I am a proud-ass Minnesotan by the grace of God and Goldy, and I'm hitting the Fair tomorrow with my folks. We will walk ten miles and eat ten thousand calories, and it will be great.
I already read the Strib's 80 new foods article, and this year nothing super grabbed me as a must-do. If I *had* to guess, we'll do the Somali Street Fries and the Bison Meatball Sub as new arrivals.
Regular, every-year-must-do's are the giant egg roll on a stick at Que Viet (near Cooper and Dan Patch), chicken in a waffle cone at Blue Barn (Ligget and Dan Patch), a milkshake at the cattle barn, and a Pronto Pup (anywhere).
We will eat many other things, but these four are absofuckinglutely mandatory. Sorry, Sweet Martha's, those cookies are good but they're not special. The Pronto Pup is special.
I come from strong Minnesotan stock, and have braved the State Fair gladly a few times. The first and only place I ate a deep fried Oreo, and saw a calf be born in the same day. 10/10 experience.
I've been to this fair, and it is special. At other fairs all you ever see are the same old generic carnival food vendors you see everywhere, but not here.
Let me know how the Somali Street Fries are. Somalis have been catching hell online to the point where I've had the thought "damn, chill everybody, I'm sure they have some food that will endear them to us."
This really isn't about Bolton. You don't always see constructive discourse on Bluesky, and I recognize not everyone likes fascism analogies, but I thought these folks' general sentiments were basically right. https://bsky.app/profile/andrewbare.bsky.social/post/3lwywuiavuc2g
But it is kind of about Bolton, right? What's the psychology of these people who keep getting screwed over by the Republican Party but keep voting for it? It's a running joke at this point, all the people that have been personally victimized by the Republican Party's policies or Trump and plan to continue to vote for them. It's not -not- about Bolton, is what I'm saying.
No, it's not about Bolton. The story here is that power is being abused. It doesn't matter if Bolton deserved it on some level, because we should oppose abuses of power as a matter of principle regardless of how sympathetic or unsympathetic the victim is. Every second that's spent focusing on whether or not Bolton deserved it effectively minimizes the abuses of power and diverts attention away from them.
That's not my point at all. I'm not asking whether Bolton "deserves" to be victimized because he supported Trump, whatever that means. I'm asking why he supports Trump even though he is victimized, because an answer would be interesting to me.
BARI WEISS AND THE FAILING FREE PRESS ARE CROOKED CROOKED CROOKED TEY ARE LYING TO YOU ABOUT TRANS SPORTS MATTERING, AND IGNORING THE EVIL DONALD JOHN TRUMP WHO ATTEMPTED A COUP AND JUST SICCED THE FBI ON A GREAT AMERICAN PATRIOT JOHN BOLTON
The FP doesn't post breaking news stories (and hasn't posted anything since the Bolton thing happened) and Bari hasn't tweeted anything about anything since yesterday. I do not understand the compulsion to make the story about one minor centrist news outlet's editorial decisions.
(Feel free to insert whatever throat-clearing you need here about how I'm not an FP subscriber, Bari superfan, whatever)
She was a free speech advocate when it was about people getting canceled on Twitter. When it's about actual government action in the real world? What, Twitter isn't real life?
Surely, this attempt to establish a "progressive media ecosystem" will succeed where the other 837 or so failed.
Why spend $30 million to support dowballot candidates who can help flip state legislatures blue or win mayoral and sherriffs races in red counties when you can pay influencers $30 million to tell their anti-Trump listeners and readers that they think Trump is bad?
1) It pays to try a lot of different things with low probability of success but high potential upside. Eventually (hopefully) a couple of them will bear fruit and you can funnel further investment into those projects. That's the standard play for venture capitalists.
2) Social media has become the new media. Cable usage down, app usage is up. TikTok has 150 million users in the US. Trump and Elon executed a social media focused strategy in 2024. Mamdani used a social media strategy and won the NYC primary largely off the back of youth (like early 30s) turnout. Social media skeptics are starting to sound a lot like powered flight skeptics around the turn of the (previous) century.
What upside? There's already lots of progressive media organizations and influencers out there right now and journalists, academics, late-night talk show hosts, and celebrities are overwhelmingly liberal/progressive. If all that couldn't prevent 2 Trump terms, what is another MSNBC or Vox or Crooked Media going to accomplish?
2 of those 3 didn't even exist in 2010. Either way, these things not being very popular should be a clue.
Though I'm sure this venture supported by Steve Kerr, who's outspoken progressivism always seemed to stop short when to came to issues that affected his paycheck like democracy in China or Draymond Green assaulting players on the court, will surely be different.
I think you might be projecting. I'm just pointing out that it will obviously fail at its stated goal. It might successful in making its investors a decent chunk of money, though, so I guess that's something.
All depends on how it’s spent. If it ends up fueling more of the same old same old echo chamber, vetted and approved by cautious, donor-adjacent staff, then yes, you are right. If it’s seed money spread around broadly to encourage a variety of voices trying strange new things, I think that’s good and promising.
Any criticism is pointed at the people involved with the venture, not you for pointing bringing it up. If anything, I'm thankful that you did mention it so that more people will be aware it was tried when it inevitably fails to move the needle.
As an anecdotal example, my brother and some of his friends are young, non-college-educated non-voters and while I don't know what will exactly compel them to vote, I do know that thinly-veiled partisan political content (progressive or conservative) will not do the trick.
Yes, let's spend a lot of money on messaging instead of, you know, actually moderating on positions that most of the US agrees with, like trans sports, immigration, and crime. Dems need to take the L on those issues and reconsider their position. I'm pro-trans, pro-legal immigration, and anti-crime, but I want to win.
Say what you will about Trump's awfulness, but he does use executive orders to get what he wants, and that reads to the general public as getting shit done.
First of all, I agree with you that these words sound hella weird and off-putting. “Justice-involved”? SMH.
Second of all, thank you for example number eleventy of “normie Democrats are judged by what the fringiest woke activist posts on Bluesky.”
I read the list and, with few exceptions like “cisgender” and “patriarchy,” I can hardly see any of these “in the wild” nowadays. A lot of them were popular in the heyday of wokeness, like, 2020 or so, but have since mostly gone away; a few were never common; “person who immigrated” is one I’d never seen before.
This comment section won't be happy until there is nobody popular on any social media anywhere saying anything 1% to the left of the median non-college educated swing voter in Wisconsin on cultural issues at a minimum, no Democrat anywhere should associate, stand next too, or say positive things about anybody 1% to the left of the median non-college educated swing voter.
Sincere answer: I haven’t heard BIPOC in a while, and the others I have heard, but much, much more rarely than during the 2020-ish woke discourse peak.
Still, I like the memo, and it wouldn't be bad to publicly punch some people on Bluesky by saying "WE REJECT YOUR WORDS, WHICH ARE SILLY AND CONSTITUTE FOOLISHNESS AND NONSENSE!"
I know centrists are desperate for a Sister Souljahing and dream about it nightly but even if it did happen, the voters you think need to see it (outside of centrists who'd erupt in joyous celebration) would never see it because their algos would never show them it.
"Centrists" are desperate to win elections. Others seem perfectly content to let Trump and the GOP run the country as long as Democrats supply a steady stream of dopamine hits on social media for very-online progressives.
What if you get your precious Sister Souljahing and the actual Democratic primary voters decide to support the person being SIster Souljah'd, like we just saw w/ Mamadani and Israel?
Except this isn't just coming from crackpots on the internet. Everywhere that's governed by democrats has this kind of language written into actual laws and governance.
There are two configurations of complex life. One where is a long tube with an in hole and out hole, and then one where the in hole is also the out hole.
Conservatives are sensitive to anything that sounds like they're being hassled by HR. That's why DEI became a slur. Heuristic might have become associated with diversity training seminars, e.g. "A good heuristic for avoiding microaggressions is to respect personal boundaries."
A generous welfare state and open borders cannot coexist for any meaningful period of time. A) There is not enough money and B) It will inevitably piss-off the people the welfare state was designed for.
The irony I always find with this statement with regard to the US is that high levels of immigration have been a cheat code to help fund the welfare state.
The rurals believe that immigrants get undeserved Social Security benefits... Though as Elon discovered those gainfully employed 115 year-olds seem to continue paying into SS.
Between legal and illegal immigrants, there is like, what, ~70 million non-Americans in the country? Increasing that number to ~90 million probably would not cause major fiscal problems, but it would probably cause more cultural backlash.
We’re at roughly the same peak of foreign-born as when MY people came here.
Do we need some consolidation? Sure!
But a significantly higher legal cap would have made ALL of this a LOT easier to manage.
Restrictionism is like being that fignorant fucking soccer mom or old lady who drives 40-50 on the highway for fear they’ll get in an accident, and all they’re accomplishing is DRAMATICALLY increasing the likelihood that they’ll CAUSE an accident.
I’m sorry, this is just not a serious approach to the problem of excess immigration.
Adding the 10-15 million illegal immigrants (the best estimates I know of) mean the total number of non-Americans in the country is close to 65-70 million.
Yes, more legal immigration, especially of high-skill and highly motivated immigrants, would be better for the country. But a lot (most?) of the country doesn't believe so. And they (including me) especially don't believe in open borders.
You’re misunderstanding that statistic around US visa holders. A visa just gives someone the right to enter the US, but it does not mean they are currently in the US or that they are allowed to stay in the US for an extended period of time. I currently have a 10-year multi entry Chinese tourist visa. I live in the US. It just means I can visit China for up to 60 days without having to reapply for anything.
About 12.8 million green card holders live in the United States, according to the latest estimates from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics.Mar 22, 2025
Oh, cultural backlash is a different issue, but no I don't think more immigrants would cause major fiscal issues at all in the way anti-immigration people claim.
On a side note, anybody who is living in America and wants to be here long-term is an American in my view. Some researcher from Estonia who nonetheless wants to make a life in America isn't non-American in my view just because they only have a green card at the moment.
We've never had anything remotely resembling "open borders" (ie, no barriers to immigration) in the United States, so, while it's true the two don't mix, it's only *trivially* true in the US.
And the closest thing the US has occasionally experienced wrt "open borders"—the episodic spikes in inflows of migrants (late 90s, early 20s, etc)—are actually *conducive* to the operation of a welfare state, because these pulses stimulate growth, hold down inflation, and fill our tax coffers—all the while placing minimal demands on the US safety net (illegal immigrants are not covered by Social Security, Medicare and sundry other programs).
Good piece laying out the ridiculousness of judicial review in the UK- where it technically shouldn't even exist, as they have parliamentary sovereignty. Somewhat incredibly their judiciary is continuing to push the bounds of their power, including arguing with the very concept that Parliament is sovereign- and hinting that they'll disregard future laws as they see fit. (While Britain does not have one constitutional document per se, it's a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, which their judges use to issue increasingly bizarre decisions). Anyways, a good read (archive.is link included), and another example of how judicial review is both fake and a power grab by unelected lawyers
The House of Lords doesn't even have judicial functions anymore! What use is the Lord Chancellor?! A travesty against justice, I say this is! A travesty!
Thoughts about the Bruenig-Piper debate in The Argument:
Overall, it strikes me that the biggest difference between the variety of contexts where we know that cash transfers are highly efficacious (GiveDirectly transfers in Kenya, Bolsa Familia in Brazil, the Nordic welfare state examples that Breunig cites, the effects of CTC expansion in 2021 in the US) and the UBI RCTs that Piper cites is scope.
In the efficacious interventions, the recipient *and most of the similarly situated people the recipient knew* got a transfer. Even GiveDirectly, which can’t scale to universal programs, generally gives money in village-level blocks (because they want to avoid accidentally creating social strife). The UBI RCTs, by contrast, mostly targeted individuals within communities which remained mostly unaffected by the program (often by design so that there was a more unambiguous control group.)
I have two hypotheses about why this distinction might matter:
1– Transfer leakage through social networks. If you receive a windfall and your family and friends, who are statistically likely to be mostly poor, don’t, they’re likely to hit you up for cash— creating a volatile and significant new expense stream. Ironically, the people who are conscientious and psychologically well-adjusted enough to make the best use of cash transfers are also probably among the most likely to both have dense social networks and comply with the social obligation to share. (This creates a counterintuitive case for in-kind transfers when you can’t distribute cash universally— they’re harder to appropriate)
2– Universal or community-level transfers create macro or meso-economic stimulus effects are more than the sum of their parts (basically, Keynesianism)
I think that Matt was closer to getting this, but his lack of real interest in the international development interventions prevented him from drawing the connection. Overall, I found the exchange stimulating even though Piper and Bruenig talked past each other sometimes; hope to see more of this kind of content from The Argument. (Good for Jerusalem Desmas.)
In another crushing defeat for YIMBYs, NIMBYs successfully used environmental challenges to get a judge to stop things being built:
Florida must stop construction at an immigration detention center in the remote Everglades for 14 days, a federal judge ruled on Thursday, granting at least a temporary victory to environmentalists who say the facility has the potential to cause serious harm to sensitive wetlands and endangered species.
The order is temporary, giving the judge time to complete a hearing in the case, which was filed in June by several environmental groups. They argue that the project to build the facility, which is run by the state but houses federal immigration detainees, went ahead without first completing an environmental review required by federal law. The groups are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop operations and construction at the center.
I have a personal announcement! I'm pregnant and due to give birth on September 13. I am extraordinarily lucky to have a (so far; knock on wood) a healthy pregnancy at 43!
I also realized that I never organized that Slow Boring SoCal meetup I promised, and once I give birth, my brain will be utterly fried from sleep deprivation and I will be no good at intelligent conversation.
So:
I'm going to be at the University Town Center, 4100-4255 Campus Drive, Irvine, CA next Saturday (August 30) at noon. There's an outdoor seating area between the boba place, the ramen place, and Gogi Korean Grill. I'll be sitting at one of the tables. (For anyone familiar with UC Irvine, it's across the walk bridge from the UCI campus.)
I realize this is very short notice, and it's Labor Day weekend. But I'm down to 3 weeks, and the further back I push it, the higher the risk of "oops, baby made her appearance early, gotta scrap the meetup." And I do want to have a meetup, the last one in Long Beach was fun! This location is close to my home, so if nobody shows up, don't feel bad, I'll just sit there and read a book and then go home. But if you do want to come, please let me know!
If you haven't met me in person, I'm a tall, visibly pregnant woman with long brown hair, and I'll have my son's stuffed toy octopus with me.
Anyhow, it's been kind of surreal following all the "declining fertility rates" discourse on SB the past few months while I've been pregnant with my second all along, but I didn't want to reveal it prematurely, because I didn't want to jinx it. This is considered a geriatric and hence high-risk pregnancy. But now that I'm at 37 weeks, even if the baby were born tomorrow (please no) she would likely be okay.
I would really recommend watching the new South Park season, because even only three episodes in it's been outstanding in just slamming the world of shit that Trump voters have put us all in. They retain one of their extreme strengths in being able to create new episodes so quickly so they can keep so timely and topical with the latest news.
And on that note, I have an etiquette question to ask all Slow Borers: what should the rule on spoilers be on here? Unforunately there is no styling tags to hide spoilers. I'd love to discuss cool things in the episodes, but I also don't want to ruin it for people who haven't seen it yet but want to.
Just my $0.02, but if you write “SPOILERS” in all caps and then put a few blank lines before the actual spoiler, it will be all right. If anyone still reads the spoiler, that’s on them.
Of course, if you want to be extra scrupulous, you could always write the spoiler in rot13. The posters on Astral Codex Ten regularly do this.
Words/phrases I would retain as useful, although not necessarily in the political sense: triggering, Overton window (does this even get used beyond political wonks?) stakeholders.
Words/phrases I would prioritize launching deep into escape velocity: existential threat, person who immigrated (and all this exhaustive "person first" bullshit", incarcerated people (heh, this is *not* person first, but still an unnecessary syllabic assault), and above all, birthing person and BIPOC (the latter of which I remember Matt getting raked over the coals by his Vox colleagues when he dared question the coining of the acronym on Twitter).
What I personally find really funny is that I was told recently that "stakeholder" is technically a bad word because it invokes the seizing of land from Native Americans or something. "Community Partner" is I guess the better phrase. I know that no real-life human being has been offended by the term because those who told me this still frequently trip up and use stakeholder because it's a fine word!
I totally agree that anyone who is in the job of being popular among median voters should avoid saying the excessively cringe phrases like "birthing person". But I fear that the problem isn't that Josh Shapiro is going to say those words, it's that some college student will in an esoteric poorly shot vertical video that will make its way to Fox News primetime at which point 'all Democrats = weirdo language police' gets communicated without the consent of liberals. It's a losing battle?
Honestly, a decent amount of heterodox center-left writers, Matt included, carry water for this and act like the verbal quirks of the most hyper-online left are Democratic party line - think of how the CSDM had a whole entry about abandoning word policing, using "unhoused" and "chest-feeding" as examples of neurotic Dem overreach. But even the far left isn't policing anyone into using those words; I work in homeless aid and no one's ever been disciplined or even corrected at my org for saying someone's homeless or an addict. It's microscopic skirmishes that the right wing is running with to show that Dems are humorless nitpicky scolds, and annoyed hippie-punchers are amplifying those small foibles and disputes and elevating them as representative of the whole left. The woke left doesn't need more help looking bad!
Maybe I'm the one billionth person to say it, but there is a lot of truth that when there are 30 people on the internet being really mean to you it feels like a lot and can be really hurtful.
A huge problem with centralized social media is that the world's 30 most always-online, miserable, neurotic, assholes will find you in a way that was impossible until very recently, and unlike in real life they work in shifts to be bullies 24/7.
30 years ago, the weirdos who's #1 issue was language policing "chest feeding" were just anti-social outcasts, 20 years ago they found each other and rambled on isolated forums, 10 years ago they now get to bully as a pack anyone who joined Twitter for their job.
Be that as it may, if you’re a political pundit who wants the Democrats to win, isn’t it more responsible to not present those 30 people (or some tiny non-profit’s website language, or some cringe college kid) as more prevalent and more prominent than they are on your side? And has there ever been a mob online going after Matt over “chest feeding” or “unhoused”, or is this all hypothetical bogeyman?
Honestly, I think this is something where did the centrists dislike the leftists want a reason to openly fight.
You can just not use those words and if asked, say you don't use the words and move on. Like, one reason it seems like the Democrat is involved in a civil war over wokeness or whatever is some centrists seemingly want the fight more than they want to fight Trump and its not helping them among normie Democratic voters.
Not to be a pedant, but I was genuinely confused by the “eight New England states” reference, since there are only 6 such states. For those interested, the states that met were 5 of the 6 New England states (all except NH), plus NY, NJ, and PA.
Ain't no mistake. Being from the west allows you the proper perspective on trivial points that don't matter, like how many states are allegedly "New England" states.
Once the US annexes Canada, would Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland count as New England states as well? Quebec seems right out even though geographically it seems appropriate, though.
Also Hacks is amazing, and it's trans-generational and such (I'm an old Millennial) but I very much identify with Ava simply having enough in season 3, I think a lot of us have been there (also it's hilarious) and shows how Deborah isn't as cold hearted as she tells herself she is, somewhere in there is a good person
THIS IS THE MOMENT I WAS RAISED FOR
I am a proud-ass Minnesotan by the grace of God and Goldy, and I'm hitting the Fair tomorrow with my folks. We will walk ten miles and eat ten thousand calories, and it will be great.
I already read the Strib's 80 new foods article, and this year nothing super grabbed me as a must-do. If I *had* to guess, we'll do the Somali Street Fries and the Bison Meatball Sub as new arrivals.
Regular, every-year-must-do's are the giant egg roll on a stick at Que Viet (near Cooper and Dan Patch), chicken in a waffle cone at Blue Barn (Ligget and Dan Patch), a milkshake at the cattle barn, and a Pronto Pup (anywhere).
We will eat many other things, but these four are absofuckinglutely mandatory. Sorry, Sweet Martha's, those cookies are good but they're not special. The Pronto Pup is special.
Bless your heart.
That's southern shit. We say "That's different."
I come from strong Minnesotan stock, and have braved the State Fair gladly a few times. The first and only place I ate a deep fried Oreo, and saw a calf be born in the same day. 10/10 experience.
The Minnesota -> PNW pipeline is real
Seriously jealous. I may need to try to make my on fawaffle…
Hey, Marie! Good to see you.
I believe the correct term is “You betcha”.
"the giant egg roll on a stick"
Please explain.
I've been to this fair, and it is special. At other fairs all you ever see are the same old generic carnival food vendors you see everywhere, but not here.
The Maple Bacon on a stick at the Texas State Fair was excellent. I would look for that if they have something like it.
Let me know how the Somali Street Fries are. Somalis have been catching hell online to the point where I've had the thought "damn, chill everybody, I'm sure they have some food that will endear them to us."
So...Bolton.
I assume Bari Weiss is frothing at the mouth that the president is raiding the homes of those who dare to criticism him? #freespeach
Bolton voted for him. After every derogatory word he said, he also said he'd vote for him over Harris. So good for you, Bolton! Suck it.
He said he was going to write in Dick Cheney, but then Cheney endorsed Harris and he said he was thinking of writing in Ronald Reagan. What a tool.
This really isn't about Bolton. You don't always see constructive discourse on Bluesky, and I recognize not everyone likes fascism analogies, but I thought these folks' general sentiments were basically right. https://bsky.app/profile/andrewbare.bsky.social/post/3lwywuiavuc2g
https://bsky.app/profile/amerthkj1.bsky.social/post/3lwyyoux6rs2e
But it is kind of about Bolton, right? What's the psychology of these people who keep getting screwed over by the Republican Party but keep voting for it? It's a running joke at this point, all the people that have been personally victimized by the Republican Party's policies or Trump and plan to continue to vote for them. It's not -not- about Bolton, is what I'm saying.
No, it's not about Bolton. The story here is that power is being abused. It doesn't matter if Bolton deserved it on some level, because we should oppose abuses of power as a matter of principle regardless of how sympathetic or unsympathetic the victim is. Every second that's spent focusing on whether or not Bolton deserved it effectively minimizes the abuses of power and diverts attention away from them.
That's not my point at all. I'm not asking whether Bolton "deserves" to be victimized because he supported Trump, whatever that means. I'm asking why he supports Trump even though he is victimized, because an answer would be interesting to me.
Amen.
I will not sit still for injustice against Ambassador John Bolton OR HIS MOUSTACHE!!
Forget what Matt says. If the Feds shave Bolton's moustache, I'm officially panicking.
When do amoral identitarian grifters froth at the mouth at anything that doesn't make them money?
BARI WEISS AND THE FAILING FREE PRESS ARE CROOKED CROOKED CROOKED TEY ARE LYING TO YOU ABOUT TRANS SPORTS MATTERING, AND IGNORING THE EVIL DONALD JOHN TRUMP WHO ATTEMPTED A COUP AND JUST SICCED THE FBI ON A GREAT AMERICAN PATRIOT JOHN BOLTON
David. Have you been into the cooking sherry?
SIR, I am a grown ass adult fully capable of buying my own box wine.
Somebody’s giving Governor Newsom a run for his money!
Okay last one.
C'mon, blood! You gotta put the punchline in the same comment or it isn't funny.
I mean it is corrupt, personalising power and abuse of process but it isn't really a Free Speech issue.
He's being specifically targeted because he publicly criticized dear leader. That is the only free speech issue there ever was or ever will be.
What do you consider a true "free speech" issue?
Attacks on journalists, writers based on their opinions and public writings not based on personal animus.
The precipitating motherfucking issue was that he wrote a motherfucking BOOK.
A book that, y’know, went to a PRESS.
Wut
The FP doesn't post breaking news stories (and hasn't posted anything since the Bolton thing happened) and Bari hasn't tweeted anything about anything since yesterday. I do not understand the compulsion to make the story about one minor centrist news outlet's editorial decisions.
(Feel free to insert whatever throat-clearing you need here about how I'm not an FP subscriber, Bari superfan, whatever)
What’s the deal with Bari Weiss for those of us just joining?
She was a free speech advocate when it was about people getting canceled on Twitter. When it's about actual government action in the real world? What, Twitter isn't real life?
IOW she's a bog-standard right winger (as if that wasn't obvious from the getgo).
Audience capture. The readership of The Free Press is convinced the Democrats are minions of the Antichrist.
She's a partisan Republican who pretends to be motivated by things other than partisanship.
Bari is a man? My whole worldview is in danger here.
Surely, this attempt to establish a "progressive media ecosystem" will succeed where the other 837 or so failed.
Why spend $30 million to support dowballot candidates who can help flip state legislatures blue or win mayoral and sherriffs races in red counties when you can pay influencers $30 million to tell their anti-Trump listeners and readers that they think Trump is bad?
1) It pays to try a lot of different things with low probability of success but high potential upside. Eventually (hopefully) a couple of them will bear fruit and you can funnel further investment into those projects. That's the standard play for venture capitalists.
2) Social media has become the new media. Cable usage down, app usage is up. TikTok has 150 million users in the US. Trump and Elon executed a social media focused strategy in 2024. Mamdani used a social media strategy and won the NYC primary largely off the back of youth (like early 30s) turnout. Social media skeptics are starting to sound a lot like powered flight skeptics around the turn of the (previous) century.
What upside? There's already lots of progressive media organizations and influencers out there right now and journalists, academics, late-night talk show hosts, and celebrities are overwhelmingly liberal/progressive. If all that couldn't prevent 2 Trump terms, what is another MSNBC or Vox or Crooked Media going to accomplish?
It's not 2010 anymore and none of those things are as popular as you think they are.
2 of those 3 didn't even exist in 2010. Either way, these things not being very popular should be a clue.
Though I'm sure this venture supported by Steve Kerr, who's outspoken progressivism always seemed to stop short when to came to issues that affected his paycheck like democracy in China or Draymond Green assaulting players on the court, will surely be different.
You're very upset over not a lot of money.
I think you might be projecting. I'm just pointing out that it will obviously fail at its stated goal. It might successful in making its investors a decent chunk of money, though, so I guess that's something.
All depends on how it’s spent. If it ends up fueling more of the same old same old echo chamber, vetted and approved by cautious, donor-adjacent staff, then yes, you are right. If it’s seed money spread around broadly to encourage a variety of voices trying strange new things, I think that’s good and promising.
Any criticism is pointed at the people involved with the venture, not you for pointing bringing it up. If anything, I'm thankful that you did mention it so that more people will be aware it was tried when it inevitably fails to move the needle.
As an anecdotal example, my brother and some of his friends are young, non-college-educated non-voters and while I don't know what will exactly compel them to vote, I do know that thinly-veiled partisan political content (progressive or conservative) will not do the trick.
Yes, let's spend a lot of money on messaging instead of, you know, actually moderating on positions that most of the US agrees with, like trans sports, immigration, and crime. Dems need to take the L on those issues and reconsider their position. I'm pro-trans, pro-legal immigration, and anti-crime, but I want to win.
Say what you will about Trump's awfulness, but he does use executive orders to get what he wants, and that reads to the general public as getting shit done.
Third Way gets it right in this memo outlining words and phrases normal people simply do not say: https://www.thirdway.org/memo/was-it-something-i-said
Every Democrat should be required to recite this memo line for line, FIFTY TIMES.
Sigh.
First of all, I agree with you that these words sound hella weird and off-putting. “Justice-involved”? SMH.
Second of all, thank you for example number eleventy of “normie Democrats are judged by what the fringiest woke activist posts on Bluesky.”
I read the list and, with few exceptions like “cisgender” and “patriarchy,” I can hardly see any of these “in the wild” nowadays. A lot of them were popular in the heyday of wokeness, like, 2020 or so, but have since mostly gone away; a few were never common; “person who immigrated” is one I’d never seen before.
This comment section won't be happy until there is nobody popular on any social media anywhere saying anything 1% to the left of the median non-college educated swing voter in Wisconsin on cultural issues at a minimum, no Democrat anywhere should associate, stand next too, or say positive things about anybody 1% to the left of the median non-college educated swing voter.
But wait, may I associate, and say positive things about myself?
I can't start next to myself without some kind of out of body experience so that's fine.
You haven't heard these words recently: privileged, violence, othering, microagression, Latinx, BIPOC, or intersectionality?
Maybe because I teach college, but I hear and read these terms all the time, especially on Substack.
Sincere answer: I haven’t heard BIPOC in a while, and the others I have heard, but much, much more rarely than during the 2020-ish woke discourse peak.
Fair enough.
Plenty of Biden appointees used words like these in congressional testimony and official communications.
Still, I like the memo, and it wouldn't be bad to publicly punch some people on Bluesky by saying "WE REJECT YOUR WORDS, WHICH ARE SILLY AND CONSTITUTE FOOLISHNESS AND NONSENSE!"
I know centrists are desperate for a Sister Souljahing and dream about it nightly but even if it did happen, the voters you think need to see it (outside of centrists who'd erupt in joyous celebration) would never see it because their algos would never show them it.
"Centrists" are desperate to win elections. Others seem perfectly content to let Trump and the GOP run the country as long as Democrats supply a steady stream of dopamine hits on social media for very-online progressives.
Then we will force them to see it. Everyone will be made to see.
What if you get your precious Sister Souljahing and the actual Democratic primary voters decide to support the person being SIster Souljah'd, like we just saw w/ Mamadani and Israel?
Then they would be wrong and in dire need of correction, as they often are.
When a racial group hates a demonym the way Latinos hate "Latinx", it's frankly rude to keep calling them that
Except this isn't just coming from crackpots on the internet. Everywhere that's governed by democrats has this kind of language written into actual laws and governance.
Chest Feeding? That sounds like how an alien race feeds its anthropoid spawn.
My absolutely favorite, and I don’t think it’s on the list, is “front hole” and “back hole.” Yes, they are what you think they are.
Sweet lord
🤦
There are two configurations of complex life. One where is a long tube with an in hole and out hole, and then one where the in hole is also the out hole.
“Chest feeding” makes me think of the chest bursting xenomorph from “Alien.” Not great in the context of lovingly nourishing one’s baby!
Can we please stop the anti social nerds from taking over the party again? 😂
It's like when milk producers tried to force plant-based milks to call their product "nut juice". Literally negative advertising themselves.
I love this list.
Signed,
An inseminated person.
Heuristic and postmodern are perfectly fine.
Stakeholders is management-speak, and you may be surprised that it is also under attack from the other direction.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/05/07/should-we-stop-using-the-word-stakeholder-in-research/
Conservatives are sensitive to anything that sounds like they're being hassled by HR. That's why DEI became a slur. Heuristic might have become associated with diversity training seminars, e.g. "A good heuristic for avoiding microaggressions is to respect personal boundaries."
Love it
But sadly don't think it's gonna matter
https://x.com/asymmetricinfo/status/1958910219838530036
A generous welfare state and open borders cannot coexist for any meaningful period of time. A) There is not enough money and B) It will inevitably piss-off the people the welfare state was designed for.
The irony I always find with this statement with regard to the US is that high levels of immigration have been a cheat code to help fund the welfare state.
The rurals believe that immigrants get undeserved Social Security benefits... Though as Elon discovered those gainfully employed 115 year-olds seem to continue paying into SS.
What are the actual figures on the fiscal impact?
Agree, but high levels of immigration are not the same as open borders, or unfettered immigration.
True, but there is plenty of immigration happening under the table.
I don't think many people realize that. Hence, my point B).
I mean, totally open borders, sure.
But, 25-35% more liberal than we have been for the past 40 years? Not really.
Between legal and illegal immigrants, there is like, what, ~70 million non-Americans in the country? Increasing that number to ~90 million probably would not cause major fiscal problems, but it would probably cause more cultural backlash.
Dude. AYFKM?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1#Demography
We’re at roughly the same peak of foreign-born as when MY people came here.
Do we need some consolidation? Sure!
But a significantly higher legal cap would have made ALL of this a LOT easier to manage.
Restrictionism is like being that fignorant fucking soccer mom or old lady who drives 40-50 on the highway for fear they’ll get in an accident, and all they’re accomplishing is DRAMATICALLY increasing the likelihood that they’ll CAUSE an accident.
I’m sorry, this is just not a serious approach to the problem of excess immigration.
The State Department just reported there are ~55 million visa holders in America: https://www.axios.com/2025/08/22/trump-us-visas-immigration-vetting-deport
Adding the 10-15 million illegal immigrants (the best estimates I know of) mean the total number of non-Americans in the country is close to 65-70 million.
Yes, more legal immigration, especially of high-skill and highly motivated immigrants, would be better for the country. But a lot (most?) of the country doesn't believe so. And they (including me) especially don't believe in open borders.
You’re misunderstanding that statistic around US visa holders. A visa just gives someone the right to enter the US, but it does not mean they are currently in the US or that they are allowed to stay in the US for an extended period of time. I currently have a 10-year multi entry Chinese tourist visa. I live in the US. It just means I can visit China for up to 60 days without having to reapply for anything.
I looked this up and that's not correct.
There are 55 million visa holders.
Most of them not in America right now, they just have visas.
Actual number seems to be about 16.4, or < 1/3 the claimed number.
And remember that includes green card holders, which is the majority of those in the US (though not the majority of all visa holders)
Are There 55 Million Visa Holders in the US? What to Know - Newsweek https://share.google/UGAxzmiki7fhF47TF
Or from CNN
About 12.8 million green card holders live in the United States, according to the latest estimates from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics.Mar 22, 2025
And maybe 3.6 on other visas, like tourists.
It's amazing how many people saw the number and didn't think to do even a basic sanity check. 'Is every 6th person in the U.S. on a visa'? Sigh...
Open borders made this country great. Period.
The *Trump-Run* State Department.
Interesting how their numbers differ so much.
Oh, cultural backlash is a different issue, but no I don't think more immigrants would cause major fiscal issues at all in the way anti-immigration people claim.
On a side note, anybody who is living in America and wants to be here long-term is an American in my view. Some researcher from Estonia who nonetheless wants to make a life in America isn't non-American in my view just because they only have a green card at the moment.
Yes, but how can he be an American if he doesn't spit on the Declaration and his ancestors didn't fight for the Confederacy?
We've never had anything remotely resembling "open borders" (ie, no barriers to immigration) in the United States, so, while it's true the two don't mix, it's only *trivially* true in the US.
And the closest thing the US has occasionally experienced wrt "open borders"—the episodic spikes in inflows of migrants (late 90s, early 20s, etc)—are actually *conducive* to the operation of a welfare state, because these pulses stimulate growth, hold down inflation, and fill our tax coffers—all the while placing minimal demands on the US safety net (illegal immigrants are not covered by Social Security, Medicare and sundry other programs).
The US basically had open borders for the first century of its existence.
Good piece laying out the ridiculousness of judicial review in the UK- where it technically shouldn't even exist, as they have parliamentary sovereignty. Somewhat incredibly their judiciary is continuing to push the bounds of their power, including arguing with the very concept that Parliament is sovereign- and hinting that they'll disregard future laws as they see fit. (While Britain does not have one constitutional document per se, it's a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, which their judges use to issue increasingly bizarre decisions). Anyways, a good read (archive.is link included), and another example of how judicial review is both fake and a power grab by unelected lawyers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/16/how-judges-came-to-rule-britain/
https://archive.is/bCNZI
The House of Lords doesn't even have judicial functions anymore! What use is the Lord Chancellor?! A travesty against justice, I say this is! A travesty!
Everything I learn about Britain nowadays just makes me more confused. It's as if anybody with a plan has already fled the country.
Thoughts about the Bruenig-Piper debate in The Argument:
Overall, it strikes me that the biggest difference between the variety of contexts where we know that cash transfers are highly efficacious (GiveDirectly transfers in Kenya, Bolsa Familia in Brazil, the Nordic welfare state examples that Breunig cites, the effects of CTC expansion in 2021 in the US) and the UBI RCTs that Piper cites is scope.
In the efficacious interventions, the recipient *and most of the similarly situated people the recipient knew* got a transfer. Even GiveDirectly, which can’t scale to universal programs, generally gives money in village-level blocks (because they want to avoid accidentally creating social strife). The UBI RCTs, by contrast, mostly targeted individuals within communities which remained mostly unaffected by the program (often by design so that there was a more unambiguous control group.)
I have two hypotheses about why this distinction might matter:
1– Transfer leakage through social networks. If you receive a windfall and your family and friends, who are statistically likely to be mostly poor, don’t, they’re likely to hit you up for cash— creating a volatile and significant new expense stream. Ironically, the people who are conscientious and psychologically well-adjusted enough to make the best use of cash transfers are also probably among the most likely to both have dense social networks and comply with the social obligation to share. (This creates a counterintuitive case for in-kind transfers when you can’t distribute cash universally— they’re harder to appropriate)
2– Universal or community-level transfers create macro or meso-economic stimulus effects are more than the sum of their parts (basically, Keynesianism)
I think that Matt was closer to getting this, but his lack of real interest in the international development interventions prevented him from drawing the connection. Overall, I found the exchange stimulating even though Piper and Bruenig talked past each other sometimes; hope to see more of this kind of content from The Argument. (Good for Jerusalem Desmas.)
In another crushing defeat for YIMBYs, NIMBYs successfully used environmental challenges to get a judge to stop things being built:
Florida must stop construction at an immigration detention center in the remote Everglades for 14 days, a federal judge ruled on Thursday, granting at least a temporary victory to environmentalists who say the facility has the potential to cause serious harm to sensitive wetlands and endangered species.
The order is temporary, giving the judge time to complete a hearing in the case, which was filed in June by several environmental groups. They argue that the project to build the facility, which is run by the state but houses federal immigration detainees, went ahead without first completing an environmental review required by federal law. The groups are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop operations and construction at the center.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/07/us/alligator-alcatraz-florida-construction.html?searchResultPosition=5
Now where are those people supposed to go? Back to their families and jobs?
Probably put them in tents
This really was amusing. (I actually don't mind environmental review if your project is close to a national park.)
Hi Matt Y and Halina and nice readers!
I have a personal announcement! I'm pregnant and due to give birth on September 13. I am extraordinarily lucky to have a (so far; knock on wood) a healthy pregnancy at 43!
I also realized that I never organized that Slow Boring SoCal meetup I promised, and once I give birth, my brain will be utterly fried from sleep deprivation and I will be no good at intelligent conversation.
So:
I'm going to be at the University Town Center, 4100-4255 Campus Drive, Irvine, CA next Saturday (August 30) at noon. There's an outdoor seating area between the boba place, the ramen place, and Gogi Korean Grill. I'll be sitting at one of the tables. (For anyone familiar with UC Irvine, it's across the walk bridge from the UCI campus.)
I realize this is very short notice, and it's Labor Day weekend. But I'm down to 3 weeks, and the further back I push it, the higher the risk of "oops, baby made her appearance early, gotta scrap the meetup." And I do want to have a meetup, the last one in Long Beach was fun! This location is close to my home, so if nobody shows up, don't feel bad, I'll just sit there and read a book and then go home. But if you do want to come, please let me know!
If you haven't met me in person, I'm a tall, visibly pregnant woman with long brown hair, and I'll have my son's stuffed toy octopus with me.
Anyhow, it's been kind of surreal following all the "declining fertility rates" discourse on SB the past few months while I've been pregnant with my second all along, but I didn't want to reveal it prematurely, because I didn't want to jinx it. This is considered a geriatric and hence high-risk pregnancy. But now that I'm at 37 weeks, even if the baby were born tomorrow (please no) she would likely be okay.
Wow, congrats!
Holy shit, congratulations! And hope the meetup goes well.
Wow, congrats!!
Congratulations!
I would really recommend watching the new South Park season, because even only three episodes in it's been outstanding in just slamming the world of shit that Trump voters have put us all in. They retain one of their extreme strengths in being able to create new episodes so quickly so they can keep so timely and topical with the latest news.
And on that note, I have an etiquette question to ask all Slow Borers: what should the rule on spoilers be on here? Unforunately there is no styling tags to hide spoilers. I'd love to discuss cool things in the episodes, but I also don't want to ruin it for people who haven't seen it yet but want to.
Just my $0.02, but if you write “SPOILERS” in all caps and then put a few blank lines before the actual spoiler, it will be all right. If anyone still reads the spoiler, that’s on them.
Of course, if you want to be extra scrupulous, you could always write the spoiler in rot13. The posters on Astral Codex Ten regularly do this.
Never heard of ROT13, but that's clever in a simple way, thanks!
I always forget about rot13 until ACX points out that it exists.
Guvf frnfba bs Fbhgu Cnex unf orra rkpryyrag, V'z pheeragyl oruvaq (https://rot13.com/)
https://x.com/adamwren/status/1958859560749277548
Words/phrases I would retain as useful, although not necessarily in the political sense: triggering, Overton window (does this even get used beyond political wonks?) stakeholders.
Words/phrases I would prioritize launching deep into escape velocity: existential threat, person who immigrated (and all this exhaustive "person first" bullshit", incarcerated people (heh, this is *not* person first, but still an unnecessary syllabic assault), and above all, birthing person and BIPOC (the latter of which I remember Matt getting raked over the coals by his Vox colleagues when he dared question the coining of the acronym on Twitter).
What say you, Slow Borers?
Retain as useful but not for politics: trauma, narcissist
Jettison entirely: hold space, dissociate, serious person, NPC, dark empath, high value/low value, luxury beliefs, greedflation, late-stage capitalism
Take away until people learn to behave: genocide
It seems like we've been in late-stage capitalism for a long time now.
Is this the kind of thing announced by the NBER, like the beginning and end of a recession?
According to my online circle, late-stage capitalism is Netflix charging for an ad-free experience.
Ah, yes. I had thought it was being put on hold for an hour and then having the call dropped.
Late-stage capitalism is that loathsome "whopper whopper whopper whopper" ad campaign from Burger King.
I thought they already crossed that line with their previous campaign with that king with the creepy smile.
https://www.enworld.org/media/burger-king-where-is-your-god-now-jpg.33579/full
Also, there is an opportunity for someone to make an irony fueled Cards Against Humanity: Wokepocalypse card game.
Black card: "I'm sorry professor, can I have an extension on my _____ homework because of _____"
My white cards: "holding spaces", "heteronormativity"
Yes, but do any of them beat "Dominoes Oreo Dessert Pizza for $3.99"?
Genius
You forgot equity, lived experience, and neurodivergence/neurodiversity.
Even worse: "neurospicy."
I hate it, kill it with fire
I didn't, the list did.
What I personally find really funny is that I was told recently that "stakeholder" is technically a bad word because it invokes the seizing of land from Native Americans or something. "Community Partner" is I guess the better phrase. I know that no real-life human being has been offended by the term because those who told me this still frequently trip up and use stakeholder because it's a fine word!
I totally agree that anyone who is in the job of being popular among median voters should avoid saying the excessively cringe phrases like "birthing person". But I fear that the problem isn't that Josh Shapiro is going to say those words, it's that some college student will in an esoteric poorly shot vertical video that will make its way to Fox News primetime at which point 'all Democrats = weirdo language police' gets communicated without the consent of liberals. It's a losing battle?
Honestly, a decent amount of heterodox center-left writers, Matt included, carry water for this and act like the verbal quirks of the most hyper-online left are Democratic party line - think of how the CSDM had a whole entry about abandoning word policing, using "unhoused" and "chest-feeding" as examples of neurotic Dem overreach. But even the far left isn't policing anyone into using those words; I work in homeless aid and no one's ever been disciplined or even corrected at my org for saying someone's homeless or an addict. It's microscopic skirmishes that the right wing is running with to show that Dems are humorless nitpicky scolds, and annoyed hippie-punchers are amplifying those small foibles and disputes and elevating them as representative of the whole left. The woke left doesn't need more help looking bad!
Maybe I'm the one billionth person to say it, but there is a lot of truth that when there are 30 people on the internet being really mean to you it feels like a lot and can be really hurtful.
A huge problem with centralized social media is that the world's 30 most always-online, miserable, neurotic, assholes will find you in a way that was impossible until very recently, and unlike in real life they work in shifts to be bullies 24/7.
30 years ago, the weirdos who's #1 issue was language policing "chest feeding" were just anti-social outcasts, 20 years ago they found each other and rambled on isolated forums, 10 years ago they now get to bully as a pack anyone who joined Twitter for their job.
Be that as it may, if you’re a political pundit who wants the Democrats to win, isn’t it more responsible to not present those 30 people (or some tiny non-profit’s website language, or some cringe college kid) as more prevalent and more prominent than they are on your side? And has there ever been a mob online going after Matt over “chest feeding” or “unhoused”, or is this all hypothetical bogeyman?
Honestly, I think this is something where did the centrists dislike the leftists want a reason to openly fight.
You can just not use those words and if asked, say you don't use the words and move on. Like, one reason it seems like the Democrat is involved in a civil war over wokeness or whatever is some centrists seemingly want the fight more than they want to fight Trump and its not helping them among normie Democratic voters.
The title of this list should be "Words that alienate the voters necessary to win elections."
"Because God tells me" (ends argument/discussion).
"...I am generally interested in unique efforts to solve problems...."
And I like unusual, mold-breaking SB PM's -- this was a good one!
I hope your relocation goes smoothly, and welcome to D.C.! You need to learn the City's anthem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYipMv5CgMo&list=RDlYipMv5CgMo&start_radio=1
Thank you!
Not to be a pedant, but I was genuinely confused by the “eight New England states” reference, since there are only 6 such states. For those interested, the states that met were 5 of the 6 New England states (all except NH), plus NY, NJ, and PA.
Excellent point. Sorry — this mistake is a product of my being from the west... i'll make the correction.
The elites don’t want you to know this but the entire country is New England
This is what I was afraid of.
Always has been.
Except when parts of it were New France.
What about the parts that were New Spain?
Such as...?
I assure you: Miami is not New England, no matter how many Yalies may decamp here.
It’s such a statement of Matt’s declining judgment that he ever let such an inveterate troll be his moderator. 😉
"...this mistake is a product of my being...."
Ain't no mistake. Being from the west allows you the proper perspective on trivial points that don't matter, like how many states are allegedly "New England" states.
Hows-ton Street is the incontrovertible boundary.
Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, maaaaahhnn.
You can form the terminally Western caucus with City of Trees
And there's definitely more to that caucus than just me.
I think it's funny how New England and Mid-Atlantic people think anyone else distinguishes between the two regions.
New England is everything east of Ohio, right?
Once the US annexes Canada, would Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland count as New England states as well? Quebec seems right out even though geographically it seems appropriate, though.
“eight New England states”
Well, Maine lobster rolls are, approximately, three orders of magnitude better than Connecticut lobster rolls. So it pencils out.
And CT isn't even part of New England, so ... Yeah, strongly agree.
"CT isn't even part of New England"
A case could be made.
It's pretty on brand for progressives to create an NGO to do focus groups to find out what kind of culture they should produce.
Also Hacks is amazing, and it's trans-generational and such (I'm an old Millennial) but I very much identify with Ava simply having enough in season 3, I think a lot of us have been there (also it's hilarious) and shows how Deborah isn't as cold hearted as she tells herself she is, somewhere in there is a good person
Great show.
Jean Smart has smart genes.
Hacks is great. I hope everyone has also watched 'Somebody Somewhere' because I think it's wonderful.
"The American Dream Institute, a $30 million progressive nonprofit founded by former venture capitalist Eric Jone"
Oh, a new "group." Just what we need.