ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26m ago
That's great, but I still want to know why the reaction to Abbot's and Lukashenko's shenanigans wasn't an amused confusion. If immigration is really so great, shouldn't the recipient jurisdictions be saying something like "thanks, you're only making us stronger"?
in fact for many brands it is a straightforwardly correct commercial decision.
Prove it, please.
People who watch right-populist Youtube videos don't buy packaged laundry detergent - their mothers buy it for them.
Ad targeting algorithms already try to find the most likely buyer, you wouldn't need boycotts if this was what it's about.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
Yeah... something. I'd like to know what the idea's proponents have in mind.
To be clear, as a catholic, I disagree pretty heavily with many liberals and virtually every leftist about what "creed" the nation should be based on, and how the government should contribute to its enforcement.
This touches on the first question I was planning to ask - how should it contribute to it's enforcement? I would imagine that with a name like "creedal citizenship" it would at a minimum mean disenfranchisement of anyone who doesn't follow the creed. If that's how it is to work, I agree that a coherent nation can be formed this way, but you go on to say that over-exclusion is worse than over-inclusion. This makes it sound rather wishy-washy, and I don't know that a creedal nation can stay coherent, if you can participate without following the creed it's based on.
But I think by far the bigger threat is a government that excludes people who indisputably share my creed, versus a government that would try and promote another creed.
I think I disagree. If you have a nation that's 98% Catholic, facing the importation of a sizeable population of Muslims, with some Middle-Eastern Christians sprinkled in, that seems like a clear example of excluding people who share your creed being to your benefit.
By the very virtue of me believing the things I believe, I should rationally think they're the best beliefs, and that they're guaranteed to eventually win. The benefits of pulling in allies therefore massively outweighs the risk of allowing in enemies.
If you're this optimistic about your ideas winning, I suppose that makes sense, but I think it's far from guaranteed. It's particularly strange to hear it from a Catholic.
Even if you're right, it's not clear it's worth the costs. For example, Communism may be destined to lose to capitalism (or whatever economic system you prefer), that doesn't mean there's any benefit in giving political power to communists.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6hr ago
Why should it?
Because people couldn't see into the future? I'm pretty sure every single example you brought up followed the Adpocalypse, not preceded it.
I would agree with you if it was just about the money, people crying over demonetization always came off as rather pathetic to me, but that was a non-issue since Youtube implemented superchats. The real issue was that Youtube used the whole thing to go on a banning, shadow-banning, and algorithimc fuckery spree.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
8hr ago
Were you born after 2008? because people were definitely Big Mad.
Ok, but can you show yourself being Big Mad about it? That's what he's saying would be required for you to be in the clear.
Plus, it's not like Trump's supreme court let anything like "norms" or "precedent" prevent them from overturning Roe vs. Wade.
How is Roe vs. Wade itself not a norm violation, and therefore it's repeal not a restoration of norms?
Actually, I'll go further. It seems the norm regarding Roe vs. Wade was that the Supreme Court can rule whatever the hell they want, no matter how absurd, and you have to respect the ruling, and if you don't like it, you have to win enough elections to appoint judges that will rule in your favor. This norm was followed by the Republicans followed it quite faithfully, even though they absolutely hated that court decision.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9hr ago
Are you such a mistake theorist that you think literally every leftist/liberal is simply ignorant of the downsides?
Quite the opposite, I'm a conflict theorist who believes the only reason the left is "pro" immigration is that it's bad for their outgroup. This also explains the sudden change in attitude when they're at the receiving end of it, in situations like Martha's Vineyard, or Lukashenko shipping Middle-Easterners into the EU.
Consider any ideological cause leftists and liberals are interested in: creedal citizenship
This is off topic but: I am very interested in discussing this issue. I've seen the idea floated, I can grok it, but evey conversation where it's brought up seems to gloss over key details, that I'd really like to hear more about. If you could go into your views on the subject and answer some questions, I'd be much obliged.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10hr ago
Republicans view immigration as a capital-t Threat. Look at any thread on this site and you will see that there are plenty of near-single-issue anti-immigration voters.
Doesn't everyone? You, on the other hand should look at the reactions to the Martha's Vineyard, be it in threads here, or on other place forms. No one seems to actually be pro-immigration.
It's fake in the sense that "it could well be that advertisers don't care now but they did back then" is false. They caree back then exactly as much as they do now, which is not at all. What they were doing was attacking political opposition.
In that case why so much sympathy for people who don't like to see Trump getting away wity it, and so little for people who don't like to see the Dems getting away with it? It's even weirder when you claim to be an outsider to both groups.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18hr ago
Everything that might be considered an overreach is justified by his supporters because at one point, a Democrat did something similar.
I want those people to understand that what they’re calling “TDS” isn’t realpolitik or delusion. It is a deep-seated frustration at someone getting away with it. The same frustration that you feel when the government refuses to deal with rioters, or senatorial insider trading, or catch-and-release for illegal immigrants, multiplied over ten years and concentrated into one man.
It's fine if you don't like The Drumpf, I just don't get how you get chastize people for pointing out that you already got away with it, while also chastizing them about how he's getting away with it, and that’s not a good thing.
They didn't. It was all fake, and an attempt to censor political opposition for the sake of censoring political opposition. There was, and still is, absolutely no evidence they were actually worried about losing profits.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
21hr ago
Was it religion when people wanted to fly despite common knowledge at the time being that people can't fly?
Birds existed, people knew stuff can fly.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
22hr ago
Y... yes?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
22hr ago
Operation Chokepoint was explicitly political in the sense that it was an Obama administration policy designed to achieve the policy goals of the Democratic party.
Isn't part of the point being made that when Operation Chokepoint was taking place, it's results were being explained away as "the identification of certain industries, including smut, as high-risk and the expectation that banks who choose to bank them have appropriate procedures in place rather than just handing out small business accounts on standard terms, is something that has been around for a very long time regardless of the party in power"?
Simple cryogenics is one thing, I was talking about the uploading of your consciousness to the cloud and stuff. There's a whole bunch of ideas that are essentially recreating a religious worldview inside a secular one - mind uploads, simulation theory, Yud's posthumous consciousness reconstitution inside a virtual paradise vs. Roko's Basilisk.
Ah, but the catch is that most of the other sides of your bets (myself included) are probably likewise using motivated reasoning, not deliberate reasoning
It's not so much motivated reasoning as trusting your gut, and a big part of making your gut reliable is being able to tell the difference between what you think is true, and what you want to be true. While at this point I do have some ego invested in this, I think being right would be worse for me than being wrong. All I win if I'm right is an ego boost, but I lose one of the biggest social media platforms that single-handedly turned the socio-political tide away from a thousand years of darkness that I was foreseeing. If l'm wrong all I lose is some ego, but gain the ability to go on a moon fly-by cruise, or some crazy shit like this.
Now you may say that your decision is also not motivated, and you're just trusting your gut. That's fine, may the best gut win.
"Elon Time" has been a thing since at least Falcon Heavy
It's not about "Elon Time", it's about "Elon Hype". The problem with the Hyperloop wasn't the timing, it was that the idea was retarded. Same with the Cybertruck. The Boring Company might have been cool, if it actually delivered super-cheap tunnels, but I don't think they really outperformed anyone on the matter of costs. Tesla has a whole bunch of products in the pipeline now that were announced as revolutionary, just as the Cybertruck was, and are likely tu suffer a similar fate. A Robotaxi that needs a worker constantly holding his hand at an emergency shutdown trigger is no Robotaxi. This stuff is going to keep repeating with FSD, Cybercab, Semi, and Optimus.
Now maybe, just maybe, SpaceX still has the mojo, but I'm not counting on it.
Would you take $33 of mine to a charity of your choice vs $100 of yours to a charity of mine?
Yeah, that's my preferred way of dealing with it as well, for privacy reasons.
IMHO part of why SpaceX has been a success and e.g. Blue Origin (with more investment and a head-start) hasn't yet is that Musk's employees implicitly asked him to go to Mars.
That's an interesting take, I suppose it would explain why he keeps making these "Mars update" speeches. OTOH, I don't think there's a lot things that could demotivate you more, as working for someone who keeps promising insane achievements are just around the corner, while being the grunt charged with actually achieving them, and who knows exactly how far away you actually are from it. Ask me how I know.
At this point SpaceX is the investor, buying back $500M of their own shares last year (...) but right now he's still reportedly got the majority of voting shares,
That kinda makes me think that the buyback was about maintaining control, rather than any sort of investment (and strictly speaking, how could it be otherwise? They've spent money that could have gone on development, in order to buy paper).
and at the rate Starlink is growing (7 million subscribers now, up from 6 million in June and 5 million in Feb)
Isn't that underperforming relative to what was promised to investors? I think I heard the somewhere it should have been 20 million by now.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
22hr ago
The only people who might be persuaded by that argument, are the ones roughly evenly matched with you in terms of armaments, which probably does not overlap much with the ones saying things like "I'm free to make you a slave".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
22hr ago
There was a pretty big memetic overlap with rationalists, so all the mumbo-jumbo about uploading your body and freezing your brain was pretty popular, but Scientism is the elephant in the room here, I think.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Yes, but this doesn't have much to do with either Kamala or Trump. There's a reason why demicracues tend to not provide a "none of the above" option.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I am personally uninterested in the exact ideology behind restrictions on communication between consenting adult
Ok, then let's blame it all on liberals and libertarians.
They don't want to help, because given the chance, they didn't. It's not about size, because New York cried uncle too, and they got sent a tiny portion if what the southern states have to deal with. Being upset about promises would make sense, but being upset at getting sent the immigrants does not, if they actually believe what they say this they do.
And what were the fake promises anyway?
More options
Context Copy link