Chad Horne

@streetsblogchi @the48thward @50thWardChicago @ChicagoDPD A 23 story building is a skyscraper now?

Here's a new op-ed by Bob Zuley against a proposed synagogue redevelopment near the Thorndale Red Line station, published by self-proclaimed "King of NIMBYland" Ronald Roenigk's Inside Publications. @the48thward

@ErnestPlacido @Kamelaasa @ChadNotChud Those are certainly words

every time this goes around I’m honestly flabbergasted by this justification for picking “red” everyone won’t do that. like that’s just an empirical fact. moreover the fact that there’s discourse about it should immediately prove that to you. many, many people will choose blue

@JEmCeeKnight @ChadNotChud The way that you save a life is by voting red. Voting blue makes no difference to anything. There are eight billion people on this planet. There is zero chance that one person pushing blue tips the scales

@lchadhorne @ChadNotChud That's a reason to abstain from voting, not to sway your deliberation one way or the other It's a forced vote, so it's irrelevant You can choose to not deliberate, and be random, like the 2 billion kids But if you deliberate you should choose not to increase the killing risk

@JEmCeeKnight @ChadNotChud The key thing to notice is that there is zero chance that my choice will be decisive in terms of whether we reach 50% blue. Zero. So pushing blue is guaranteed to be a waste. If I push red, there is at least a chance that it means one more life is saved.

@lchadhorne @ChadNotChud That's only Game Theory 101, there's lots more to that

@kareem_carr This is wrong. On a planet of 8 billion, my vote will not make the difference as to whether 50% choose blue. So even if I'm an altruist, what happens to everyone is fully out of my control. From my POV, picking blue changes nothing; picking red may save an extra life.

A lot of these game theory problems define “rational” as being a shit person that only cares about their person wellbeing, but a lot of people aren’t like that.

If you press blue, the worst case is you die. If you press red, the worst case is you took part in an action that killed just under half of humanity. Clicking blue minimizes the worst-case moral injury. It says you’d rather die than risk contributing to the death of another.

@artmarkham @rskhm__ @ChadNotChud 😂 you got me there

@lchadhorne @rskhm__ @ChadNotChud Your logic seems to tell you voting is irrational, but still, as I said, the people who vote most get their way. Riddle me this...!

@artmarkham @rskhm__ @ChadNotChud Yeah, but voting is irrational too 😅 Whether enough people push blue to save everyone is basically out of my control. So from my POV, the only thing pushing blue does is potentially add one more person to the death toll if blue doesn't get 50%. Pushing red possibly saves a life

@lchadhorne @rskhm__ @ChadNotChud Kind of, yes. If you can be sure blue is getting 20%, 99% would vote red. But I don't think your vote has to be pivotal, strictly. It's the same kind of logic as voting for political candidates. An individual's vote is never pivotal, yet it's people who vote who get to choose.

@artmarkham @rskhm__ @ChadNotChud Note that even if I am somewhat altruistic, there is still a strategic dimension to the game. An altruist should only push blue if they have reason to believe their vote will be pivotal (an infinitesimally small chance). So pushing red still dominates for all practical purposes.

@lchadhorne @rskhm__ @ChadNotChud The choice of objective is not itself a question for game theory. Reading between the lines, some people seem to mean "if you assume only personal survival is the objective, this is easy in game theory". But it isn't really the objective, so this doesn't get us very far.

@rskhm__ @ChadNotChud Right, if game theory was a different thing, it would tell you a different answer

@JerusalemDemsas @mattyglesias This is the best news

Matt Yglesias and I have been arguing about policy since our days at The Weeds. We agree on a lot -- which makes the disagreements way more interesting. Introducing: The Argument, a new podcast where @mattyglesias and I, well, argue about politics, policy, and whatever else we're interested in that week. Episodes start Thursday, April 9! Subscribe here and watch the trailer below: theargumentmag.com/p/matthew-ygle…

@ChristianHeiens I would like to know what the timeline is here. The US has existed as a liberal society for 250 years. What is the supposed Schmittian alternative, and how long do they typically last?

Schmitt’s entire point was that Liberalism DIDN’T temper the friend/enemy distinction you absolute retard. Liberalism denies the existence of the friend/enemy distinction even as it ruthlessly practices that distinction against those who oppose its own attempt to pretend like existential differences between rival political factions can be treated like a technical puzzle to solve if one simply filters it through enough supposedly “neutral” procedural mechanisms while applying a sufficient amount of flowery rhetoric about pluralism in the process. Except, that doesn’t actually work. The only thing that happens is Liberal societies steadily lose the ability to deal with the possibility of existential conflict until it either blows up, or the least tolerant political faction within the polis destroys the more tolerant ones and monopolizes power in its own hands. You can tweet all you want about how much you hate Schmitt. None of that changes the fact that the Liberal system is dying by its own hands. It cannot say no to things like the dissolving of national borders, the mutilation of children in the name of transgenderism, the mass importation of third worldists and Islamists into Western countries, the systematic discrimination against White men by the state, and a host of other self-defeating policies that will inevitably destroy its own ideological framework. It’s only a matter of time until the acid of Liberalism dissolves its own container.

@actsmaniac People wrongly assume that it is in the ruler's interest for their society to get rich. It's often not. Economic development can upset entrenched interests. That's why those things are easy to describe but hard to implement.

purely technically it's pretty easy to get rich as a nation, you just need rule of law, basic property rights and a functional court system. the weird question is rather why these basic features are so rare on a global scale.

@transgendererer @LinkofSunshine This is actually kind of the thesis of Rem Koolhaas's Delirious New York. The island both isolates the city from the mainland and also forces everything to grow upward instead of spreading out... that frees the city to develop according to its own inner logic

people dont think of it but >50% of NYC's swag comes from being on an island. what's the next coolest city in north america? that's right, montreal, also on an island (what about mexico city, i hear you say? drained island! its that fucking simple!)

@RichardHanania You complain Denmark doesn't "do anything" with Greenland, but you have no ideas for what to do with Greenland. I suspect there's really nothing you can do with a giant sheet of ice, and Denmark's failure to "do anything" is due to that, not anything to do with European malaise

Denmark being so attached to Greenland, while being committed to never doing anything with it, is in miniature form what’s wrong with Europe. They’re just tired of history. richardhanania.com/p/should-ameri…

@GerkenCU98 @Dan_Hope @TomFornelli @TheColbyD @Moneyline_Mac Programs really went in different directions didn't they

@Dan_Hope @TomFornelli One of the most glorious experiences of my life. I can still taste their tears. @TheColbyD @Moneyline_Mac

Ohio State has been shut out in the first half for the first time since its 31-0 loss to Clemson in the 2016 Fiesta Bowl.

@CigsMake Everyone here is trying to explain why "men look different now," but what is really going on is simply that the kind of man who gets cast in TV/movies has changed.

Nobody’s been able to give a real explanation for this phenomenon.

@JoshuaLWatson Robert Goodin's book, Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy

what's the best argument for utilitarianism?