DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
Tell me about it.
User ID: 745
There are countless flaws in your argument, starting from the fact that Roman patriarchs considered family their literal property; to the obvious ability of the Taiwanese, majority ethnic Han and indeed many of them descendants of Han elite, the type most selected under those Han-specific civilizational pressures, to match and exceed «the white race» in humane civility and even aesthetics of their life; to the fact that the Chinese today have hundreds of millions of beloved pets. And of course there's plenty of love, loyalty and honesty in Chinese art, or found in relationships with Chinese people across the world. And we know generally that racial essentialism is a crude approximation for overlapping distributions, and that it's more sensible to speak of norms of reaction, and clearly such barbarity can be found in European history that the difference can only be said to be one of degree, not of kind... Honestly it's just trash. And your whole interpretation of foot-binding as aggression against kin to prevent running away, or whatever, is either atrociously disingenuous or so stupid as to make responding pointless. Read some interviews of surviving women from traditional families who have had that done to them, see what they think of it.
But let me put this aside. Let's grant the core of your thesis: that the Chinese civilization, with its peculiar circumstances, has created a separate human type, deficient in some aspects of humanity that the «western type» of human finds paramount. Simply put, that from your perspective the Han Chinese are less human.
Okay. This can certainly be the case, and I believe that even highly related peoples can have distinguishable genetic inclinations, like the old European racialists asserted. But, if we're dealing in extreme and stupid generalizations – then by my standard, you Hajnali goodbots are not fully human either, and far more dangerous. You personally are an apt example.
I think there is not a single perfect, fully human, race of man. Evolution is a cruel bitch and it didn't bother to create one I'd feel at home with. Certainly some groups, whites more obviously than others, have better competitiveness on the global scale, but this isn't about it. There are sparks of goodness and greatness in all major populations, but feeble, pointless and spinning into destructive attractors in separation from each other. Everyone is eager to get high on one's own group's supply, double down in natural inclinations. Asians are serious to the point of clowning themselves, thinking on the low level of optimizing the performance of inane arbitrary customs. Blacks are largely incapable of seriousness, which is why they can enjoy life more than anyone else. Arabs have a desire for epochal accomplishment, completely divorced from taste and prudence and so spilling back into their infertile sands as testaments to vanity. Russians are crazy, brilliant at finding ways to fuck themselves up. And you lot are so very marvelous at the scale of a Mannerbund or a village parish, but beyond that you can't handle psychopaths that emerge in any substantial population, and just get used, mumbling your nauseating «u can't get something outta nothing, sonny» or «u just need to believe in yourself» adages. Diversity is our strength indeed, except we're no good at really combining facets of our strengths, because we're blind and hostile to each other's Logos.
The principal mechanism of this is dehumanization. And I'd posit that whites are the worst in this department, this is one of your worst traits. You cannot suffer the heretic, the xenos, the mutant to live. You are overcome with disgust and an extermination impulse when you recognize something as genuinely alien. This fanaticism is not normal; neither are your aspirations to universal dominance of your doctrine, and therefore the fear of the Chinese is largely projection.
Following your Catholic Church programming, your futile wars of religion, and your acceptance of Jews (who are much more similar to the rest of the world, except more intelligent) into the ranks of your elites, you have devised (or have been taught) a way to cope with your tendencies. It's a primitive way: you simply insist on there being no real difference. Few notions in this world are more shallow than a Western liberal's idea of diversity; you think it's about puny cultural artifacts befitting of a theme park – garments, cuisine, language, inconsequential quirks, irrelevant myths and opinions. Even a slight deviation on a morally relevant dimension is cause to suppress the information, or explain it away with circumstances, pin the blame on some organized evil that can be vanquished. That's all just stopgaps.
You refuse to see others for what they are, because when you do, you start to hate. And in the process of not-seeing, you degrade yourself, before something finally gives. I am increasingly sympathetic to the Jewish paranoia that, if you were ever allowed to look past the «Judeo-Christian» front and once again properly notice them as a distinct race, a second Holocaust wouldn't have been out of the question. Where's Jewish Mickey Angelo, indeed?
The Chinese are not Anglo-Germans. They do not share your values. They do not share many of your weaknesses. It is harder to convince a Chinese than a White that being illiterate is «another way of reading», or hallucinating is «another way of knowing», or that economic collapse is desirable to clean our Lebensraum from the invisible poison of radiation. They are, in my impression, a bit less empathetic. But that's a form of wisdom too, which could help your race heal, if only you could see out of your ass anything that isn't either a warped mirror or the Devil himself.
天地不仁
以萬物為芻狗
聖人不仁
以百姓為芻狗
Heaven and Earth are not humane.
They regard all things as straw dogs.
The sage is not humane.
He regards all people as straw dogs.
Somehow, googling returns a number of pages where straw dogs are confused with straw men.
Also, my old grand theory about the Chinese-Western difference in mental style.
Mental/cultural inclinations emerge first as adaptations to the physical world and are then elaborated upon for symbolic activities in advanced economy. Exploration is, first, exploration of land and resources. I think East Asia has had the highest sustained density of human population (adjusted for arable land) throughout the last 60 or so generations, largely due to rice. As population density increased, so did the risk of exploration attempts, while the return on exploration fell: everywhere was settled and owned already (also you need relatively big groups to succeed with rice in a new location, I think). Thus, as Malthusian condition was reached, investment of time and energy went increasingly into exploitation of well-known affordances, effortful iterative improvement within given bounds; and into the development of the kind of intelligence that is good at noticing and making use of small-scale patterns and marginal resources quickly. Think of this exploration-exploitation transition like progress along a simulated annealing calculation.
"The West" has had an unnaturally prolonged exploration stage, in part because of mass deaths. USA used to grow extensively and have an active "wild" Frontier until only a century ago (see "yeoman ideal" etc). But mature intelligence tests were created after we, too, have settled into the "Asian" intensive mode, after colonialism, industrialization, Taylorism, credentialism and safetyism – when all returns are coming from improvements to carrying capacity of the given lot. American style capitalist Logos is pretty much the last one still yearning to expand. SpaceX is the embodiment of human exploration drive.
Hebrew prophets, Greek philosophers, Italian Renaissance artists or British inventors probably would have scored high on them, but they also were crazy risk-prone motherfuckers. If someone decided to create a test for genius in the early 18th century, aiming to predict Napoleon, I can at the very least suspect there'd be another distinctive factor besides g. Something Musk has.
It's an underappreciated fact, possibly explaining to some extent the geopolitical and racial animus too, that very much of the world's piratical freedom is created and maintained by Russians. Not the old Cypherpunk part that's mostly reserved to the highly technical (Freenet, i2p, obscure IRCs...) but the publicly accessible freedom. I think this owes both to Communism and to its opposition in the form of Samizdat – and of course to older cultural traditions of coping with an effectively unbeatable but not highly competent power.
Libgen, Sci-Hub (well, to the extent that Elbakyan is Russian, but culturally she totally is), Z-lib, Tornado Cash and other parts of crypto infrastructure, Telegram, Vkontakte (back when it was owned by Durov), Hydra marketplace until Germans took it down; and that's only the explicit tip of the iceberg, when you start digging you find much more. Collaborating with Westerners on this kind of stuff, however, can give you the Aaron Swartz experience, with your project ending up gutted and mothballed, with parts repurposed for political ends.
It's ironic that I often have an easier time finding some Western author in Russian. E.g. here's Dahl – Flibusta is nearly flawless as a prose repository. Who knows, maybe it'll make more sense to do back-translations from there than hope for Amazon availability of old versions. @hydroacetylene knock yourself out.
Oh right, here's a better plan. https://www.btdig.com/search?q=roald+dahl+books
«BTDigg was founded by Nina Evseenko in January 2011.» Figures.
Hint: anal pain
Those random search suggestions never fail to make me smile.
I'm not sure what the relation with https://bt4g.org is. It has a nicer interface.
…After we are done with, I wonder if Hajnalis will figure out how to make these things accessible to more than the small circle of cranky snobbish Electrical Engineering grads, or if their… conscience will get the better of them and tip the scales in favor of regulation, surveillance and omnipotent woke schoolmarms.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1yr ago
I feel personally called out, but in my defense I'll say that all of that is more justifiable than
-
Flat-out lying and especially gaslighting to advance your political agenda
-
Pretending to have amnesia about previous rounds of the discussion
-
Fearmongering, sneering, concern-trolling and going for other emotionally manipulative tactics because you lost the argument and don't wanna admit it
-
Manipulating procedural outcomes by doxxing, vote-brigading, reporting technicalities, attacking the infrastructure and so on, plus the whole Alinsky rulebook.
So long as rats/mottizens, generally speaking, do not commit these sins (perhaps on account of lacking the psychopathic aptitude), whereas their opponents stick to them religiously, I'll say a sperging-out chud is more deserving of attention than a person endowed with such common decency.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1yr ago
Isn't the "Global South" project a rebranding of Third Worldism, which had obvious ties to the Communist International and Maoist Movement?
Anyway. The developed nations have had a couple of centuries of capitalism. As a result, they have become forever-rich, irrevocably prosperous; they can even drop capitalism if they feel that way, the accumulated resource and technological base allows for implementing planned economy in all but name ("stakeholder capitalism" and "advance market commitments" and "carbon credits" it's called now). As is the established practice, they kneecap other nations with the extremist vomit of their intellectuals, inciting premature and unsustainable transitions with unreasonable theories and promises of fixing consequences of the previous step. Before, it was mainly Communism, where the free lunch of a new social order was dangled in front of backwards peoples; then it was Neoliberalism, when they were allowed to poison their ecosystems, capture lowest-margin markets like raw materials and textiles, and inflate the valuation of a bunch of oligarchs with poor taste. Now it's the ecological and social-progressive stuff – the worst offer of all, for it's all stick and no carrot. That is how the gap is maintained; and to narrow that gap, to gain the ability to meaningfully resist Western goading and stand as its equal, a common identity and antagonistic posture are needed.
Or so the thinking goes, I guess. Realistically, integrating with the West is the best they could do.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
8mo ago
I actually wonder what people with opinions on Holocaust… opposite to @SecureSignals will say about all this if the evidence of fabrication becomes clearer. Were I a Jew, I'd be pretty pissed and maybe a little scared about such cynical construction of a memetic superweapon that may by association cast doubt on evidence for already recognized genocides, and tried to make clear that I strongly condemn such tactics.
It's always possible that everyone is just lying. There could be a large-scale psyop perpetuated by the military to convince not only Grusch but also multiple members of Congress that there are aliens when, in fact, there are not. But I don't see what the point of such an operation would be.
It has occurred to me the other day that the whole Bayesian rationality thing is actually a pretty good framework to look at the alien question. Specifically I mean the part about updating priors. Actual calculation doesn't matter, numbers would be pulled out of one's ass anyway – but the principle is important.
Let's say I have some beliefs – that there's 0.0001 probability of aliens being real, 0.5 probability for a random American official to be a honest source of info, 0.33 probability of a large well-hidden Deep State conspiracy with inscrutable goals expressing as psyops or coverups, 0.9 probability that, conditional on aliens being real, I'd see credible scientific research into their artifacts and biology and so on; the whole convoluted Bayesian network plus notions of credibility, what it means to be honest vs trustworthy… Then, a dozen officials swear up and down they've seen ayy lmao and the government hides the truth. And there's still zero scientific corroboration. Should that update my belief in aliens upwards? Slightly, perhaps. But more importantly, it should both tank my confidence in the good faith of American officials and update upwards my suspicion of a conspiracy, just not the one that hides ayys.
I notice a peculiar pattern – the belief in aliens that is supported by insistence of people tied to the American government and nothing else; it is uncorrelated with all other streams of evidence. This thing begs for an explanation. It could be, of course, that I'm very wrong about epistemology and they're very right. But it could be that this whole class of observers generates testimonies by a somewhat less trustworthy algorithm than I've assumed; that they're synchronized by something other than object-level knowledge about aliens. So their «signals» should be assigned lesser credence; and the more they diverge from the consilient world model inferred from other data streams, the less each new bit of their input weighs.
I observe that UAP believers don't actually go about it like this. They never propagate the signal of inconsistency back through the network. They just tally up these testimonies and say «so what now, skeptics, huh? We've got [ostensibly trustworthy name] here, it's no longer a joke!» But I've already reduced the weight of this whole class of names in my model; it is a negligible change at most.
There is an alternative theory, though. Perhaps these people don't delude themselves that they know enough to reason about the object level. For them, objective reality is functionally the same thing as consensus reality (much like for @fuckduck9000 objective morality is the thing that wins wars); human authority is a source of truth that needs no corroboration from mere physical feedback, so you can in principle just say «there's more officials pro than scientists contra» and be done with it; the whole reasoning that real aliens ought to have made a mark on anything other than testimonies of officials is moot. O'Brien really could fly, so long as it were confirmed by other Inner Party members. It's a matter of comparing the cumulative weight of authority on either side of the debate.
I find both those approaches alien.
And one more thought. There has been more rigorous, well-funded scientific investigation of xenobiology than of secret societies, conspiracies and psyops. This asymmetry is interesting. We have learned an awful lot about life and why it'd be hard for life to emerge outside Earth, and nothing in favor of such life. We have seen quite credible examples of conspiracies, and nothing to suggest that better-ran ones are impossible. However, the former remains viable, while interest in the latter has positively plummeted among the educated classes in the last 100+ years. «What if intelligent life beyond Earth, like silicon-based or something, dude, and flying saucers, imagine how it could work» is a respectable enough train of thought: why not indeed, and what's the harm anyway, it's deserving of patronage of eccentric billionaires, academic grants and place in peer-reviewed journals. «What if a well-organized cabal of malicious people manipulates public opinion without legible authority» is a sinful evil idea a libel this idea killed millions shut up stop it or we will erase you from polite society. (Like many taboos (e.g not threatening to throw another party's candidate into jail), it's being violated nowadays, to an extent; the ayy guys say the government lies. The government is not the Cabal, of course; it is known that the government keeps some things secret. But I suppose this does blur the line). Most importantly, though, we do not have a serious theory of conspiracy.
Our sociology is on the level of surveys with Lizardman's Constant, shallow economic models, outright fraudulent papers claiming conspiracies can't work because a guy can multiply some numbers, and glib rules of thumb like Hanlon's razor. We don't know what exactly extraterrestial life is like if it exists; but we also don't know jack squat about our home turf. The illusion of familiarity is just that – human networks of power are too big and opaque to comprehend just by casual osmosis. One must be consistently skeptical. If we can't rule out aliens, we sure as hell cannot rule out that dozens or hundreds of high-ranking people in the state machine would lie for some reason we don't see.
After all, why couldn't lizards hide themselves among the human kin, secretly pulling the strings of our regimes and rewriting history? Wouldn't it be strange if we were the first and the only sentient race on Earth in all of 4.6 billion years? Anyone who came earlier would've had a massive first mover advantage…
Personally I do not see why this hypothesis is any more discredited than the one about extraterrestrial life.
That said. If there's a single parsimonious theory of a motive for this psyop that I can seriously propose… It's not my «overcapacity» thesis but rather the opposite. I mean the discrediting of the authority of the USG and army and American intelligence apparatus, through this very Bayesian logic, as @Hoffmeister25 demonstrates. The USG is the supreme secular power of the world, – and it's being reduced to some provincial slapstick comedy, instead of carrying itself with the dignity of the sovereign. It does not command respect, mostly just grudging support, on account of the vileness of its competitors. Give this 10 more years. 10 more years of AI shit torrent, 10 more years of long Covid and demented gerontocrats, 10 more years of Trump and Biden dog-faced-pony-soldier show and lurid, Jerry Springer tier gibberish in Congress. If at some point, say, CIA manages to report something truly ludicrous for Americans, physically plausible but shocking – who knows, maybe Mossad quietly installing backdoors into Deepmind and Anthropic AGI superclusters? – it will just be met with shrugs and condescending scowls. Whoever runs this, wants the legitimate authority of the US to end up in the position of the boy who cried wolf, and then collapse without popular support.
Just an idle thought.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1yr ago
Is this parody?
Like already answered, this is the number of parameters. A parameter is the same thing as a weight, a unit loosely inspired by the synapse in biological systems like ourselves: a coefficient that is adjusted during training to reduce the predictive error, maximize reward or however else the objective function is defined for the purpose of a given project.
You can consider the number of parameters to be a measure of a neural network's expressivity: theoretically, the more parameters there are, the more algorithms, or more complex ones, can be learned/approximated by the model (this is a nice elegant illustration of the sense in which a neural network learns to represent an algorithm). But in practice, for now it seems that most models, and virtually all models released prior to Google's Chinchilla, are grossly overparametrized: a smaller network trained in a reasonable way on the same amount of data learns more or less the same skills, and a smaller model trained for longer learns qualitatively more, in that it actually reaches the underlying algorithms that allow it to find solutions in the general case, and doesn't just memorize superficial patterns or even raw data itself.* In this case, LLaMA-13B (13 billion parameters) is allegedly equal in benchmark performance/apparent "intelligence" to GPT-3-175B, so it's more parameter-efficient by a factor of 13,46, and also vastly more efficient in terms of training expense. The main secret is that it was exposed to 1 trillion tokens (a character group that's basically equivalent to a short word, see here), whereas GPT-3 only saw 500 billion. (It must be added that the average LLaMA token is shorter, because it uses character-level tokenization for numbers, so it should also have better arithmetic). The biggest LLaMA is trained on 1.4T tokens like Chinchilla-70B (with the same caveat about tokenizing numbers) and, for some not so trivial reasons, is slightly better still.
Aside from the total number, what matters is parameter precision. Models are usually distributed with fp32 weights. As Elon Musk notes, int8 (1 byte per parameter) is fine for inference. @ThenElection may be wrong here, I think 7B and even 13B will run just fine – after some tuning by nice anons, of course – on recent Apple Silicon Macbooks, with even 33B possible on top-of-the-line 64Gb version** (curiously, in one benchmark, 33B model is superior to the 65B one).
See @Porean's experimental results here and the recent AAQC winner @TransgenicSolution's related note here.
*That said, super-large models still seem to have unique emergent capabilities, though as we proceed with training Chinchilla-proportioned models, fewer and fewer such capabilities remain. Before UL2-20B, the consensus was that you need like 60B or 100+ to get advantages from chain-of-thought prompting.
** tfw no 64B M3 macbook to run your personal genie
Edits: typos
I also know some working class men, some of whom have problems finding a mate. All of them are either obese or have severely lacking social skills, both those problems could be solved with maybe a year of consistent effort. I don't know any man that has no glaring problems and wants a long term relationship with a (any) woman but can't find one. Sometimes it looks like that but on closer inspection it always turns out that they are shopping above their price range so to speak.
Now what does this reminds me of... Oh right, Scott's Annus Mirabilis.
According to Gallup polls, about 46% of Americans are creationists. Not just in the sense of believing God helped guide evolution. I mean they think evolution is a vile atheist lie and God created humans exactly as they exist right now. That’s half the country.
And I don’t have a single one of those people in my social circle. It’s not because I’m deliberately avoiding them; I’m pretty live-and-let-live politically, I wouldn’t ostracize someone just for some weird beliefs. And yet, even though I probably know about a hundred fifty people, I am pretty confident that not one of them is creationist. Odds of this happening by chance? 1/2^150 = 1/10^45 = approximately the chance of picking a particular atom if you are randomly selecting among all the atoms on Earth.
Now in 2023, according to Pew Research cited by OP already,
among men under 30 years old, over 60 percent are single, almost double that of women in the same age bracket. Not only are more young men single but their opportunities for developing a relational and sexual repertoire have all but vanished, as levels of sexual intimacy across genders appear to have hit a 30-year low (Lei & South, 2021).
You must be in a fortunate bubble indeed, to now not know of any among those 60% who aren't obese, autists, basket cases or aiming way above their level!
The explanation, shifting midway from male withdrawal to increased standards (because of the pandemic, bizarrely) and the solution offered, are pretty cool:
As young women continued to pursue intimate relationships less intently post-pandemic, men could have increased their relationship skills to close the effort gap. They could have confronted their relative avoidance and challenged the gender norms that made them so anxious about intimacy. They appear to have done the opposite, turning even further away from real-life relationships and into the virtual world. [...] The good news is that all of these young single men can choose differently. They can choose to focus on developing the necessary relationship skills to be more successful in dating. It starts with re-prioritizing the development of close, intimate relationships in their life for their own well-being and as a counterbalance to the shift in priorities for women. They must do this to reach their fullest potential whether or not they have had great male role models illustrating these efforts. By no means will dating in 2023 be an emotionally painless process, particularly for heterosexual men who are attempting to date women. Rejection may be a far more common result given competitiveness and higher relationship standards. Therefore, young men must be inoculated to avoidance in their dating life by normalizing women’s selectiveness.
My toy model of this issue and its discussion is very primitive. Standards really are rising quickly, and roughly 30% of marriage-age men are now, for all intents and purposes, incels. (This checks out, in my experience: even fit, okay-looking, psychologically stable guys with degrees and high-percentile (80-95ish) incomes often cannot find a 5/10 woman for a long-term relationship who isn't (physically) dangerously psychotic, a drug addict, an insufferable whore, or otherwise critically compromised). Men in the lower half of the distribution who are still viable begin to feel the pressure, and so double down in all usual tactics: «improving relationship skills» (which in practice means either deluded male feminist antics or PUA-like bullshit), distancing themselves from incels, ostentatiously signaling that they are «not like that» and have no problem scoring, then moving on to intense bodybuilding, shoe lifts, cosmetic surgery, TRT... As a result, everyone is awash in gaslighting. Normie men who feel they still have a chance will never admit that they may not have it tomorrow, because this in itself feels like diminishing their chances.
What has changed was the passing grade, but men are graded on a curve, so in effect the proportion of rejects has increased permanently. This rat race is pathetic and unsustainable, as are copes.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1yr ago
Queens of what?
Beats me. Maybe queens of slay. Like all such popular slogans expressing the feminist ideal of limitless empowerment, I find it ridiculous, a facet of a promise that is unwarrantable at scale, and inevitably leads to disillusionment and personal failure.
Well, if you think that you should have control over that
I love the indignation here. Indeed, who am I to dare think... think what? It's very quickly traced from the underdefined abstract claim («women should accept responsibility for the reproduction of the group») to the specific attack on personal agency, indeed an assault: that @gemmaem should be forced to bear a baby. (Probably my baby? Some incel's baby? Yuck!) @FarNearEverywhere, to whom I was responding, offers another charming strawman:
it's so unfair! women have all the power! they should lose all their rights and be forced back to the days of exchanging sex for meat so that men can have a fuckdoll of their own at home for their own exclusive use!
What to do! When one side has a game-breaking move «act as if you are afraid of rape», burned into the brainstem and summoned frivolously – no discourse is possible.
My intuitive ideal is maximum agency and optionality for every individual that the society can sustain, in terms of actual material opportunities and not bickering over spoils in a zero-sum squabble. Honestly, if it were possible, I'd have relieved you, and everyone else, of the necessity to gestate an entire baby (or part of a baby, I guess). But surprisingly, women aren't too enthusiastic about artificial womb research either, despite attempts to frame it as an empowering development. Imagine if I suggested that, say, @2rafa's list, admittedly uncomfortably hardcore even for me, is augmented as follows: childless people who are otherwise subject to those career-damaging sanctions and prohibitive taxes can instead 1) postpone their reproduction, 2) pay directly to the «national ectogenesis fund» and 3) commit to have a child once the technology is ready. Men and women alike.
Do you think this would've been politically feasible?
And thanks for another illustration.
For context, OP (Matt Lakeman) is an old ex-regular who has an amazing blog dedicated mostly to international travel, reading on historical stuff and self-experiments. He's been to the Dominican Republic, among other places. He was not impressed. As one can expect, there's a section on the Haiti, with passages like:
Haiti was my first destination choice for this trip. But when I Googled “Haiti,” the top news story was about 17 American and Canadian missionaries being kidnapped by a Haitian gang and held for $17 million ransom. So I decided it probably wasn’t a good idea to go to Haiti at the moment.
I don’t know why the two countries have diverged so dramatically. Noah Smith says no one knows the cause of the split, but it’s probably some combination of Haiti starting its independence with enormous national debt (as part of a settlement with former colonial master France), terrible land management policies, the ongoing toll of the U.S. occupation for twenty years (the Dominican Republic was invaded too, but only for eight years), constant regime change, and generally abysmal macroeconomic policy. One Dominican I talked to attributed the country’s success to mid-century dictator Rafel Truillo, who was authoritarian and oppressive (and renamed the capital after himself), but allegedly brought enough order to the country to attract foreign investment and jump start the modern tourist economy. Also, for geographic/climate reasons, Haiti gets hit far more and far harder by natural disasters than the Dominican Republic.
By chance, I spent some time with two European aid workers stationed in Haiti. Their strong consensus was that Haiti was even worse than I had imagined. Worse than anyone imagines. And it has no viable recovery plan. A few interesting things they told me:
[...]
Law and order is non-existent in the cities. There is no point in reporting crimes. The cities are essentially in a state of anarchy.
The lawlessness has gotten worse over the last few years. The two used to be able to go to restaurants and jazz clubs, but now they don’t leave their homes at night.
Taxes are not paid in Haiti (duh). But if for some reason someone wants to pay taxes in Haiti, they first have to bribe the security guards at the doors of the tax offices.
When the Haitian people get pissed off at the government, their only viable means of protest is to block roads. So they’ll cut down trees or light tires on fire and cut off major highways. There is literally no process in place for the Haitian government to clear these blockages.
The Haitian people are consumed by “fake news.” Rival political factions run radio stations and Whatsapp groups, and spread fake news to vilify the opposition and/or foreigners. The fake news is so rampant that the average Haitian seems to have a completely deluded view of politics and the world at large.
It's a mystery indeed!
By the way, Scott's trip to Haiti was what opened his eyes to biodeterminism. (this reminds me of that old text of a guy who became racist after going on a humanitarian mission to Africa, there was an incredibly parable-like bit where he helped some local set up a food stall with baked bread, but his relative came and said «you have bread! My family needs bread!», took everything – you can't deny your family – so the guy went bankrupt and never did business again; lost it again and search engines are... uncooperative). Maybe Matt should've gone after all and written something in his usual manner.
...But also.
IQ is not a mechanistic explanation. All the politically correct stuff he asks about – governments, [inability to make use of] climate, culture – are in the end products of IQ but can be studied separately. IQ only tells us why it's so inescapably and consistently bad. But then an informed person would ask: why is Russia or Ukraine or Belarus like that? Why is China like that? Why is Iran like that? Sure it's not Sub-Saharan Africa, but aren't these people clearly smart enough to at least do better than what they show? And why are they worse than, like, Portugal? So IQ can't be the full story; and so long as this is the case, one has enough wiggle room to not notice the elephant.
As I've just argued, tabooing HBD destroys a great deal more than understanding of stuff that pertains directly to HBD. It lowers the effective IQ of the group, and much faster than dysgenics. Regarding the normiefication of the sub, you're obviously correct, but barely-challenged mentions of Jared Diamond, who is an utter fraud and a just-so storyteller, are even more telling. AskHistorians link is okay. Here's a good discussion of his GGS by that Russian biologist who wrote a Tolkien fanfic from Mordor's perspective, if anyone is interested, I can... proofread Deepl/ChatGPT translation.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1yr ago
Sorry, that's some horrible post-PUA logic bordering on delusion. I don't want to get «shit-tested» by a very specific and thinly veiled threat of character assassination, better take it at face value and try my luck elsewhere. In general, the idea that rejection is always insincere and/or that the girl actually wants you to be more assertive (and high assertiveness suffices to make you attractive) when she's saying you aren't wanted is as close to the default feminist accusation of rape culture as can be.
In the original meaning, «shit test» referred to trivial coyness or obstinacy when you already have some basic rapport (admittedly, men get deluded on this account too, but less), or to stirring trouble in a relationship, not to «you're making me scared, please go away or I'll call for help» kind of posture. Is such a posture shitty behavior, and cruel response to a normal friendly expression of interest? Totally. Shit test? Assume at your own peril.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1yr ago
Good point, except it's probably not feminism but a natural effect of male status differentiation in the presence of women and their observable reactions (yes, "hello, human resources?!" meme), recreating low-class school social dynamics.
I think this is a major source of differences in attitude – in this thread and elsewhere – toward mixed workspaces and generally the idea of adding women to environments where they were historically absent. People who believe that it's an unalloyed good since you can meet your soulmate or something are, probably, just not ugly; for less lucky ones (and who are also not exceptional in some way), flirting in the workspace is a non-starter, so they just lose the possibility to make a living without humiliation. When one looks up blackpill content on the distribution of attractiveness and growing proportion of sexless men, and non-infrequent incel-type assessments like this one on Quora –
Women are not only disgusted by ugly looking men they have have a major fear and hatred towards them due to the “devil effect”. This often leads them to believe an ugly male is more likely to have malicious intentions and will even harm them when it’s proven to not be true. It is always a reflection of self worth and insecurities.
Ugly men showing them attention of any sort, even if not sexual is considered an attack on their worth and they often leash out or give looks of immense disgust as a defence mechanism to dissuade any current and future attempts. If you’ve noticed that you’re getting frequent looks of disgust and you’re hygiene is great (which it should be if you’re a fully functional adult), chances are you are an ugly male.
A few rules to follow in most scenarios especially if you’re encountering this at work, pay absolutely no attention to them in any form whatsoever unless necessary, keep it professional and don’t abandon basic social routines. Read the news, play on your phone, read a book on the bus stop. Avoid sharing stairs or lifts and small enclosed spaces without a cctv camera if you’re alone and sharing a space with a woman, alone or in a group.
– it's hard not to come away with the feeling «holy shit, tens of millions of guys are forced into a lifetime of being severely bullied». It's the kind of thing non-targets aren't prone to notice or connect to external factors (did you care that they were suicidal losers in your school?) so it may be arbitrarily intense. Even if it's an exaggeration based on insecurity and not an accurate stereotype, the very fact that there exists strong social pressure to dismiss it as a delusion is telling. There's no «lived experience» clause for ugly men.
And contrariwise, it may be the case that the incessant wringing of hands about sexism and harassment, and demand for National Incel Strategy, generalized tyranny, censorship, surveillance etc are products of many women being unable to remove uggos from their life, developing chronic stress and fear, and growing desperately violent as a result (in their own passive-aggressive socially manipulative manner).
We may underestimate how much gendered animosity the society contains at the margins; and the consensus about its direction is very likely wrong.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1yr ago
One, rather liberal, answer is that conservatism is based on relatively unsophisticated heuristics for minimizing risk from novelty, exposure to outsiders and attempts at independent thinking – things beneficial for navigating modern society. Smarter people tend to be confident that they're better than that, and they're kinda right (thus, left).
Another, rather illiberal, answer is that IQ is relevant because it predicts comprehensive success at navigating society, from school to retirement. One of the most important components of such a success is generally avoiding pissing off people stronger than you. IQ is required to figure out their preferences regarding your behavior and modify it accordingly. In most cases it's far too frustrating and cognitively taxing to maintain a separate personality and worldview that's grounded in selfish preferences and unbiased exploration, so the mask becomes the face and people contort themselves into the form expected of them on the inside as well. «IQ realists» tend to be disagreeable, and are either good enough to maintain appearances while saying their true beliefs on anonymous forums, or don't care about the cost, or think they can afford it.
I am confused about these events.
Obviously this is coordinated, yet again, by the ADL, who have come out of the closet and started issuing mafia-like threats publicly. In fact they are doing this under their old StopHateForProfit «coalition of social justice» framework, which they first used when bringing Zuckerberg to heel two years ago. (From a quick search, it seems I'm the only guy who keeps bringing this up). (Related Forbes article). Zuckerberg, however, did not fight back remotely as openly.
That's... a bit too much, too soon, surely? They aren't yet feared enough, and their commitment to reposting 4chan/pol/ anti-Jewish memes when not intimidating the richest guy on the planet makes them look profoundly unserious. Or do their backchannel threats have more bite, as indicated by those hints from corporations? Because as it stands, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends with Greenblatt's ignominious removal and the organization being discredited.
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, and this is The Thing shedding the skin of wokeness and used-up assets; maybe they'll be spent to inflate credibility of Twitter that nevertheless will, as Musk promised originally, to install a censorship council. There are many theoretical ways to run circles around the public here.
Then again, mamma mia, how crude.
...Or, looking at replies to Musk's posts, eg here – maybe Greenblatt et al are rationally assessing their dominance. Huh.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1yr ago
Granted, but I protest Hlynka's confrontational attitude on this issue. You could have modded him for darkly hinting and not speaking clearly in this case.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1yr ago
What does it matter if you or the rest of the dissident right deign to categorize Jews as your fellow Whites («enough»), if they are aware of still being Jews? Moreover, what do they gain from this recognition to consider accepting it? You say you're involved in WN circles. How much has changed since this 2011 note, sans the fact that Google doesn't find this page by its title now (even so, results are worth checking out)?
Arguments about definitions are usually interesting inasmuch as they reveal reasons people hold for drawing lines, or talking about those lines in public. It seems that most of the time questions about some group's Whiteness status on the far right are driven by two concerns.
The first is prestige; Whiteness is perceived as an elite club, or perhaps the preoccupation with its membership is meant to conjure this status into reality. A piece by a Cuban-Jewish-American M. Yglesias quoting Ben Franklin springs to mind:
Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
What's that about? (Incidentally, an American has recently said that I'm one of «Literally the palest people I've ever seen!»). Let's be charitable and assume that Benjamin spoke not of the Asiatic admixture you hint at, but of some less trivial measure of racial quality. East Slavs are low-quality, low-prestige people. Putting Tchaikovsky in your camp is a no-brainer, but you would happily do without hundreds of millions of less illustrious Ruskies throughout history. Likewise, Indians are mostly «Pajeets» but Ramanujan is kinda cool And Pichai runs Google so eh, fellow upper caste Indo-Aryans can get a second-class seat. This kind of discussion makes for a genre of an intra-right status game, where one gets to boast of historical and anthropological erudition, magnanimity appropriate of a superior breed, and/or also condescension and intensity of disgust reaction. This is rather uninteresting to those of us of Swarthy and Tawny Races of the World who don't buy into the idea that the acknowledgement of racist Anglos is a worthwhile thing to pursue. (We're more into acknowledgement of Teutons).
The second angle is instrumental. «Can those people be of use to our White Nationalist cause, and will they?» The pan-White narrative serves to build a maximally broad camp.
The problem, of course, is that they have no reason to come into your camp. Not Arabs or Slavs, and particularly not the Jews.
To put it mildly, in the current year being White is uncool. On average, you get to have some advantages such as on the dating market, but they're not conferred on you by the identity or by group membership; every single way in which Whites have it good is a product of positive individual traits correlated with being White, perhaps to some meager extent of Bayesian priors various markets have due to distributions of those traits. Meanwhile, bad things are inherent to the identity in the social context. Whiteness in the US, and by implication elsewhere, is a construct tainted by the history of slavery and racism, not just due to propaganda or real events, but even simply because of self-sorting. If you want to be on the strong team, you have Civic Nationalism, and therefore identify as an American Patriot, maybe a MAGA Republican or a «degenerate mutt» like Hlynka. (Similar dynamics exist in other majority white states, e.g. France). If you want TRVDITION, you have actual national and ethnic cultures of your forefathers beginning in Europe, the more specific, the better; not long ago, this meant affirming Anglo-Saxon supremacy but nowadays only Putin uses the term seriously. You can also put some other facet of your identity in the first place: from a Trans person to an Eco-Activist, the world offers you many lauded options. Who the hell needs White Nationalism? Only people who have not managed to escape from sanctions levied on Whiteness, or who have deemed such an escape unseemly for ideological reasons. Those are not cool or powerful people. Many of them go so far in repudiating sanctions that they justify past evils.
And the sanctions are severe. One could say that «Whites» are de facto disenfranchised to an extent. They cannot organize, research and lobby explicitly for anything like common white interests, and it is illegitimate to even discuss such interests in the political realm. This is unpopular to notice, but immutable group membership plus the doctrine of group equality allow to smuggle in any kind of demand, including bald extortion under the guise of redistribution to right historical wrongs or straight-up prohibition on critique directed at members of a group. So Whites qua Whites are second-class citizens in their own countries: they do not possess a crucial right to agitate and lobby for their collective interests, and are forced to resort to humiliating roundabout stratagems like economic reforms with desired second-order effects, while inefficiently coordinating to pretend they favor those policies out of some lofty general principle. Jews, of course, enjoy the exact opposite position, because they can simultaneously be praised for stalwart Jewish nationalism and also have legal rights of regular citizens of Western countries, including the right to lobby. Why on earth would they want to be seen as White?
You try to sell the narrative of a common geopolitical enemy. Do Jews need to face those «common enemies»? I don't think so. In fact this is just a rehashing of Islam As The Civilizational Threat To Our Judeo-Christian Enlightenment, a neocon take obviously peddled by Israeli Nationalists to secure Israeli interests. And today Abraham Accords are signed, Israel is improving relations with Arab countries, Militant Islam isn't looking too hot, Iran is on its last legs (as are Jordan, Lebanon) so the question is moot. Africans, lol? What do Israelis care? In general, Israel positions itself as a no-bullshit self-interested Middle Eastern nation that happily deals with other non-Western states, including hostile ones like China and Russia (why not fight them, by the way?); they do not need to be inserted into anyone else's delusional fights. Frankly this search for a threat to unite against looks like desperation.
And one corollary of the above is that strongly identifying Jews who nevertheless grace White causes with their support will be fundamentally unserious about it. They may see value to the «White» civilization, but they know they have their own thing to retreat into if things go badly or their new friends are ungrateful, and that thing's on a much more solid footing. It's a bit of a game.
whether I would support the removal of all Jewish individuals from positions of power in White countries
I believe that the appropriate answer is «What good would that do?»
The problem of WNs isn't that there are many Jews in positions of power. It's that Whites in similar positions have no agency, qua Whites. Chuck Schumer is a conscious, proud member of a millenia-old ethnoreligious community headquartered in Israel, and explicitly takes actions to advance their interests using his position as an American politician (including assistance in suppressing people who notice and take issue with this agenda). Mitch McConnell is just some turtle-looking Republican. If you remove Chuck, Mitch won't start caring about the continuity or glory of your race. Neither will Nancy.
What can be done with that? Not much, I'm afraid.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1yr ago
Jones is punished this harshly because he's rather unsympathetic at the best of times, and indisputably in the wrong morally, legally, intellectually on this particular issue. Ergo, pretty much nobody with half a reputation to lose will bother staking that reputation on defending Jones for free, out of principle, and Jones can be bankrupted a thousand or a million times over.
Thus it is possible to neatly make an example out of him, a precedent of a right-wing loudmouth ruined beyond belief and made radioactive; and this will send a signal to all future wannabe cultural icons who disagee with the mainstream culture, and more importantly to their cooperators. In effect this imposes a permanent pentalty on the social credit score of an entire stratum of people.
This is arguably a continuation of the Richard Spencer Charlottesville case, Nick Fuentes no-flight-list incident and probably some other disproportionate sentences I have missed. Certainly @SecureSignals can describe it better than me.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1yr ago
Tribal wars and the quest for meaning
(another sleep-deprived inebriated rant. The resurgence of data-driven object-level motteposting is rather welcome; those interruptions won’t be frequent).
Anatoly Karlin is a self-identified Russian Cosmist. Like me. This means, in brief, the belief in the common cosmic endowment of humanity, the moral imperative – Great Common Task – to overcome bodily death (and, ideally, reverse as many past deaths as possible by technical means, redeeming human history, regathering «particles of our fathers»), and the notion that institutions, cultures, techniques and weapons or warfare ought to be pointed away from our kin and aimed against the lethal force of nature. One may think it’s a rather obvious idea to arrive at, during the long North Eurasian winter as you see malnourished peasants «recruited» for another dumb imperial war. It was invented by Nikolai Fyodorov, and our lefty friend deponysum has a poignant note on it; also available in his book.
Karlin is not very Russian, though, from his Berkeley education to meme-heavy Imperial identity compensating for confused ethnic ties; and starting Oct 3, he’s not very Cosmist. He’s now a direct threat to projects like Musk’s, an Anti-Cosmist, if anything:
THE CASE FOR WEAPONIZED KESSLERIZATION
It is time for Russia to give the 🇺🇦 flags and shibas what they have long demanded. #CloseTheSky
American SIGINT is an invulnerable (because no 🇺🇸🇷🇺 war) force multiplier worth factors more than all the Cold War surplus supplied to Ukraine. Just a few truckloads of gravel will put an end to Americans supplying the UAF with coordinates & nullifying Russia’s shells advantage.
Within a day he, too, has noticed the implication, and conjured a cope:
The Russians invented cosmism, the Russians were the first to explore space, and if fate so wishes, it will be fair if the Russians “kill” space. Svidomity [Ukrainians], Westerners, and NAFO dogs have long been demanding to "close the sky." It’s time to fulfill their wishes.
My guess here is, he references the iconic phrase that Taras Bulba, a fictional Zaporizhian Cossack and the main character of Gogol’s eponymous book, has said to his son Andriy who has betrayed Orthodox Cossacks for love of a Polish girl – before shooting. «I gave you life, I will take it», the savage, essentially Olympian expression of patriarchic morality. It’s also one of the justifications for the whole war, of course – «Czar’s gifts», «Lenin’s Ukraine», «Khrushchev’s mistake».
Or like the late demagogue extraordinaire for hire, «telekiller» Dorenko, had uttered once in 2014 while singing a Paean to the Priest-Czar Putin:
We belong to a dreadful generation - we have mauled our fathers to death. We took their country away from them and filthily slandered their past. So let today’s thirty-somethings know: we have just cut our teeth on our fathers. We are plenty. We are strong. And we will not allow the country to be torn apart again: if the children try to do this, we will maul the children. Yes, we are such a generation. We have mauled our fathers and we will maul our children, and our teeth are sharp.
Back in August, Alexander Dugin was accused of ritually sacrificing his daughter to the altar of Russian Empire. I think that’s vile bullshit, as far as criminology is concerned, but spiritually it may be true along those lines.
I’ve talked to a number of people whose parents have asked them why they’re not mobilized yet.
But none of this is as sad as a Cosmist proposing denial of the skies to man, for his team to not lose as hard while conquering a chunk of the European plain.
This wasn’t meant to be about Karlin and his inane proposal that has no chance of being implemented (logistics aside, Russian state cannot improvise, a Zombie system going mechanistically through Soviet materiel). This is about values. How was it in Meditations? «Multipolar traps – races to the bottom – threaten to destroy all human values».
In the draft of my Substack that’ll most likely never be released on the account of being moody and overwrought, the opening concerned values too.
The terminal goal is, obviously, the freedom of spirit. It will be reached though getting out of the local evolutionary maximum we currently inhabit. Primarily this means transcending limits of intelligence and longevity which stand in the way of maximally rich yet harmonious and joyous expression that our minds may achieve within the finite negentropy budget of this Hubble volume. This is the great common task, different facets of which have been grasped by Friedrich Nietzsche, Nikolai Fyodorov and many after them – from Bolshevik God-Builders on the left to British eugenicists on the right, with Jesuit nerds, weird Ukrainian propagandists who cite them and Russian nationalists with adjacent views who have, alas, traded ascension for zero-sum horizontal sprawl; still weirder philosophers who summon Eldritch entities from the future that belongs to Neo-China as well as respectable ones cited by Gates at Davos, trans transhumanists and gay furry meritocracy advocates strewn across the hidden dimensions of the political compass. No goal is more beautiful to a human being than freedom to express complexity. Thus no goal is more deserving of pursuit, and no enterprise deserving more protection.
No – well, except the tribe, I suppose. Except nationalism. Except that our guys be winning and making Ourtribia Great Again, or else let it all burn. Right?
…
This puts Never-Trumpers in a new light, for me (even if they specifically may have bad arguments); and suggests a general scheme for defection from entrenched positions (or in their case, from the reasonable expectation of trenches). It’s just that such situations are a good test for having principles.
If you have anything at all that is more meaningful than pure tribalist loyalty and intransigence, if your politics is a means to a certain vision and not just an end, you may arrive at a fork on your road. Sure, Our Guy At Least Will Go Down Swinging. Other than that, what does he swing for? Does he offer enough even if he triumphs over his foe, and most importantly can he deliver? You start on this path expecting tremendous things – a revolution, a revival, a revenge at least. Suppose the promise is not fulfilled even as the challenge grows. You may consider yourself betrayed, and reject the leader in turn, and say that those who remain loyal are in fact unwitting traitors of everything the movement stood for. Or you double-down in commitment to the cause, because what other way could even hint at the possibility of your vision blossoming? Surely none! This path of unreciprocated loyalty ends, logically speaking, in you giving up everything, soul and mind and vision and whatever the tribe could ever offer, in exchange for nothing but the chance of personal success for its elite; the exemplary Stalinist Party discipline, masterful exploitation of Palaeolithic reactions. Through it all, one feels righteousness, because one’s loyal comrades are close.
I suppose some leftists may suspect at times that they are no longer pursuing maximalist goals – equality, liberty, fraternity (no sarcasm); but they cannot accept that their political coalition is going in the other direction. It may be temporarily misguided, but others are deliberately hostile to justice and truth!
That’s all well and good but not sacrificing your literal children to the hollowed-out ideology, nor contradicting your own key values that are as precious as children if not more, must be a decent lower bar for a tribalist’s sanity.
P.S. Vitalik, another Western-educated Russian, responds to Karlin with mocking hope that the way things are going we’ll perfect life extension by 2024. The joke, of course, is that Vitalik is precisely the type of man who finds no purchase these days in Russia, but who epitomizes everything Karlin was meant to support, and in part it was the hope to garner support for those things that have led him to Russian nationalism. It may turn out that everything of value your tribe stood for, or seemed to stand for, can no longer survive – within its structure and under its aegis. But ideas don’t die that easily, and can become seeds of new assabiyahs, assembled elsewhere, hopefully to a large extent even from the same stock of people. This is what I’d recommend tribalists to keep in mind.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1yr ago
Oh well. I did okay, all things considered.
Mobilization-that-is-not-mobilization, he pretty much literally announced it: reservists are getting «partially» mobilized, will get retraining and same compensation as contractees. I suppose what they won't get is a ticket outside. F for my «smart» Physics Ph.D friend who went through the military department instead of bribing the commissariat (and/or finding a disqualifying health issue) like all normal self-respecting people. That said, for now the partial-mobilization only applies to people with real experience in the army. Shoygu has given a ludicrous interview where he states precise numbers of Ukrainian dead and wounded as well as how many «mercenaries» are left. He announces reaping 300 thousand reservists for starters.
Kherson, LDNR and Zaporizhzhia referendums, okay. «Our main goal has always been to liberate Donbass from neonazis». More nuclear wunderwaffe bluffing... so that's the default scenario, he'll try to claim Kherson etc. join Russia and further UA attempts at regaining control will merit nuclear retaliation. (Reminder that Ukrainians have been bombing Belgorod oblast and Crimea for a while, pretty much burning entire random villages in the former by now, to no proactive response from RF).
The guy's alive, for now. Very mildly surprised to see it.
His hand is twitching.
Meanwhile Armenia and Kazakhstan are shutting down the Russian "MIR" payment system.
He's all out of ideas, has no balls for big moves and is completely unable to admit mistakes. This looks like agony. Unfortunately it can go on until many more people are dead.
unsure where the propaganda angle is, unless seeing such an interracial coupling itself is jarring to you. (Again, based on my ignorance of this and pretty much all games I can't speak to how odd it is in that context.)
You know, it sure is harder to take this posture of good-natured misunderstanding at face value after you have explained your situation as a minority father of mixed race children in a country with very exclusionary culture. For you, normalization of miscegenation – whatever else goes in the package – feels necessary, so you will be obnoxiously obtuse, to the point that your rhetorics would've amounted to social violence, were your opponent not anonymous*. «Oh dear me, so do you think there is something… wrong when people of different races join hands in Marriage? Aren't we all God's creatures with inherent value? Huh. So strange, so cruel. But to each his own!».
No (in case this has to be spelled out again): it's more about the hamfisted erasure of the representation of the most typical and normative pairing, and the campaign to code the Blacked.com** image of relationships as the default, whereas in reality it's a distinctly less prestigious and healthy pattern. This is what the producers have in mind, this is what they want the viewers to have in mind, this is no more complex or innocent than casting white men as dumb losers and creeps who get humbled by Girlbosses and Smart-Dressed Blacks (who have good chemistry with Girlbosses) in commercials.
*I have never figured out for sure whether people like you are just liars, or your brains wisely do not distinguish copes and object-level world modeling, for reasons of preserving memory capacity and behavioral fluidity. Either mechanism is enough to make conversation quite hopeless.
**one more "clever" status-preserving maneuver here is to say, for instance, «pardon me, I do not know what you are talking about… oh», and derail the topic into sneering insinuations about racist chuds watching interracial porn. It's a pretty transparent and pathetic development. As I've been warned for baiting people into petty comebacks, I'm stating this to avoid such a development. But neither can I be assed to put this in some other way.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
5mo ago
It's one of many cases where the news media (at least here in Australia), technically report the story factually accurately, but but omits some details and is framed in such a way to only lead you to one conclusion. They can avoid claims of editorialising by claiming they are merely quoting and reporting on statements made by politicians, which is also true.
I would like to hear a journalist's perspective on this some day. Is it taught? Is the intuitive grokking of those rules – condemn the far-right mob, but don't explicitly spell out their casus belli, so the impression is that far-righters are just spontaneously violent – a job requirement? Am I too deep in a bubble and it's just common sense already to speak this way here and the other way around about George Floyd?
I suspect the tactic actually works – remember, 50% of people are below average, and the average ain't that high, and it's white people who are the target audience, so they just trust journalists to do a honest job.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
9mo ago
IQ
You surely know but BAP isn't too keen on HBD and IQ-focused discourse; or rather, his notion of evaluation methodology, «racial hierarchy», desirable qualities and perhaps even the mechanics involved are all entirely different from the Sailerite school of thought (which is why I'm pissed when everyone on the dissident right is rounded up to a Nazi; no you fools, at least appreciate the vibrant diversity of other doctrines which are every bit as irreconcilable with yours, it's an honor to be hated from so many different angles!). And it's not about Nordics as such, he preaches exactly what it says on the tin – Bronse Age mindset, bodybuilders on horseback.
It's hard to think of a material way that 2020 is worse off than 1980, and 1970-1980s america didn't collapse.
I dislike the phrase "techno-solutionism" but it ought to be recognized how much of our "not worse off" depends on outracing the decline. Opinions differ as to how sustainable that is. I do not foresee or dream of a collapse, but I'm also not looking forward to this kind of dysfunctional culture being empowered by technology indefinitely.
Adding to what I've said in the thread.
I think @Amadan has written on this a few times; I objected to his normative conclusions, but on facts it's true. You can't have a major European nation's worth of ethnically distinct people – and at that proud, self-assured, suspicious, confident in having been historically slighted, often outright ferocious people (whose self-perception of being Main Characters and moral core of the country is artificially inflated by the media) – with strong common identity, who disproportionately cannot compete in your economy, and expect them to buy the White/Asian "git gud" ethos. They may cope somehow, they may come to fear the punishment for insubordination and value rewards of cooperation, but they won't take it to heart. It's not as stable a form of race relations as the status quo. The whole system needs to be revamped into a drastically smarter thing to make it viable.
P.S. The issue with race comes from tail effects. I think you're underplaying just how bad the crime statistics are for prime age Black men. I'm wary of lily-white gopniks due to several violent encounters, but for most prime age White guys who look kinda sus it's fair to assume more or less good faith. With equivalent Black guys the odds are, like, 10X higher and that's probably an underestimate. I am positive that this one bit weighs too much to realistically discard.
I think I explain it well enough. I can try to explain again from first principles. Power is asymmetry of control between agents. Power of women specifically is the power to tank any political project they don't like (say, one increasing men's rights) and shut down a discussion they don't favor (say, one casting women in unflattering light) with a gratuitous refusal to compromise or engage in good faith; the essence of this is captured in twitter catchphrases like «this makes me feel unsafe», or in your behavior toward me here. It is power because it reliably, irrespective of merits of each case, extracts sympathy out of women and out of men, producing a predictable asymmetry and skewing outcomes. This power is an active application of the well-known "women are wonderful" effect, which is in turn explained by evolutionary dynamics created by parental investment inequality, which you have already alluded to (but which, in modern society, doesn't necessarily hold outside of the context of gestation).
The premise of my «misogyny», or actually my argument about there being no realistic solution to undesirable societal effects of feminism, is that women (except members of retrograde religious societies), with you being an apt example, feel entitled to behave this way toward interlocutors, for good reason, namely that «the society» simultaneously encourages this self-serving mean-girl behavior and pretends it's compatible with the authority of an adult.
I will opt out of substantiating the link between feminism and adverse effects discussed (disproportionate, growing inability of young men to form relationships, high divorce rate, low TFR, etc.) because, again, I think the effortpost by @gorge, linked above, suffices as an introduction.
If I were to propose anything like a plan to «impose responsibility» on women in the intended sense, it'd be not so much about me being in control of your womb, «sex for meat» and other blatantly hostile potshots you ladies have come up with, as about nationalism and extended families, in following with the only example of a large, prosperous secular society without those issues that I know. Naturally I also know this cannot be engineered. 2rafa's plan, on top of being hardcore, is also unworkable, at least not in a democratic society.
More options
Context Copy link