Soros is behind the riots in Baltimore? Hey buddy wanna buy some special jet fuel? I promise, this kind *can* melt steel beams.

>no one even stops to consider the absurdity of rioting against the “racism” of a half-black group of cops in a mostly black city with a mostly black government.

Maybe nobody considers this absurd because the riots broke out because of police brutality, never mind what race the police or city elites were.

Soros spent large amounts of money to transport and support a network of activists in Ferguson. That blew up in his face so maybe he's gone back to breaking the currencies of third world Muslim countries, but it's hardly inconceivable that hes sowing disorder. It's how he makes his money.

Please elaborate on "how he makes his money" ? I'm rather curious.

Black Wednesday in England and Malaysia during the Asian financial crisis. He makes money by breaking currencies. I'm whatever if that's his thing that's his thing, but it's certainly a lot more evil than anything a Koch brother or Exxon executive ever did.

Hmm fair enough. Explain his motivations for stirring up strife? I mean the election is over. I can't fathom any means of gaining financially from either the Ferguson or Baltimore riots. What is the motive? What is the benefit?

The 2016 election is over? Its just started.

And the Democratic candidate is not Obama, but Hillary, and she must be very worried about garnering black turnout.

If blacks stay home, she is very much at risk of losing.

In order to keep identity politics working, you have constantly reinforce victimhood and sorting by group.

Now, its not 100% cynical, because there are indeed problems with policing that needs to be worked out.

But you can also see that the Democrats would rather say it racism than bad management, because, well....they manage Baltimore.

Harun you're conflating different things. I asked what Soros has to gain from doing what others here have accused him of... another poster made it seem Soros caused and gained financially from Ferguson and Baltimore!

So the democrats control the media? Hillary has the nomination? Like 2008? Democrats never won elections without the black vote? According to your own logic it would make more sense for them to rile up Hispanics no? This way of doing things seems so roundabout and assumes malicious intent on the part of the democrats, the media and the rioters.

Some things are emergent phenomena... no god-like actor is needed to pull any strings anywhere. Individual actors doing their own thing creates emergent order. Seeing overriding patterns, particularly that which is bolstered by malicious intent, sounds rather delusional.

A man who thrives on chaos promotes chaos even if it isn't obvious what his angle is. It's possible he's pursuing the dictum when there's blood in the streets buy property.

Who knows-like Plato says some people just have chaos written in their soul. Soros is one of those people. He resents the kind of compromises he had to make as a teenager during the Nazi occupation and holds the Western world responsible.

I should have also emphasized that his left wing activism is a big part of why he's able to behave like an almost cartoonish version of a tycoon without engendering the Koch Brothers treatment.

He's alresdy been caught insider trading once-he learned the lesson Bill Gates also learned keep the professional left's bellies fully and ponytails well trimmed and you can basically do anything you want business wise.

Arjun May 2, 2015 at 4:28 pm

Maybe nobody considers this absurd because the riots broke out because of police brutality, never mind what race the police or city elites were.

Police brutality does play a role in riots. But only the other way around - that is, where the police are reliably brutal, Blacks don't riot. The riots of the 60s hit White liberal cities, not southern cities where Blacks were treated the worst.

As for police brutality, Baltimore has a record on this. They regularly pay out millions of dollars to people who are injured or killed by the police. Just as Detroit does. The level of police brutality in Detroit has gone up since Coleman Young. More unjustifiable shootings. More de facto torture. No one cares. Young put that great big fist in the middle of the city and he became a Black hero. No one cared in Baltimore either. Until now.

The obvious question is what changed. It does look like the same activists who were in Ferguson have made it to Baltimore - at least some people who have tracked their social media say they have. The media was steadfast in being quiet about the race of the police officers who were (probably) actually responsible for Grey's death. So it does look like the usual media incitement to racial riots. The fact that this was the death of a Black man due to the driving of a Black police officer, working for a mainly Black police force in a city with a Black police chief, a Black public prosecutor, and a Black Mayor - which has not elected a Republican since 1967 - is irrelevant because CNN wants a riot.

Now now now. Obviously it was Obama behind it all. What can one expect from a Muslim born in Kenya of a father who was a member of the Communist Party USA? Silly Simonini.

Because Soros didn't play a big role in ginning up the protests in Ferguson.

For all the undeserved grief Steve Sailer gets for supposedly trolling here what's Rosser's excuse. He's not a blogger like Steve but a professor shouldn't he be coining trivial little equations to name after himself or something.

Professor Rosser I suggest you convert all those doc files to PDF. Doc files, especially .docx, are the bane of text file formats.

You forgot to mention that we hate him for being a Negro.

I'm sorry, that sarcasm doesn't make any sense. The overlap between truthers and those who think the Baltimore riots were dysfunctional is small and irrelevant. It's a progressive theme that those who criticize MNSBC/CNN/NYTimes agendas are simply deranged idiots who can be dismissed.

The bar for entry to academia is considerably lower for unapologetic progressives. Barkley's example is instructive, given that the quality of his research isn't much higher than the quality of his posts.

Do you disagree that "altruistic punishment" exists in human social behavior or that these riots are an instance of it?

I agree altruistic punishment exists, but not that these riots are examples of it. Who are they punishing? Not the politicians they voted for. Are they punishing the small businesses, many of them run by immigrants, they have been looting? Perhaps so but what has that to do with the death of Freddy Grey?

Apart from ginning up the base to get out the vote for Hilary, this is about demanding more cash and prizes from White America. That is not altruistic punishment. White America is not responsible for the disaster that is the Democratic One Party State of Baltimore. It is like a teenage girl self harming to get her parents' attention. If you don't get me the latest iPhone, I will hurt myself!

re:#7 - if the person who did the vandalism is known, and apparently admitting it in public media, why hasn't he been arrested? Or sued?

quote: “It turned out surprisingly well"

Ha! Give me elephant paintings any day.

Sued? Maybe they could hire the lawyer Barbra Streisand used.

Vandalism is the tip of the iceberg. What about depositing other kinds of more boom-inducing payloads on monuments?

Or a fly-by shooting? Or maybe conductive chaff on transformers? Lots of nefarious options.

Looking forward to that variety of prospectives on TPP.


The Interfluidity piece reminds me of how The War Nerd says that if you're occupying a foreign country, you need to be killing at least 10 local guerrillas for every 1 of your own men that you lose, otherwise you are "losing" the occupation. Which is kind of weird if you think about it, but has a certain logic to it. The "goal" of the guerrillas is to inflict maximum annoyance and frustration on the occupiers until they leave, even if that means suffering massively lopsided casualties. You're trying to send a message that says "we are willing to suffer and suffer and suffer for as long as is needed, just to annoy you enough to leave," and if you do it for long enough the occupiers will in fact leave. Afghanistan is probably the most famous example of this, having been invaded by darn near everybody at various points who eventually left upon realizing it wasn't worth the trouble to occupy the place.

The point being that perhaps it's best to look at the protests as like a low-level form of that same guerrilla strategy. "We will destroy our own neighborhoods and inflict suffering upon ourselves, but it will be enough of a nuisance to those in charge that eventually they will make concessions." This is not to say that I agree with the piece, just that it gave me another perspective from which to view the riots.

Maybe it is far more simple. It is fun burning stuff, and even better to steal stuff without consequence. Assuming some long term deep thought pattern in a bunch of teenage boys is akin to theorizing from a price change.

I wish there were more counter-arguments like this. Because if the Interfluidity guy says (seeing through the f-bombs) that "it's altruistic punishment," I'd just say "no, they simply see free stuff and take it." This isn't proof his theory is incorrect, but my theory is much much simpler. Lots of people will extract 1 util at a societal cost of 2 utils if they think they can get away with it.

In Afghanistan, they want us to leave. In Baltimore, they want us to give them more goodies.

Actually they want both in Afghanistan. SAMs with every decolonization movement I can think of.

Prediction: once we leave, the village chiefs will grumble about how there's no more money for roads and clinics anymore.

You should read the latest WN column at Pando. It's about the South Africa riots, but nearly directly translatable to Baltimore.

Thanks, just read it. Spot on I think.

In Vietnam, it was 20 to 1.

For the losers.

Too soon - But now, the losers are being offered a chance to be better off - if one believes Prof. Cowen's recent deep and sincere sympathy for all of the losers of the Vietnam War, that is.

That's pretty much backwards. In the real world guerillas mostly just try to stay alive and active enough that their foreign opponent's cost-benefit analysis changes. E.g., Mandatory Palestine, Northern Ireland, Southern Lebanon.

5. "interfluidity" is just plus the f word.

I'm sure the Vox articles have f words in them to when they go to the editor.

I, like, totally can't even...

You want me to believe that Vox has editors?

The interfluidity article is amusing:

If you feel entitled to tut-tut the rioters, I hope you have organized against police brutality, marched all peacefully like the GandhiMartinLutherJesus you manufacture to condemn the very people whose cause those idols championed.

Actually we know what reduces police brutality - voting Republican. It was not the Republicans on the other end of the fire hoses and police dogs in Selma. It was good old Democratic party stalwarts like Bull Connor. Who sat on the Democratic National Committee. We know that imposing racial quotas on police forces leads to something like a 4% rise in police brutality. We know that places like Detroit have a much worse record for police brutality now than they did when Coleman Young was poor. The record of the police is much worse in places with Democratic majorities.

So actually exactly the sort of people who go tut-tut have done the main thing they need to do to reduce police violence. They voted Republican. This author lacks the self awareness to admit he is part of the problem.

Have you borne costs to engage politically to ensure economic security and social inclusion for all? You have you say? Well good for you, though I don’t believe you and it doesn’t matter because this isn’t about you. As a society, we have not done these things.

And there's the rub. Because everything we have done to ensure economic security has resulted in more economic insecurity - poverty is largely a single mother phenomenon so handing out all that cash to single mothers probably wasn't a good idea. Everything we have done to ensure social inclusion has not worked out well either. Whatever else you can say, you can't say it has not been tried. Blacks have got about a trillion dollars worth of "reparations". Not helped.

The obvious solution is for Republicans to be Republicans and not continue to support the Democrats every time it counts. That is the only way that these problems will be solved.

You're hurting that moronic author's, dirk's, and every English dept. around the country's feelings. And that makes you wrong. Cue dirk's tears.

These comments make all the "fuck you"s Interfluidity wrote understandable.

I agree the left's response to free debate, when they run the instituions, has always been either a fuck you, human rights kangaroo court conviction, or show trial followed by an execution.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

I can't even, right now, dirk, can you?

Yeah. How dare anyone harsh your narrative with facts.

You're obviously just another MR Fag. You probably think that eliminating petty laws would decrease police brutality too, right? Scumbag.

Actually yes I do. Two of the recent shootings came about because of petty crimes. One for selling cigarettes, the other for child support. People should not die for these laws. Yet they will because there is a risk of death every time a law is enforced.

So if you are asking whether I think the police go out intent on killing, no I don't. I think that deaths result from stops and arrests. Some small number of them will always go wrong. Reduce the number of laws, you reduce the number of stops, you reduce the number of deaths.

Cluck. Cluck. Cluck

Do you know what would happen if the police chief was excoriated for incompetence? Or the mayor? Or the parents? Whoever had the courage to do it would be called racist oppressors and tribute would be demanded from them.

The people saying fuck you are the multiracial inhabitants of the functioning cities in the US. How dare you demand competence from a teacher you racist scum! OK then, fuck you.

The solution to Baltimore would be very unpleasant to any one holding power there. Probably half the police force and three quarters of the political class would end up in jail, along with reading the riot act and shooting looters. Firing all the school administrators and teachers. All of them. Something like the Hawaii justice initiative where quick punishment feedback systems educate offenders as to expectations.

But some jackass will show up with some cockamamie scheme to extract resources from the functional to support the systems, politicians, and police that are corrupt and destructive to another generation.

Interfluidity's post reminds me of the western communists in the cold war, who, whatever the outrage committed by Stalin, were always able to produce a supportive argument. Its an interesting process, how rhetoric, and group identification, can delude smart people into thinking stupid things. My model is that originally the defence had some merit, and each single escalation required only a small absurdity. Eventually however the small absurdities added up to something that was total nonsense and a defence of savagery.

Waldman's essay just further reinforces my apathy about the plight of poor people in the major cities- I just don't care anymore. As the crescendo of race baiting from the MSNBCs and CNNs reach their zenith, I think more and more white people will reach the same conclusion I have- it isn't worth their time or money to give a shit any longer. If people want to burn their shit-hole neighborhoods to the ground, then by all means, have at it!

White guys from Silicon Valley acting hard makes me giggle. Its like a scene from Office Space.

The clarity of the solutions is directly proportional to how far away you are from the situation.

Correction: the squared distance. Minor quibble...

My take on the CRISPR post (as someone with biology BS and some practice reading papers) is that the blogger is right on the money: 3 of the 4 reported off target mutations were likely false positives (is naturally occurring point mutations). Bottom line is that the original authors overreported offtarget hits, which means that CRISPR is behaving similarly in humans as it does in mice.
Tl;dr: Results were not as bad as initially reported, though ethical quandaries remain.

#5 The great thing about the post is that interestingly, some cops think that they are doing some altruistic punishment when they rough up those that they consider troublemakers. I think it is a bad policy on their behalf and that often they do not have enough information to know who really is a troublemaker but I am open minded enough to think that if you eliminated the behavior the outcome could possibly be worse.

In my teens I saw the police purposefully hit a punk I knew of with there car sending him sprawling on the pavement. He took and they did not even bother to pursue. BTW the punk was with another punk who I latter saw stab a guy multiple times who his brother was fighting with his brother (another punk.) I also if I remember correctly a guy from my high school (a punk) died in police custody (they claimed that he fell down the stairs.) All whites BTW.

Comments for this post are closed