Shocked to see the Helen Roy thing in here. Roy badly misunderstood the definition of luxury beliefs and then applied her misunderstanding.
A "luxury belief" is an idea promoted by someone who can personally afford the cost when most other people can't afford it. Something like "abolish the police, because I live in a gated community".
This does not apply to "Don't go to college" in 2026, when the price of college is astronomical, many traditional careers are being upended by AI, and conventional trades are a surer path to income. It also doesn't apply to "Have kids when you're young enough to have them", which is preferable to "wait too long and have none". Roy slipped in the claim that "the Right promotes teen pregnancy", which is just evidence of bad faith.
Roy decided that ideas that she disagrees with are "luxury beliefs" just because she doesn't like them. She completely lost the actual meaning of the term. She seems to think that "the people giving advice don't suffer if the advice goes badly" makes literally any plausible advice a candidate for "luxury belief" status.
But giving advice is not the same thing as demanding a government-level policy change.
Don’t agree with everything Helen says here, and you’re right that college is less of a sure bet than it has been in decades, but overall you see this take promoted by people who occupy a rarified position of professional punditry (also less of a sure career bet), so it’s not great advice for most smart young people, at least in the provocative and absolutist way the message is often delivered. The “have kids young” thing is similarly promoted by people who probably don’t know what it’s like to be dead broke and without a safety net in your late teens. I’d argue however that way, way more people need to have kids younger than need to avoid it.
The flip side is the rich couple at the beginning of Idiocracy who can’t possibly imagine having kids “in this economy” and they put it off till it’s too late. Seems to me that this danger is much more omnipresent among the Substack set than the danger of teen pregnancy!
As a 23-year-old software engineer, I reached my first "spring break" of my adult career and listened to older coworkers complain over lunch about the cost of their "flying the family to Disney World" plans for the week to come. I had never been on a plane with my parents in my life.
My parents also made a fraction of what these guys did, and they raised more children.
Maybe I was unclear. My point is that we shouldn't define all conceivable giving of advice as a "luxury belief" just because the speaker "pays no penalty for being wrong". Doing that waters the "luxury belief" concept down to nothingness.
Me giving you a stock tip isn't a "luxury belief" just because I'm rich, regardless of whether the tip is good or not. But if rich me said "Ban young Dudley from investing so that he doesn't lose money!", now I've trapped you in poverty for life.
I see, but if I'm being generous I'd say you can extrapolate a luxury belief out of each of Helen's pieces of advice.
e.g. "Don't go to college" > "College is a bad investment for most people and skipping it won't hurt you" is arguably a luxury belief in the way that "Blow up your marriage and go poly" is a luxury belief.
Or the "casual bigotry is cool" thing, the luxury belief is that it's always best to speak bluntly and honestly about race, but the proles are too dumb to do it in a way that's not going to get them into trouble.
"They differ in two crucial respects. Mr. Trump’s purge of the federal government since returning to the presidency has displayed a ruthlessness toward the perceived “enemy within” that Nixon, despite similar inclinations, could never conjure — even when faced with criminal insubordination."
MORE purges!!!
Actually, I never got the hate for Nixon. But I was 13 or 14 so there's that.
If you'd like an alternate take on Apple's Pluribus being anti-woke propaganda, but with fewer words and screenshots of tweets, I wrote my own version the end of last year:
The fact that Carol Sturka is a stand-in for Gilligan himself is quite obvious, especially as he's given interviews where he admits that the character was originally written as a man (i.e. Apple forced him to change the man to a lesbian woman). So he just changed the name and gender of the actor and left the character exactly as is, lol.
Cool. I'd say it's got a really interesting premise but is frustratingly slow after the first episode. Lots of time passes and not much happens. I don't recall Breaking Bad having this problem. Still, the idea is explored well and the acting is good.
"I love Charlie Munger...but" and proceeds to criticize a clearly effective stratagem from the fellow who tells everyone he figures things out through inversion. NGMI
Nope, it requires an account. I could try to get around the retarded javascript, but I’m busy with more important code. Thanks for sharing it though. Assuming the article has valuable insights, I’m sure there will be further discussion.
Good work, Dudley! There was one thing in a tweet screenshot I slightly disagreed with, so I wrote an eight page long comment about it using voice to text, but the Rothschilds won't let me poast it here, so I'll just say good work.
I was hoping for a 30 page long think piece on Bad Bunny. Will have to content myself with the tweets.
So much sturm und drang over a halftime show that was clearly more about the NFL’s insatiable desire for foreign income streams than it was about critiquing domestic policies. Bad Bunny was the top artist on Spotify, so like him or not, he’s not a particularly unreasonable choice for the halftime show. I am usually fine with a little Chuddery but I think conservatives crying over this and dragging out ancient Kid Rock as an alternative kind of came off as whiny bitches. Plus, I have no problem with hot mamacitas shaking it. Admit it, there is nothing quite like pre-Abuelafication bad b*tches.
Thanks NRP! On the Disgraced Propoganda tweet he says 'As Dave Green said on latest Dudley pod' - is that your podcast? If so, where can I listen to it, pls?
Shocked to see the Helen Roy thing in here. Roy badly misunderstood the definition of luxury beliefs and then applied her misunderstanding.
A "luxury belief" is an idea promoted by someone who can personally afford the cost when most other people can't afford it. Something like "abolish the police, because I live in a gated community".
This does not apply to "Don't go to college" in 2026, when the price of college is astronomical, many traditional careers are being upended by AI, and conventional trades are a surer path to income. It also doesn't apply to "Have kids when you're young enough to have them", which is preferable to "wait too long and have none". Roy slipped in the claim that "the Right promotes teen pregnancy", which is just evidence of bad faith.
Roy decided that ideas that she disagrees with are "luxury beliefs" just because she doesn't like them. She completely lost the actual meaning of the term. She seems to think that "the people giving advice don't suffer if the advice goes badly" makes literally any plausible advice a candidate for "luxury belief" status.
But giving advice is not the same thing as demanding a government-level policy change.
Don’t agree with everything Helen says here, and you’re right that college is less of a sure bet than it has been in decades, but overall you see this take promoted by people who occupy a rarified position of professional punditry (also less of a sure career bet), so it’s not great advice for most smart young people, at least in the provocative and absolutist way the message is often delivered. The “have kids young” thing is similarly promoted by people who probably don’t know what it’s like to be dead broke and without a safety net in your late teens. I’d argue however that way, way more people need to have kids younger than need to avoid it.
A lot of the people peddling that have enviable $250k sinécures at think tanks.
They have no idea what it’s like to be flat broke in your 20s.
I want people to get married and have children if that is their path. And I want them to have chances for upward mobility.
But more and more it seems like people on the right just care about writing whatever bizarre slop article policy paper they want.
The flip side is the rich couple at the beginning of Idiocracy who can’t possibly imagine having kids “in this economy” and they put it off till it’s too late. Seems to me that this danger is much more omnipresent among the Substack set than the danger of teen pregnancy!
No clue how people afford kids, tbh! 🤷♀️
As a 23-year-old software engineer, I reached my first "spring break" of my adult career and listened to older coworkers complain over lunch about the cost of their "flying the family to Disney World" plans for the week to come. I had never been on a plane with my parents in my life.
My parents also made a fraction of what these guys did, and they raised more children.
Ok?
Start as early as possible and rely on family to assist with expenses. If they love you, it's worth it to them.
Huh?
Maybe I was unclear. My point is that we shouldn't define all conceivable giving of advice as a "luxury belief" just because the speaker "pays no penalty for being wrong". Doing that waters the "luxury belief" concept down to nothingness.
Me giving you a stock tip isn't a "luxury belief" just because I'm rich, regardless of whether the tip is good or not. But if rich me said "Ban young Dudley from investing so that he doesn't lose money!", now I've trapped you in poverty for life.
I see, but if I'm being generous I'd say you can extrapolate a luxury belief out of each of Helen's pieces of advice.
e.g. "Don't go to college" > "College is a bad investment for most people and skipping it won't hurt you" is arguably a luxury belief in the way that "Blow up your marriage and go poly" is a luxury belief.
Or the "casual bigotry is cool" thing, the luxury belief is that it's always best to speak bluntly and honestly about race, but the proles are too dumb to do it in a way that's not going to get them into trouble.
I agree that the advice is bad for a lot of people. I'm just disagreeing that "bad advice" == "luxury belief".
I think that the advice has to become a mandated POLICY (like "defund the police" or climate taxes) before it graduates to "luxury belief" status.
Every time I see the scheduled bi-annual piece by Helen Roy about why the right-wing sucks I am tempted to respond and then have to stop myself.
I like to keep readers on their toes with some Pedrocore now and then.
It’s literally like Odysseus and the sirens for me.
The NRP is the one part of a prestige economy we actually have so far.
Hell yeah
"They differ in two crucial respects. Mr. Trump’s purge of the federal government since returning to the presidency has displayed a ruthlessness toward the perceived “enemy within” that Nixon, despite similar inclinations, could never conjure — even when faced with criminal insubordination."
MORE purges!!!
Actually, I never got the hate for Nixon. But I was 13 or 14 so there's that.
If you'd like an alternate take on Apple's Pluribus being anti-woke propaganda, but with fewer words and screenshots of tweets, I wrote my own version the end of last year:
https://penbroke.substack.com/p/pluribus-anti-woke-propaganda-in
The fact that Carol Sturka is a stand-in for Gilligan himself is quite obvious, especially as he's given interviews where he admits that the character was originally written as a man (i.e. Apple forced him to change the man to a lesbian woman). So he just changed the name and gender of the actor and left the character exactly as is, lol.
Will read, thanks. Although I may try to binge the show first.
Cool. I'd say it's got a really interesting premise but is frustratingly slow after the first episode. Lots of time passes and not much happens. I don't recall Breaking Bad having this problem. Still, the idea is explored well and the acting is good.
Better Call Saul definitely had this problem.
That makes so much more sense it was the thing that annoyed me most about it - it’s definitely a male character! Thank you for this clarification!!!
I still feel there is no reasonable explanation why guys like musk, Thiel, and gates would need to comport with Epstein. There is no good explanation.
Musk didn't need to comport with him.
Epstein invited him to his island in 2012 and Musk declined due to scheduling issues. They never even met in person.
Instead today that new files came out with musk in them but I haven’t looked into it
You Peaky Blinders Buddhism link should be https://x.com/kunley_drukpa/status/2021868978608427192
"I love Charlie Munger...but" and proceeds to criticize a clearly effective stratagem from the fellow who tells everyone he figures things out through inversion. NGMI
I really wanted to read the piece on Nixon. Oh well.
you can’t?
Nope, it requires an account. I could try to get around the retarded javascript, but I’m busy with more important code. Thanks for sharing it though. Assuming the article has valuable insights, I’m sure there will be further discussion.
It’s opening for me in an incognito window as a gift link. Strange…try accessing from here: https://x.com/seanmdav/status/2021998833904078990
That worked, thank you.
Good work, Dudley! There was one thing in a tweet screenshot I slightly disagreed with, so I wrote an eight page long comment about it using voice to text, but the Rothschilds won't let me poast it here, so I'll just say good work.
My goal is to be the gracious mayor though
I was hoping for a 30 page long think piece on Bad Bunny. Will have to content myself with the tweets.
So much sturm und drang over a halftime show that was clearly more about the NFL’s insatiable desire for foreign income streams than it was about critiquing domestic policies. Bad Bunny was the top artist on Spotify, so like him or not, he’s not a particularly unreasonable choice for the halftime show. I am usually fine with a little Chuddery but I think conservatives crying over this and dragging out ancient Kid Rock as an alternative kind of came off as whiny bitches. Plus, I have no problem with hot mamacitas shaking it. Admit it, there is nothing quite like pre-Abuelafication bad b*tches.
Thanks NRP! On the Disgraced Propoganda tweet he says 'As Dave Green said on latest Dudley pod' - is that your podcast? If so, where can I listen to it, pls?