patrick.net

Strategist says

This is really sad. We won't have anyone left to kick around.
Pelosi and Schumer......humiliated.
Democrats.......looking very foolish.
Economy......rebounding like crazy.
Unemployment......Too low to even mention.
China......caving in on trade.
Kim Jong Un.........Running scared.
Pakistan.........no more aid.
Palestinians....no Jerusalem for them.
Iran.......already starting to shiver
----------------
Dear Trump, Where the fuck were you all this time?

Seriously. Politics hasn't been this good since Reagan basically robbed the Democrats of the 80s.

Trump is a true shit stirrer and disruptor. I'm loving this even though I didn't vote for him.

Goran_K says

Seriously. Politics hasn't been this good since Reagan basically robbed the Democrats of the 80s.

Trump is a true shit stirrer and disruptor. I'm loving this even though I didn't vote for him.

I am glad I voted for him. I curse myself for not betting on him financially-would have made a killing at those odds!

lostand confused says

Goran_K says

Seriously. Politics hasn't been this good since Reagan basically robbed the Democrats of the 80s.

Trump is a true shit stirrer and disruptor. I'm loving this even though I didn't vote for him.

I am glad I voted for him. I curse myself for not betting on him financially-would have made a killing at those odds!

I also played Trump too conservatively In the finance department, at least initially. Mistake.

lostand confused says

I am glad I voted for him. I curse myself for not betting on him financially-would have made a killing at those odds!

I seriously under estimated Trump's effect on American politics. He's out maneuvered the Democrats are pretty much every turn. My initial prediction was that Trump might get some things incrementally done (such as weakening ACA), but I never expected him to deliver a roaring economy, tax reform, and outright killing ACA in one fell swoop.

Now he's focusing on illegal immigration reform, and I don't think I'll doubt him again. He's going to get it done.

Goran_K says

Now he's focusing on illegal immigration reform, and I don't think I'll doubt him again. He's going to get it done.

He's got 7 years to do it. It will be done.

I underestimated trump in the campaign, underestimated him in his first year in office.

I’m done underestimating him and won’t bet against him moving forward.

And that Jordan Peterson clip was impressive. How to tame and humiliate a rabid lefty with an agenda and blood coming out of her you know what... eyes

BayArea says

How to tame and humiliate a rabid lefty with an agenda and blood coming out of her you know what... eyes

The best part is she ran full face into it during that last part where Jordan Peterson pointed out that she had been trying to make him uncomfortable, and had been rabidly aggressive during the past 30 minutes, but it was HER RIGHT to risk offending him to debate ideas, instead of not risking being offensive and not debating at all (which is what the left wants).

Her enormous brain fart, and subsequent admitting that she had been logically submitted on live TV was the icing on a very delicious cake.

I am just waiting for him to take on the FBI cabal. Democracy itself is at stake here.

That was a really informative video. We all know feminists are crazy, and I'm sure I wouldn't be able to have that sort of a debate with one as he did. Now granted, most of the time it's not live television and they just yell over you anyway.

Politically, Peterson describes himself as a classic British liberal.
But of course, many right wing people on this board consider radical SJW as a prototypical representation of the left - which is a bit like saying Nazis represent the right.

I listened to a debate between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson in which Harris eviscerated Peterson on his epistemological views.
I think Peterson was trying to include things like Jungian archetypes as a level of "truth" - which may be expected from a clinical psychologist but didn't fare well against raw realism.
Many academics should spend an afternoon with their hands in the grease trying to fix a car engine. This would help them to distinguish more clearly subjective and objective reality.

For those who haven't seen Sam Harris.

Here he is on CNN debating Islamist defender Zakara.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/bZtNpQwcKGs

HS, make no mistake, even with all the Jungian mumbo-jumbo, Peterson's framework is firmly rooted in evolutionary biology. Objective reality from that framework says that as your underlying environment changes, all the material knowledge in the world (just the facts, Sam Harris) won't save your bacon. Watch out for the cat-bird-snake, bucko.

anon_3e01a says

HS, make no mistake, even with all the Jungian mumbo-jumbo, Peterson's framework is firmly rooted in evolutionary biology. Objective reality from that framework says that as your underlying environment changes, all the material knowledge in the world (just the facts, Sam Harris) won't save your bacon. Watch out for the cat-bird-snake, bucko.

Well of course it is.
Let's cut it into layers:
1 - The subjective world: this is first-person experience: Everything we are consciously aware of, including perception, sensations like thirst or pain, and feelings like frustration or love.
2 - the physical world, aka the real world
3 - the behavior of the brain seen as a third person experience.

(1) is pretty much the only thing we can be certain of, however, it is not shared between people.
(2) is a subset of (1) in the way we experience it, but it is more tangible than most other subjective facts. In addition, it is shared between people.
(3) the brain-behavior is part of (2) and should normally also describe (1). Our subjective impressions should be explained by the physiology of the brain and neurons activity.

When you talk about evolutionary psychology, you are talking about (3). And normally Jungian archetype can be understood as (3), but also as (1) (first-person vs third-person).

Now Harris is a moral realist, meaning he tries to understand some subjective notions like well-being as a part of the universe. In a way, his claim is that part of (1) is really obviously shared between humans. For example, we all understand that a woman wearing an Islamic tent is probably not optimal well-being. But I think he really approaches it on layer (3), as a neuroscientist. This is tricky because some notions like pain cannot easily be understood on layer (3). On layer (3) you would see pain as a signal, not as feeling the pain.
Whereas Peterson (I think) was trying to make the claim that part of (1) (outside of the real world) can be understood as truth. Now, maybe this can be done, but this is also tricky because it's not shared between people and not very tangible. The way he presented it was in a Darwinian way: truth is anything that doesn't get you killed. This really doesn't make a whole lot of sense and didn't fly with Harris.

What's even better about Trump is the $50,000 my almost-entirely-index-fund investments have made.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/man-problems-thursday-june-12-2025

A new political science study made the social media rounds yesterday, and its predictable conclusions provided more evidence of something we’ve long known. The researchers found significantly more diversity of thought on the political Right than on the political Left. On the left, diversity is limited to one flavor. Maybe this study got so much attention was its helpful graphic, which showed progressives’ brains hammered into a dense blue dot of conformity:

https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12665




The authors used a ‘network-modeling method’ to map how 396 participants (plus a validation group of 8,280 more) related to 40 different political attitude nodes across eight polarizing political topics (e.g., abortion, gun control, immigration, etc.). The Democrat cluster was tight, uniform, and extreme— centered around strong disagreement with conservative items. The Republican cluster was looser, more spread out, and included a wider range of opinions (from mild to strong agreement).

In other words, Democrats tended to cluster tightly around extreme, uniform beliefs, while Republicans showed a broader spread of agreement, even encompassing some moderate or neutral stances.

The Democrats’ violently enforced ideological rigidity offers short-term benefits: an illusion of unity, clean, consistent messaging, and temporary cohesion. But it comes at a cost. Enforced purity crushes internal debate, stifles innovation, and reduces resilience. Lacking any ability to dissent, an ideologically rigid political group eventually becomes brittle, like glass under pressure.

This always leads to what we can already see happening on the left. Members eat each other in ideological cannibalism. Allies become traitors overnight. Leaders purge party loyalists who were slightly too slow on the latest narrative pivot. Smart, independent-minded people either leave or go silent. Ultimately, the only survivors are ideological enforcers, the passionate, loyal midwits who lack any creativity.

According to social scientists, when reality finally and impolitely intrudes (usually during a crisis), an ossified party either reforms itself, which is very rare, or more likely begins a downward purity spiral, hardening into a coercive apparatus in a desperate bid to retain whatever power remains. That spiral is what usually happens. For instance, see this 2020 headline from Phys.org:

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-history-ideological-purity-spirals-rarely.html

During the French Revolution, as Robespierre and the far-left Jacobins enforced doctrinal purity, they began guillotining their own allies. The Ouroboros-like revolution consumed itself, culminating in a backlash that ushered in Napoleon, a Trump-like, right-wing authoritarian who wrapped himself in revolutionary language.



In sum, culture-war maximalism on the Left always eventually drives centrists and apolitical types into the arms of whomever promises calm, competence, or revenge.

For Democrats, their increasing ideological rigidity is a bad sign for the 2026 midterms. It’s more like a giant blinking warning siren. The study showed the Democrat cluster is anchored around strong agreement to extreme positions, which means the slightest deviation —like moderate views on immigration, vaccines, or sports policy— makes newcomers feel unwelcome. It’s painfully hard to build a coalition or recruit independents that way.

In 2025, the list of ideological demands for “being progressive” has become mind-numbingly long: transgender orthodoxy; race essentialism and DEI dogma; climate apocalypicism; vaccine maximalism; un-nuanced abortion maximalism; “borders are racist” immigration absolutism; mandatory solidarity with Palestine; censorship advocacy; criminal justice radicalism; and privacy-free techno-utopian regulation.

The problem isn’t (only) with any one of those issues; it’s that, to be a democrat in good standing, members must enthusiastically endorse them all. Any disagreement is disqualification. You can’t even be neutral; “silence is complicity.” Nor can you even quietly agree— public affirmation is a mandatory sacred sacrament. (See, e.g., anti-racism.)

A rigid message works for ideological purification but fails for persuasion. If Democrats can’t tolerate nuance or heterodoxy in their own ranks, they certainly can’t court skeptical swing voters without imploding. Seeming decades remain on the political clock till next year’s elections. It is too soon to predict anything with clarity.

But, rather than democrat reform, the odds favor increased infighting and maniacal ousters of moderates in the primaries. In other words: here comes the purity spiral.

ONLY if we deport.

Go look at the Demographics for Zoomers.

Patrick says

https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12665

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/prematurely-friday-june-13-2025-c

Far-left tech billionaire Mark Cuban, a fast-talker who owns the Dallas Mavericks and used to be on Shark Tank, was one of the most prominent BlueSky refugees, landing there with great fanfare earlier this year. Cuban’s tumescent initial post crowed, “Hello Less Hateful World.”

But this week, not even six months later, the lead has dribbled out of Cuban’s pencil. He described the exact purity spiral dynamic I broke down yesterday. “Engagement went from great convos on many topics, to agree with me or you are a nazi fascist,” Cuban wrote. “We are forcing posts to X.”

The progressives can’t even stand each other. Cuban added that he thinks Bluesky users have “grown ruder and more hateful.”

It was the very phenomenon yesterday’s post described. Cuban complained, “Even if you agree with 95% of what a person is saying on a topic, if there is one point that you might call out as being more of a gray area, they will call you a fascist etc.”

Current leftists have absolutely no desire for truth.

The idiots claiming ICE violates constitutions rights have absolutely no clue what they are taking about. They see a video clip depicting a lawful detention or arrest and claim it shows constitutions violations.