It was honestly just loose wording to refer to Trump’s administration - I agree it’s Stephen Miller and Bannon who are consciously acting “systematically.”

That said, Trump is a once-in-a-generation exemplar of sociopathic narcissism, and the techniques used track nicely to limit-pushing narcissistic manipulation, constantly gaslighting to control reality of his victims (I.e. everyone?). So I’d argue Trump is unconsciously systematic in his approach.

This is part of how Trump’s flood the zone strategy causes people to give up and tune out. It’s not just that he called his own legitimate criminal investigations political corruption, it’s that he’s calling real political corruption legitimate.

Under Trump: Right is wrong (prosecuting insurrection), being good is bad (“woke”), friends are foes (Europe, Canada, Mexico), foes are friends (Putin), spending more is saving money (tariffs), anti-fascism is fascism (Antifa), and so on.

What Trump is doing is systematically disconnecting us from reality, because with no objective reference, he can dictate reality.

The very fact that this story isn’t surprising and will neither get significant or persistent coverage is proof we’re deep into this hypernormalization.

I don’t think I agree with this premise at all, unfortunately.

The article describes extraction or manufacturing as the sole ways to increase “actual wealth” (apart from government works) but it’s just sophistry to embed the author’s biases against the value of information and services. That’s because services and white collar jobs both (a) can represent intrinsic value, and (b) can both directly and indirectly be subject to international trade.

To explain, the author would define manufacturing a refrigerator as “actual wealth,” but the knowledge of how to do so as not “actual wealth,” even though the knowledge is equally a prerequisite for the refrigerator, and is a more valuable unit for trade with other nations or economic growth.

The conclusion about focusing on long term “wealth” creation is fine, but that premise isn’t necessary to get there and detracts from the credibility of the argument.

I think you’ve just coined 2025’s tagline.

Yup. They fired the Abrego attorney who had the temerity to admit to the court that his deportation was in error. It’s a liability to be honest.

I mean, New York is a close analog, and the relatively minor gerrymander in Democrats’ favor was struck down, which is a large part of why Republicans control the House.

So you’re right that Democrats tried, but also Democratic (and democratic) judges nullified the gerrymander.

I guess it’s classic that they gave up political victory to have the moral high ground. So might as well give them that much?

I think of this moment probably once a month and I don’t know how to make it stop.

I had to read the headline and source twice to believe this wasn’t the Onion.

What I’m saying is, while I feel for you as an individual human being who seem nice and reasonable, I lump you with the problem and I fully blame you for it as an American.

You don’t seem to understand that you certainly do not feel for me as an “individual human being who seem[s] nice and reasonable” if you think you have the right or moral ground to blame me for Trump because the people around me joined his cult - it’s the diametric opposite of acknowledging me as an individual.

You just seem to keep repeating “as a nation” as if that hand-waving abstraction somehow makes it sensible to blame every single person in America for Trump. Test your premise even a little. Are American children also responsible for Trump? What’s the principle? Do they somehow gain the original sin of being an “American” and therefore culpable for Trump at 18? Is that midnight Eastern Time or Pacific Time? How about people who lost the right to vote? How about Americans who naturalized after the election? Is it getting complicated yet?

Because that’s life, it’s complicated, and applying the label of “American” to two drastically different people doesn’t somehow waive your duty to engage in moral inquiry before you engage in moral condemnation.

Well, two ways this can go.

Option 1: Yes, well you are a [insert name of country you are from], and despite that [insert thing the worst person from that country is doing that neither of us likes], so we are also fed up with you.

Cool, by acting exactly as you, now we both hate each other because of things other people are doing, despite neither of us being directly responsible for the things we jointly oppose.

Option 2: You think a little more about this and maybe understand that not every American is part of the problem, and in fact we’re even more horrified than you because [looks around] we’re living in the hell that’s spoiling your nice view. And maybe you also realize it’s pretty counterproductive to abuse, threaten and isolate the very people who are in America now and who agree that Trump is a cancer on this world.

If you can take a moment to wean yourself off the high of righteous indignation, you’d see we who are trapped here with Trump are the ones most directly being abused by him.

So why exactly are you doing the same as Trump and abusing us too? Don’t you think you should also worry about the ethical implications of your own actions?

Go home and sacrifice his hand to the demon lord Anthraxus in exchange for more power?

Trump, but more likely one/some of his sycophants, explained how hard-line immigration enforcement could help in removing political opposition with the help of a corrupt and stacked Supreme Court

It’s definitely Stephen Miller. Zero doubt. He is the true believer in racist/white supremacy and the New York Times’ recent story had multiple anecdotes about the DOJ and DHS/ICE being directly controlled by him, while Bondi and Noem are only interested in making TV appearances.

I really only notice that for your tongue.

The contest won’t be over who can imitate Trump the best. It’ll be who can use Trump as a martyr best. They all know Trump is the glue that holds their machine together.

You’re confusing him. It’s not a big deal, he’s some guy and we’re just two people on the Internet, but he’s a left populist, not a “both-sides-er.” He’s fed up with institutional politics becoming ineffective, not with people being too “left.”

I’ve been watching him since the beginning too, I wouldn’t say that 10 years ago, but this is where he’s at right now.

Hmmm, I have been skeptical of AI, but it looks like it’s getting smarter.

Yeah, this post started as a reassurance that Tailscale wouldn’t enshittify. But it turned out to just be an argument about how to avoid enshittification that boiled down to two principles:

1. You shouldn’t make your product worse because it’ll eventually harm the company; and
2. Founders are magic and need to never turn over control of the company to others (be it new CEOs or VC) to resist enshittification.

Both are partially right and partially wrong.

For #1: Yes, making your product worse eventually harms the company. No, you can’t expect CEOs to accept that as a reason to not make their product worse because even if it harms the company, short-term incentives that lead to enshittification are eventually going to become irresistible. His comment about reaching “zen” with leveled growth and profit will never stop VCs from calling in demands and favors.

For #2: Yes, founders typically “get it” more than their VC- or failure-initiated replacements. No, that doesn’t mean founders are uniquely resistant to enshittification. This is your point too, and it’s why I don’t believe this person - they lose credibility here because they don’t acknowledge they aren’t special. Every tech bro out there thinks they’ve cracked the code to permanent tech hegemony. That exceptionalist thinking turns into enshittification, since the product-worsening or overcharging is easier to justify as temporary/necessary/not-a-big-deal (until it isn’t).

And all of this doesn’t explain why Tailscale specifically gets immunity if the principles are true.

So interesting post, and a lot more self-awareness than most founders which is still a little reassuring, but a lot of warning signs too.

Edit: clarity

They say he was arrested for the “assault,” but yep, they intentionally phrased it to conflate “verbal harassment” with actual (if true) criminal conduct. It’s a meaningless phrase.

If anything, they put it there because to the right wing base, it justifies police violence or could support disorderly conduct, or one of the other catch-all pretextual “crimes” used when police want to arrest someone for no real reason.

The DHS views the situation differently. In a statement to NBC, a department spokesperson said that “Garcia assaulted and verbally harassed a federal agent and that he was subdued and arrested for the alleged assault”.

They say this every time, whether or not there is footage obviously proving otherwise.

Apart from being so insulting and pathetic that this is the government’s generic response to unconstitutional arrests (though he is suing under a tort law due presumptively due to qualified immunity), it’s also outright defamatory to falsely claim that someone has committed a crime and assaulted ICE.

The story doesn’t provide evidence either way, but if this just is their typical Baghdad Bob propaganda, I hope the victims of ICE start to sue for defamation as well - drain the new bill’s obscene funding with a wave of court-ordered compensation to ICE’s victims.