I think the shamelessness from Paris Hilton of a different kind than the shamelessness of the 2016 candidate. The former is of the "give them something to hate/gawk at/despise" whereas the latter is a byproduct (first), and results in (second), the breakdown of institutions. When our institutions can't be trusted, the advantage that we thought we were supposed to gain from playing by their rules (stability, fairness, equality) don't seem like they outweigh the disadvantages (waiting and thinking, instead of acting immediately). So we turn to greed and tribalism, and we like to see that legitimized by our role models.

Weird contradiction in the article - it warns us not to complacently write off those who appear shameless… but also:

> any major politician sticking to a pre-2016 playbook today is almost certainly not going to win.

The implicit assumption of this article is that ideas approved by current members of community are good and ones expressed by the "shameless" outsider are bad. This would, for example, automatically invalidate Pride movement without considering merits of it's goals. It would be more fair to say that regardless of merit of ideas, stating them directly and forcefully despite community pushback can be a valid strategy to attract new members or shift Overton window.

This generally is a version of what economics and game theory knows as countersignalling. A classic paper is “Too Cool for School” https://host.kelley.iu.edu/riharbau/cs-randfinal.pdf

Always worth pondering when it works, and when, for whom, and how it fails.

There's no news like bad news.

I kind of agree with Nadia's analysis of what's happening, but it's a fucking cursed reality.

Here's hoping for a New New Sincerity to bring us back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_sincerity

The article is way off base. Dorsey's playbook, if it even exists, isn't something to be ashamed of, especially in the context of Silicon Valley culture. Has the author never heard of Burning Man (obviously, she has and might have been more than once)? Zuck and Dorsey are two of the most common archetypes among tech company founders: the super nerd who only thinks about technology, and then money, and power, and the more romantic nerd, who seems to have some spiritual goals that technology only partially fulfills.

A more curious case, although it became prominent years after this post was published, is that of the Bidens. Their son Hunter was a big liability, and even the most staunch Democrats, if they thought about it outside the context of the cultural battle between right and left, would have admitted it. But by all accounts, the whole issue became entangled in the cultural battle between left and right, and people took sides depending on where their vote was going.

The same thing happened in Italy with Berlusconi and his interest in younger women whom he paid to have sex with him. He neither explained nor justified his behavior (just dinner with friends, he said: can I relax the way I want after long days of work?), and the subject became one of many that his friends and enemies discussed daily.

Strauss-Khan, a prominent figure in French and European politics up until some 15-20 years ago, failed to weather the storm, but not because of his infidelity or his passion for escorts, but because he, a socialist, had treated some immigrants and low-status people with vicious contempt. If it had been just about the escorts, the shameless strategy would probably have worked (after all, who doesn't like escorts?).

Zelensky allowed himself and his wife to appear in what I consider to be an incredibly misguided and glamorous photo shoot published in Vanity Fair, a shameless strategy, but he had cover from criticism, as any criticism of the photo shoot would have been interpreted as openly siding with Putin.

Although it is always a matter of circumstances, I believe that the shameless strategy works for people of very low status, who do not fear criticism because they have little to lose, or for those of high status, especially when they manage to make it seem normal, that it has always been done, but that it has now become a problem because their enemies want to make it so, for political, financial, or cultural reasons. For mid-level managers in the tech industry, on average, it doesn't work very well.

>It’s important to note that people were dismissive of Paris because validating her playbook would mean admitting that they were playing an inferior game. Everyone else had invested years into optimizing for the most legible version of the rules. They’d look silly if they were to admit she had found a better way of doing things.

I had a co-worker who was addicted to verbally correcting everyone around him, which was super irritating but he seemed just quick enough and just technically correct enough that his formula kind of worked, for him. I would come into work and he would be in a middle of an argument where he insisted some distinction that everyone else that was asinine, he felt was important, and he always got the last word. Everything from pronunciation to definitions of ordinary concepts, and it was visibly important to his self esteem how right he was about all of these things.

At one point he claimed I "didn't understand comedy" because I enjoyed Tim and Eric. If you don't know them, think adult swim style surrealist meta-humor but in lo-fi live action. And my theory for this particular co-worker is that something about what Tim and Eric make fun of must have hit too close to home, too close to his sense of normalcy, which in this case meant seeing them not as comedic personas but as familiar targets to "correct", only to realize they were part of a comedic persona satirizing a certain idea of normalcy, to his initial bafflement and then resentment. Because for a moment he could make a home in that world, and it was a world they were making fun of.

These are all my assumptions of course, but I think they map on to this Paris Hilton analysis, which is that for some reason he needed to see their entire way of doing comedy as not real or not legitimate, because doing so would mean something fundamental about his psychology was something that could be turned into a joke.

It's another pseudo intellectual article to thinly criticize "the other side in US politics" claiming populism and shamelessness.

The mafia/werewolf example is certainly a bad analogy and maybe there'd be more consequences to labeling if labeling wasn't used all the time as a political maneuver to destroy an opponent.

It's also ridiculously all over the place claiming Paris Hilton somehow popularized being out there. In the US, Fame and "larger than life" attitudes have always been successful provided they come together with money or power.

One of my favorite game theory examples is that it's rational for a dictator of a lower-tier country to claim advanced nuclear weapons because the aggressor will realize it's not worth the risk