iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

“white indigenous ways of knowing”, or, as I like to call it, “neo-Kantianism”

0110

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

I agree. I meant dumb in a “not pursing Means conducive to Ends” way, but that’s Instrumental Reason for you I guess

010

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

Granted. The interesting question is why they do it anyway. I don’t think “because they are dumb” is a sufficient answer, even if it’s true in a sense.

100

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

Not really. People line up outside of City Halls across the country to Say Shit about the Feds and/or far away things all the time.

110

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

I agree. Something to be said for authenticity/sincerity overpowering productive politicking, but I won’t go so far as to say this is A Problem—it’s a symptom of…something

010

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

People are lacking in feeling of agency and efficacy and that pent up energy has to go somewhere, given that Firebombing Walmarts isn't a great idea and Voting is only so often.

130

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

A colleague of mine said "voicing" is a better term than "protest." These people aren't doing this as a Means designed to bring about an End, exactly. It just strikes them as something that needs to be done almost as an End

140

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

I wonder how many of these people would, if asked, say that they thought there was any chance whatsoever of their protest having a concrete effect. I would guess very few, yet they still think it is worth doing for some reason or another. Low sense of efficacy + High 'participation' is a puzzle.

1100

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

I think there has been a shift (unsure if thats the right term) from thinking of protesting as something done to effect actual change on the state/society in a direct sense to it as a purely expressive act with the goal to simply put one's voice out there in the world. Cons likely outweigh pros here

4451

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

This is only horseshoe theory if you think Cory Booker is on the far-left-flank of the Democratic Party, which is pretty straightforwardly not the case.

020

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

"It's not trans, it's just like if a boy was a girl instead, maybe even became a girl due to magic. Wouldn't that be so cool and hot? No I won't interrogate this further, why do you ask?"

010

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

Well sure, but some would argue that there are particular social arrangements that encourage rudeness and maybe those can be subject to criticism too. The moralizing objection is still available and not incompatible with what I said

020

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

Fair enough. I don’t know the names nor precise arguments of the people you’re talking about specifically, but I think I agree with some version of both the statements you said so I was just trying to show how they work together for me.

0170

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

I mean, it’s coherent if you hold the underlying belief that treating things which are not humans (or even living beings) in human ways is bad for our sociability. The prescription that follows is not “Be nicer to Alexa” it is “Alexa should not exist as a concept and it is bad that it does”

3470

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

Fukuyama says he got it from Hegel but this is not true. Hegel’s Lectures on Philosophy of History do not contain this phrase nor this concept in a meaningful sense. It’s from Kojeve, whose reading of Hegel is idiosyncratic to the point he’s really just doing his own thing—which is fine.

030

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

To be fair to Habermas, he did in fact refuse to take Karp on as an advisee—he was a student of Karola Brede, about whom I know nothing. This is not true of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the anarcho-feudalist who inspired Yarvin.

0332

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

Maybe, if one considers Foucault to be a critical theorist. I think there is something fundamentally anti-social in Thrasymachus that I can't reconcile with a normatively meaningful critical theory.

110

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

Many people, I think, find something initially compelling about Thrasymachus' anti-justice position. Most of us, however, grow out of this—even if Plato isn't the one to show the way out. These fuck, by contrast, have been one-shotted by the edgy teenager version of Nietzsche to all our detriment.

120

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

We are all Derridan now (derogatory)

000

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

Something something Nietzsche something something Beyond Good & Evil something something postmodernism

100

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

Pairs well with AI rationalist/EA folks being really into the Harry Potter fanfic that is about the triumph of the scientific method over magical superstition

110

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 24/09/2026

it's hard (not impossible) to have a revolution without a revolution

120

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

I mean, I have no issue if someone wants to contest whether Mamdani’s policies are good or bad for the city—reasonable people can disagree. What doesn’t make sense is the idea that Mamdani cannot be a democratic socialist because ~2 of his policies overlap with the GOP’s in the 60s

021

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

Or, more generously, providing funding for public universities is DISqualifying for being a socialist? My argument is not that Rockefeller was a socialist, it is that this specific policy, couched in a vacuum, does not make-or-break someone’s ideology

010

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

Is the argument here that socialism necessarily means government becomes more bureaucratic and burdensome—rationality of the policies be damned? I don’t see why sales tax, e.g., is incompatible with socialism.

110

Luke @dukeluke.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

Yes, this makes sense. Only a Republican would levy taxes, so anyone who levies taxes must therefore be best described as a Republican. Similarly, only Republicans make changes to regulations or budgets. Anyone who does these things by definition cannot be socialist.