Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
No bio...
User ID: 1558
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2mo ago
The critics had the whole season available to review.
And videogame journalists have the whole game to review, but a recurring feature of videogame reviews is that the reviewer obviously played a game with 100 hours of content for about 2 hours and then wrote their assignment.
People are lazy and cut corners in their jobs, c'est le vie.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
10mo ago
I'm not going to be paying attention to what anyone else is saying; my world would have been shattered and I'd be doing my damnedest to keep every attention-sucking ghoul out of my mourning.
I think you do not understand how Bongland policing works.
The families in such cases are harangued into giving such a statements by the urging of the "friendly" "support" officers assigned to family liaison. I mean, the police's remit is the maintenance of public order, not the coddling of the bereaved, so I can't say they're not technically doing their jobs by hassling the families to come out with this kumbaya drek.
So in a sense you're right, the families probably would, in a vacuum, react emotionally as you would expect them to. But the police don't let 'em.
In the interests of drawing a line to contemporary culture war from the 30 year old news story that Uncle Ted is, I just want to highlight the extent to which reporting on his death is desperately trying to prosecute said culture war by smashing a square peg into a round hole:
His crimes seemed to begin shortly after he was fired from the family business by his brother for posting abusive limericks to a female colleague who had dumped him after two dates.
"Seemed" is doing a tremendous amount of work here. To me it SEEMED like his crimes began when he saw machines tearing up the forest. Who is it exactly, to whom there seemed to be an incel agenda?
Reading that paragraph, the words that reach my eyes are as printed, but the words that I think they're trying to get to reach my prefrontal cortex are
"Doing anything that a women doesn't like makes you a terrorist. All bad people are incels and all incels are bad people. Anyone who complains about globohomo only does so in bad faith because they're sexually frustrated."
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
11mo ago
"they are not stupid, so if they are at the bottom it can only be because society has placed them there."
But if you actually prove that they are stupid, then what?
This is MathWizard's point: progressives don't actually disbelieve that the stupid deserve to be at the bottom of the pile, they simply disagree about who are the stupid ones.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
In the paper they have a subsection that says "One weakness of this study is that we assume that jobs can be broken down into tasks", and that is indeed their fatal assumption.
As I hammer at every opportunity: most jobs are Bullshit Jobs. The belief that a job is 'me being paid for accomplishing economically useful tasks' is such a Red Tribe / small business / results-oriented view of things, which totally ignores the principal-agent problems ubiquitous to the large organisations in which most of us actually work. No, the corporate / state / academic drones of us have jobs because (a) our manager wants to increment his "Number of underlings" ego-counter, or (b) the government makes up jobs as sinecures to make their unemployment statistics look better.
Both of these ACTUAL sources of employment are utterly insensitive to ChatGPT being better at tasks than humans, so actually no-one's job is in danger at all.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
One example I see is the entire etf industry. Not the specific esg funds but just normal spy. Most just vote according to what ISS tells them
Can you speak plainly, please? Your thicket of context-free acronyms is entirely impenetrable.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Memocide sounds like a word someone made up so they can claim that anyone who corrects their BS is "literally Hitler".
Because from the definition as written, striking geocentrism out of the textbooks is a flavour of genocide.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
But I personally have learned that the notion that we can compartmentalize, and get along with each other, is one of the most important values to me
I don't mind being nice to people who ideologically hate me.
It would be wise, however, not to actually finance their arms purchases for the Culture War.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
I would also argue that its kind of a trope that incels only want sex from attractive women, are therefore voluntarily choosing celibacy, and thus deserve to be maligned.
My usual rejoinder to the "just lower your standards bro, then you'll have loads of partners to pick from" argument is that is is isomorphic with "just become gay bro, then you'll have loads of partners to pick from".
A man can't just choose to be physically attracted to a 200 pound heifer femcel and thereby mutually annihilate the incel-femcel pair, any more than he can choose to suddenly like male on male sodomy.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1mo ago
Women are more than half of our population but research on women’s health has always been underfunded.
He didn't say (or at least you didn't quote) "underfunded relative to men", he just said "underfunded". Is it not that he could have been speaking in an absolute rather than a relative sense?
*DISCLAIMER: I actually believe that his words should be seen as tribal applause lights and so fact-checking them is missing the point, but there you go.
On the other hand, a man who juts barely landed a committed partner, has no chance of finding casual partners.
Do you live in opposite world? The "vetting" meme is real: already having a gf is the best pussy magnet (outside of having several millions of dollars).
[Edit: for speak-plainly purposes, the vetting meme is the idea that women are more attracted to men who already have committed partners because the presence of the committed partner demonstrates ex facie that he is capable of satisfying a woman (in all social, financial, and sexual spheres). It is both a costly signal, and proof that he is indeed boyfriend material.]
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Even when i worked for the governing party I could not just go to the BBC to squash stories.
Unless you were the Minister of Culture I don't know why you'd think you could. Of course the tea boy in 10 Downing Street doesn't get to boss people around as much as a cabinet minister would. YOUR failure to influence the Beeb doesn't mean everyone in the British government is similarly toothless.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
I'm curious about this. To what extent are his views actually his choice?
"His views are his choice, our choice is to not associate with him" is a lie from both directions.
If newspapers really, really cared what their cartoonists think, they'd have their on-staff investigative reporters do PI work on 'em. They don't, because what they actually care about from revealed preferences is their cartoonist's public-facing, loudly broadcasted views. If it's not gonna cause them PR problems, they don't care, and if it's not a broadcasted view, it's not gonna cause them PR problems. No-one cares if you don't really think General Secretary Andropov is a good leader, so long as you keep your opinions to your fucking self, comrade.
The other direction in which this is a lie is that it's not the newspaper's choice either. They're being coerced, extorted, by (their expectations of) their own readership. That's what a "PR problem" is - a problem that wouldn't matter unless the public's reaction mattered. If it were 1950 and Dilbert was being published mostly in the South, Adams' comments wouldn't be a PR problem, they'd be a PR boon, and no-one would get cancelled; which serves to prove that the newspaper is similarly constrained by the political milieu in which it operates.
Admittedly, this sort of analysis is mildly comolicated by the recent dynamic of entryism into newspapers by actual ideological zealots who would like to use investigative reporters as Stasi thoughtpolice on their own colleagues and don't care if the newspaper goes bankrupt so long as Brown Scare enemies get cancelled, but I don't think those people are making the command decisions. Yet.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
I think this line of reasoning does not demonstrate what you think it demonstrates.
If 0% of the men are defective and 60% of the women are insufferably defective, then the 40% non-defective women get married to 40% of the men, leaving 60% of the men who can't find a woman that's not insufferable.
So you'd still get unmarried men despite there being no problem with them.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
if you elect good leaders
This is a more difficult problem than the original one he's grappling with, though.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr 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
1yr ago
If you were Twitter would you want to normalize this?
Good Boy Points from the hegemon are the world's most valuable currency, and this generates them. If I were Twitter I would certainly be tempted to be owed favours by Alphabet Agencies.
It was reported at the time that Boris privately instructed his loyalists to support Truss in the contest to be his successor, precisely because he thought exactly this would happen, she'd be a tremendous fuckup and pave the way for his own return.
If the mechanism by which her successor is chosen ends up being the MPs rather than the party membership, it'll probably be Sunak though. Because there's a greater proportion of rootless cosmopolitans among MPs than there are amongst party members, and rootless cosmopolitans can't sense the metaphysical catastrophe that a reverse-colonialism Sunak premiership would represent.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
I wish we could all just agree that sex is biological and gender is a social role
But this is just begging the question, isn't it? It's like Byzantine Christian monothelitites saying "I wish we could all just agree that Jesus' nature is Man but his hypostasis is Divine". To even get into the hypostasis debate is to concede to your interlocutor's point.
The correct response to the Byzantine Christian monothelitites is "hypostasis is just some term you made up to try and make yourself sound smart and smuggle in a bunch of theological assumptions in by connotation, Jesus was just a guy in a robe, he was born a Man and he's stuck as a Man only, that's just biology for ya, sorry, he doesn't get to be Divine by any measure even if he and you really really want him to be.'
You can probably see where I'm going with this but in the interest of plain speaking, the correct response to the gender theorists is "gender is just some term you made up to try and smuggle in a bunch of ideological assumptions in by connotation, Emerald Treespirit is just a guy in a robe, he was born a Man and he's stuck as a Man only, that's just biology for ya, sorry, he doesn't get to be a woman by any measure even if he and you really really want him to be.'
There is no such thing as gender, the way you act is contingent on the hormones in your brain and the hormones in your brain are contingent on your chromosomes. A man acting weird is a man acting weird, not a man filling the social role of a woman (or being the Messiah).
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
11mo ago
The hypothesis that Hollywood types believe in the "mere exposure" effect causes a lot of scripting oddness to suddenly resolve into comprehensiblity. If you think that simply seeing/hearing a thing on a screen will stochastically cause some number of impressionable audience members to believe and/or copy it, then the total excision of taboo positions from even villains' mouths makes sense, as does cramming a massive overabundance of LGBTQ characters into every show.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
11mo ago
We can broaden this to a discussion about climate change or even immigration. Sure, there will be issues, but the doomsters on both issues were proven wrong historically.
This proves too much, because it implies that all those 1700s Native Americans whining about Pilgrims stealing their land were just paranoid doomers.
Sometimes, bad shit actually does happen
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Whenever I hear
I think this is the critical part. You are under a selection effect of "Anecdotes that women think it will be socially advantageous to publicize", so those are the ones you hear about. Other adjacent anecdotes, you don't.
One therefore ends up only hearing the scenarios that women want to humblebrag about. And she can humblebrag about "I'm so hot that X wanted to fuck me but I'm too good for him so I said "Eww, no, nerd" lol", but she can't humblebrag about "I'm so hot that X wanted to fuck me and so we fucked", because that would make her a slut.
The usual objection to "jail people who fuckup" (I most usually see it applied to politicians who fail to avert war) is that if you did that, no-one would take the job at all. No competent scientist who had a chance of getting another job would go anywhere near the field of infectious disease research (not even gain of function stuff, but ANY infectious disease research).
Do you think scientists would still work on virulent chimera viruses if they had to stake endless torture on the possibility that it is leaked? If they wouldn’t, doesn’t this simply prove that research this risky should never be done?
You say this like it's a good thing that no-one would work on it, but it's not. Mad scientist research into crazy-dangerous viruses has a very positive net effect on the world. Without it, kiss goodbye to ever having a cure for ebola. Or influenza. Or the common cold. The only people that might work on such things under threat of torture are the incompetent bottom-of-the-class scientists with no chance of getting a different job, and when you have them working in your Biohazard Lv 4 facility, even with harsh deterrents for failure, they're MORE dangerous than competent scientists with no deterrent would have been, i.e. what we have now.
Sorry OP, but we already live in the best of all possible worlds in this regard. The occasional lab leak Megadeath is an inevitability even under optimal conditions. It turns out all right in the end, though; the expectation value of the research is still positive even when you factor in the megadeaths, because once you work out how to cure influenza, the billions of lives saved on the long time horizon exceed the millions of lives lost to lab accidents.
Same with Alec Baldwin movies. The lives of a few behind the scenes gophers are a small price to pay for cinematic entertainment enjoyed by millions. Hutches is the stochastic version of the child sacrifice of Omelas, and the price of her life is a bargain for the hedons generated.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1yr ago
Maybe one last attempt at words. This feels like watching a real life version of "catastrophic forgetting" in AI. How can people suddenly just have no clue what the whole point of this entire thing was, especially because you were just using it in all this work?
An alternative explanation is that you're not being cynical enough. Perhaps this isn't AI catastrophically forgetting; this is AI becoming unfriendly. Arizona legislators want to be able to harm voters who voted the wrong way. They are in the same position as British-Australian governors: already in power, and intending to use the implied threat of punishment, to stay there.
When you do it at the last minute in response to an ideologically ginned-up fake crisis which you ginned-up in part precisely so you could do this, all the while complaining that other people aren't respecting "institutional norms".
That the praxis of Western democracy in it's entirety has become fake and gay, I suppose. Two wolves and a lamb voting who's for dinner may constitute above-board, by-the-numbers, all nice and legal democracy... but an autistic loyalty to the rules while shrugging your shoulders at the result has confused means with ends.
More options
Context Copy link