5 ms·

Yes, this behavior of college students is exactly what proves that America has become a nation of grifters. This is certainly the most prominent, the leading in

Yes, this behavior of college students is exactly what proves that America has become a nation of grifters. This is certainly the most prominent, the leading indicator, the most serious corruption that we should be focusing on. </s> The fish rots from the head.

pfannkuchen 9mo ago
I don’t like Trump, but he’s the first guy in a long long time to actually do things and not just talk about doing things. I don’t think that’s what institutional rot usually looks like? Now mind you I don’t think he’s going to fix anything and I’m also not sure he isn’t controlled opposition, but that would be some adversary and not institutional rot.
- ZeroGravitas 9mo ago
  You like Trump a lot more than anyone who is informed about the things he is actually doing should like him. But regardless, the same point could have been made about the Republican party in general for decades. See The Baffler's article titled "The Long Con" for a history. It opens with a now shockingly unshocking list of all the lies Romney told and the prescient claim that this was necessary for Republican voters to like him. > Mitt Romney is a liar. Of course, in some sense, all politicians, even all human beings, are liars. Romney’s lying went so over-the-top extravagant by this summer, though, that the New York Times editorial board did something probably unprecedented in their polite gray precincts: they used the L-word itself. “Mr. Romney’s entire campaign rests on a foundation of short, utterly false sound bites,” they editorialized. He repeats them “so often that millions of Americans believe them to be the truth.” “It is hard to challenge these lies with a well-reasoned-but- overlong speech,” they concluded; and how. Romney’s lying, in fact, was so richly variegated that it can serve as a sort of grammar of mendacity. [...] > All righty, then: both the rank-and-file voters and the governing elites of a major American political party chose as their standardbearer a pathological liar. What does that reveal about them? -- 2012 https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con
  - pfannkuchen 9mo ago
    Should according to whom? According to you? The more straightforward way of phrasing this is “I don’t think you should like this person at all”. Okay, and?
    - ZeroGravitas 9mo ago
      I think you should hate him. He is after all a rapist, thief, liar, conman, bully, grifter, authoritarian, gangster, racist, sexist narcissist who may very well end the American empire and democracy, and with your help it seems. Which seems on topic for an article about America becoming a nation of grifters. But at least he's doing things!
      - churchill 9mo ago
        [dead]
- mindslight 9mo ago
  The article frames the focus on grifting, not institutional rot. I would say that institutional rot enables grifters. But also grifters in leadership positions set examples encouraging others to grift. Heck, this current crop of grifters we've got "leading" us will outright airlift prominent up-and-coming grifters right up into their ranks, Gervais Principle style. I'd say that institutional rot would be a much better framework for analyzing the situation of all these disabilities being claimed, but that is not where this article goes! Rather the only thing it seemingly offers is that we're just supposed to feel bad and aim to be more like the single person in the one example given, even as our societal leaders crassly do the exact opposite. (As far as Trump "doing things" - yes, he's doing a lot of grift at the expense of our country. That's kind of the problem, right? Bureaucratic malaise was bad, and this is worse)
- mathisfun123 9mo ago
  > don’t like Trump, but he’s the first guy in a long long time to actually do things and not just talk about doing things. Have you really never heard the phrase "it's much easier to tear things down than build them up"? Is the manifest obviousness of that phrase really not obvious to you? Yes you too can 1. Talk about blowing up buildings 2. Blow up buildings So he's not the first of anything in any length of time because this is what assholes all around the world do every day.
- drecked 9mo ago
  This is a fantastic comment in response to this article since it exemplifies the criticism of the article. Once upon a time (ie 2 years ago) the President following the law, living up to both implicit and explicit agreements made with foreign nations, not wanting to plaster their own name onto everything, not lying about the citizens of the country, etc would be considered a good thing. Today, doing the opposite is considered praiseworthy because “at least he’s doing something”. This is exactly the “anything goes” mentality the author is critiquing.
- acdha 9mo ago
  > he’s the first guy in a long long time to actually do things and not just talk about doing things The problem is that the things he’s doing are using his office to become an actual billionaire and tearing down protections against abuse and fraud. You don’t fight “institutional rot” by enshrining the principle that loyalty trumps following the law or that policy outcomes can be purchased on the blockchain. Lying about the law and actions by his predecessors similar is building, not lowering, institutional rot by encouraging the idea that cheating is okay as long as you win (c.f. continued lying about election integrity or awarding government funds and jobs based on political affiliation).
impossiblefork 9mo ago
In this case though, lies have effectively been made mandatory to gain entry to certain 'elite' institutions. That is ultimately from the head, since sensible leadership would put an end to this immediately, but it's from a head that came into place in what, the 80s, 90s? Maybe earlier? In India it's purely score based. Top on the JIT (although I guess they have special things for scheduled castes or something), you get in. In Sweden the same. Top 1% on the högskoleprov and there's nothing you can't get in to. Maybe KTH has its own, more advanced maths test for entry, and I think you need to pass an interview for medicine at KI, but aside from that nothing you can't get into. At ETH they see whether you can pass a first year of courses. But in the US it's a bunch of weirdness, and it's from Idpol. I don't know if you could avoid it-- India obviously doesn't want to avoid it completely, but another idea is to not have the arbitrary eliteness be a thing. I used to believe in something like it, believing that only certain Swedish universities were okay (and that's probably still true for education), and then a bunch of Germans who wanted to be professors got jobs at the ones I thought were shitty and started doing good research and suddenly you ended up with places like Örebro, which I had regarded as 'what even is this' producing real science. I think the Germans are right and that a distributed less status-based university system is sensible.
- esbranson 9mo ago
  India and Sweden don't have US-elite-level institutions governed by the admissions processes you discuss. KTH is not Harvard, and KI is not HMS. There are American universities with such processes, and enough students admitted under them in California and Texas and a few other US states to repopulate Sweden, and I would think for every Swedish university there is an equivalent or better US university with such an admissions process. I hazard the same thing could be done for all of Europe.
  - impossiblefork 9mo ago
    KTH and KI have many students who would do well at schools like Harvard. The level of the education is better than at the best IITs. It has people like Håstad still active. Would you say the same about Independent University of Moscow or about or the ETH? At least IUM is obviously better than Harvard. I don't have specifics about Harvard people, but I know that the Chalmers people I know have a higher average level than the Ivy League (none from Harvard) people I know. I have no comparison of the KTH people and the Chalmers people, but in theory the KTH people should be better, because I've never been in a workplace with both the KTH people and the ivy league people, so I can't compare them. The core thing though, is that people in the US who want to get into these schools have to do hoop jumping. For these Swedish schools hoop jumping makes no sense, because you'll get in if you're academically sound enough, so you can actually focus on academic soundness, so you do.
rationalist 9mo ago
Your comment is "whataboutism"
- mindslight 9mo ago
  There would have to be some substance to the original article for that to be true. Instead, it merely contains analysis-free whinging ostensibly meant to nurture frustration that can be directed to other ends - likely making the problem itself worse. So my comment is more appropriately described as examining the larger scope to put the article's gripe in perspective. If you want to see my constructive thoughts on the subject at hand, in spite of the useless article as a starting point, you can check out my other follow up comments.

pfannkuchen 9mo ago

I don’t like Trump, but he’s the first guy in a long long time to actually do things and not just talk about doing things. I don’t think that’s what institutional rot usually looks like? Now mind you I don’t think he’s going to fix anything and I’m also not sure he isn’t controlled opposition, but that would be some adversary and not institutional rot.

ZeroGravitas 9mo ago
You like Trump a lot more than anyone who is informed about the things he is actually doing should like him. But regardless, the same point could have been made about the Republican party in general for decades. See The Baffler's article titled "The Long Con" for a history. It opens with a now shockingly unshocking list of all the lies Romney told and the prescient claim that this was necessary for Republican voters to like him. > Mitt Romney is a liar. Of course, in some sense, all politicians, even all human beings, are liars. Romney’s lying went so over-the-top extravagant by this summer, though, that the New York Times editorial board did something probably unprecedented in their polite gray precincts: they used the L-word itself. “Mr. Romney’s entire campaign rests on a foundation of short, utterly false sound bites,” they editorialized. He repeats them “so often that millions of Americans believe them to be the truth.” “It is hard to challenge these lies with a well-reasoned-but- overlong speech,” they concluded; and how. Romney’s lying, in fact, was so richly variegated that it can serve as a sort of grammar of mendacity. [...] > All righty, then: both the rank-and-file voters and the governing elites of a major American political party chose as their standardbearer a pathological liar. What does that reveal about them? -- 2012 https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con
- pfannkuchen 9mo ago
  Should according to whom? According to you? The more straightforward way of phrasing this is “I don’t think you should like this person at all”. Okay, and?
  - ZeroGravitas 9mo ago
    I think you should hate him. He is after all a rapist, thief, liar, conman, bully, grifter, authoritarian, gangster, racist, sexist narcissist who may very well end the American empire and democracy, and with your help it seems. Which seems on topic for an article about America becoming a nation of grifters. But at least he's doing things!
    - churchill 9mo ago
      [dead]
mindslight 9mo ago
The article frames the focus on grifting, not institutional rot. I would say that institutional rot enables grifters. But also grifters in leadership positions set examples encouraging others to grift. Heck, this current crop of grifters we've got "leading" us will outright airlift prominent up-and-coming grifters right up into their ranks, Gervais Principle style. I'd say that institutional rot would be a much better framework for analyzing the situation of all these disabilities being claimed, but that is not where this article goes! Rather the only thing it seemingly offers is that we're just supposed to feel bad and aim to be more like the single person in the one example given, even as our societal leaders crassly do the exact opposite. (As far as Trump "doing things" - yes, he's doing a lot of grift at the expense of our country. That's kind of the problem, right? Bureaucratic malaise was bad, and this is worse)
mathisfun123 9mo ago
> don’t like Trump, but he’s the first guy in a long long time to actually do things and not just talk about doing things. Have you really never heard the phrase "it's much easier to tear things down than build them up"? Is the manifest obviousness of that phrase really not obvious to you? Yes you too can 1. Talk about blowing up buildings 2. Blow up buildings So he's not the first of anything in any length of time because this is what assholes all around the world do every day.
drecked 9mo ago
This is a fantastic comment in response to this article since it exemplifies the criticism of the article. Once upon a time (ie 2 years ago) the President following the law, living up to both implicit and explicit agreements made with foreign nations, not wanting to plaster their own name onto everything, not lying about the citizens of the country, etc would be considered a good thing. Today, doing the opposite is considered praiseworthy because “at least he’s doing something”. This is exactly the “anything goes” mentality the author is critiquing.
acdha 9mo ago
> he’s the first guy in a long long time to actually do things and not just talk about doing things The problem is that the things he’s doing are using his office to become an actual billionaire and tearing down protections against abuse and fraud. You don’t fight “institutional rot” by enshrining the principle that loyalty trumps following the law or that policy outcomes can be purchased on the blockchain. Lying about the law and actions by his predecessors similar is building, not lowering, institutional rot by encouraging the idea that cheating is okay as long as you win (c.f. continued lying about election integrity or awarding government funds and jobs based on political affiliation).

impossiblefork 9mo ago

In this case though, lies have effectively been made mandatory to gain entry to certain 'elite' institutions. That is ultimately from the head, since sensible leadership would put an end to this immediately, but it's from a head that came into place in what, the 80s, 90s? Maybe earlier? In India it's purely score based. Top on the JIT (although I guess they have special things for scheduled castes or something), you get in. In Sweden the same. Top 1% on the högskoleprov and there's nothing you can't get in to. Maybe KTH has its own, more advanced maths test for entry, and I think you need to pass an interview for medicine at KI, but aside from that nothing you can't get into. At ETH they see whether you can pass a first year of courses. But in the US it's a bunch of weirdness, and it's from Idpol. I don't know if you could avoid it-- India obviously doesn't want to avoid it completely, but another idea is to not have the arbitrary eliteness be a thing. I used to believe in something like it, believing that only certain Swedish universities were okay (and that's probably still true for education), and then a bunch of Germans who wanted to be professors got jobs at the ones I thought were shitty and started doing good research and suddenly you ended up with places like Örebro, which I had regarded as 'what even is this' producing real science. I think the Germans are right and that a distributed less status-based university system is sensible.

esbranson 9mo ago
India and Sweden don't have US-elite-level institutions governed by the admissions processes you discuss. KTH is not Harvard, and KI is not HMS. There are American universities with such processes, and enough students admitted under them in California and Texas and a few other US states to repopulate Sweden, and I would think for every Swedish university there is an equivalent or better US university with such an admissions process. I hazard the same thing could be done for all of Europe.
- impossiblefork 9mo ago
  KTH and KI have many students who would do well at schools like Harvard. The level of the education is better than at the best IITs. It has people like Håstad still active. Would you say the same about Independent University of Moscow or about or the ETH? At least IUM is obviously better than Harvard. I don't have specifics about Harvard people, but I know that the Chalmers people I know have a higher average level than the Ivy League (none from Harvard) people I know. I have no comparison of the KTH people and the Chalmers people, but in theory the KTH people should be better, because I've never been in a workplace with both the KTH people and the ivy league people, so I can't compare them. The core thing though, is that people in the US who want to get into these schools have to do hoop jumping. For these Swedish schools hoop jumping makes no sense, because you'll get in if you're academically sound enough, so you can actually focus on academic soundness, so you do.

rationalist 9mo ago

Your comment is "whataboutism"

mindslight 9mo ago
There would have to be some substance to the original article for that to be true. Instead, it merely contains analysis-free whinging ostensibly meant to nurture frustration that can be directed to other ends - likely making the problem itself worse. So my comment is more appropriately described as examining the larger scope to put the article's gripe in perspective. If you want to see my constructive thoughts on the subject at hand, in spite of the useless article as a starting point, you can check out my other follow up comments.