ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
21d ago
Men who have lives and families to care about don't want to burn down the world.
Your general point is valid, but you're going off track with this. I don't recall Scott ever wanting to burn the world down. It's more that if he couldn't even stand the heat when he was single, there's no way he'll risk exposing his family to the psychos that came after him.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
21d ago
I think people were literally warning him this would happen if he moves back to California.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
21d ago
That's not fair, he used to be a good writer that used to be able to show he properly understood the arguments he disagreed with.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
21d ago
Did I misremember him being anti-populist?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
21d ago
It's ok, I can take the L on this (or even a warning). I get that it's poisonous, but I can't help it, my heart is poisoned. I could do the "I disagree with you, but I assume you're sincere" thing when I first got here, but after everything that happened over the years it's hard to maintain that mindset. At least show some awareness of what happened and how it affected people, even if you think they're nuts.
But at the end of the day you're right, this way lies madness, and if there's a point worth making here, I'll have to find a way to distill it out of all that "you don't really believe what you say you do".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
21d ago
This one was for me, not cjet. I'm ok with poop, but have issues with precision.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
22d ago
Is asking questions about a potential project allowed here?
Absolutely, plenty of people do it! Anything that will get you tinkering.
Sadly your question doesn't is outside of my expertise.
Ok, let's go over the checklist from last week:
Make the "subscribe" button workAdd a script to download content from the subscribed to profiles- This one will need cleanup / optimization, and I just barely cobbled it together for now.- Start on reorganizing the database architecture to optimize performance.
So could be better, but I'll use that Psycho-Pass review as an excuse for why things went a little slower.
How have you been doing @Southkraut?
And a racist is not sure if black people are actually people.
Your analogies are going from bad to worse. This comparison would only make sense if you believed men (or women if we're discussing FTMs) are subhuman.
Your previous one made some sense. If you wanted some variety you could go with: "And a racist would believe he's not violating any rights, because he's in favor of providing 'seperate but equal' facilities". Except this also doesn't work, because you're not arguing in favor of desegregation. You want to keep segregation, but make a special exception for some men to be able to go into women's spaces.
Trans people can and will get access to sex-segregated spaces just like black people got access to white only spaces.
Maybe. Or maybe the cause will land on the heap of other discarded progressive causes like eugenics, lobotomies, pedo acceptance, and psychosurgery, that progressives are now acting like they never happened or weren't their ideas.
Your assertions to the contrary are not relevant since they are negated by society at large.
It's relevant to the argument that your view is universal. "Dominant" is not that. Dominance doesn't even require a majority.
It's not racist to have a black only space. It is racist to have a white only space.
I have to say, it sure does take the sting out of your civil rights comparisons to hear you explicitly promote ideas that could only make sense to a racist.
Those are the demonstrated values.
All this would mean is that we live in a racist society. That shouldn't be a surprising conclusion for you.
Trans rights are about trans rights. They don't need to be anything else.
This statement makes absolutely no sense, though perhaps I shouldn't be surprised when it comes from the same movement that gave us "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman".
You have men and women, and also trans people.
Well, if they're a seperate category, and want a separate space, I could be convinced of going along with that.
A historical artifact of a European monoethnic patriarchal society.
And you don't find it at all surprising that basically every single society came up with sex segregated spaces?
Anyway, let's go with this. So why aren't you advocating for desegregation instead of keeping segregation? Even if we apply the Critical Theory "privilege plus power" framework, that only implies mixed spaces and trans spaces, not keeping men's and women's spaces.
I have done nothing else.
So back when the Yaniv case was coming to light, you were arguing that the waxing salons were in the wrong, and these women should be legally mandated to wax those feminine balls, right?
Trans rights aren't just a matter of importance for trans people. They are of importance to any person who recognizes the modern western world order.
The modern western order survived just fine without trans rights until yesterday, so it can survive, and even flourish without them indefinitely.
Being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason.
Uh... no. Being for trans rights is completely irrational. Whether or not it's immoral will depend on how your ground your morality.
As you can not draw a line in the sand now against trans rights without that line intersecting with other human rights. Like civil rights.
Every single comparison to civil rights that you drew so far has failed, and you refused to engage with the argument.
This cavalier morally neutral tone doesn't work after you just took a grand stand on the suffering of female prisoners at the hands of trans women.
I mean if you're trying to get me to admit that I think it's more important to protect women than it is to protect men, and especially women suffering at the hands of men, ya got me.
If you don't care about the suffering of prisoners you don't belong in this conversation at all.
Please represent my views correctly: I don't care about it to the point where I'd expand infinite resources to protect them from harm at their own hands.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
22d ago
Season 3 is similarly garbage, and felt like they were trying to double back to what made Season 1 so good, but failed miserably. Then there was some movie where they were investigating a nuclear waste facility, and it was likewise absolute trash, and the point at which I gave up on the franchise.
The only sequel that should even be considered part of the canon, is the movie where they go to Indonesia, or wherever the hell it was.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
22d ago
Oh my god, that does sound awesome! I'm more of a goat person, but sheep are pretty cool too.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
22d ago
Things I don't mind:
- Being careful and slow
Things I do mind:
- Disgusting things, extreme amounts of dirt, any amount of poop, or bugs.
And while we're at it, how about a trade for someone with the opposite preferences.
then how can you trust that it's actually measuring economic output correctly?
Because it works. In the show crime is so rare that law enforcement runs on a skeleton crew. Most of the crime cases that are popping up over the season are a result of a rare kind of crisis, not the normal day to day life. Further, in-universe Japan is the most prosperous, orderly, and technologically advanced society on the planet.
The law is legible. The law is codified, tested with precedent, and those precedents recorded.
Perhaps the show is questioning whether things are quite so rosy as you say they are.
Fascinating. Although I live in Japan I rarely watch anime and never read manga, but I am continually surprised by some of the work produced once someone exposes me to it (sometimes, as now, in ways that aren't immediate recoil).
Yeah, I met a lot of people who get viscerally turned off by the form of anime, and even some of the good ones don't seem to appeal to them, but I'd say some of them are better written than anything that came out of western filmmaking.
I wasn't into anime either for most of my life, and got into it when me and my wife were looking for something to kill time with, and she recommended Death Note because she remembered everybody at college losing their mind about it. I think we watched Psycho-Pass directly after that, so for a while I thought the Japanese were the übermenschen of storytelling. With time it turned out that I just had a backlog of very good material, that I wasn't previously aware of, to browse through.
I would be more likely to read the story as an allegory of how Japanese society already operates (and not necessarily just the criminal justice system, but workaday life) than somewhere more homogenous such as, say, the US
As far as specifics of the culture and the criminal justice system are concerned, you're probably right, but there are parts later on that could be interpreted to be about the liberal world order generally.
Ironically, Japan's CJ system seems very much geared for reform rather than retribution, except in the most dramatic cases.
They show that too in the show. I left the comment for later, when it's explored more in another episode, but there's an entire infrastructure for preemptive and recovery therapy. Thing is every character seems very cynical about it. They don't believe it really works, and kinda treat it as pointless activity to keep the convicts occupied. Would that match the attitudes about rehabilitation in Japan?
That does sound about right. Ok good to know it's worth giving it another shot.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
22d ago
Excellent write up. Psycho-pass is great - although I usually prefer when Urobochi is allowed to waffle on the about philosophy more.
I remember reading a bunch of reviews, and all the weebs seems to hate when he does that, which is rather depressing.
Where would you say he had more of an opportunity to get deeper into philosophy?
After Psycho-Pass I had a brief "this man is a genius" phase, and tried to look up anything he ever did. Somehow Madoka Magica never clicked for me, and I ended up giving up after a few episodes. I liked Fate/Zero, and ironically it seems to be the one that fans of the series hate, so I guess there's no accounting for taste. I think I somehow missed The Song of Saya, though.
every politician that says 'No, this is an economically-vital piece of infrastructure.' also to jail.", and so on?
Funny you say this, as this was, almost word for for, the reason the director of the factory gave for obstructing the investigation.
One thing to keep in mind is that crime management is not the only task of the Sybil System, it manages all of society. It's not even clear how much power politicians have, and it's heavily implied they're just a human face for the system. So if it's the system that decided it needs drones from the factory, doesn't it stand to reason that it might tolerate a bit of harrasment to keep the productivity up?
doesn't that mean that they graduate pretty quickly, and everyone saying "No, they're scum, we've collectively agreed that they're the non-metaphorical underclass we agree to look down upon" is intending to commit crimes against actual-citizens and thus gets immediately vibe-checked and shot?
Probably, though this is largely hypothetical. People are shown to pretty blindly follow the indications of Sybil, so if someone's crime coefficient or hue check improves, they'd regain status in society. That said, it is portrayed as extremely rare that anyone's Psycho-Pass would recover.
I feel like either there is a lot being elided here. A society as described can't be both a functional pre-crime enforcement state and a metaphor for modern society
I think I said it the OP the vibe-check is a low-cost, low resolution measure. To shoot someone you need an actual crime-scan, and it's implied to be costly enough that you can't just mount them on every street, so a lot can hide in the gaps.
I think you're asking good questions that the creators meant to be asked. You probably won't be terribly surprised by how events unfold, but in my opinion you're slightly off the mark on some of your conclusions.
Cool write up, I'd like to read more stuff like this on The Motte.
Thanks! I've had the desire to share the good news about Psycho-Pass - our lord and savior - for nearly a decade. I bounced around several ideas from starting YouTube channels to trying to get on ones that talk about media, indefinitely postponed them for various practical and stage-fright reasons, only to realize I could just post it here.
I've made several comments about how we should do more non-CW content here, so it's a bit embarrassing how long this took.
Is the show worth finishing? I got a few episodes in but dropped it for the gore, which I found gratuitous and distasteful.
If you could get over the gore, I'd say definitely yes, but if that's your turnoff, then I can understand being hesitant.
I think the episode that made you tap out is the worst in that regard, but it's not like people stop getting dominator'd. There's a few episodes where the city descends into riots and chaos, and there are some scenes of gratuitous violence, but nothing quite so gory as those art installations, and I can at least see how it's supposed to serve the point being made. I'd need to rewatch to be sure (which I'm currently doing, so I can let you know).
I wasn't sure how that really contributed to the (very interesting) themes of mass surveillance and social credit, it seemed more like a torture-porn filler episode.
It's funny you mention this, because I was already scratching my head about what to write about that episode (actually a pair or them - it takes two episodes to resolve her case). The story of her father seems way more intersting than anything she does, but there's not so much to work with regarding him.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
23d ago
The book or the movie? Only watched the latter, and never struck me as all that deep. What did you find frustrating about the show?
The right to express their gender identity
I'm not convinced such a thing as "gender identity" even exists, but they can express themselves however they want. What they can't do is impose their worldview on others, and get access to sex-segregated spaces.
Civil rights didn't end race based welfare programming. You can still have black only spaces and programs. Just not white ones. This is universally celebrated as a good thing by everyone except racists.
This is incoherent. To the extent Civil Rights endorse this, they are racist themselves, and the only people celebrating it are racists. And it's definitely not universally celebrated, and not even accepted that it stems from civil rights. What do you think all the drama about DEI and CRT is?
It also fails to rescue your analogy. If this is what trans rights was about, they would demand the abolition of sex segregation for "cis" people, but demand optional spaces for trans people.
It's the abolition of biological sex as a negative delineator for trans people. Just like race was abolished as a negative delineator for black people.
I already pointed out how this argument fails. Civil rights did not put forward the idea of "trans-white" people who'd get access to white facilities, it abolished segregation. If trans rights were analogous to civil rights, it would argue for the abolition of segregation as well.
We've gone from "some" to all.
No we haven't. Please don't misrepresent me.
I never argued that X would never happen. Many trans activists never argued that. How about you deal with what's actually being said rather than fighting strawmen? It's such an irrelevant strawman at that.
You can claim that you never said that, in which case it would be irrelevant to you, but you don't get to call it a strawman, unless you believe there's a version of your argument that it caricatures.
Women in womens prisons also rape eachother.
Forget about the trans stuff for a moment. Why do you think we separate men from women in prisons and other facilities?
There are costs to any policy.
And if you want to argue for it, you should be upfront about the costs, so people can make the cost-benefit analysis themselves.
So far society sees fit to pay for mass immigration and desegregation with the rape of men, women and children. The alleged cost of this policy is dwarfed by those, yet you will find no transphobe arguing against desegregation on the basis of the catastrophic amounts of rape, robberies and murder that have happened because of it.
Well, I don't know about "no transphobe". For one, plenty of people are against mass immigration at this point, but sure the race-segregation enjoyers are a minority.
In any case, a big reason for why society sees fit to pay these costs is being the arguments are based on lies. You do your little victory laps because "only racists have a problem with this", but the argument you are putting forward yourself would be condemned as racist. And if you don't believe me, then please, I am begging you, please get your pro-trans friends to use the "black people rape way more whites, than trans rape women, and yet you have no problem with desegregation" argument loudly and often.
You are presenting an inconsistent and irrational defense of boundaries that keep a tiny minority of people from living better lives.
I don't see it what way it is either inconsistent or irrational, and the tiny minority doesn't get to impose it's will on everybody else, just because it will make them feel better.
Yes. Inflicting conditions upon people that lead to inescapable circumstance that facilitate rape of the defenseless by a hostile group and the systemic blocking of any recourse they might have to be defended by the law is, in my view, a clear example of such a thing.
Fair enough. I feel pretty strongly about it, but wouldn't go quite that far myself. In any case I can see where you're coming from a bit better now.
The mechanism that reduces crime is taking these people away from the public. Rape, torture and murder are not a necessary component of that mechanism.
Sure, but people are not sentenced to rape as an official part of their punishment. Rapes happen because of what prisoners do to each other, and if they can't respect their own rights, there's only so far I'm willing to go to protect them from themselves.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
23d ago
If you're into schizo-kremlinology, some people floated theories that he might go for that, and even made the offer in a plausibly-deniable way, but the "chunk" would include everything right up to the Dniepr river.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
23d ago
I am more libertarian minded and grew up respecting plenty of conservative figures. My parents were both Reagan voters, they were split in 2008 (Obama was pretty widely popular so it's understandable), and I voted Trump in the first term as he was the Republican candidate against Clinton.
I used to be a libertarian myself, and again would expect that the experience of being shat on by everyone from Bush to Obama stans, not to mention the lockdown madness, would leave one scarred enough, that they'd at least understand where "the system is fake and gay" people are coming from. Even your stated reason for voting Trump is going to be seen as downright weird by most people posting here.
You're wondering why you keep getting questioned and second-guessed, I'm just trying to point out that there's a reason why this is happening.
So again I ask you, does it not intrigue you why the "activist courts" aren't blocking most deportations, but only these particular ones?
I haven't really jumped into this to talk about the specifics of the case, just to point out the reason for the dynamics between you and the other posters, but no it doesn't intrigue me in the slightest. Politics is not about applying principles, it's the art of knowing what you can get away with.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
23d ago
Ah yes, the admin who doesn't get involved with the place other than to keep it running, and the "moderator" with literally the fewest mod actions outside of the bot that autoposts the weekly threads, who left in a huff telling us how he doesn't like us anymore. Such massive overlap.
Never said anything is bad on the ground that I don't understand it.
Two problems. First, since you like arguments in this form, that's exactly what a pedophile acceptance activist would say: "You assert that pedophiles can't enter into relationships with children. Just like a homophobe asserted that gay people can't enter into relationships with people of their own sex. History tells us how that story ends".
The other problem is that you were just telling me a moment ago, that the story apparently ends with the nearly immediate reinstatement of race segregated spaces, so the argument that there's some broad historical tendency to abolish segregation is clearly false on your own terms.
Well, I'm not interested in talking to your interpretation of institutional power, I'm interested in talking to you. If you don't think there's anything irrational or immoral about that perspective, then stop phrasing it as a disembodied factual statement. Secondly, I already addressed this, the progressive narrative that everything always goes their way is a religious belief, not a rational one, maintained by retconning history to pretend every won cause was their idea, and every lost cause was somebody else's or never happened to begin with.
More options
Context Copy link