DirtyWaterHotDog
in an abusive relationship with you lot
No bio...
User ID: 625
DirtyWaterHotDog
in an abusive relationship with you lot
6d ago
Left-leaning westerners are still capitalists. They oppose the 'turn the level up to 11' form of hyper-capitalism practiced in America (globally) and China (internally). At least the CCP periodically disappears prominent entrepreneurs, so they know its place. That's regulation. The US on the other hand, is headed towards a tyranny of an ugly coalition of mega-corps and boomer NIMBYs.
doesn't involve replacing big macs with eating grass to survive
The hyperbole is unproductive. Makes your argument seem unserious. Yes, we need to replace beef = cows feasting on alfalfa. Practically all other forms of meat are valid replacements. (Note, unlike Americans, other nationals aren't as entitled about what type of meat they're eating). Lab grown meat is valid. Changing your meal's composition (eat beef 2/7 days, instead of 7/7) & eating fewer meals (Ozempic) is valid. People aren't reproducing, so fewer people is also a valid option.
Besides, AI does very little to help alleviate concerns or accelerate research in these domains.
AI capable enough to simulate the economy and coordinate economic decision-making
This has been possible to do for a very long time.
People do not coordinate because they have different incentives, goals and emotional hangups. No amount of AI is going to convince a NIMBY to allow new housing or Texan to use public transportation.
DirtyWaterHotDog
in an abusive relationship with you lot
6d ago
It's very much insider criticism.
I work in AI, my compensation depends on it. Most folks on here (me included) are rat adjacent in some way. On paper, I'm sympathetic to Anthropic's motivation. I have friends who work at Anthropic & OpenAI, and they're normal people.
Talking to my peers in the field is why I am jaded. They express bewilderment at the opposition to AI. These are smart people. It means they're either willfully ignorant or lying. In either scenario, it scares me that the harbingers of the next era of humanity understand so little of what makes us human.
Pardon my potential homophobia. But this is exactly is why I believe society must treat gay relationships (much like dinks, polycules or harems) as different, rather than treating them as 'straight relationships but with men'. Gay men think all sex is gay sex. By no fault of their own. Straight or gay, all commentary is projection. However, commentary on intimate and emotionally charged matters is especially prone to projection.
This analogy tracks for gay sex because all involved members are male. However for straight relationships, the Shiba Inu is rarely weaker than a female Rottweiler.
In gay relationships, a man can take on either roles in intimate settings. You're in continuous sexual competition. This isn't true for straight relationships. I imagine, gay relationships end up in micro-transactional interactions that don't naturally resolve into a blending of identities. I am not saying gay relationships are any less real. However, they don't have the same obvious entanglements as a conventional straight marriage.
The key difference ofc, is women bear children. One doesn't ask another person to surrender agency, undergo physical transformation, risk pain or risk death for free. Such an ask is even less defensible if it comes at no cost to the man. Therefore, when a man asks a woman to bear his children, he also surrenders himself in return. Take away the physical burden of child birth and coming together as one entity (parents) for child rearing, and you're missing the point of relationships all together. The gay dynamics of surrendering a body temporarily don't matter, because a woman must surrender her body permanently in service of child birth. For that, she doesn't need a physically dominant man to makes her feel safe. Physical safety matters, but emotional safety matters more.
On sex, I'm straight, so I too am projecting. However, men are simple creatures. As a straight man, if I get hard and horny, then finishing is practically guaranteed. Women on the other hand, are mazes. A woman does not have sex with the man in front of her, she has sex with the man in her mind and you give physical shape to it. It means that the narrative power of the story she tells herself and her suspension of disbelief play a bigger role in her eventual satisfaction than the objective reality of the physical man she finds in front of her. If a man has to use physical dominance to dominate, then that's a man that knows nothing about women or sex.
Now ofc, physical size helps. Controlling for everything else, a woman would prefer a taller and larger man to a scrawnier and shorter one. I also acknowledge, that in an era of visual swiping apps for strangers, women and men both tend to value the physical aspects more. But, there in lies in the fallacy of equating male attraction to female attraction. Female attraction isn't nearly as one dimensional as it is for men. Once you're in front of them, straight relationships evolve differently.
80 generations of careful reinforcement is very different from 80 generations of a random process. 80 generations of dingo mutts produces more dingo mutts. You may extend your dog analogy to humans once the smallest race of humans is 13x smaller than the largest.
Again, projection. Gay couples are 2 men who fuck each other. Straight relationships are completely different. Women yelling at husbands is a tale as old as time. If anything, the smaller the woman, the more they shout. The dynamics of whether it is abuse or agreed upon relationship transaction are known only to the couple.
Most recently, the 3 biggest waves of immigration to North America have been Chinese, Indian and Mexicans. All 3 are below average on the violent chad index. So, I'm not sure your point has statistical valence.
But since you asked twice, I will try my hand at it. It's an extension of 'weak men create hard times', or said another way: 'eradication of death diseases creates anti-vaxxers'; or 'peaceful times creates weak immune systems'; or 'I can fix him syndrome'. Western women believe economic-migrants and refugees are the most persecuted people of their respective societies. On the other hand, the people with a propensity for migration are the highest agency (highest volatility) actors, ie. violent men.
I can't improve on this video. So watch this video.
I've had the good fortune of being a relationship advisor to my female friends of various levels of attractiveness and sexual proclivity. (I was a committed man in a long-term & long-distance relationship). Women don't care about big men in the same way. It is one of their fantasies, but it isn't their main fantasy. Mr. Olympia Arnold is not attractive to them. Banderas in Zorro or Cary Elwes in Princess Bride ? That is like crack to them. These are still tall, masculine and handsome men. But, the fantasies they allow for is the real juice. All that being said, being tall and fit are obvious super useful to attracting a woman.
Your instinct is wrong. India has had a history of trans communities going back millennia. Chinese royal courts were chock full of castrated eunuchs. You're projecting an instinct acquired from the modern internet.
Every group sees itself as the most superior people on the planet. White people's post industrial-revolution dominance allows them to sustain that image. Other groups have fewer stories to sustain their narratives, but the impulse to see yourself and by extension, those you look like you as superior is a standard human impulse. Much like how my eyes wander even when I am in love with my partner, it is a natural impulse. To tame it is to be civilized. To feed it is to be barbaric.
Just got to this part. Looks like we're in agreement ? I must say, to tame it does not mean to reject it to reverse it. The liberal leftists are wrong for the same reason that right-wing looks-maxxers are wrong. The tension between the physical animal and cerebral mind need not resolve with the victory of one over the other. The tension can't be resolved, it can only be tamed. The goal of a civilized people is to find achievable peace and harmony between those 2 impulses in tension.
I believe the opposite. Post war America created suburban enclaves built on the explicit and later implicit segregation of the poor away from the rich. It was a deeply unequal society. Highways and suburban boundaries allowed so-called liberals to sustain an illusion of equality for Americans were equal within the confines of their suburban enclaves. Inner cities rotted and became hubs of crime.
New Delhi did the opposite. In his socialist arrogance, Nehru allowed any Indian to move where they wanted. irrespective of your birth, you were allowed to move and erect a slum on the side of the street. Your existence was dignified by affording you the greatest privilege : the ability to occupy the same spaces as the wealthy, and impose yourself on them as they impose themselves on you.
(aside - Much like you, I tend to choose the most provocative framing of obvious points. My girlfriend finds it tedious. Reading this sentence made me understand what it must feel like to be on the receiving end of it. Just yesterday I spend 30 minutes ranting about how most humans just want to be someone's working dog, but they don't want to acknowledge it because it feels dehumanizing. I was correctly called out on the stupid provocativeness of my point. After all, I was just saying that people want a purpose, which sounds much less profound. So....I understand)
To dominate is to influence without consent. There are many ways to influence - love, respect, reliability, narration, familiarity. You aren't saying anything new here. You're merely collapsing the rich experience of being human down to 1 dimension. It isn't wrong, but it is incomplete. That incompleteness is to the detriment of your point, because the meta point has been made by every person who has written a book on society. 'People want to be loved by their community'. Call it dominance, call it influence, call it what you want. It's as simple as that.
I guess I can conclude my counter point by framing it as:
"Any solution where the lying leaders drink their own kool aid is doomed to fail. Leaders must lie to sell necessary policy, but they must insulate themselves from their own propaganda. We are not above nature, but we need not be entirely subservient to it either. Harmony is cliche for a reason."
More options
Context Copy link