As I said in Line, I generally don't take any major issues with what Maher is saying in the video. The main issue I DO have is the context in which he ignores; that is that antisemitism is not the same as being critical of the Israeli government's handling of the war in Gaza. He seems to conflate criticism of a government of a country as antisemitism. There's enough antisemitism without this conflation already, so I don't know why he does this. Pre-1940's, the Jews didn't have a country, so his analogy of that time, compared to now falls kinda flat. But his overall points are fine. Israel has a right to defend itself. There are people out there that hate Jews AND Israel, but those people blatantly identify themselves. Maher appears to work a little too hard to add people like me in his Ven diagram section of antisemites. I can say in the same breath that I disagree with the tactics Netanyahu is currently using in Gaza, but agree with the initial actions taken that fateful October. The majority of critics out there on the left are similar to me. Not pro-Israel, not anti-Israel. Simply calling balls and strikes as we see them.

[image: 1779749393010-34497603-10c6-4b10-af19-548d4f6b21f4-image-resized.jpeg] Guess the writer?

Q1: Insider trading has long been a wart on Washington political goings-on, all parties in fact. President Trump... A. Requested his DOJ to investigate insider trading in government agencies B. Asked Congress to draft a bill to illegalize insider trading practices C. Brought the issue to light in his State of the Union speech D. Joined in on the all the insider trading fun https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/stock-trade-disclosure-reveals-trump-111526929.html

I recently listened to the audiobook of Gad Saad's "Suicidal Empathy" and have used that term in the chat before. As far as the facts and the overall message of the book, I pretty much agree entirely. In terms of the presentation/delivery and general vibe, I hated it. If you admit that people have an issue with misplaced empathy, but then use sarcastic/cynical satire nonstop, can you really be surprised when it doesn't land with the people who need it the most? I didn't laugh once, but I did cringe quite a bit. That said, it's a pretty non-stop onslaught of facts. It'd take a very long time to refute and/or put into question every one—there's hundreds, and lots of other empirical data from evolutionary biology. But, you know how I feel about empirical data, it's only useful for refuting old ideas, pulling part contradictions, never proving a theory. Also the book is politically charged. In reality I think both the far-right and far-left may be suicidally empathetic in different ways. There were tons of tongue-in-cheek jabs at specific politicians, again, I didn't laugh once. But, I don't even like the term "suicidal empathy" anymore! I've moved on to suicidal pacifism. Empathy is a claim about what someone else is thinking and feeling—I can't claim to know that, and I don't want to. It's pure psychologism. I have a hard enough time enjoying living in the moment instead of constantly second guessing some supposed real motivation that I'm not in control of. I think psychologism has creeped into our culture in really distasteful ways, people (well not you guys, lol) often talk about everyone else's trauma. All that said, I would still recommend this book. Especially to those who disagree with the current government, it may be worth taking some of the ideas in the book seriously, despite the delivery. Particularly the idea that a society where people can't bring themselves to criticize or oppose something for fear of seeming intolerant is a dangerous and scary one. Here's an AI generated summary: Suicidal Empathy — Gad Saad (2026) Saad, an evolutionary behavioral scientist at Concordia University, argues that Western liberal democracies are undermining themselves through a pathological misdirection of empathy — extending moral concern, tolerance, and accommodation to ideologies, movements, and actors that are fundamentally hostile to the values that make those societies worth preserving. Core argument: Healthy empathy is calibrated and reciprocal. "Suicidal empathy" is unconditional empathy — extended regardless of whether the recipient shares basic norms of liberalism, pluralism, or human dignity. When a society cannot bring itself to criticize or oppose something for fear of seeming intolerant, that society has made a weapon of its own virtue. Key targets: Campus reactions to October 7 and the normalization of pro-Hamas sentiment in Western institutions list itemIslamist ideology receiving protection under multicultural frameworks designed for ethnic/religious minorities DEI and intersectionality frameworks that create hierarchies of protected victimhood Immigration policy that resists scrutiny of cultural incompatibility on progressive grounds Institutional cowardice — media, academia, government — driven by fear of being labeled racist/Islamophobic/etc. Method: Almost entirely empirical — crime statistics, polling data, survey research, policy outcomes. Dense with citations. The rhetorical mode is sarcastic and combative throughout, which is consistent with his broader "Saad Truth" brand. Evolutionary framing: He grounds the argument in evolutionary psychology — tribalism, in-group/out-group dynamics, the adaptive vs. maladaptive deployment of prosocial instincts. Suicidal empathy is, in his framing, a misfiring of evolved social cognition in a novel ideological environment. What he's not arguing: He distinguishes his position from nativism or xenophobia. The argument is about ideas and behaviors, not ethnicity. Though critics (and honestly the book's own tone) make that line harder to hold."

[image: 1778910769238-5f4aed8f-2404-477a-a61c-63f3aa956514-image.png] I posted recently about listening to the audiobook of 1984: "Finally listened to 1984 (while doing renovation), after reading references and using various quotes my whole life. Great book, obviously…but. The most absurd part of the book is the lower labor classes called the “proles”. Orwell writes them as dumb, passive, like trailer trash zombies or something. 85% of humanity as furniture? Gimmie a break. He’s criticizing totalitarianism while sharing its deepest assumption: that ordinary people can’t think. Also something Popper, who the world loves to ignore, railed against. The important thing isn't that 2+2=4 (versus 2+2=5), it's a person's problem that that might be a good solution for. Like, two couples are coming to the party, how many cups do I need? People aren't buckets to fill with the right information/knowledge/facts/behaviours." This is consistent with Popper's view on Marxism—the "proles" (aka "proletariate") is a way to sneak in Plato's warped "philosopher king." If 85% of the population is dumb, it's the start of a justification to find the 15% of the people that can fill the 85%'s head with the right thing. On that view, re: the image attached, here's a quote from Brivael Le Pogam: "Sanders and AOC want to freeze the construction of all AI data centers in the United States. We need to understand what's really happening. This isn't just another political battle. It's the final convulsion of a worldview that has unconsciously realized it's doomed. Socialism isn't an economic theory. It's a moral structure that needs three things to exist: Scarcity to redistribute Victims to defend A class of intermediaries to orchestrate it all Remove just one of these three pillars and the whole edifice collapses. AI is removing all three at once." AI is useful, but I'm not sure AI will remove any of those three things completely. However, I think it will help alleviate them. I also think that locals should be a part of the discussion about where data centers go, and how they fit into the local economy and culture. But, I do think that the framing of the bill resonates with the logic of The Party in 1984, and I get the feeling that disagreeing with a national moratorium that puts a central body in control of it would violate the moral language (Ingsoc) therein.

[image: 1774875171201-0d2d32f8-b958-45d0-b2b5-b411eee26f4a-image.png] Thoughts?

If you were voting in the Indiana Republican Primary in 2026, who would you vote for? Looks the be a very important and interesting one. See this Claude Artifact on the topic.

When I listen to someone like Don Robinson, I hear a very specific, highly educated form of cognitive dissonance. Don is clearly a smart person. He rightly points out particular structural flaws in left-wing thought, such as the shitty nature of bureaucratic overreach, the anti-liberal character of cancel culture, and the hypocrisy that often comes from legacy institutions. These are real problems. But where Don’s reasoning completely breaks down is in his proposed solution. To look at the sluggishness of the bureaucracy in the US and decide that the answer to that is Donald Trump is a fucking catastrophic failure of triage(if the project is indeed a “solution”). It is the equivalent of noticing that you have a termite problem in your house, and deciding to solve it by setting the entire neighborhood on fire. Let’s unpack his core arguments, starting with the idea of Trump as a necessary 'wrecking ball.' Don views Trump’s chaos as a feature, not a bug, which is a pragmatic tool to smash through the gridlock in our institutions. But this exposes his ignorance of how difficult it is to build and maintain the machinery(for lack of a better word) of a functioning civilization, and how easy it is to break it. Our institutions, flawed as they are, are the only things standing between us and the absolute whims and impulses of human apes. Deliberately electing a malignant narcissist to dismantle the 'administrative state' is an act of pure vandalism. You do not improve the engine of a car by throwing a wrench into its gears. Then there is Don’s defense of Trump’s rhetoric. Don plays this very familiar, deeply cynical game where we are told we shouldn't take Trump literally...that his threats against the free press, his praise of autocrats, and his lies about rigged elections are merely 'negotiating tactics' or attempts to 'shift the Overton window.' This is wordplay posing as reasoning. The words of the President of the United States are actions. When a president spends years degrading the public’s trust in the peaceful transfer of power, he is poisoning the software of our democracy. You can’t say his psychological derangement is only on his Twitter account. It infects the entire system. Probably the most astonishing part of Don’s argument is his defense against the 'fascist' label. Don argues that Trump couldn’t possibly be a dictator because he and his administration are simply too disorganized and chaotic to pull it off. Think about the fucking recklessness of this gamble. Don is essentially saying, ‘Yes, we have handed the most powerful office in human history to a man with the emotional maturity of a toddler and the moral compass of a mob boss, but don’t worry, he’s too incompetent to truly destroy the republic.’ Relying on the sheer ineptitude of a malicious person to save us from that person’s worst impulses is not a political strategy. It is a suicide pact. Finally, to address the underlying motivation for DonRobinson’s worldview, which seems rooted in his frustration with the social costs of being a conservative in a left-leaning society. I can have some sympathy for the stifling nature of left-wing ideology in corporate and academic places. But to use the excesses of DEI departments or campus speech codes to justify handing the nuclear codes to a man who actively tried to subvert a democratic election is a complete collapse of perspective. Don is treating politics as a game of aesthetics and anti-elitist resentment. He has convinced himself that he is taking a hard-nosed, pragmatic stance, when in reality, he is engaging in an elaborate psychological rationalization to excuse the inexcusable. He is treating chaos as if it will honor a contract, and history is littered with the tales of people who thought they could control the wrecking ball.

Looking like 2016 all over again, to me. Coming in hot here. What I see is a contradiction, people on both sides say that democracy is on the line, or that that this election could end the republic. I simply disagree with that in principle. I think both candidates are competent leaders, and that the choose represents deeper explanations about power and authority in society. I think there is a large population of well educated, competent people who think that everyone else makes decisions based on how educated and competent that decision makes them look. Those people watch the recent debate (September 10th) liking Harris, they were going to vote for Harris, and they think that Harris won the debate and that winning the debate has brought her closer to securing victory. Then, if you ask those people what she said, and you don't give them access to the internet to check, they won't remember a single talking point (I am not saying you, the reader, I'm sure you know all the talking points). Instead, all they will remember is her laughing at Trump saying that immigrants in Springfield are eating dogs and cats. And people will turn that Trump quote into songs, memes. And all anyone will remember from the debate are the ridiculous things that Trump said, that, while factually dubious, have a hyperbolic thread to reality. There are indeed new immigrants in Springfield, and that represents an influx of ideas, and that causes tension in society. And then to the surprise of the well-educated liberal establishment, Trump will have won the electoral college come November. Just like with Hillary in 2016. She is laughing while a less-perfect conversation between non-intellectuals about a real problem for societies (immigration) is going on. People want a seat at the table. So here's the kicker, I think if he wins in November, he earned it. He'll do an excellent job as president. And, I think he'll leave office, peacefully this time, in 4 years. And further, when people make a decisions, they're choosing an explanation. And I think the explanation that people are choosing with Trump is difficult for Harris supporters to understand because they (not you!) tend to think they're better than less intelligent people. They tend to be pompous, self-righteous, easily outraged and triggered and their scorecard for life is their IQ score. That IQ score, ends up being a justification for force, which can be codified through law and selectively enforced in various ways. In all socialist countries where terrible atrocities have occurred, it was not only legal, but mandated! “The essential notion of a capitalist society... is voluntary cooperation, voluntary exchange. The essential notion of a socialist society is force.” — Milton Friedman