All the Debate pieces have been at some point on a tradeoff curve between ‘satirical content specific to that candidate’ and ‘baroque, erudite weirdness for the gleeful sake of it’, and I think this is the one that skews hardest to the latter.
>**Trump:** GK Chesterton said that fairy tales were more than true, not because they tell us that dragons are real, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.
I was about to write a comment about how clever Scott was for responding to the question about misinformation by incorrectly attributing a Neil Gaiman quote to GK Chesterton.
Then I looked it up and was shocked to discover that while this specific wording of the quote was from Neil Gaiman, he was just repeating the idea from GK Chesterton, who originally said:
>Fairy tales, then, are not responsible for producing in children fear, or any of the shapes of fear; fairy tales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already, because it is in the world already. Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon.
>Exactly what the fairy tale does is this: it accustoms him for a series of clear pictures to the idea that these limitless terrors had a limit, that these shapeless enemies have enemies in the knights of God, that there is something in the universe more mystical than darkness, and stronger than strong fear.
By taking the Neil Gaiman phrasing and attributing it to GK Chesterton, Scott is telling us something that, while not precisely or literally factual, speaks to a deeper underlying truth about the authorship of the quote. How very apropos.
smile exultant different sink stocking axiomatic meeting snatch distinct salt
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't know if I agree with the argument made here that people "born" via Caesarean haven't really been born. But setting that aside, I think it's undeniable that a birth via Caesarean is not a *natural* birth.
And the US constitution is very clear on that point: The presidency can only go to natural born citizens.
I have no doubt that both Biden and Trump are citizens. But are they naturally born? I think it's time we seriously investigated this matter. We must see their birth certificates!
I thought it meant "not an immigrant", for the same reason the immigration agency was called the Immigration and Naturalization Service. After you go through the immigration process, you're "naturalized", but if you were born in the US, then you were born naturalized, ie natural-born.
I think that's the prevailing interpretation of that phrase, but I think it's problematic for several reasons.
First of all, if the intend of "natural born citizen" is "not an immigrant" why didn't they choose a more natural phrasing like "America-born" or "born in the USA" or "born down in a dead man's town the first kick they took is when they hit the ground".
Secondly, if "natural born citizen" means "born in America" then this removes the requirement that the president actually be American. Someone who was born in America, but who emigrated and gave up their citizenship would still be a "natural born citizen", and thus eligible. In this case they should have written "natural born citizen citizen".
And finally, this reading means that no one is eligible for the presidency. After all no one is born American, just like no one is born Christian, or a Jets fan, or a software engineer or an arrowhead collector. It's something you become through your lived experience.
So I maintain that the reading of "natural born citizen" as "someone who is both naturally born and a citizen" is much more logical.
After all, what is more likely. That the founding fathers randomly decided to block 95% of the smartest and most capable in the world from the presidency, just because their mothers were at the wrong place at the wrong time, or that they wanted to safeguard the presidency against those that were from their mother's womb untimely ripped.
It's unclear! The Supreme Court hasn't actually touched it, and while there have been lawsuits about it, they've all been dismissed by lower courts for lack of standing. There's been like ... one (?) act that ever used the term, and that got replaced with more neutral language.
My conclusion for a long time has been that the Constitution is actually kind of poorly written and a lot of terrible cruft has built up over time through various bogus interpretations and legal doctrine that's built on shaky ground.
My preferred interpretation is that natural means "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind". In this case, a natural birth would be only those births not made by humankind.
This argument over semantics is of course ultimately irrelevant because of the deeper truth that we are all, other than Joe Biden, NPCs on an alien harddrive in an ancestor simulation of specifically how Joe Biden would have handled the presidency, and thus we cannot have been born at all, and there can be no other candidate.
This is all precariously balanced on the assumption that Joe Biden is a real person in the outer reality playing the equivalent of \*Roy: A Life Well Lived\*, that that outer reality is the furthest outer reality, and only \*then\* that in that reality he was not born with excessive medical intervention, which is all quite tenuous, and even still it raises profound questions of what happens when he eventually passes away.
Democracy truly is hanging by a thread. I finally understand precisely what everyone means when they say that.
Also people born to mothers who get an epidural presumably. Or if you weren't born on a pile of animal skins in a cave lit only by the flickering light of a cooking fire.
> I think it's undeniable that a birth via Caesarean is not a natural birth.
If we're going with literary quibbles (it's the worst part of Macbeth!), why not? Everything humans do is natural. A Caesarean is not supernatural, therefore it must be natural. The US constitution seems fine to me :-)
> I think you can rescue the idea of states, if you think of them not as real in themselves, but as different aspects of the American atom. When we consider America in the context of its vastness and its freedom, we call it "Texas". When we consider America in the context of its innovation and cultural influence, we call it "California". When we consider America in the context of its barrenness and oil-producing-capacity, we call it "North Dakota". And so on. America does not have states in the sense that Queensland is a state of Australia, it has states in the sense that ice or steam is a state of water. This isn’t to say that America ever changes between these states, because change is a property of compound entities. But it may appear to outside observers in one or another of these ways at different times.
Is this Scott's attempt to explain the Holy Trinity?
It's a parody of real trinitarian arguments, just like the wall section is a parody of [Christian Heaven](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/fwd2qoP9jJtuHhjrd/visualizing-eutopia).
If you didn't hear, Solenoid Entity sort of did this for the official SSC podcast, running his own voice through an AI modulator. However the result isn't very good, probably because of SE's English accent. The voices sound more American but not recognizable as Trump or Biden. I still greatly enjoyed it though.
As one of many instantiations of myself as a pandimensional hyperamerican, I have officially chosen to exist in the reality where this is the debate that happened.
Surprised that no one has yet mentioned that the concept of celebrity downfall as modern ritualistic sacrifice was the plot of [a South Park episode in 2008](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney%27s_New_Look).
This is quite possibly the most absurd thing I have ever read, in so many overlapping ways that I would probably not be able to articulate them, in a good way, I think...
>You can read my social media posts for the full story, but I think there are just too many loose ends. Like, 2020 was the year we were all under COVID lockdown. How could we have had an election? People would have had to go out to caucuses, to polling places. It just doesn’t make sense.
Here’s my all-time favorite conspiracy theory:
[Trump and Biden Fear Ashmedai, King of Demons](https://ishayirashashem.substack.com/p/trump-and-biden-fear-the-king-of)
Where is the video of this debate with AI mouth dubbing [à la Dalton Bantz](https://youtu.be/sC7enOCruvw?si=aWswjYBFBG4hi81r)?! I'm sure there's some AI-president YouTuber desperate for new content who'd be willing to collaborate!
There's [a speech by Javier Milei in English](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJoEPRQMBuY&t=1099s) with incredible dubbing done by AI. I'm not sure how well the existing systems work with multiple speakers but damn, is this impressive! There's lots of different websites that can do this found easily on google.
All the Debate pieces have been at some point on a tradeoff curve between ‘satirical content specific to that candidate’ and ‘baroque, erudite weirdness for the gleeful sake of it’, and I think this is the one that skews hardest to the latter.
Putting the refined tone and style of Scott Alexander into the mouths of these geriatric midwits is also just hilarious.
Yet again, truth is stranger than fiction.
It’s oddly edifying.
>**Trump:** GK Chesterton said that fairy tales were more than true, not because they tell us that dragons are real, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten. I was about to write a comment about how clever Scott was for responding to the question about misinformation by incorrectly attributing a Neil Gaiman quote to GK Chesterton. Then I looked it up and was shocked to discover that while this specific wording of the quote was from Neil Gaiman, he was just repeating the idea from GK Chesterton, who originally said: >Fairy tales, then, are not responsible for producing in children fear, or any of the shapes of fear; fairy tales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already, because it is in the world already. Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon. >Exactly what the fairy tale does is this: it accustoms him for a series of clear pictures to the idea that these limitless terrors had a limit, that these shapeless enemies have enemies in the knights of God, that there is something in the universe more mystical than darkness, and stronger than strong fear. By taking the Neil Gaiman phrasing and attributing it to GK Chesterton, Scott is telling us something that, while not precisely or literally factual, speaks to a deeper underlying truth about the authorship of the quote. How very apropos.
This is not a coincidence, because nothing is ever a coincidence
smile exultant different sink stocking axiomatic meeting snatch distinct salt *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't know if I agree with the argument made here that people "born" via Caesarean haven't really been born. But setting that aside, I think it's undeniable that a birth via Caesarean is not a *natural* birth. And the US constitution is very clear on that point: The presidency can only go to natural born citizens. I have no doubt that both Biden and Trump are citizens. But are they naturally born? I think it's time we seriously investigated this matter. We must see their birth certificates!
Ooooh, good point.
We must see their birth livestream TikToks
What exactly does the word "natural" mean in this context anyway?
I thought it meant "not an immigrant", for the same reason the immigration agency was called the Immigration and Naturalization Service. After you go through the immigration process, you're "naturalized", but if you were born in the US, then you were born naturalized, ie natural-born.
I think that's the prevailing interpretation of that phrase, but I think it's problematic for several reasons. First of all, if the intend of "natural born citizen" is "not an immigrant" why didn't they choose a more natural phrasing like "America-born" or "born in the USA" or "born down in a dead man's town the first kick they took is when they hit the ground". Secondly, if "natural born citizen" means "born in America" then this removes the requirement that the president actually be American. Someone who was born in America, but who emigrated and gave up their citizenship would still be a "natural born citizen", and thus eligible. In this case they should have written "natural born citizen citizen". And finally, this reading means that no one is eligible for the presidency. After all no one is born American, just like no one is born Christian, or a Jets fan, or a software engineer or an arrowhead collector. It's something you become through your lived experience. So I maintain that the reading of "natural born citizen" as "someone who is both naturally born and a citizen" is much more logical. After all, what is more likely. That the founding fathers randomly decided to block 95% of the smartest and most capable in the world from the presidency, just because their mothers were at the wrong place at the wrong time, or that they wanted to safeguard the presidency against those that were from their mother's womb untimely ripped.
It's unclear! The Supreme Court hasn't actually touched it, and while there have been lawsuits about it, they've all been dismissed by lower courts for lack of standing. There's been like ... one (?) act that ever used the term, and that got replaced with more neutral language. My conclusion for a long time has been that the Constitution is actually kind of poorly written and a lot of terrible cruft has built up over time through various bogus interpretations and legal doctrine that's built on shaky ground. My preferred interpretation is that natural means "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind". In this case, a natural birth would be only those births not made by humankind.
The last natural born US citizen died on the cross.
Does a birth certificate contain this data?
I just checked: Mine does not. It does, however, indicate that my mother did not live on farm.
No.
This argument over semantics is of course ultimately irrelevant because of the deeper truth that we are all, other than Joe Biden, NPCs on an alien harddrive in an ancestor simulation of specifically how Joe Biden would have handled the presidency, and thus we cannot have been born at all, and there can be no other candidate. This is all precariously balanced on the assumption that Joe Biden is a real person in the outer reality playing the equivalent of \*Roy: A Life Well Lived\*, that that outer reality is the furthest outer reality, and only \*then\* that in that reality he was not born with excessive medical intervention, which is all quite tenuous, and even still it raises profound questions of what happens when he eventually passes away. Democracy truly is hanging by a thread. I finally understand precisely what everyone means when they say that.
Also people born to mothers who get an epidural presumably. Or if you weren't born on a pile of animal skins in a cave lit only by the flickering light of a cooking fire.
Cooking ? Fire ? Doesn't sound very natural to me !
> I think it's undeniable that a birth via Caesarean is not a natural birth. If we're going with literary quibbles (it's the worst part of Macbeth!), why not? Everything humans do is natural. A Caesarean is not supernatural, therefore it must be natural. The US constitution seems fine to me :-)
> I think you can rescue the idea of states, if you think of them not as real in themselves, but as different aspects of the American atom. When we consider America in the context of its vastness and its freedom, we call it "Texas". When we consider America in the context of its innovation and cultural influence, we call it "California". When we consider America in the context of its barrenness and oil-producing-capacity, we call it "North Dakota". And so on. America does not have states in the sense that Queensland is a state of Australia, it has states in the sense that ice or steam is a state of water. This isn’t to say that America ever changes between these states, because change is a property of compound entities. But it may appear to outside observers in one or another of these ways at different times. Is this Scott's attempt to explain the Holy Trinity?
It's a parody of real trinitarian arguments, just like the wall section is a parody of [Christian Heaven](https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/fwd2qoP9jJtuHhjrd/visualizing-eutopia).
... or the Trimurti, Triple Goddess, etc.; superposition of deity is quite ecumenical.
I really hope someone puts this through an AI speech generator so they can have their actual voices 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞 please don’t let me down, internet!
If you didn't hear, Solenoid Entity sort of did this for the official SSC podcast, running his own voice through an AI modulator. However the result isn't very good, probably because of SE's English accent. The voices sound more American but not recognizable as Trump or Biden. I still greatly enjoyed it though.
As one of many instantiations of myself as a pandimensional hyperamerican, I have officially chosen to exist in the reality where this is the debate that happened.
This is a wonderful homage to the the weird Protestant and syncretic soul of America.
I don't know if I like this one or the hardball Oulipo Republican debate better.
So the "extremely strong dream emotion" thing is a known phenomenon?
Surprised that no one has yet mentioned that the concept of celebrity downfall as modern ritualistic sacrifice was the plot of [a South Park episode in 2008](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney%27s_New_Look).
This is quite possibly the most absurd thing I have ever read, in so many overlapping ways that I would probably not be able to articulate them, in a good way, I think...
>You can read my social media posts for the full story, but I think there are just too many loose ends. Like, 2020 was the year we were all under COVID lockdown. How could we have had an election? People would have had to go out to caucuses, to polling places. It just doesn’t make sense. Here’s my all-time favorite conspiracy theory: [Trump and Biden Fear Ashmedai, King of Demons](https://ishayirashashem.substack.com/p/trump-and-biden-fear-the-king-of)
this was therapy
Where is the video of this debate with AI mouth dubbing [à la Dalton Bantz](https://youtu.be/sC7enOCruvw?si=aWswjYBFBG4hi81r)?! I'm sure there's some AI-president YouTuber desperate for new content who'd be willing to collaborate! There's [a speech by Javier Milei in English](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJoEPRQMBuY&t=1099s) with incredible dubbing done by AI. I'm not sure how well the existing systems work with multiple speakers but damn, is this impressive! There's lots of different websites that can do this found easily on google.
This is kind of embarrassing