Celestial-body-NOS
Galatians 4:16
No bio...
User ID: 290
Just a continuation of the trend of "you own nothing" and you need to rent everything and pay service contracts to the vendor. We got hp printers where you don't own the ink cartridge in your hand, but just a subscription contract to allow you to print a certain number of pages. We got subscriptions for heated seats and enabling the maxiumum power of the car.
Companies that pull this sort of Stierscheiße ought to be charged a 99.5% tax rate on subscription revenues, and have to write the government a thank-you note for the C-suites not spending the rest of their lives at donkey-work in inhospitable climates.
rather than minimize horrifying crime.
The crimes committed by Mr and Mrs Turpin are so much more horrifying than that committed by Mr Hasan that to give them the same sentence, whatever that sentence may be, is an insult to every child who has been comparably victimised.
The correct thing to do is kill them all.
Which leaves no societal acknowledgement of the greater enormity of the Turpin case. Mr and Mrs Turpin betrayed a far more sacred trust than Mr Hasan.
...thus, if we have the death penalty, it ought to be applied to David and Louise Turpin, and not to Nidal Hasan.
That's not all three; it's missing No. 2, i. e. the only one that gives us a chance of getting to the stars.
I do not condone what Mr Hasan did. The only reason I don't support his execution is that it leaves society with no further measures to apply to even worse crimes. Be that as it may, however, the murders at Fort Hood were a crime committed by one individual against forty-five other individuals. They were not committed by 'the Arab race' against 'the white race'. (Two of the slain, Maj. Libardo Eduardo Caraveo and Pfc. Kham See Xiong, were born in Mexico and Thailand.)
Technically, it most likely uses diesel-fuel, which has gone up even more.
Oh, when you said 'American', you meant 'UnitedStates-ian'.
I'm not sure I've made my point clear. As far as I am aware, there is no coherent ideological framework that justifies giving those of English extraction a special claim to the territories of both the United Kingdom and the United States.
One can either:
-
claim that particular areas of land belong immutably to certain ancestral groups, which would endorse the Daily-Mail reading gammons' calls for remigration of the London-born children and grandchildren of South Asians from England, but also demand the remigration of white people form North America (and possibly the English from Scotland and Wales);
-
reject ancestral blood-and-soil claims, and judge individuals not by their ethnicity or the etymology of their names but by their personal actions, drawing no distinction between Mr Hasan and a hypothetical alternate-timeline perpetrator born James Anglesax, whose ancestors arrived on the Mayflower or the Susan Constant and who converted to an extremist form of Islam and committed a similar massacre; or
-
recognise land as belonging to whichever group is capable of seizing it by force, which would dissolve any ethical high ground between 'a descendant of Englishmen killing a descendant of Arabs to maintain the status quo' and 'a descendant of Arabs killing a descendant of Englishmen to overturn the status quo', and incentivise a metric arse-load of bloodshed until partisans of option 2 manage to establish a claim on behalf of All the descendants of the last common ancestor of all humans to the third planet from a ~two octillion tonne yellow dwarf star in the Orion-Cygnus arm, for now.
All three are logically coherent, but as someone who would greatly prefer that violence be kept to a minimum, I favour the second option.
What I would prefer us to do is use MKUltra propaganda to turn Nidal into an atheist, possibly transgender, and habitual pork and alcohol enjoyer.
I think that might be making a few assumptions regarding the effectiveness of MK-ULTRA....
[apocalyptic AI risk] rank less important to them than [continuing a certain set of sexual practices]
That risks running into the Heckler's Veto: "I will ignore your warnings of potential catastrophe unless you forswear any lifestyle choices of which I disapprove; therefore, if you do not change your lifestyle to fit my demands, you rank prevention of catastrophe as less important than your lifestyle choices." Giving in to such a demand will then invite every wowser within 20,000 kilometres to make similar demands regarding whatever bee they happen to have in their bonnets, and once you've paid the Dane-Geld, you'll never be rid of the Dane.
Also depending on the exact nature of those sexual practices, it can be a pretty good argument for keeping them as far away from the levers of power as humanly possible.
It would be, if they were engaging in the sort of things described in the more lurid claims circulating among the Blue Tribe regarding Epstein's clients. When the practises in question entirely involve mutually consenting adults, whose standards for consent are probably a fair bit less flexible than the median, the argument starts to look a lot flimsier.
In this case, a literal sex cult.
And what's that got to do with the price of fish and chips?
Even if we concede arguendo your Views on sexual morality, "_______'s thoughts on AI risk are invalid because _______ engages in immoral sexual practises" is literally an ad hominem argument.
I do not believe that it is impossible to maintain a functioning economy under conditions of (open_borders+welfare_state). I will concede that it is harder to do so than it would be under either (open_borders+social_darwinism) or (welfare_state+sakoku), but that's why there's a Stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell.
...the overwhelming and replacement of me, my family, and my people in our homeland.
You are not being 'replaced' just because people exist near you while being of more distant blood-relation than you are used to.
The only alternatives on offer are:
- We move away from defined-by-birth absolutely-no-exceptions-closed-to-new-entrants societies, and towards a more universalist ethics, or
- We condemn our posterity to endless who's-in-who's-out conflict and a grim dark future in which there is only war.
There is no third option.
This was the case sixty-two years and one month ago, and it remains true today.
Was it terrible in Portugal? Chile?
Yes. It was terrible there. It was terrible in France. It was terrible in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It was terrible in the Soviet Union. It was terrible in Red China. It was terrible enough in Cambodia to push the Nazis down to second place, which is not an easy feat.
Why go straight to Hitler?
Because that's the best-known example in the English-speaking world, and where someone realised how badly that kind of paranoia-spiral always ends up and wrote a memorable poem about it; the poem can be applied to many nations and ages.
For those who have negative associations with that poem from its usage by hypocritical Blue-Tribers ignoring that it can also apply in the other direction (First they came for the anti-vaxers, but I Trusted The Science, so I stayed silent), I can point to a different quote applicable to the same danger:
Do not call up that which you can not put down.
I've seen it; it's not pretty.
First they came for the ________, and I spoke up even though I was not a ________, because I read the rest of the poem!
Another win for the barber-pole model?
From the 1990s: "jostlin' elders".
So... the monogamous are accustomed to privilege there being a glass ceiling for people who engage in unconventional sexual practises even if they exclusively involve mutually consenting adults, and now equality there not being such a barrier feels like oppression having the glass ceiling blocking them?
...whether the attendees would prefer intimate relations with a live cow or a dead one.
I wonder did anyone answer "Dead, skinned, tanned, and wrapped around an attractive consenting adult human of my preferred gender"?
Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
--George Orwell, 1984
I would guess that the cow question is trying to filter against that.
I think the comparison is an attempt to demonstrate that the arguments being used against Yudkowsky could also be used to dismiss Christianity, and thus prove too much.
I guess the original Americans in this extended metaphor are the passengers on the Titanic.
I do hope that some intrepid young reporter asks Mamdani if he prefers Wagner to Mendelssohn.
"In terms of the composers themselves as people, the operas they wrote, or the sum total of their fans?"
- Prev
- Next

And right next to the default password:
More options
Context Copy link