I think it’s great that you took a stand to present your independent observations and relay some information people here may not have encountered on the subject, especially since political discourse is a minor LW taboo. This is good for epistemics IMO.
The key argument for why we’d predict 18+ Western fascisms in the next decade is that we should by default extrapolate current trends, while rejecting the appearance of stability.
I find this contradictory. Why are current derivative of fascism something we should view as “stable” and likely to hold constant over the long term, while the current amount of fascism is something we should view as “unstable” and easy to change?
Obviously, both can’t be true—we can’t have a stable amount of fascism and also a stable rate of change. I’m just not clear on why you think we ought to assume the rate of change is the statistic that is stable and the absolute level is the statistic that is unstable.
My intuition is the opposite. The level of autocracy appears pretty stable over long time periods in most countries, with occasional shocks and constant wobbles. It seems likely to me that we are having a wobble.
A secondary issue is the underlying causal model. The USA spied on its own citizens. Many of its citizens also celebrated storming the capitol and trying to overturn the 2020 election. I think the former is mainly a symptom of autocracy. The latter contributes to a culture of celebrating autocracy that I think contributes to its growth. Do you think we can distinguish symptoms from causes of autocracy in the data you cite?
I think it’s great that you took a stand to present your independent observations and relay some information people here may not have encountered on the subject, especially since political discourse is a minor LW taboo. This is good for epistemics IMO.
The key argument for why we’d predict 18+ Western fascisms in the next decade is that we should by default extrapolate current trends, while rejecting the appearance of stability.
I find this contradictory. Why are current derivative of fascism something we should view as “stable” and likely to hold constant over the long term, while the current amount of fascism is something we should view as “unstable” and easy to change?
Obviously, both can’t be true—we can’t have a stable amount of fascism and also a stable rate of change. I’m just not clear on why you think we ought to assume the rate of change is the statistic that is stable and the absolute level is the statistic that is unstable.
My intuition is the opposite. The level of autocracy appears pretty stable over long time periods in most countries, with occasional shocks and constant wobbles. It seems likely to me that we are having a wobble.
A secondary issue is the underlying causal model. The USA spied on its own citizens. Many of its citizens also celebrated storming the capitol and trying to overturn the 2020 election. I think the former is mainly a symptom of autocracy. The latter contributes to a culture of celebrating autocracy that I think contributes to its growth. Do you think we can distinguish symptoms from causes of autocracy in the data you cite?