Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
No bio...
User ID: 1558
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4d ago
For the record im not arguing that being against gay marriage would be "ok".
It’s okay, you can say that here.
But here is what i dont get - why are some issues less "up for debate"?
It’s literally just a rhetorical shaming technique to put their debate opponents on the defensive from the start. “If you hold this position you’re an icky person” is a schoolyard-tier tactic but on many normies it just works.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
11d ago
That people on the online right see this as "professional logistics" is deeply blackpilling for me
Exaggerating the competence / strength of your enemy benefits everyone. It makes your victory more heroic if you win and your defeat more forgivable if you lose, and your enemy won’t get mad at being portrayed as more badass than they actually were either.
This should blackpill you no more that Herodotus blackpills you for claiming that Xerxes’ army numbered a million men, and they drank the rivers dry and their marches caused earthquakes.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
11d ago
I agree with you that being an IRL Reddit anti-ICE protestor constitutes “shitting up the commons thinking life is a video game”, but I am simultaneously self-aware enough to realise that I only think this because it’s an objective I disagree with. If these were right-wing Reddit LARPers going out to help ICE round up foreigners then I’d consider it a heartening efflorescence of organic civic virtue.
As Dilos said of the Arcadians: brave amateurs, they do their part
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
12d ago
prominent former Shanghai capitalists who defected to the communists, the former Emperor
I remember reading years ago that Puyi’s survival seemed strange to Western observers at the time but the Chinese justification was something along the lines of “It is not surprising that capitalists and monarchists act like capitalists and monarchists, it’s just in their nature. No point executing them for being true to their class any more than you would execute a dog for licking its balls”.
With this logic of class-essentialism it is unsurprising that the grand-bourgeoise and literal royalty get ‘let off’ with re-education, while misbehaving peasants get the rope. The upper class were ‘inevitably’ acting in accordance with their class interests. But proletarian class traitors should have known better.
But importantly these aren't illegals which is what the whole discourse.
Well… no it isn’t. Illegal immigrants are only slightly worse than legal immigrants (their real crime being their undeserving capture of the fruits of my patrimony that my ancestors toiled to build for me), and I think that this is at least a large minority opinion amongst the pro-Wall set.
The problem is the Great Replacement; whether it is being perpetrated legally or illegally is just ACKSHUALLY-nitpicking.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
13d ago
are why immigration is mostly a non issue in Australia.
Didn’t you guys import like 20% of your population from China in the last 30 years and both your transport infrastructure and housing market are collapsing under the strain?
Is it not that immigration is objectively worse in terms of population-replacement in Australia, it’s just not a political issue because… Australians don’t have the self-preservation instincts that Americans do?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
18d ago
Something like 2/3 of operating costs of public transit in the USA is labor costs. If you can replace most of those with AVs, you can…
…shift the beneficiaries of those labour costs from blue collar bus drivers to white collar robotics engineers and AI devs. Which will probably increase the labour costs overall but that’s good because now I might be the one getting paid.
It's wealth redistribution in exchange for political patronage and non-productive labor activity.
Yes, and?
I think even the proponents of UBI will admit that this is indeed the point. They might phrase it a little more positively - “We have broken the wheel of history and finally given each person the means to live unconditionally, no longer demanding their supplication to Capitalist Alienation. Of course the souls thus saved will vote eternally to maintain this utopia, and rightfully so” - but that is absolutely the point of the exercise, sure.
They might reasonably ask Y U Mad about it? Why wouldn’t / shouldn’t people vote to get something for nothing? This failure mode of democracy has been known all the way back since Plato.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
20d ago
OK, that’s fair evidence to the contrary. I guess my countersupposition would be that if you’re enough of a conformist normie to hold down a job you’re also enough of a conformist normie that your psyche recoils at the prospect of engaging in meatspace anti-regime violence. I’ve met plenty of employed keyboard warriors who make all the noises that they want to bash the fash, not many employed actual warriors who’d really go do it.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
21d ago
My suspicion is that all the folks with a predisposition to form pro-illegal-immigrant mobs are already unemployed, so UBI wouldn’t actually free up any more of them.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
28d ago
But I guess from the 10,000 foot view, most should not be nearly as attentive to one lady being tragically gunned down when there's real, world-altering activity afoot somewhere else.
I disagree on both a practical and a philosophical level. I (predict that) I am never going to interact with a Venezuelan government official, and I don’t believe that geopolitical avalanches ever actually affect Western people’s lived experience on the ground that much. So what happens to one woman in American suburbia is in fact more relevant to me than what happens to one man in Caracas.
Neither of them are very relevant to me, but at least Good is actually sorta kinda in my reference class, and I can actually sorta kinda take actionable lessons from it (most importantly: don’t let my wife tell me how to drive)
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
28d ago
I am dating a zoomer who thinks “Everyone should go to therapy regularly even if there are no specific problems, it’s just a health checkup for the brain!”. This means, apparently, both singles therapy and couples therapy. We have just the one female counsellor who serves all three roles (her individual sessions, my individual sessions, and the couples sessions). Which I’m sure must be a conflict of interest, but whatever, I go to indulge my adorable basket case of a zoomette, not to be the professional ethics police.
Sample size N=1, but I have absolutely found, as you suspected, that she is completely unable to empathise with the male perspective on anything.
If you do something with even the slightest economic value they will be all over you like a swarm of locusts.
Sure, but as anyone who has peered at the relative tax burdens of women and ethnic minorities in the US will know, people who produce economic value are a tiny, tiny segment of the population. Regimes that persecute a small number of people a lot > regimes that persecute a large number of people a little?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
he's a rapist, or something damn close (creepy, awkward, and bad at sex)
Since when do those things make one “damn close” to a rapist?
what's the problem here? To society, a problem is only a problem if it's a problem for women. Women still get their stud guys who will fuck them, and their nice guys who will marry them
The left-liberal consensus is schizophrenic about pornography on a number of axes. Women producing it is good / empowering / entrepreneurial… but men consuming it is icky / pathetic / sexist, and you best not point out the logical contradiction in lauding suppliers while condemning consumers.
Scott wrote an article once about good personal evopsych behaviours in the ancestral environment (e.g. I shouldn’t marry a non-virgin woman because I’ll get STDs and questionable paternity) become enshrined as global cultural mores once civilization develops (e.g. all female purity is morally virtuous, even in women I have no intention of marrying, yay chivalry). My suspicion is that the low status of pornography consumption stems from a similar trajectory: (A) women don’t want their own mate-providers to abandon them for a younger prettier more fertile upstart, and this mutates over millenia into (B) a cultural more that coveting thy neighbours’ wife is morally wrong, and further into (C) that (any) male’s lust for anyone but their long term partner is evil, even if the man is an incel she personally would never touch, who doesn’t have a partner, and is lusting over a CGI woman who doesn't even exist.
The general heuristic is a lossy telephone-game from the actual evopsych concern, but false positives are better than false negatives from the XX POV.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
3mo ago
Postscript - I never understood the appeal of Anna Cramling, but seeing her in side profile in the video you linked made it click.
You promised far more than she could deliver, but on the other hand, you got me to click on the link, so touché.
I'm pretty sure Elon Musk and Warren Buffett produce more than 1000x the value I produce.
???
What exactly is the instantiation of value that you think Elon Musk and Warren Buffet “produce”? Scrimshaw?
I am, I suppose, an Elon fanboy in the sense that to get to Mars I would ride with Satan himself, but he doesn’t produce anything; he is at best a Schelling point around which (as @SubstantialFrivolity describes below) an engineering Old Boy’s Network rotates, but if it wasn’t Elon it would have been somebody (anybody) else, to no material detriment to the Mars project.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
Dogs though, I'm not convinced at all are capable of evil. They either act according to their natural instincts, or they act how they've been trained.
I am intrigued - what do you think is the difference between humans and dogs, that you believe the “He’s a good boy he was just raised wrong” argument above doesn’t also apply to humans?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
Yes. I would rather be whipped a few times than deprived a $10 million dollar bonus. Hedons ARE fungible. Maybe not perfectly fungible, but if you tell me there is no amount of money that would convince you to take one stroke of the lash then… I just won’t believe you.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
“Not being a great dog trainer” is hardly grounds for vituperative opprobrium though, is it? Many people are not great dog trainers.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
The dog has no capacity to understand the role of an "actor"
You think the dogs running on treadmills to turn spits in Victorian England “understood” how their motive power was being transferred through cogs and widgets to procure a homogeneous meat temperature so the Earl of Chelmsford could entertain his dinner guests with delicious roast? Come on, requiring that a dog understand its role in order for its work to be morally permissable is ludicrous.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
because the dog has been bred for hundreds of thousands of years for subservience.
You are using the fact that the dog’s nature is to find serving humans agreeable, as an argument that the dog’s life serving humans is disagreeable?
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
Women making porn is disgusting and harms them, but the Left messaging on that is not ‘You’re pigs, we want to let you’ but ‘You are beautifully expressing your sexuality and simultaneously a victim of the patriarchy, men are disgusting and we want to destigmatise you’, which is the kind of double standard that men might noootice.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
4mo ago
I have certainly seen it claimed that if the candidate had been anyone other than Harris, they wouldn’t have legally been able to access any of the funding that had already been secured for the BIDEN-HARRIS ticket, thereby essentially obligating her to stick it out.
My automatic answer to this is that debating with Twitterati is a fool’s errand; they are not there to honestly engage, they are there to farm upboats by calling you cringe, the only winning move is not to play. Better master debaters than I have tried to figure out how to “get around them just calling you ick” and none have succeeded. That’s why the place where we are currently exists: there is no solution to the problem other than going away to a different discussion forum.
However, in an effort to at least gesture in the direction of something, I think you can only fight fire with fire by (a) wresting control of the banhammer from their allies to your allies (thanks Elon), and (b) having more allies who’ll call them cringe than they have allies who’ll call you cringe.
More options
Context Copy link