@ControlsFreak's banner p




3 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 02 23:23:48 UTC


User ID: 1422



3 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 02 23:23:48 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 1422

Graduating high school in 2006 is utterly different than in 2016 with respect to the gays. The people that can’t remember 9/11 also can’t really remember a lack of societal acceptance of gays. Even if the courts had not ruled in favor of gay marriage when they did, the cultural change was already a foregone conclusion.

I don't know that this happens without the lies, though. That NYT article said that it was "critical" to tell people these lies so that they could effect a cultural change. Again, I think you're so swimming in the result that you really just can't fathom how important it was for the culture to change. How many people felt just utterly bullied into changing their perspective, because they felt they couldn't say anything in response to, "The Science says!" They had to retreat to, "Well, I might not personally like it, but if that's who they are," or some people even said, "...if that's who god made them to be, then..."

Graduating in 2016 meant being most exposed to peak propaganda on precisely this issue. Literally 2015 was Obergefell, when the APA told SCOTUS that a bloody opinion poll settled the science on the issue. The lies were literally more like the water they were swimming through than at any other time.

Frankly, this is just reinforcing my original point. They were sooooo successful with pushing these lies to effect cultural and legal change that you can't even see how important it was. It's no wonder they think they can just boldly do it again on any issue they please. You might personally see through it the next time, but there will be a train of people who graduated in 2026 instead of 2016 or 2006 who will be right there to say, "But you just don't understand that there was a cultural change," and completely not grokking how that cultural change happened.

the biggest factor is that what the gays wanted was not that much of an ask, overall

In comparison to what? There is a reason that the lies were focused on making it, "...compared to having to 'live a lie' and betray your very identity that is as core to your being as your DNA, and as a result, never ever have the chance to live a happy and satisfying life." If you lie enough to make the alternative YUGE, then you can make it sound like what you're wanting is not that much of an ask. It's baked in to your thinking that it's not that much of an ask, and you probably can't extricate it from your mind to look at it any other way.

One possible answer is the Bryan Caplan answer: the left hates markets, and the right hates the left. See Bryan for further exposition.

Another possible answer is the William Riker answer, what he calls "herestetics". The idea is that because the population will always have a distribution of preferences over possibilities, any voting mechanism will be subject to strategizing, changing the order/method by which things are considered, raising novel concerns that you think can split what would otherwise be unified opposition to your own preferences, etc. This is now done on an industrial scale, and the importance of national politics (given a strong federal government) raises the stakes significantly. Sprinkle in a little FPTP and negativity bias, and maybe that's just the fundamental reason for the culture war.

One thing I would note that would seem to support Riker's ideas, in my mind, is that when I watched Ken Burns' documentary on prohibition, I was amazed by just how poorly the political divide at that time mapped on to the divide today. Maybe someone could have gone through issue by issue and explained how I was misunderstanding, and that the same fundamental explanatory principle harmonizes them, but it really makes me think that it's all herestetics and path dependence; one group of folks try to bring up and really focus on Issue X, because they think it'll get them over whatever hump, then another group of folks tries to crack that coalition by coming up with Issue Y, and eventually lines start to get drawn.

One thing I would suggest/request for how to do a better job of getting to the real answer would be to survey across time and across the world. Is there anywhere where there ISN'T a culture war? Can we get a measure of, "In this area, the level of culture war is like a 0.3, but in this other area, it's like a 0.8"? Then, is there anywhere that is persistently low?

The battle over gay marriage was won so fast both legally and popularly that progressives think they can repeat that with say trans issues.

Moreover, they did so by just lying about what is known about reality, enforcing it through pure social power, then freely admitting that they totally lied. There have been, and there will be, zero consequences for this lying, so ISTM that they feel emboldened to repeat the same tactic on any issue of choice.

Counting federal student loans?

On this note, if you didn't see, they just got handed a full $1.2B that was laundered through the label of a "loan".

EDIT: Forgot link.

Sure, that's an interesting topic with lots of areas of discussion. I think I made it clear that there's nothing wrong with discussing how to instill confidence in a voting system even in response to suspicions that end up being unfounded.

So, uh, would you like to discuss it? Maybe make a contribution to the discussion?

There's nothing forbidden about presenting evidence and drawing conclusions from it. If someone's skepticism is indeed immune to evidence, what other explanations are there?

I'm trying to understand this very thing right now, so we'll see if the mods agree that this is a thing that you can do.

I don't think my model has a concept of justified/unjustified disgust, nor a sense in which all politicians deserve an equal level of disgust. Just that individuals have a possibly noisy level of general political disgust, and that Trump created an unprecedented increase, well above the noise level, of disgust in them. This disgust can have different outcomes in different folks (in ways that are path dependent), but the core linkage between them is this outsized disgust, which does not correlate with prior political commitments. In fact, it is due to the fact that it does not correlate with prior political commitments that it can have different outcomes in different folks.

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I just wish I could understand it better.

So the first thing I notice is that you cut off the end of the quote you are claiming "might be" interpreted in a certain way.

Combined with

No, he's saying people who only deploy skepticism in one direction and are resistant to evidence are either deluded or using motivated reasoning.

I think my first hypothesis for this explanation would be termed "Disjunctive Relief", and I don't think it would fly elsewhere. I don't think if someone said, "...and the conclusion of my argument (which assumes that my opponents are using motivated reasoning) is that my opponents are Nazis or using motivated reasoning," one would be so generous as to say, "But they did say 'or using motivated reasoning', so maybe they're just saying that they're using motivated reasoning." Nah. It would be interpreted as a way to simply call your opponents Nazis. Of course, if you would like to correct this hypothesis, I will update my understanding of the rules accordingly.

I think my second hypothesis would be that you simply view "TDS" as a slur, which is then subject to the unwritten slurs policy, which "has always" taken into account tone or "vibes". Paired with that, you think that "delusional" is not a slur. Instead, it's just the proper word to describe the conclusion that some people have literal delusions, things that their minds just made up. This is perhaps reasonable, and it would also jive with this comment not being modded, as it uses the slur, but gives enough negative vibes to both sides so as to have the appropriate ethereal balance.

My third hypothesis is that you take specific umbrage with appearing to say that a particular person has TDS. As you put it:

it is not like just calling someone a victim of "TDS" because he criticizes Trump.

In this case, my sub-hypothesis is that this is a version of, "Why use few word when many word do?" My comment was vastly too short on explicitly stating that Ashlael deploys his skepticism in only one direction, is immune or implacably resistant to evidence, and evinces a disgust reaction to Trump that does not correlate to any pre-Trump political commitments. Rather than bulk accusing anyone in the thread who doesn't meet his specific demands for how to respond, I assumed some knowledge of the vast history of a particular poster, without recounting it, to make my conclusion. Therefore, if I had simply explicitly stated the implicit qualifications that went into the conclusion, it would have been considered acceptable.

Finally, as for

I just took the time to explain to you why "No, really, TDS is real and Trump's critics really are deranged, Psychology Today says so!" is not an appropriate excuse for calling someone deranged.

and its precursor

I am not impressed by citations from Psychology Today. You may recall that back in the late 90s and oughts there was something of a cottage industry of articles from psychologists and linguists and others arguing very soberly that, essentially, conservatives are all mentally ill and/or fascists whose mommies didn't love them enough. I'm sure you would not be receptive to someone "shorthanding" this concept in such a way as to simply label conservatives crazy.

I think you misunderstand the point of citing PT. PT is almost certainly not pro-Trump. They are almost certainly maximally skeptical of the concept of TDS and maximally likely to portray it in the least charitable light possible. Citing them is the opposite of support for my interpretation. It is saying that even if you start from the most skeptical position possible, my interpretation still captures a phenomenon that is coherent. This is a completely different attempt than, say, citing some random psychologist in a left-wing publication who criticizes a right-wing politician or vice-versa.

Finally, if I can fully combine them here now, I would like to respond to:

"Anti-Trump partisan" will do.

I think this completely fails to engage with the entire paragraph I wrote on the topic:

I think one could be an anti-Trump partisan without having TDS. Primarily, if they don't experience a higher-than-typical (for his or her self) level of political disgust about Trump. I don't get that sense from AshLael. I don't see him posting about, say, anything in Aussie politics in a way that oozes disgust for the spectacle.

In your follow-on, you say:

If you want to make the much longer argument you made above - that "TDS" is actually a thing and represents more than simply hating Trump - then you will have to do so, by making that argument (and explaining why it applies to the OP).

I think I best interpret this as hypothesis two, that you currently think that TDS is just a slur and that every usage of it either must therefore balance the ethereal vibes or come with a full explanation of the complete meaning, every time. That's fair enough, but it doesn't address what I had actually asked for - a shorthand way of saying that concept without having to copy/paste an entire explanation every time. Perhaps none exists, and I will simply end up having to copy/paste every time, but that none exists does not actually mean that "anti-Trump partisan" will do.

EDIT: Also, I'd like to make a note on your comment:

I just took the time to explain to you why "No, really, TDS is real and Trump's critics really are deranged, Psychology Today says so!" is not an appropriate excuse for calling someone deranged. Once again I conclude that taking the time to write long paragraphs explaining my reasoning and trying to be fair to people who are only here to take cheap shots is a waste of my time and charity. I will not make this mistake with you again.

I would like to submit the timestamp of my comment here at 9:30AM EST, while your nice explanation is timestamped at 9:08AM EST. I was on a rush out of the house yesterday morning. I don't have the clearest memory, because I mostly remember trying to get out of the house, but I don't believe I had seen your 9:08AM comment at the time that I started writing or posted my 9:30AM comment. I believe I did click refresh and saw it before I left the house, but definitely didn't have time to respond to it yesterday. I think you worrying about "making this mistake with [me] again" would, itself, be a mistake of fact.

I'm not equipped to make vibes-based arguments, and I don't know any other topic (except maybe trans gender identity?) where this is seen as an acceptable basis to hold a belief.

I prefer actual evidence. All I know how to do is to dig into specific claims with specifics

To build on @HlynkaCG's perspective flip and attempt to provide actual evidence and specific claims with specifics to what is fundamentally, we can agree, a "vibes-based argument" (because I take @HylnkaCG's perspective flip to be that the vibes of legitimacy are, in fact, fundamental), I would point to a couple comments I've made here about the importance of secrecy in voting, including specifics of how it has been minimized or cast aside entirely in the "new normal", as well as specific claims from a plethora of international pro-democracy, pro-election-legitimacy-methods organizations.

I will again freely admit that the conclusion of such specifics are cashed out in vibes. One of the international organizations that I quoted concluded:

Ballot delivery, marking, and counting systems used in postal voting present considerable and unique challenges to the integrity of elections. There are several commonly used procedural safeguards for voting by mail, such as ballot secrecy envelopes, witness requirements and signature verification. However, these technical solutions may not be enough to instill confidence in postal voting if there is diminished public trust in electoral processes and administration.

That is, the end result of what you do, of any specifics that you discuss, must be measured in the extent to which it "instill[s] confidence" or "diminishe[s] public trust".

Would you be interested in a further debate concerning specifics of how voting secrecy works, why we have it, what methods are commonly used to ensure it, specific things that have been done which violate the specific demands of voting secrecy, etc., even though the end conclusion of that discussion necessarily cashes out in terms of vibes/confidence/trust?

if the skepticism is primarily/only deployed in one direction, or if it is immune or implacably resistant to evidence, then it's also reasonable to conclude the skepticism is either the source of delusion

Whereas this, I'm not sure if @Amadan would say it violates the rules this week or not. It might be interpreted as implying that your opponents are simply blind, irrational, partisan haters.

It's pretty rich to claim that that's "victimless", because if that is true, it would have undercut the justification for the case. That case is clearly premised on securities fraud harming either existing shareholders or shareholders who bought shares based on the fraudulent claims. Moreover, it is inconceivable that this had "zero pressure" from a victim (or at least a self-proclaimed victim), because lots of people think they're "victims" of climate change (and thus, any potentially fraudulent statements made about it). It's the foundation of the case, whether or not it is ultimately flawed, and that foundation is contrary to how you've portrayed it.

This is vastly better binned in the Matt Levine category of "Everything Is Securities Fraud". We know, it is baked in, that literally any conceivable case of securities fraud (literally "Everything", says Levine) will at least be attempted at some point. It's like Rule 34 for a particular statute.

But yeah, if you think that the Trump case is most akin to an area where everyone pretty much agrees that it's all just lawfare, grasping at every possible iteration of a theme, often specifically to pursue specific political goals (like climate change) rather than focusing on remedying fraud-as-traditionally-understood, then I think the point is actually made.

accusing people of TDS (another way of saying "You aren't rational, all your arguments are coming from blind partisan hatred")

I disagree. Psychology Today says:

There is no shared lay understanding of TDS, mainly because it is a folk category rather than a professional category. As such, there is currently much armchair speculation about the nature and existence of TDS, without consensus.

The name itself explicitly suggests a "syndrome," which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as "a characteristic combination of opinions, emotions, or behavior." Several commentators have run with this, putting forth suggestions about opinions, emotions and behaviors characterizing TDS.

Shared amongst these is a notion that the everyday activities of President Trump trigger some people into distorted opinions, extreme emotions and hysterical behaviors.

Given a concept so vague, there is obviously lots of room for a 'spectrum' here. It is notable that what I said was about TDS, not about Ash. I said:

TDS knows no pre-existing political boundaries.

That is, I am remarking on the incredible nature of TDS, which I would posit is really just shorthand for, "Significantly higher than an individual's normal level of political disgust, specifically in response to Donald Trump, which does not seem to be associated with a clear set of prior political commitments". That is, the value of the term is twofold: 1) It is, indeed, a heightened level of political disgust, which often carries with it some level of "extreme emotions" that PT speaks of, and 2) It is a unique phenomenon that seems to be attached to Trump, himself, rather than traditional politics, therefore in want of nomenclature. I think that some people with TDS manifest with distorted opinions and hysterical behaviors, but the ontologically-prior nature is simply political disgust. (I would admit that this comes must more closely intertwined with "extreme emotions" than the others.)

I think one could be an anti-Trump partisan without having TDS. Primarily, if they don't experience a higher-than-typical (for his or her self) level of political disgust about Trump. I don't get that sense from AshLael. I don't see him posting about, say, anything in Aussie politics in a way that oozes disgust for the spectacle.

One could also be an anti-Trump partisan or even have TDS, yet still make rational arguments. I think there is a huge distinction between a person's personal level of disgust and their tolerance/capacity to make rational arguments in spite of their disgust. Sure, there are some people who cannot tame their disgust, but there are absolutely others who can. I'm sure you can identify several posters here who are absolutely, at their core, disgusted by some of the topics they write about, yet continue to hold themselves to high standards of rationality. The point of rationality, as I understand it, is not to eliminate all emotions, even strong ones or ones concerning disgust. It is not to simply rest on nothing but cold, hard, logic. Instead, it's to understand those emotions and that disgust, and to value it properly, while remaining rational.

Finally, I will absolutely maintain that I did not say that AshLael is being irrational. I spoke merely concerning his partisan valance and to note that this partisan valence, being a somewhat unique phenomenon that seems to be incredibly linked to disgust, does not correlate with prior political divides.

EDIT: If you have a suggestion for an alternate term I could use to indicate this concept, I'm all ears and will switch with haste.

I only briefly perused one of the Balko posts (and haven't watched any of the videos he's responding to). I wanted to skip to the bit about the departmental training manual. I found the post very confused and focused on a further step of tying up a suspect, at which point you'd need to do various things like put them on their side, monitor them medically, etc. The post seemed to simply not understand that most of what it was citing wasn't relevant unless you had tied up the suspect.

As Ash says, he's not a leftist partisan; he's purely an anti-Trump partisan. TDS knows no pre-existing political boundaries.

Yeah, I don't think this conversation was ever about entirely banning all encryption. Just about major companies like Facebook, Google, Apple, who the OP was claiming have better security than you anyway. A more general encryption policy discussion would have to encompass the more varied details of smaller organizations, their capability to do security in the first place, and the respective values of the information that goes across their wires. Plus obvious economic questions like regulatory entrenchment and such.

This conversation is about E2EE of Facebook messages, not bank transactions. Law enforcement/government can just subpoena your bank to get your bank transactions.

this key is going to have to be accessed by millions of law enforcement officers and government officials

Also BZZZZT. As I said, the only people that ever access this key are a small number of approved Facebook insiders. Law enforcement/government make requests (with warrants) to Facebook, but they never even touch the handle to the door of the vault that contains the computer with the HSM with the key.

But the threat that I'm talking about is from actors who have legitimate access to the vault.

This is why I had said:

Of course, this method would also be subject to the possibility of abuse by the small number of FB insiders who are tasked with this warrant service, but that, by the terms of the argument made above, "does not increase the risk further than the non-E2E case," because in the non-E2E case, FB can also trivially abuse their access to your messages. The question here is to what extent you think FB is, itself, a threat actor, but I think the terms of the argument above stipulated that they weren't. The appropriate criticism (seen elsewhere here) is that they are.

How would it be leaked? It's buried in an HSM that is not connected to the internet and housed in an access-controlled vault. Just assuming a breakage of the first of those conditions (extracting a key from an HSM) utterly breaks all device security guarantees you have for all the devices you own. If step one of your plan to "leak" this key is to be able to break all device security guarantees for all devices everywhere, then we can probably conclude that this thing doesn't constitute a meaningful additional risk over the status quo. Like, mayyyyybe an epsilon increase, maybe. But that epsilon is sooooo small that it would be dwarfed by a literal billion other security improvements we could make in every other aspect of our digital computing.

I think the first answer is "zoning reform". If it was as trivially easy to spam new housing as YIMBYs would like it to be, a would-be monopolist would be chasing an ever-moving target.

I think the second answer is that even in the current environment, there is a lot of land. It would take absolutely insane levels of invested capital to build a portfolio that has anything approaching market power. Very localized market power would hopefully be mitigated by (1), as you can just go down the street some number of miles and build more, but the option to move to the next city is a pretty decent escape from monopoly. We've already seen plenty of less-than-super-money-loaded (i.e., not tech) companies flee from the high costs in California locations (just due to NIMBY, not even self-assessed-tax-derived monopoly). It definitely requires them to take a one-time hit, but these are the forces that move the system toward equilibrium.

I think the third answer is that the homeowner should, in theory, assess their property at a value that would actually sufficiently compensate them for the move. That is, it should include their moving costs, the cost of an alternate home in an alternate location, and whatever inconveniences come with that alternative. This is, of course, in theory, and it would be quite difficult to assess in practice. If done appropriately, it would be paired with significant reduction in tax rates, as valuations would be significantly higher than current purchase prices. Of course, Weyl's ilk aren't actually motivated by assessing things properly, so they'll immediately defect and jack rates up to be punitive toward anyone with wealth/assets. This is the real reason why such a scheme is not feasible; there is no likely political commitment to using this tool in a way that would actually be beneficial to a market economy rather than highly detrimental. I'd be much much much more concerned about this than investment company monopoly.

As perhaps a compliment to this, but phrased in a way that may be less antagonistic, notable proponent of open borders Brian Caplan was recently asked to steelman the "Bordertarian" position. He replied:

Sure. I'd focus on immigrants' high Democratic share, combined with (a) the strong leftist shift of the Democrats, and (b) the idea that the Median Voter Model overstates the importance of policy relative to raw party loyalty. Since even high-skilled (and white!) immigrants lean strongly Democratic, continuing immigration has at least a 20-30% chance of durably handing woke socialists one-party control of at least the U.S. federal government.

I think most people acknowledge that culture and politics is one of, if not the main really significant hurdle to open borders. Beyond that, it gets to be a bit difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. What would the voting blocs end up looking like? What kind of policies would end up being pursued? Damn if it's not hard to know. But it is potentially quite scary, especially as it already feels like core Western principles and freedoms are already hanging at knife's edge.

Probably agreed that it is highly unlikely that the new political alignment, whatever the details, would adopt the rest of the OP's platform.

The extremely low-level version of this is the classic example of a free, simple app. I heard the story of one recently that was just an app that let you change the brightness of the flashlight on some phones that didn't have that functionality built in. It started off just having basic ads. But as it became less and less profitable, crowded out by things like more phones having it just built-in, they saw the writing on the wall. Presumably, they just sold it to someone else, but I don't know in this particular case. In any event, either the original owner or someone who bought it added really obtrusive video ads... and then snuck in a $15/month subscription charge. Basically just banking on it already being installed in some number of phones, and some number of them not really noticing or accidentally clicking the wrong thing and not noticing and such. This is the really simple version.

I'd have to try to go back and see if I can find any real examples, but you can imagine that an app that collects a bunch of data on you, maybe biometric data and such, could end up on a downward spiral, profitwise. Who freaking knows how they'll sell it in order to make that last buck? Who knows what form of shady scaremongering they could do, "We see that you have this gene, and you're really in danger of [medical problem] (that is barely supportable by the scientific evidence), so you really ought to consult with [our shady partner who sells you some worthless shit and kicks us back money]."

Actually, just as I finished writing that, I thought of the example of virus protection software. That shit was constantly burying itself deeper and deeper into your system, until it had basically unfettered access to everything. Lots of people kept using it, mostly out of inertia. As it started getting squeezed out of the market, they started squeezing customers harder and causing all sorts of problems, not least of which is the tension between, "If our software has a vulnerability, attackers can use that to get deep access to your system, but you're probably oblivious to the details of how that works, so we're actually kind of okay with it, so long as it scares enough people to keep paying the subscription."

This is a common talking point, but it's never really made sense. People go down the route of saying, "Well, you can't have a mathematically provable way of verifying the validity of warrants," but that's not really relevant to the typical digital threat vectors that are normally relevant (I.e., a 400lb guy in a bed in Russia attacking your device over the internet thousands of times in the middle of the night). You can pretty easily have FB keep a private key in an HSM locked in a vault somewhere, not connected to the internet, and after their legal department has fully vetted the warrant request, they could take the encrypted blob of messages into the vault and use the purpose-built hardware to decrypt it. Sure, add some qualifier about, "..can only be used with a warrant, up to the accuracy with which FB's legal team can determine the validity of said warrant," but then your only objection fades away.

Of course, this method would also be subject to the possibility of abuse by the small number of FB insiders who are tasked with this warrant service, but that, by the terms of the argument made above, "does not increase the risk further than the non-E2E case," because in the non-E2E case, FB can also trivially abuse their access to your messages. The question here is to what extent you think FB is, itself, a threat actor, but I think the terms of the argument above stipulated that they weren't. The appropriate criticism (seen elsewhere here) is that they are.

Either for ideology or just to squeeze out a few more dollars. If Google's moats start falling, and their profits start falling with them, the first sign will just be that products start being less good. This is understandable and fine; they won't have as much funny money to blow on non-profit-centers that only add marginally, but that customers like. But if it gets really bad, well, there's always Baker's Law: "You never know how evil a technology can be until the engineers who created it fear for their jobs."

I think there ought to be some informal fallacy that describes this pattern.

Central Planner's Fallacy? Non-Agentic Fallacy? Just "Ignorance of Game Theory"? By that, I'm speaking specifically with respect your example, where I think the fundamental driver for the distinction between what happens at what you call the "statistical" versus "mechanical" levels is the presence of agents who make their own choices. Maybe you're getting at something else, but then I'd appreciate an additional example that doesn't have this feature.

On this topic, I really smell a meme of, "Just fucking tell me how I'm allowed to execute people." The unfortunate thing for @Rov_Scam is that, even if he is personally willing to tell you how he'll let you execute people, he doesn't speak for all of the other folks who are against whatever variations of capital punishment. And of course, there are some folks who are just against it in general and will jump back and forth between arguments willy-nilly.

I think the proponents of capital punishment would easily be able to rally their ranks around any particular method of execution that was Officially (TM) deemed acceptable by opponents. I don't think any plurality of opponents can be formed to credibly commit to finding any particular method of execution acceptable.

I think it would definitely be a heavy lift with SCOTUS. I then have an unfortunate thought, that if it's just an EO, SCOTUS probably shuts it down... but if it were an actual, no bullshit statute passed by the full Congress, it might have a legit chance. Of course, I doubt that will happen anytime soon, but in this same thread, I also tried considering the legality of Congress just passing a statute declaring that the borders must be open, so I am a sucker for these sorts of, "What is the actual limiting principle," questions.