@netstack's banner p

netstack

The horse embodies the wings a person feels inside.

10 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

				

User ID: 647

netstack

The horse embodies the wings a person feels inside.

10 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 647

We ask that top-level submissions have more substance than this. No, copying the text of the article doesn’t count.

Do you have an opinion on the piece? A reason you think we’d find it interesting? Maybe a broader trend it’s supposed to represent?

You’ve lost me.

Liberalism says to go ahead and pursue your treasure, but don’t stomp on certain rights. If you want blood you’re supposed to invoke the greater social contract. It’s materialist without devolving into the Hobbesian state of nature.

Liberalism also allows replacing “treasure” with “virtues.” That’s your own business. Other people are not supposed to stomp on you for it. Again, competition without war.

I don’t see how this scheme constitutes a war on virtues. Not masculinity, not Christianity.

Okay, that’s a pretty silly excuse.

Paranoid conspiracy theories have got to be the worst form of recruitment for a research program.

Parts of the U.S. Government like the alien narrative as a cheap way to signal that you’re totally a radical free-thinker. You know, one who cares about what the people want. The current administration has selected really hard for a certain willingness to burn credibility for attention.

Professional scientists, who are not usually elected based on economic and social vibes, have different incentives.

If other governments are joining in on the fun, I haven’t really seen it.

Okay, we’ve been looking at the same quote. I agree that there was no ambiguity about him doing an extrapolation. I think the article was clear that Pearson took the most extreme assumption whenever possible. Not including any of those assumptions means that his original statement was pretty untrustworthy.

Unless I’m misreading this, the substack author had to reconstruct a method, since Pearson never explained his numbers publicly.

He was quoted in the report, which again didn’t lay out its calculation.

Oh, it totally is. But one that’s less personal.

Well, good on you, I guess. The Lowe report (and Lord Pearson’s initial bluster) come out looking miserably untrustworthy.

I can’t say I expected much from a substack titled “heretical insights,” but I was pleasantly surprised.

As an aside: I don’t think the specific numbers matter. The Catholic scandals took off because they involved positions of trust. The numbers were smaller but closer to home. A failure of utilitarianism, to be sure.

It’s resisted valiantly because it represents a vicious motte and bailey, where “related psychological differences” covers whatever one can get away with. Difference in preferences becomes difference in ability, which becomes difference in moral value, which becomes difference in rights. I am not exaggerating. The innate differences of men and women have been used to excuse systematic denial of women’s rights. Same for white vs. black.

you just have to have a position that isn’t on the side of racists.

This, but unironically. The merest suggestion of group differences attracts a cloud of more or less the worst (Internet) partisans you can imagine. Just ask Scott.

A lot of the originals were pretty sad excuses for comedy. There’s something to be said for slapping a fresh coat of irony on them. Maybe the next step is a Hollywood movie by a 20yo amateur.

On the other hand, I kept reading it as “ethnically modified,” which I suppose might have achieved the authors’ goals.

Also, I’m curious where the effective altruism crept in. You have a link to that one?

Okay, but what if the terms actually are materialist?

What you're seeing as war goals are more or less incidental, because liberalism does not particularly care about virtue. It will sometimes go to bat for a short list of inalienable rights. Outside of that, it is a materialist ideology, and competition is not war.

It quite directly did. Factories started to close the gap between men, women and children when it came to economic value.

That relative loss was completely outweighed by the explosion in total economic value that came from labor-saving machines. It still moved enormous numbers of people out of the house and into the factory. It still put any society which relied on unassisted manual labor at a massive disadvantage.

Is that not what we’ve been doing?

C.S. Lewis was wrong, then.

Technology has devalued a man’s labor. Handcrafting loses out to machine tooling. Conscript armies lose out to professionals with air support. Local farmers lose out to plantations in the third world.

There was and is no war. Liberalism’s love affair with the profit motive made it quicker to incorporate these changes in value. Our more authoritarian competitors either got with the program or, again, lost out.

Lots of things are occasionally negative-sum. I am not inclined to get rid of all of them.

But then, I might just be defensive about my own line of work.

DRL, a roguelike themed after Doom. Mechanics are pleasantly simple. No metaprogression outside of recording recipes. Perfect not-quite-mindless time killer with a number of secrets to find.

I think your model of these “coalitions” is wrong.

Single-issue voters join a coalition to buy support for their issue. In exchange, they’ve got to provide their support to other issues when those ones are relevant.

Yes, debating what qualifies as “relevant” makes up a substantial portion of internal politics. No, feminism does not automatically dominate every such debate within left-leaning organizations. Your outgroup is not homogenous.

Kimmel’s history on this particular show hasn’t been relevant. If it were, I’m sure people would come out of the woodwork to share unflattering clips and say how they always knew he was a boor, or whatever. Up until that point, they’re supposed to evaluate stuff on the more relevant issues, like “does he joke about the right people?” and “do people recognize the name?”

A digression: are you familiar with Texas AG Ken Paxton? Wife divorced him for repeated cheating. Just won the GOP primary for U.S. Senate against a 24-year incumbent.

Do you find it hard to see how evangelicals, a significant part of the Texas Republican coalition, could forgive him?

In a vacuum, I expect evangelicals would rather have had Paxton-but-faithful over Paxton-the-dirty-cheater. But they assessed his marriage status wasn’t the relevant bit, so they deferred to the name recognition and the Trump endorsement. This is business as usual in the awkward, messy process of forming a coalition.

Did we ever find out if Double D Geopolitics was actually American?

Paid shit-stirring has been a thing since the Ancient Greeks. Back in those days, at least your drachma stayed in the local economy!

Man, you really ought to know better. I suppose you haven’t accrued a warning in a while, so we’ll back off to a three-day ban this time.

Be polite.

More or less.

It’s easy to find examples of officials doing the responsible thing.

It’s also easy to find people who danced around the violence while endorsing the sentiment. Notice how those take @FtttG’s suggested response: “we pledge to do all we can to fix the problem.”

The incentives are to call for reform, insist that you’re working to solve the problem, and downplay any violence. Only the most radical politicians flirted with endorsing the riots.

Really? I kind of liked the cringe relationship drama. Er, that might be a little strong. I appreciated having it around. It avoids certain failure modes of self-published fantasy by flying really, really close to them.

I feel like the story would be weaker if it didn’t have Joon’s confused psychosexual problems. But then, I rather liked Evangelion.

I wouldn’t call it manufactured, per se. But yes, of course it applies.

Not that I disagree with your premise, exactly...but I can think of several reasons we might have started bombing. Most of them involve underestimating the resilience of Iran's government. Regime change would make destroying the facilities a moot point.

"We only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down."

Too obnoxious by half.

You were warned last month for frothing at the mouth instead of, you know, politely discussing whatever it was that pissed you off. One day ban this time.

The defensible form of this argument is that they’re doing whatever they normally would, only much more efficient, because they have access to a pseudo-intern who doesn’t need to eat, sleep, or get briefed to their project.

The spicy form is that whatever frontier model has made it to the government is totally 100x smarter, guys, and can generate Bay of Pigs plans that actually work.