@ArjinFerman's banner p


Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email


User ID: 626


Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 626

Verified Email

I'm not a lawyer, let alone a German one, but there was a pretty big story during the refugee crisis, where a German couple got fine for a pretty milquetoast Facebook post. It doesn't surprise me German HBDers remain more or less unmolested because the way laws are applied tends to be pretty arbitrary, but that also means they can suddenly decide to change their mind, and persecute them.

Germany has relatively liberal speech laws on anything except things related to 1933-1945, which tend to fit into two categories

If by "relatively liberal" you mean you'll get fined rather than sent to prison (probably), then yes.

Damn... I was as permanently online back then as I'm now, and as blue-tribe as I am anti-blue now, and somehow never got the impression this sort of talk was anything beyond run of the mill bitching at politicians.

I remember left wing folks going on about the threat of "fascists" in America when I was attending college in Southern California in 2000-2005.

I suppose these people didn't show up out of nowhere...

The person who described this theory to me was a left-winger who did so approvingly, arguing that the failure of OWS due to the Progressive Stack was a good thing for the left, as compared to the alternative.

But did they do so post- or pre-Trump?

Well, I'm not sure about it being "useless", I did hear of a few successful attempts at fending off entryism by utilizing the stack, though you're probably right that adding new entries to it as an outsider is going to be too obvious, and won't work.

but that such "sabotage" was not the intended goal, merely a possible — and acceptable — price to attain the actual goal: to keep out Fascists.

It was 2008, not 2016, no one was hyperventilating about "fascists" back then.

There are a bunch of action movies with female leads that are widely considered good or at the very least have mass appeal. See: Aliens, Fury Road, Kill Bill, Terminator, Hunger Games, Underworld (not actually very good but a box office hit), etc. That expands further when you include movies that don't have female leads actually beating guys up but still taking aggressive, active roles. See: Zero Dark Thirty, Silence of the Lambs, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoos, Sicario, half of all horror movies ever made, etc.

That long list of examples feels like it's undermining Darwin's little rant somewhat...

But a lot of similarly brainless beat-em-up action movies have been released with women leads over the years, often with better objective craft and quality overall,

...yeah they're called Terminator, Aliens, Kill Bill, and Hunger Games, and they range from box-office hit to beloved classic.

I just want to carve out the fact that there is room for nuanced claims in this discussion

Please proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be. Is an attempt to carve room for nuanced discussion one where arguments and examples that have been brought up countless times are deliberately ignored in favor of implying someone acts out of unconscious bias? Why have you only considered bias going one way, and ignoring the possibility it is the female directors, leads, etc who are biased?

Given the above, I'm afraid I must reject your unsubstantiated claim that you're aiming for nuance, unless you back it up with evidence.

I have always and forever been in favor of just dropping the voting system. Once, because I also find the kind of behavior you're describing lame, I even proposed an auto-banning system for voting the wrong way.

I don't think we disagree that it was useless, even then, for an outsider.

Why? It's a very good descriptor of what their philsophy is about, especially for an outsider following more classical ideas of equality, and wondering why certain demands are being made of him.

We've been through this dance of pretending a term applied to this ideology is somehow not useful so many times, from Cultural Marxism, through Political Correctness, SJW, Woke, CRT, and now apparently Progressive Stack, regardless of whether the term was an ingroup, or outgroup designation, or how many citations you can pull to support it, that the only conclusion can be that the actual objection is there being a term at all. If you disagree Please Just Fucking Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand.

Wasn't expecting to have to litigate whether they're true pedophiles, rather than lizardmen, but I'll take it. Go round them up, I'll bring out the woodchipper.

I'd go with the "shitty shared hosting servers" explanation. As far as I can tell phpBB is still doing a full page refresh, it's just that it's much faster than Reddit (or any major SocMed). This shouldn't come as a surprise, because it's Reddit, not phpBB that's awful. I once tried to start up a local instance of Reddit (it used to be open source, and I think the old code is still floating around somewhere), and my computer just gave up. By contrast the rdrama code The Motte uses, runs locally with no issues, and phpBB could probably run on a coal fueled kitchen stove. I'm also quite sure that all the Big Tech frontends are deliberately enshittified, because Nitter was running way faster than Twitter, Teddit was way faster than Reddit (before they started closing outside access), Piped is way faster than Youtube, etc. I think I've never seen an alternative frontend that didn't BTFO an official Big Tech one in terms of performance.

The primary software for forums was phpBB, and it was/is awful.

If you weren't there it's hard for you to understand how slow and awful phpBB was. Old reddit's use of JS to update the DOM was the top of the tech at the time.

I wasn't there depending on how old is the old Reddit you're referring to, I think I started browsing it around 2014 or so, but I don't think speed was that much a favorable comparison to phpBB, and even if it was originally, it's definitely not any more. Go to any still functioning phpBB forum (there are still a few out there), they're way faster than Reddit.

I don't feel too strongly about this, obviously there's a whole bunch of factors involved here, but it's not like enforcement cannot result in a dramatic decrease in crimes that need enforcing against (see El Salvador) or lack of enforcement resulting in an increase (see post-BLM murder rate).

I disagree. The point I'm making is that MKUltra got exposed not due to a "half-life on cover ups", but because of a fluke, where an alternative version of events could result in it always remaining a rumor (a.k.a. crazy conspiracy theory) at most. A shorter half-life cannot fix the issue, because that was not the source of it.

Now you might say that whatever changes were implemented after the cold war would not have allowed it to go undetected (rather than merely catching it sooner), but you haven't really backed your claim, if it is the claim you are making.

I don’t get the sense that there’s anything I could say to get you to stop pretending like you can mind read my epistemology and consistently misrepresent it.

Which is really ironic because my underlying philosophy and approach is identical to Scott’s. I’m not innovating.

I did indulge in a bit of mind reading when I claimed you might be applying different standards to different ideas, but when I see an inconsistency, I cannot help but point it out. The simplest thing to say in that situation is to describe your standards, and to point out how you're actually applying them consistently across ideas, using the claims we've been discussing as examples.

"Identical to Scott's" doesn't really cut it, unless you're literally Scott himself, our interpretations of his work might be different, after all.

Your whole paragraph about libertarians is baffling. But then you bringing in “democracy” as a comparison point was inappropriate and unhelpful from the start.

I was making a pretty basic point about rationalizing one's biases away. And as for "inappropriate and unhelpful", I wish I could do better, but since you don't really say what your issue is, it's hard for me to address it.

This is not a good faith take in a conversation branching off from the fact TTV (among others) claims there is evidence they have for the courts and that we in the public could see, and where one of the strongest arguments against any meaningful election fraud is that the claims were investigated.

Forget “proving” it happened. We’re pretty far from actual evidence suggesting meaningful election fraud took place because the many claims did not survive scrutiny.

This is where our conversation started. The substance of TTV's claims was not my concern anywhere in our conversation.

You’re doing an election fraud version of Sagan’s garage dragon and it’s tiresome to have to address your apples to orange comparisons with e.g. police and crime.

If Sagan's garage dragon involved screaming at the believer that they're a far-right conspiracy theorist, instead of investigating, you'd have a point. All I'm saying is that the case is suspicious enough that it warrants an investigation, rather than dismissing it out of hand like it's currently being done.

And now on the new thread you’re also responding in a way that isn’t even wrong because you can’t seem to grasp the actual point I was making. I might be wrong but it’s not because you refuted my points.

Take a breath and read slower.

While this may be occasionally good advice for me, it's a swing and a miss here. First, I'm not sure what's the point of bringing up the other thread, other than to attempt to distract from this one, but more importantly, I think you're just plain wrong. But let's leave that for the other thread.

namely in the context of the ongoing Hungarian presidential pardon scandal, where liberal leftist influencers have pretty much reinvented the Pizzagate conspiracy theory

Why can't we all just shake hands on the idea that we are all, left or right, being ruled by lizardmen pedophile elites, and act accordingly?

Each one of those should be a debunking, but of course HBD proponents don't really care about any of those; as I said, none of them has ever been really involved in the actual scientific community. The whole point is to give an appearance of scholarship under the guise of clever sounding citations and lengthy papers, nevermind that those are in bogus journals from fields that are virtually unknown of the broader genomics community.

I don't know if any of the our resident HBD obsessives are still around, so maybe you'll get a full response to this, or maybe not. All I'll say as someone who really doesn't want HBD to be true is be extremely careful making these kind of bombastic rants. Back when this was a subject discussed with some regularity around here, watching people come in hot like this, and getting refuted point by point, was pretty radicalizing.

In other words, the half life of cover ups is shorter and the big crazy stuff is just not going to fly.

This is false. As others pointed out MKUltra got exposed by a lucky coincidence. The full extent of the program is still not known, and an alternative version of events were all the documents were properly disposed of, and we never hear of it outside of the testimony of a few traumatized kooks, is hardly implausible.

I’m using the same epistemology wherever I go, but different standards of evidence for different kinds of questions.

I'm not sure if the former is true, because getting you to say anything specific about your approach is turning out to be a long and arduous process. As for the latter - I agree, and that has been my point from the start.

Asking for laboratory studies for phenomena where controlled conditions are impossible is simply inappropriate.

I don't disagree, but at that point you have no way to pretend your thinking is rigorous. With every condition you relax (even if it is simply because meeting it is just not possible) your approach gets progressively wishy-washy.

You accuse me of doing different approaches for things I like, but that’s unfounded. It’s not that I like the police. What I like is low crime, and I’ve read enough on the topic and have some lived experience to know having more rather than fewer officers tends to help reduce crime. Similarly, I’d actually prefer a fair bit less democracy than we have now, and I’d prefer a different system if I thought it could do better along various lines.

Yes, and I've met libertarians you professed to particular attachments to libertarianism, it just so happened that they marched in lockstep with von Mises, Rothbard, et al., or communists who just so happened to believe communism yields superior results, and they would totally change their mind if only shown evidence that they wrong, but somehow every counter-argument they ever ran into could be waved away by pointing out some state intervention / capitalist exploitation.

while maintaining that the idea that significant fraud or anything else (fire) justifying claims of a rigged/stolen election are baseless, given any presented evidence.

It is "baseless" in the same sense that the idea that police is necessary to protect from crime is "baseless" - only true if you demand an inappropriate standard of evidence. It is "baseless" in the same way as claims Epstein was running a prostitution Ponzi scheme before of it was officially released to the public, or the more recent claims that he didn't kill himself.

It’s a criminal investigation situation.

Exactly, and given that none of us can be expected to have access to evidence proving it happened, or to be allowed to conduct an investigation where any such evidence could be revealed, it is disingenious to demand we concede election fraud did not happen, barring we meet that standard of evidence.

It’s not a new thing. It does take solid evidence though.

Many of these schemes were running undetected for years before solid evidence was found. By your logic, the investigation should have never taken place, because the claims were baseless.

I'm not. They didn't like my idea of mandatory euthanasia for journalists.

It’s incredible to me that you assert here that we do not have sufficient evidence regarding policing or democracy to make reasonably confident assertions, at a broad level at least.

You can find it incredible if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the arguments for these things are very wishy-washy. As for "sufficient" it depends what you mean by that. Sufficient to not uproot our entire system of government? Why yes, I agree, and that was my point from the start.

…but that there’s room to believe there was significant fraud in the 2020 election.

Whatever system of epistemology you’re using is alien to me.

I'm not sure this is even true. At first I thought it might be, but your responses re: controlled conditions show that in practice our epistemologies are not that different, you're just applying different t standards to things you like vs. things you don't like.

“Controlled conditions” is a red herring because it’s a laughably impossible standard for say the type and level of policing and its effect on crime

I agree, it is impossible to have a rigorous justification for that belief.

The best we can do is observe natural experiments and adjust accordingly.

And what is the best we can do when discussing fraud in elections with secret ballots?

Also, I have directly engaged with several arguments against the lawyerly approach. You might think I’m wrong, but please don’t accuse me of not engaging them.

Fair enough, but in the course of our conversation, you seem a lot more interested in psychologizing and slapping adjectives on your opponents, than in discussing the substance of their ideas.

That's fair, in your case I'd say the disagreement is values based, and to be fair there's a significant values component to my opinion on the issue as well, but the public debate seems to revolve around consequences.

“Was there significant fraud in the 2020 US election” is a different kind of question than “will AI pose a threat to humanity” or the effects of immigration or group differences.

Some people confidently assert there was significant election fraud, in stark contrast to available evidence.

"AI will pose a threat to humanity" is different in because it's about the future, and the only way to verify it is to wait and see, so I can agree it's not the best example. Still, despite there being no evidence that it will, some of the most prominent figures of the rationalist movement confidently assert that claim, to the point they will argue for bombing countries that would defy their proposed policies.

The question of group differences or immigration is not a different type of question. In theory they can both be resolved factually, the same way the question of election fraud could. The biggest difference is that these questions don't have the destruction of evidence baked into them like elections necessarily do, as a result of the secret ballot.

Reasonable people can disagree on say nature vs. nurture (though not blank slatism), but it doesn’t seem reasonable to assert significant election fraud, given the dearth of evidence and abundance of bad evidence.

While there's not enough evidence to conclusively prove election fraud, there has been enough suspicious behavior that I cannot blame anyone for coming to the conclusion that there was. The issue is a lot closer to nature vs. nurture, where both sides are floating in a sea of unknowns, than to blank slatism, where one side has been conclusively BTFO'd.

“Abolish the police” is a horrifically bad idea! I’m a bit flabbergasted you would propose that as an area with weak evidence.

It wasn't tested very often, and definitely not under controlled conditions. If you think it has strong evidence, your standards are pretty low.

“Democracy” empirically outperforms anything else we’ve tried at scale. Plenty of debate to be had over what “democracy” even means or if an even better system is possible.

Historically "democracy" has been a spit in the bucket, and in pre-democratic times, it's rarity as a system of government was used as proof that it cannot work, the same way you are currently trying to claim it is clearly superior. I will also note the lack of controlled conditions. If this is your idea of rigor, you're using the word differently then I am.

My approach to truth is bog standard rationality(TM).

Yeah, rationality(TM) isn't a great approach to truth for many issues.

On this issue, I’m psychologizing some posters who seem allergic to the lawyerly approach overall.

Right, and you are not engaging with their arguments against the lawyerly approach, and not providing your own arguments for it.