Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
No bio...
User ID: 1558
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
7mo ago
Russia is not winning the war because it is taking and may keep territory in the Donbas, it is losing the war because Russia itself framed the war not as a conflict between itself and Ukraine
Ok, question: did Shogunate Japan lose the First Imjin War? They occupied Korea, but by your logic they lost because Hideyoshi had once told his retainers that his ambition unironically included “world conquest”?
because if e.g. people living below the poverty line all suddenly stopped having kids child poverty would hit 0% very quickly.
I think your overall thesis is wrong because I don't think that preventing the lower strata from reproducing will actually improve the wellbeing of the next generation.
There has been much talk of "elite overproduction" previously: the proposition that much of the political malaise of the West lately (and, indeed, Ancient China before any of its periodic civil wars) comes from an oversupply of big-brain literati and an undersupply of prestige jobs to keep them from formenting revolution. Put another way: the economy needs Dalits; there must always be sewage janitors working on minimum wage. If the economy doesn't get it's Dalits through Dalit reproduction, it'll get 'em through cramming Brahmins into jobs that they feel are beneath them, which is WORSE for stability and prosperity than just letting the Dalits keep reproducing more Dalits.
We live in Omelas already. We need those miserable children. They cannot be excised from the makeup of society. Improving the objective quality of the lower strata will do nothing to improve their actual life-satisfaction and may even be counterproductive, because it'll not improve their relative economic condition but it WILL make them more resentful about it, and better at throwing pipe bombs at the higher strata.
If anything our best course of action is to Brave New World epsilon semi-moron them to be WORSE.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
By their revealed preferences, many (more like most) women rather enjoy being sex objects to the extent they can.
This sounds a bit isomorphic to "Men must want to wear a suit and tie and sit in a cubicle being a wagie for 8 hours a day, look how many of them do it!"
I work in my wagie cube grudgingly because I need the money. It is not beyond imagination that Instagram/TikTok/SnapChat thots have similar ulterior motives.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
and even if you think it's in pursuit of a pointless or harmful goal it is actual things being done and work produced.
The definition of a Bullshit Job, as per Graeber's original essay, is exactly as you describe: one in which the product is useless or harmful, not one where there is no work done at all.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
If lion-keeping had a small chance of gestating a cure for cancer, would this change your calculus?
Your lion is high risk for your neighbours, but also high reward.
Alec Baldwin wasn't hanging around with loaded guns for shits and giggles: he was trying to make ART. Fairly prolefeed-tier art, true, but do you want to live in a safetyist world where no-one dares pick up a paintbrush for fear the chemicals in their paint might flick into someone's mouth and cause freak allergy anaphylactic shock?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
It's part of the ontology of what makes you British, like fish and chips or poor dental health. Rejecting monarchism causes an existential crisis in the British psyche - which would be bad enough on its own, but when one starts to think "OK, I'm No True Scotsman because I don't like the monarchy" then as a Western European this puts you dangerously close to being French, which the British (or post-British) psyche also recoils from.
If you don't yell God Save The King, are you really British? Or are you just some guy with a lame piece of paper signed by (chortle) Rishi Sunak that confers upon you legal citizenship on a rainy island?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
Ukraine doesn't have the ability to project power inside it's own sovereign territory, let alone under the Baltic sea.
It certainly has the motive, but it has no means.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2mo ago
It's hard to see that 90 days is sufficient to conclude trade deals with most of the countries in the world (TPP took over 8 years to conclude), it's just a panic button.
That depends on whether or not you believe that long trade negotiations occur as a means of negotiating trade, or as a means of furnishing the sinecures of lazy trade negotiator bureaucrats.
We saw the same thing with Brexit and the length of negotiations were all BS there too. In no possible universe is [https://www.gbnews.com/politics/brexit-news-eu-laws-bananas-retained-eu-law “How bendy can a banana be”] a legitimate negotiating question.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
I'm not even calling for the establishment of a race of Ubermensch, I want everyone raised up to as close to equality as possible
Why?
Seriously, why do you think it should be some sort of teleological objective of mankind to have everyone calibrated to be of equal ability?
Even if these abilities are high, this is still some kind of Harrison Bergeron dystopian shit.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
This could make sense from an ev-psych point of view. If you have kids with a genetic dud, presumably your kids will also struggle more with mating, potentially creating a vicious cycle
Nothing that a 36 year old childless woman does makes sense from an evo-psych view. Such creatures would never have existed in the ancestral environment, because women needed to start exchanging their wombs for mastodon steak at 14 or they'd just die of exposure.
But even if they had it wouldn't make any sense, because having a kid with a genetic dud still gives you more chance of grandchildren than does having no kids, which gives you zero chance.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
What reason would there be to not say what about the content was objectionable? Would it violate copyright, or some kind of NDA?
Perhaps it makes it more difficult for whatever kind of lawfare challenges Blue Tribers will inevitably try to throw at it. If you don't tell them why you're doing it, then when someone tries to file an injunction on you, you can retrodict your motivation to function as the hard counter to whichever statute they're lawfaring you under.
Idk, IANAL, but shenannegains amongst Boomers In Black Robes are often the reasons for obfuscation.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
Because (and when) I can be sure that the current government will treat me better than the other guys.
This sounds like remarkably similar logic to Russians wanting to rescue their own submariners than having other countries do it for them.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
or threatening them with forcible compulsion if they didn't
I would contend that it is logically impossible for the government to request you to do anything without the (at least implicit) threat of forcible compulsion if you don't.
These people have a stupendous power imbalance over you and a monopoly on violence, they're (figuratively) tapping their truncheon in every interaction they have with everyone ever.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
The occupations of Germany and Japan went well
By what metrics?
Certain people are always lecturing me that "the only reason the west is rich is because of all that silver that Spain expropriated from Bolivia"; if we accept that profitable resource extraction / trade windfalls was both the objective and a successful objective of colonial occupations, where's my silver dollars made out of Axis bullion?
You're not talking about gays there, but bisexuals.
Not to put words in OP's mouth, but: no, I think he means gays, and if he didn't, then I will certainly bite that bullet.
The logic goes as previously stated:
You can put me in that camp that we are an evolved species with deeply rooted programming on what leads us to a happy life. And homosexuality to me seems like a couple of your genes are off that may individually have benefits but combined turned your gay, but the vast majority of your genetic programming is still happier in traditional heterosexual relationships.
I.e. it's (relatively) easy to accrue the handful of somatic mutations that flips you from enjoying the taste of the opposite sex's genitals to enjoying the taste of your own sex's gentials, but it would take a complete rewriting of a vast number of the genes for the brain's deep structures, all the way down to the monkey kernel, to make you not yearn in yer bones to be a pater familias reigning over the little kingdom of your own household and offspring.
TL;DR: Hard gays as you describe them - totally homosexual and totally contented at every level, sex + romance + the little nagging voice in their DNA that says breed breed breed breed - do not exist; cannot exist. They are biologically impossible, and any that report to be totally contented on all levels... well, I believe in the logic of evolutionary psychology more than I believe self-reported contentment questionnaires.
Obviously having to admit they were wrong and plugged the PayPal information of a known fraud is hugely embarrassing for them and so they wouldn't have done so if they didn't completely believe King's accounts.
I disagree. These people made the right move (to preserve their livelihoods as subculture-embedded personalities) even if they could see through Naomi’s crocodile tears as clearly as you could. As you noted, any hesitation in coming out totally on her side results in getting mobbed for ‘fencesitting’ and failing to ‘believe all women’. The attitude in play is “I’d rather be occasionally wrong than be a chud”. Any egg-on-face embarrassment they suffer will be massively outweighed by the advantage of having burnished their credentials as a reliable ally. That there are some bad actors in that alliance does not make the perception of unshaken loyalty to the ideology any less valuable.
The fact that all but one of Daniel’s mods quit despite being proven wrong is a succinct demonstration of this. The important thing is not to be right - the important thing is to be reliably on the side of the Believe All Women narrative. Indeed, doing so in defiance of all evidence gains you MORE subcultural cred, not less. That Daniel proved that his version of events was right doesn’t exonerate him - if anything, it condemns him more, as now he is an enemy of Believe All Women by showing it to be a falliable heuristic. His mods and associates corrrctly recognise that they must disassociate lest they be (accurately) accused of consorting with the enemy.
They actually aren’t, though.
For one, there’s the halo effect: i.e. it’s natural for humans of both genders to assume that a person successful in one field is also successful in another. So ‘success as a leader of men’ will prejudice women positively towards such a man on other axes, and ‘success as a c(h)ad’ will prejudice men positively towards such a man on other axes, symmetrically. I’ve been reading a history of Italy lately, and this is pretty much Berlusconi’s entire (winning) strategy both in politics and in Bunga Bunga.
But we don’t even require such a Fully General Argument as the halo effect to demonstrate the thesis - assessing it in detail also makes it seem like there’ll be general “popularity” skills rather than gender-audience specific ones. Being a good conversationalist, being extroverted, openness to new experiences, gregariousness - all traits which will improve one’s success both as a leader and as a lover.
I don’t dispute that some traits like “Autistic knowledge of Gundam anime” is male leadership material in specific (one might say contrived) situations, like choosing a team captain when entering a Gundam trivia quiz, but in the vast majority of cases, Chad gets both the girl and the crown because both genders want the same thing.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Not particularly easy to get through state legislatures, though. To actually pass an amendment it doesn't have to be popular with normies, it has to be popular with politicians.
It's really not any worse than various progressive ideas that are currently being pushed by academia
Exactly. Someone who believes the Earth was created in 7 days, 6000 years ago is substantially less dangerous (and, indeed, I would argue is substantially less delusional) than someone who believes whitey's oppression of minorities is the source of disparate racial outcomes.
EDIT: Apparently the new speaker believes both, so, heh, touché.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
You're all fucked, some just about to be fucked before the others.
Aren't you Indian?
Don't you have a ridiculous civil service which people kill to get into because once you're there, some quirk of iron rice bowls and pork barrels and constituency building has basically made Indian civil service jobs a sinecure where you never have to do any work but also you can't be fired, and this situation has persisted for 70 years despite the grinding poverty of all other sections of the Indian economy, because it's politically impossible to untangle this snarl?
And you think people are going to lose their jobs... because new labour saving tools become available?
Most jobs don't exist to fulfil tasks. Most jobs exist to fulfil government kayfabe. That an AI can perform a task is therefore completely irrelevant to the question of who has a job.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
Russia has to spend blood and treasure to secure the rest of Ukraine. We just have to spend treasure to make their cost go up! And we’ve decided the exchange rate looks pretty good.
Who's "we", and what was the calculus? Because I have a strong suspicion that the "we" is just seething third-generation Russian emigrants still mad that great-grandpa was run off the shetl, lobbying and donating until the US's pay-for-play foreign policy let's them use America like a golem to smash their ancestral enemy.
I'm a citizen of the West and certainly no-one asked me about sending all my money to Kiev.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
Why the fuck would I do the latter? I don't even have any kids so my caring about the future is pretty fucking limited.
I'm adding +1 to my dataset of "People without kids shouldn't be allowed to vote".
I don't think there's really much more to say on that but on the other hand I don't wanna get canned for low effort posting, so here's (closer to) the aforementioned "10 paragraphs when 1 would do":
If you don't have any higher / longer term aspirations than jacking off then I guess you shouldn't care about AI doomerism, but also you shouldn't care about anything medium to long term, so complaining at AI doomers for being uniquely unconvincing is kind of an isolated demand for rigor.
However, even a degenerate coomer might have some investment in the future because with voice cloning you can already make your one 11/10 porn audios. Sadly the good Elevenlabs utilities went back behind the paywall, but I'm hopeful they'll be leaked / opensourced soon, leading to a golden age of jacking off. Wouldn't want to have that shining future snatched away from you because of Skynet.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
DeSantis knows (or has legal advisors who have informed him) that there is no legal way for Florida to refuse extradition and that it's mandatory under the US Constitution. This is just baiting people with false hope.
He didn't say "refuse", he said "not assist".
The ability to slow-walk everything while still technically fulfilling legal compliance was used by the Deep State to great effect during Trump's presidency; DeSantis is just resolving to give them a taste of their own medicine.
The headline says refuse, I grant you, but, well, that's what you get for only reading the headline.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2yr ago
Well that's all well and good, but you could say exactly the same things about Ghani's Afghanistan vs. the Taliban. Indeed, the Taliban had zero state resources compared to Russia's nonzero. But despite receiving infinity NATO materiél, Ghani's Afghanistan fell the instant there weren't Coalition troops on the ground. Ukraine doesn't have Coalition troops on the ground, therefore...
Yes.
There is no such thing as credibility any more for the chattering classes; only popularity. And you can't be popular if no-one can see you.
More options
Context Copy link