With current AI, sure, but we might not be too far away from AI bridging that gap from the other side.
Yes, if we do manage to create truly transformative AI that obviates labour everything is on the table - I'm not too interested in litigating AGI timelines but if that does happen it's not just going to be a weak white collar labour market, we're walking out the other end gods or 6 feet under.
6 feet under what? Very amusing to imagine a superintelligence apathetic enough to exterminate humanity but sentimental enough to bury us afterwards.
I have observed the same thing and I also think that the trans phenomenon is clearly one of social contagion, but I think your particular argument is very weak, practically self-defeating. Autism is generally understood to be an in-born condition of biological/genetic origin, and transgender activists would typically argue that they're the same way. A correlation between these conditions is exactly the kind of thing they'd predict.
It's much clearer to observe the spread of trans stuff through a community, how insular and tight-knit communities wind up disproportionately transgender through cultish dynamics and the memetic equivalent of the founder effect.
To be clear, you're arguing that the side of the political aisle that voices moral disapproval of the industrialized slaughter of infants thereby demonstrates themselves to be Naziesque?
If a man is so desperate for female attention that he'll suck up to a child killer or would-be child killer, he demonstrates his own failed moral character as well. He "matters" as any human being matters, but he should feel lucky he isn't being taken before a firing squad.
I have to say that I found the roadkill metaphor extremely insightful. My belief that female promiscuity is unwise is fundamentally disconnected from my opinion that female promiscuity is unappealing. I don't think less of the moral character of a woman who's been raped - indeed, the crisis might even present her with an opportunity to demonstrate her virtue in some way. But it does give me the male equivalent of the proverbial ick, just as it would if she'd had casual sex voluntarily, or been divorced, or tripped and fallen down the stairs onto a man.
I think that this is also why I feel a profound discomfort when I see other men list things like "five or fewer sex partners" as their standard for a woman. Because they're obviously using the more rational standard of the woman's wisdom - they're judging who's wiser, the woman who's had sex with five men or the woman who's had sex with twenty. But in my gut, this looks to me like, do I want the barrel of wine with five spoonfuls of shit in it or the barrel of wine with twenty spoonfuls of shit in it, and I'm just thinking, uh, no, I don't want any of the shit-wine, thanks, I don't care how exactly the shit got there, I don't care to grade it on a curve, and if that's all the wine I can afford I'd rather just be a teetotaler.
I'm pretty sure you can safely eat roadkill if you manage to find the right roadkill and you cook it right. But I'd still rather just not do that.
Much of this problem exists because religious conservatives alienated young women with the abortion issue.
If a young woman can be alienated by being told she should not kill her child then that reflects a problem with her own character. No compromise on this is necessary or acceptable.
I personally fear this process but for a very different reason: I think the peacekeeping effect attributed to MAD was actually mostly on the WW2 mythos. The real reason we haven't had such a terrible war since WW2 is that we have WW2 in living cultural memory, and now it's exiting living cultural memory.
Do you think they expect Pakistan's arsenal to get considerably stronger?
That is my assumption, yeah. At the moment, nuclear war between Pakistan and India wouldn't actually be an MAD scenario; Pakistan would be completely destroyed (and you can't get any more destroyed than that) while India would "merely" suffer the worst disaster in memory. Pakistan and India have similar-sized nuclear arsenals (in terms of number of bombs - India's bombs are much stronger), but India is of course much larger, and they also have much more sophisticated nuclear delivery systems; Pakistan's arsenal is dangerous but it's currently one of the easier nuclear powers in the world to foil an attack from. In the future they'll most likely be more evenly-matched and a nuclear war would actually spell the end of both India and Pakistan.
I don't mean to be a conspiracy theorist, but it looks to me like the powers that be in India are deliberately angling for a nuclear war with Pakistan because they see it as inevitable in the long term but think that the results will be more favorable for them the sooner it happens. Moreover, they're also angling for Pakistan to launch the first (nuclear) strike because they expect the rest of the world will be more sympathetic to them in that case.
Self-demonstrating post?
I could see it becoming less effective in the near future as it becomes associated with AI; AI draining dry the collective pool of effective rhetoric.
It occurs to me that the term "serial monogamy" is very directly analogous to "crony capitalism". Or "social justice", for that matter.
I personally suspect that this is not actually a modern innovation on harems per se, and that the reason we don't have extensive records of it in the ancient world is that it was considered irrelevant trivia, not that it was considered forbidden. Contrary to male homosexual behavior (which is likelier to be an outright aberration that natural selection simply has trouble weeding out, comparable to mental illness), it seems like the most obvious context that female homosexual behavior would evolve for - particularly given that women are much likelier to be bisexual than men.
Definitionally, sure, but I think it's connotationally out.
I note that you took no issue with my similarly unfavorable description of the left.
Go flop around on Twitter or /pol/ for a short time.
Yeah, but those boys have both shit ends of the stick; the left thinks that they're rapists-in-waiting who need to be castrated or gaslighted into turning gay, while the right thinks that if they have any positive feelings for women aside from maybe lust then they're as good as gay already and need to be beaten. (Ignoring the normie/boomer faction of the right that's just a reskin of the left.)
You aren't meant to just know, though, is the thing. You're meant to just not know. You're meant to be eugenically filtered out.
I have the general impression that the "enhanced social bonding" of alcohol is just the same sort of euphemism that people use to justify the use of cannabis.
I'd speculate that what actually happened here wasn't "deep-blue strongholds", but the opposite - an increasingly noteworthy phenomenon of deep-red strongholds who somehow managed to ostrich-with-head-in-the-sand their way through the entire LGBT activist phenomenon until recently. They can wind up thinking of things like drag queen story hour as opening blows in the conflict because they weren't paying attention before that.
Actually parents in 0 AD weren't doing anything because there was no year 0 AD.
I'd better stop here. I've been noticing misandry against men in Western culture for quite sometime, but now it looks like boys are targets too, which makes me a bit upset.
Always have been.
The key would be to "eat" Canada bit by bit, taking over its most right-wing parts, accelerating the collapse of the rest of it and its associated right-wing turn, rinse-wash-repeat until you've gotten the whole thing.
- Prev
- Next
The model that came horrifically close to nuclear war earlier this year, and would still seem to be on a long-term trajectory towards it?
More options
Context Copy link