Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
No bio...
User ID: 1558
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
10mo ago
Good analysis.
The ultimate irony is that if the Bonglander government was REALLY interested in bringing the hammer down on misogynists, it would be siding with Britain’s recent “””far-right””” anti-immigration rioters rather than against them. A Rwandan migrant knife-attacks a girl’s dance school and the party line is that people subsequently protesting against immigrants and mosques hate women? Clownworld.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
9mo ago
Just as “watermelon” has come to refer to politics which wears a green skin to smuggle in red outcomes, I want a word for politics which wears a nonpartisan skin to smuggle in Dem hackery. What’s something that’s grey on the outside and blue on the inside? Something something haemocyanin.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
9mo ago
Israel is at war. Am I missing something or shouldn't this be hot-take level shocking?
Israel is winning a war (insofar as shooting fish in a barrel and tampering with Taiwanese pager shipments constitutes a war); what surprise is it that hot-blooded youngsters rejoice in seeing their enemies driven before them, and hearing the lamentations of their women?
And it wastes an entire human being. People clearly have no conception over how expensive people are. It's. Pure idiocy.
I reject your hypothesis. Many human beings are net negatives to society regardless of how much compelled labour you can get out of them for the rest of their lives. You think that sentencing this guy to hard labour would be more efficient - I highly doubt it. The infrastructure (both physical, in terms of jails, and human, in terms of chain-gang guards salaries) required to confine such a person to hard labour is going to be more costly than the value of hard labour they produce.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Whatever you think of the Katyn Massacre: frogmarching people into the woods, having them dig their own graves, and then one-taping them in the back of the head - you cannot complain that it wasn’t a CHEAP way of dealing with undesirables.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
7mo ago
The only reason 4B ‘works’ in Korea (or at least doesn’t instantly collapse as farcical) is precisely because Korean society is actually great for women. In Africa if you try to withhold sex from men in general, or especially your husband, you’ll just get raped, and everyone will call you an idiot because OBVIOUSLY that’s what would happen.
Say what you will about sexual violence’s moral deficiencies, but it does keep women in line, as the fertility rates in Africa demonstrate.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
7mo ago
Playing that anecdote as an Uno Reverse card won’t work, as a sufficiently motivated counterparty will just respond with “He wasn’t fired, he was still in the academy and drawing a salary, therefore he wasn’t suffering discrimination”.
As a practicing academic myself I wish I’d be able to spend more time on my research by getting banned from my teaching workload, teaching fucking sucks.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
10mo ago
I suppose what you meant to say was that no group of men accepts an incel as their leader?
If a man is sufficiently attractive / outgoing / interesting / popular enough to be a leader of men, he is also sufficiently attractive / outgoing / interesting / popular enough to be a fucker of women.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
I am not an expert on the US classification system, but I do know that producing an unclassified summary of classified information (including, for example, the classified information you worked on in the last week) is difficult work that only a few people in each department are qualified to do. The rule in corporate finance departments at banks (where almost all staff have access to market-moving non-public information such as upcoming mergers) and it is "Do not discuss live deals with anyone outside the department, even in general terms." For a corporate financier, sending a meaningful response to that e-mail would be a firing offence.
But this isn’t, like, a fact of the universe caused by the legitimate praxis of those jobs. Rather, this is itself administrative bloat designed to give bullshit jobs to the summarisers or inflate the self-importance of managers who want to pretend that their work is super serious. Everything you said constitutes organisational-calcification red tape that SHOULD be dismissively cut through, not “omg the freak-out-ers are right”.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
This doesn’t seem to be the pattern in early 20th century. What changed? Is politics today just much harder to succeed in without being a cutthroat monster?
Respect for property rights in liberal democracies has become a victim of its own success. Back in the day there was no guarantee that the government wouldn’t just have a communist revolution and expropriate all your capital, so becoming a capitalist was a roll of the dice: much like becoming a politician, so neither was much worse than the other of a career path for a smart young man. Today, a career in politics is still a roll of the dice - you might lose the election - whereas a career as a capitalist is a much safer proposition because the politicians have done so good of a job at ensuring property rights are sacrosanct and no-one’s gonna expropriate your business and put you up against a wall.
This means that today all the smart people go into moneymaking, leaving politics the preserve of midwits and pathological narcissists.
Bad property rights create strong politicians, strong politicians create good property rights, good property rights create weak politicians [YOU ARE HERE], weak politicians create bad property rights.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
5mo ago
There’s a big difference between dating a single mom who’s single because her husband died, and dating a single mom who’s single because she had a kid out of wedlock or went through a divorce.
Granted, but the number of dating age single mother widows is to within an epsilon of zero compared to the number of dating age single mother high-time-preference-poor-planning-out-of-wedlock-dumpster-fires.
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
9mo ago
Can you imagine Ben Franklin telling politicians they don't have to accept the result of a vote because the Pennsylvania Gazette wrote absurd lies about the candidates?
No, but I can imagine 2017 Democrats yelling “not my President” ad infinitum, and trying to impeach on tendentious grounds for an entire term.
Vance gave the right answer here. He should have refused to certify the election - not because he had just cause, but because he who does not fight fire with fire, specious lawfare with specious lawfare, is a sucker.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
11mo ago
Foolishly I got my news on the opening ceremony from the BBC, who make no mention of any problems or embarrassments at all, and just breathlessly report it as the greatest show on earth.
I would have expected the Anglos at least to be Francophobic enough to tell the truth, but apparently globohomo must not be embarrassed. The Party is always right!
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
"Of course he's not going to do it, that's ridiculous" -> "He said he was going to do it, what are you complaining about?"
Like “abolish the police” and “end whiteness”?
It’s mottes and baileys all the way down.
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”?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3d ago
I was going to answer OP’s question with a tinfoil-hat rant about screenwriters being hired out of crony/nepotism rather than talent, but your complaint about the audience rings true (too?).
Not me, of course, but yes, other people. Anecdote: I have a zoomer significant other. Last night, she suggested we watch an episode of The Bear, a show of which we have both watched and enjoyed the previous 3 seasons, and are now midway through season 4. The episodes are only 33 minutes long.
My idea of watching an episode of a TV show is: sit down and watch the show, giving it your full concentration. Her idea of watching an episode of a TV show is: be scrolling through Instagram constantly during all those 33 minutes, occasionally flicking her eyeballs to the TV during the 0.5 seconds in between reels.
And she’s the one who pays for the Disney+ subscription we’re watching it on. So… kind of a waste of money to make your show coherent when even your paying customers who proactively decide to watch the show don’t even actually process it into their brains.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2mo ago
How many humans live out their lives by, ultimately, convincing lots of other humans to just bankroll them?
About 24%; we call these people “wives”.
Is what Shiloh is doing really all that different to what any non-breadwinner does? Making themselves out to be sufficiently sympathetic and weak that a nice man (or in this case, crowd) pay for her life? Is her present shameless willingness to get money for doing nothing any more shameless than what she was already doing: chilling with her kid on a playdate at the park while (presumably) her husband (or child support provider) is wagie-slaving away in his cubicle?
Your post title is more accurate than it might at first appear: grift upon grift indeed, and it ever was thus since separate X and Y chromosomes evolved.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo 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
9mo ago
The entire institutional ecosystem is soft-rigged against the GOP, regardless of whether there was any direct voter fraud. This is an argument that I have a lot of time for - if one faction has a huge advantage in political communication, and its credibility is laundered by all the major epistemic institutions of its society, then it's hardly a free and fair contest of ideas. …However, these were not the actual arguments made by Trump and allies, nor were they the arguments voiced on January 6.
This seems like some sort of reverse-motte-and-Bailey on your part. Some crazies yell extreme theories, therefore the moderate theories are not worth considering?
At some point you're just too far away from the candidate himself or his campaign.
It also seems like an effort of sophistry to avoid the question of “how to get Republicans to accept the election results” by playing around with definitions until the people with legitimate reasons to distrust the election don’t count as Republicans any more, ergo dusts hands job done.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3d ago
How do you think she'd react?
Her phone being nearly out of battery is an automatic “OK let’s go home now”. My phone being nearly out of battery (and me being unbothered about it) results in her looking at me nonplussed and asking me if I’m OK every 5 minutes.
So I don’t think it’d go down so well.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
25d ago
I preface this by saying it is entirely devil’s advocacy, but it seems like this sort of legislation would be logically coherent under the ‘libertarian violinist’ pro-abortion argument. It’s the woman who is inconvenienced by having another person strapped to her circulatory system, so she has an excuse to get away with murder. No-one violated the NAP on the doctor, so he doesn’t have an excuse.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
1mo ago
If you've ever seen how the sausage gets made at a major company, jobs are very much withheld and created on more of an internal, political basis than any actual needs the companies have.
Well said.
I’m inclined to take the indictment of economic inefficiency even further, and point out that jobs at major companies are also created on an EXTERNAL political basis. As @hydroacetylene says, the government has a variety of incentives (which may or may not include his schizo one) to keep the (formal) employment rate high. While I am skeptical that LLM-based AI will ever get good (or at least reliable) enough to make mass unemployment a realistic possibility, even if we grant the hypothetical that it actually will, I fully expect the government to disrupt the disruption by just writing some legislation which obliges corps to employ human rubber-stampers (“supervisory oversight”) on AI processes, thereby neatly regenerating all the white-collar jobs which have been automated. Legal compliance hits startups just as much as it hits status quo inc.
N=1, but the only prostitute I’ve ever known in person was a friend of a friend who whored herself out essentially because she watched too much porn and Internet goon-brained herself into a female coomer. No economic privation or tragic backstory needed.
As four decades of Doomsday Argument arguments show, there are legitimate difficulties on inferring the shape of a distribution from a single sample, but there you go.
She didn’t hate men though, so this does not support the whole of the thesis.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
Came here to post this. Rescinding PhD offers is throwing-toys-out-of-the-pram tier malicious compliance: and their decisions of who to cut will likely be based on which student they think can most convincingly cry in a CNN interview about how Trump crushed their family’s dreams of escaping poverty through studying hard.
It’ll damage the university in the long run and it would be much easier for them to cut administrators, but there’s a Principal-Agent-Problem here where the it’s the Admin department who decides what cuts to make and they’re sure as hell not going to be making them in the Admin department.
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.
More options
Context Copy link