@FCfromSSC's banner p


Nuclear levels of sour

20 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 18:38:19 UTC


User ID: 675


Nuclear levels of sour

20 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 18:38:19 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 675

The thing in the whole debate is nobody doing the debate had George Floyd type black friends.

I spent a year and a half working an entry-level factory job. more than half my coworkers were black. They weren't graduates from prestigeous institutions. They were still obviously human. Meanwhile, it turns out that all the arguments for black inhumanity apply to white junkies as well.

However, there is an underclass that seems to need a huge amount of intervention in terms of policy and financial aid to develop communities looking anything like the rest of western civilization. They are not self-sustaining without aid from other parts of society.

They need tight-knit communities who deliver immediate punishment to defectors, with those continuing to defect written off. "aid from other parts of society" is how this underclass is maintained in its longstanding condition.

Ha! Relic and Reliquary were the only two of the series that I read, back in the day, and I loved 'em. Were the rest of the books good? And which Gould was this, now?

Even at the >70°/s traverse rates achieved by shipboard CIWS, that’s not a small task.

The business end of the CIWS turret contains a radar, a 20mm gatling cannon, and the cannon's magazine. That's at least a ton of hardware all-up for the actuators to throw around. Compare to, for example, amateur DIY paintball turrets. Also note that this amateur, DIY example is from 13 years ago. I would expect full-360 traverse in less than a second to be a reasonable milestone, and you could probably do even better, especially if you can get the magazine off the turret proper.

As an aside, is there a particular justification for a 9mm chaingun?

Seems like it would be a good balance of weight and effectiveness. The smaller the weapon is, the easier and faster the turret can slew it around. The chaingun part is because electrically-actuated firearms are immune to duds and far more resistant to jams and stoppages. Intermediate rifles would mean higher pressures, a heavier barrel, heavier bolt, heavier ammo, and it's not obvious that the increased weight would be worth it; modern armor doesn't cover your face, arms or legs, which are all targets I'd expect a SOTA AI to be able to hit reliably at speed and range. Even if it's just aiming for center-of-mass, I'm not aware of any tactics that count you as winning if you receive, say, ten rounds of duty handgun ammo in the space of a second or two into a 20-inch circle centered on your torso, armor or no; the chance of catching a round somewhere the armor doesn't cover gets pretty high at that point. My guess would be that you could get the weapon itself down under, say, two pounds, plus maybe another pound for the water jacket, and then use the rest of the weight for a large ammo magazine and feed mechanism. Crank up the fire-rate to something like 1000 rpm, and program it to deliver quick bursts of several rounds per target and then cycle to the next.

I don’t think I’ve heard of one before, and I wonder if there’s a mechanical reason.

Almost certainly not. A chaingun is just a regular automatic action, with bolt reciprocation being driven by a cam attached to a looped chain which in turn is driven by an electric motor. This setup is more reliable than gas or recoil, since the force applied is steady and relatively slow, and unrelated to the rest of the firing mechanism. I'm not sure if it's legal to build a civilian chain-gun, since it would be very, very easy to convert it to full-auto and it's hard to imagine a way to prevent that mechanically. Obviously there hasn't been any military or police need for such a weapon; I think they've made 7.62mm NATO chainguns, but below that, what's the point? There is a commercial gatling gun chambered in 9mm and feeding from (of course) glock mags; you can convert that to a poor-man's 9mm minigun by attacking an electric motor to the crank, though the magazine probably won't handle high rates of fire, and it would be vast overkill for a robo-dog in any case.

What do you think about Alex the parrot, who (allegedly, and feel free to object) combined words to make neologisms?

I don't think about Alex the parrot at all. To my knowledge, no parrot has ever used their language to organize a rebellion against their human owners, something human slaves have done repeatedly. By language, I am not referring to words, but rather to the ability of humans to communicate their internal state to others, to build communicable models of the world that coordinate large-scale cooperative action. Neither parrots nor other animals do that.

I'm not sure what your excerpt about genetic defects is supposed to communicate.

I don't think capacity for language is magic and I don't think it's a good yardstick for humanity.

Whether it is "magic" is an interesting question. I'll agree that it alone is not a good yardstick for humanity; large language models are not human and I don't care much about them. I care about language because it interpenetrates and mutually amplifies the rest of the items on that list. Language, in the sense I am using it, is one of the reasons tyranny is not sustainable: people can formulate moral arguments, and those moral arguments retain weight. They can make blood-guilt immortal beyond the imagining of any individual human, and are part of why justice is, in every practical sense, inescapable.

I don't really understand what you think animals are or why they wouldn't have awareness, will, and volition. It seems pretty clear to me that they do.

We can cage animals indefinitely. We cannot cage humans indefinitely. It's a bit unfair to claim that no state based on slavery has ever survived long-term, because no state has ever survived long-term, but states that came to depend on slavery consistently experience serious, long-term problems with stability caused by trying to keep a large population of hostiles intimately intermixed with their society. To the extent that this has been maintained for any significant length of time, the tradeoffs pretty clearly aren't worth it.

Compassion, which I have for plenty of other animals as well.

Your compassion for other animals results in benign neglect. Why is that not good enough in the case of blacks?

It didn't? I think it did.

Slavery resulted in catastrophic failure in Haiti, and it resulted in a less-catastrophic but still quite thorough failure in America. Slavery demands repugnant levels of tyranny over fellow humans, such that slavers couldn't convince non-slavers to adopt the practice or even to tolerate it long-term. Doing horrible things to blacks to keep them from doing possibly-less-horrible things to each other is not an obvious win, to put it mildly. "domestication" since then has been a complete failure. The black underclass remains a mess. Harsh measures aren't an improvement, and less-harsh measures clearly don't work. The premise is invalidated by the accumulation of actual evidence. We should let the blacks choose whether to follow society's rules among us, or follow their own rules among themselves. Those who wish can be productive citizens, and the rest can do as they please away from the rest of us, black and white alike.

I think that would be incredibly cruel.

Then make your case to the blacks themselves, and let them choose voluntarily if they agree with you. I doubt they're interested, but am happy to be proven wrong.

I just have no idea what you're talking about.

People justified slavery, claiming it was for the slaves' benefit. It wasn't, and that's why slavery brings serious, unsustainable problems wherever it is implemented. People have claimed and continue to claim that some people are fundamentally more people than others, and that the lesser sort can be manipulated and shaped according to their betters' preferences. This view is unsupportable from an evidentiary perspective, and disastrous from a historical perspective.

Consider the Swiss. They do not enslave, and they do not rule. They keep to themselves, defend themselves, and let the rest of the world enjoy their benign neglect. Why should anyone prefer to do other than as the Swiss do?

There's a continuum problem. "Human" is a fuzzy category and largely in the eye of the beholder.

There is not a continuum problem, and "human" is not a fuzzy category largely in the eyes of the beholder. Awareness, sense-of-self, language, volition and Will are obvious and inescapably significant, despite more than a century of extremely popular lies to the contrary. The evidence you are gesturing at simply does not exist, and claims to the contrary have long been established as lies that no one bothers to maintain or defend any more.

Is a gorilla which speaks sign language human?

There are not, nor have there been, any gorillas that can speak sign language. Claims to the contrary appear to be a more elaborate form of Clever Hans, and more generally yet another example of how Psychology and Sociology are grifts that have polluted our society for more than a century.

What about Lucy (A. afarensis)?

We have no observations of Lucy's behavior or capabilities one way or the other. What we can observe is current humans, and the observation shows that while their capabilities may differ, the cluster is still significant and very, very well-separated from all other animals.

There is a quality which is something along the lines of 'capacity for moral responsibility' that I think is generally localized entirely within select groups of ancestries and almost entirely men.

I observe capacity for moral responsibility in my wife, and in the females of my family generally. They make choices and live with the results. That does not mean there is a difference in how they think versus how I and the males in my family think, but the difference is not a matter of "greater" and "lesser" in the way you seem to be claiming.

If domestication is a thing, it is a thing that all humans require. I can identify ways in which I myself have been "domesticated", how my instincts and desires have been shaped away from raw selfishness and self-gratification toward responsibility and care for others. in this sense, I see no way to argue that domestication is something white men do to white women in particular and blacks generally. In other senses, I cannot see support for an argument that "domestication" exists at all.

People really like Sherlock Holmes stories, to the point that they're probably the best candidate for the progenitor of the entire Mystery genre. To those here who enjoy these stories, would you mind putting on your over-analysis caps and explaining what it is about the stories that you enjoy?

robo-dog, with a miniaturized, water-cooled 9mm Para chaingun to eliminate jams and stoppages, mounted on a turret? Tether it to a vehicle if batteries are the problem, and have a remote human hold down a button to allow or deny fire if you're iffy on the targeting code. What part of that isn't currently available off-the-shelf?

That's the popular claim, and it's probably true right now, much less a decade from now. The problems come from interpreting what this will actually mean for our society's development.

I know you know you're arguing by defining things in a way I wouldn't agree with, so what's the point?

You offered an implicit argument by definition by calling blacks animals. I pointed out a salient distinction between humans, including black humans, and animals: humans, including black humans, have awareness, will and volition, and so they cannot safely be discounted under any system mankind has yet devised. The only truly safe human is a dead human, and the dead cannot be enslaved.

I am not arguing by definition. You are, and you are refusing to address a salient distinction that your definition cannot account for.

Whatever they are, they're close enough to us that I don't like the thought of leaving them to their own wretched devices. Perhaps in time, and with guidance...

You argue that they are animals, and yet you are unwilling to treat them like animals. Why? Your "guidance" didn't work before and won't work now. Why persist in your folly?

It isn't about caring or not caring. My care leads me to wish to leave them alone. Your care demands domination, and has led to this disaster every step of the way. I certainly have no interest in joining you in your folly, or of protecting your from its consequences.

The franchise is largely irrelevant. What's killing it would have killed it regardless, although racial and sexual politics clearly accelerate the process.

The only people who see brown faces on the streets and assume that crime is out of control are American racists.

This is an absolutely absurd and willfully uncharitable straw-man. Crime peaked in the 1990s at extremely high levels, and serious crackdowns were required for the subsequent gradual draw-down. That draw-down reversed in 2014, IIRC, and 2020 wiped out something like two decades of progress in the fastest increase in the crime rate ever recorded. Crime is in fact out of control in many areas of the country. Further, there is reason to believe that the federal statistics on which our analysis depends are significantly less reliable than they have been previously, given that the FBI recently made significant changes to its data collection practices and has failed both to collect data and to ensure that the data it collects and presents is accurate.:

In 2019, 89% of agencies covering 97% of the population submitted data, but by 2021, that coverage plummeted to less than 63% of departments overseeing just 65% of the population. Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City all failed to submit crime data. To increase participation, the FBI relaxed the NIBRS requirement in 2022, allowing agencies to report via the legacy system.

But many other cities, such as St. Louis, which had transitioned to the new method, still struggle to comply and submit partial or faulty data. The FBI compensates by relying more heavily on “estimation,” or informed guesswork, to fill in the gaps and produce aggregated data.

And the figures the agencies do report to the FBI do not match the agencies’ publicly reported figures. For Baltimore, the FBI reported 225 murders in 2023, but the city reported 262 — which means the FBI left out 37 murders. In Milwaukee, the police department reported a 7% increase in robberies, but the FBI showed a 13% drop. Nashville’s own data tallied more than 6,900 aggravated assaults in 2023, but the FBI counted only 5,941, leaving almost 1,000 of those offenses “missing.” This trend is consistent across the board: While 2022’s FBI city-level figures track the police’s own data, the 2023 numbers consistently undercount offense totals. Any year-to-year comparison overstates decline.

Other measures of crime levels undermine, or at least muddle, the veracity of the FBI’s data, which rely on “reported” offenses by victims and law enforcement themselves. The federal government’s own victims’ survey, which attempts to capture the gap between the number of actual offenses and the number reported to police, shows much higher offense rates than the FBI does. Moreover, a rising share of victims are failing to report their victimizations at all. In 2022, only 42% of violent crime victims and 33% of property crime victims bothered to report the crime to police.

People are not worried about out-of-control crime because they "see brown faces on the streets". We are worried about out-of-control crime because we are watching video of stores being looted without repercussions, and then watching businesses retreat en-masse from the cities. We are watching video evidence of vicious crimes being committed against the innocent while the authorities stand idly by. We are watching the authorities willfully nullifying the laws we've enacted through the democratic process in favor of signaling their own virtue. We are watching the criminals they refuse to police and incarcerate wreak havoc on our communities, and we're watching law-abiding citizens who attempt to intervene or resist be hammered by the full force of the state.

We are, in fact, suffering a sustained crime wave. That crime wave is very clearly the result of a series of intentional Blue Tribe actions: a sustained propaganda campaign to foment racial discord throughout the country, deliberate institutional support for and approval of large-scale, organized political violence, and a widespread policy of minimizing policing, prosecution and incarceration of all sorts of crime. The connection is so blindingly obvious that it cannot be addressed without unacceptable damage to Blue Tribe's cultural position, and so it is being ignored until the passage of time provides sufficient fog to allow them, per standard protocol, to be blamed entirely on the Red Tribe outgroup. In the meantime, tens of thousands of additional blacks will be murdered, hundreds-of-thousands to millions of additional blacks will be victimized by criminals, black participation in crime has increased dramatically and will continue to do so, and majority-black communities have been and will continue to be blighted by all the attendant ills of living without effective rule of law. All of this has happened before, is happening now, and will happen again. In another decade, people will admit it, on the condition that it is all attributed to an amorphous, undefinable "legacy of racism in a fundamentally white-supremacist society", and then in another decade or two the process will repeat in its entirety. All this has happened before, and will happen again, until Blue Tribe's social controls are broken for good.

You call it slavery, I call it animal husbandry.

Humans aren't animals. Animals can be safely disregarded. Humans cannot. That is the distinction.

Often it's a pretty great deal for the animals.

And yet, they don't seem to have appreciated it, and because they are humans and not actually animals, their lack of appreciation is in fact dispositive.

My ancestors are at fault inasmuch as they failed to adequately anticipate the fatal flaw in voting-based government, which is the incentive to expand the franchise to those who should never have had it in exchange for political support and dominance over the responsible opponents who refuse to stoop so low.

I do not believe Abolitionism won because its supporters expected to reap new voters. All evidence I've seen indicates that it won because its supporters considered chattel slavery an intolerable evil, and were willing to make considerable sacrifices to eradicate it. I believe they were correct in this estimation. If you wish to disregard the humanity of Africans, I certainly cannot stop you. Leave them in Africa, and it's no business of mine what happens on the other side of the world. Bring them here and you make them, and by extension yourself, my problem.

I cannot imagine an America where segregation still exists.

I did not upvote it, and generally consider SS's positions unacceptable. Nevertheless, I suspect that you are likewise not "imagining" how desegregation actually operated, what it actually aimed to do and what the results actually were. It is entirely possible that leaving segregation in place would have been better for black people themselves then the reality of what we actually did. Likewise, segregation could have been brought down voluntarily and piecemeal, rather than being imposed top-down, and that almost certainly would have been preferable. It's hard to imagine how it could have gone worse, strictly from the perspective of the blacks themselves.

We got a puppy at roughly the same time we got our first child. The child has been vastly more rewarding, and vastly less frustrating.

Slavery was a bad idea, and should never have been implemented. You might as well blame Kulaks and wreckers for the failures of Communism. Your ancestors should, in fact, have picked their own damn cotton.

You're conflating two different things: the inability of the police officers to address crime versus their unwillingness or willful disregard.

I don't think I am. I didn't say anything about why the police stopped enforcing the law, and I'm not sure why it matters much whether they do it through inability or through unwillingness or willful disregard or for some other reason. Nor is it obvious that those categories can be easily disambiguated. If a community refuses to cooperate with the police, the police will be less effective. If prosecutors refuse to file charges, or judges and juries refuse to hand down appropriate sentences, the police will be less effective. If mayors or governors order the police to stand down, perhaps because racial tensions create the risk of rioting or other serious violence in response to police action or because policing is percieved as unjust, police will again be less effective. If police feel that they are unsupported or at significant risk from criminal violence or from unfair treatment by the system, or as you say underfunded, understaffed, underpaid, they will be less effective.

Of the above factors, I am extremely skeptical that "underfunded, understaffed and underpaid" accounts for a significant portion of the policing failures we observe currently or historically. Likewise, I am quite skeptical that "unwillingness or willful disregard" is a sufficient explanation. Racism is the standard explanation, but fails to explain why the same patterns persist when both the cops and the civil authority commanding them are themselves black.

Ethnic cleansing suggests a deliberateness, i.e., desegregation was enacted to introduce crime into white communities and force them to relocate.

Alternatively, desegregation was executed by the authorities because they believed it would result in peace and harmony. When the results were otherwise, they doubled down on ideology rather than admit error or change course. Desegregation was supported by institutional actors, through "blockbusting" for example, because it gave them a way to directly profit from the situation through actions that would be generally perceived as virtuous. It was supported by normal black people because it offered them the promise of a better life, which they wanted desperately. It was supported by black criminals because it gave them a ready supply of victims. It was supported by the police because they were ordered to support it.

I do not see why specific motivations enter the picture. Desegregation was mandated, and when the immediate result was a rapid and uncontrollable increase in black-on-white violent crime, authorities and institutions refused to engage with the actual nature of the problem, but simply continued implementation of the mandate.

From Scott Cummings' Left behind in Rosedale, excerpts here, full book here.

"Do you think the elderly whites are getting singled out as easy marks?" I asked. Thinking for a minute, he responded, "Probably." We talked more about the problem. He thought that both elderly whites and black elders in Rosedale were being victimized by teenagers. Both were easy marks; but old whites were likely considered easier. The people downstairs, he thought, were exaggerating their problems only insofar as many laid the blame at the doorstep of the youth program. "Our kids are pretty good," he said. Otherwise, he observed, "Yeah, they're probably gettin' fucked over." "What do you think can be done about the situation?" I asked. "With old white people living in a black neighborhood?" "Do you want a straight answer?" he asked. "Yes," I replied." He said that in a couple of years the problem would go away. Pretty soon there would be no elderly whites in Rosedale. Consequently, it wasn't worth investing a lot of time and energy worrying about it. There were too many other issues and problems confronting the neighborhood and black people generally.


At that time, these events were abstractions, newspaper accounts of racial crises in some other community, hatred in someone else's backyard. I had even heard liberal, white colleagues within the university rationalize these events as somehow being just retribution for America's violent legacy of racial oppression. One colleague remarked to me: "Their ancestors were probably yukking it up when blacks were being lynched by Klansmen."

Whites left because they were being beaten, robbed, raped and murdered at an appalling rate, and no one who mattered was willing or able to do anything about it. They were driven out through unrestrained, lawless violence, which resulted from the deliberate policies of the authorities and powerful social institutions, and which those authorities and institutions did nothing to address or prevent. All of this had an explicitly racial component in both the motives for implementation, the disastrous effects, and the reasons those disastrous effects went unaddressed. How is that not ethnic cleansing?

The naive HBD take seems to be a complete distraction. They had a standard. They're massively lowering the standard. We can be fairly confident that this is going to go very badly, because we have prior examples of it going badly when standards were lowered at smaller scales.

This, in a situation that can already be fairly described as a shitshow. I've got a close acquaintance who had a tough pregnancy a couple years ago, and has since been having dizziness, shortness of breath, and other scary symptoms. For years, plural, since the delivery, she's been asking her doctor, only to be told that it was asthma, or leftover pregnancy hormones, or just her imagination. long story short, the pregnancy caused a degenerative heart condition, which her doctors had been studiously ignoring since her delivery. She's currently waiting to find out if the crash course of meds they've put her on can turn things around, or if she's going to need a prompt heart transplant. She isn't poor, both she and her husband have upper-middle-class jobs with excellent health coverage. Her doctor was just a waste of air. Most stories I hear from people about interactions with the medical system run along similar lines. The expense is absurd, and the results are depressing.

The profession has a deliberately bottlenecked profession that makes it unnecessarily selective. Even if the average black doctor has lower MCATs than other doctors, they're still going to be plenty good to do basic medical procedures.

That would be a reassurance if it were true.

Are you familiar with Killer King? The history there seems to me to be an irrefutable demonstration that Affirmative Action can in fact have devastating effects in the medical field, and how those effects can in fact be perpetuated indefinitely despite general knowledge of the problem.

Many such cases.

It's written in the rules that the mods will try to respect user sentiment, so user opinion of moderation is actually useful information. Also, consensus-building is most harmful against other users; in the case of mods, it is easily offset by mod powers. The point of the rule is to prevent users from suppressing views they disagree with, and he has no power to suppress mod actions.

It would be pretty cool if people stopped trying to fight the refs and just accepted that we're trying to maintain a system that actively does not want to exist, especially given that that forks with variant moderation have in fact been tried and have not gone well. Unfortunately that is never, ever going to happen.

The bribe attempt was in fact pretty funny, though.

To elaborate, you are straightforwardly wrong that either @Amadan or any of the other mods pick people we dislike and twist the rules to go after them, and you are also wrong that @Amadan is the worst mod on the site.

You are coming in with an adversarial mindset, and allowing that mindset to color every interaction you have. There's no actual need to do that, and it's hard to see the benefit even if we're lying and you're right about everything. We are actually committed to fostering communication across the tribal divide. We are actually trying to implement the rules in good faith and with the explicit goal of keeping this forum performing its intended mission. You've gotten modded by @Amadan because I've been trying to engage with you directly, and we have a policy of not modding conversations we're involved in. Some of your comments are quite good, and some of them are pretty bad, and the distinctions between the two are not subtle. I am hoping at some point you can entertain the idea that we aren't trying to game you, simmer down a bit, and just lean into the productive discussions that I think you are entirely capable of. I want this to happen because I think your perspective and receipts-heavy approach are valuable, and I want to see more of it, but that isn't going to happen if you don't actually see value in calm, rational discussion with people who disagree with you.

You are straightforwardly wrong.

I read the whole thing in about a week, and then had a pretty significant narrative hangover by the end.

The recommendations you're getting are correct. It is an amazingly effective story.

...Is this a genuine question?

Suppose the police stop enforcing most laws in an area. They'll still show up for murders or rapes, after the fact, and they'll respond to gunfire, but they ignore threats or assault and battery or destruction of property or theft. Their clearance rates for crime are low, and after a while people stop calling them for "minor" offenses because they won't arrive in time and certainly won't do anything about it. They continue to arrest people for really serious crimes, but not in proportion to a very significant increase in serious crime and arrests for the "less serious" crimes drop through the floor. The crime rate is now ten, fifty, a hundred times what it was before. Crime is now ubiquitous, and the area is fundamentally unsafe to live or work in, and the police clearly have no intention of changing this state of affairs.

How would you describe the above scenario?

But not an insane phrase to use for cohesive communities being destroyed by newcomers who inflict wildly disproportionate, racially-organized lawless violence on them, with the tacit support and approval of institutional actors. That most of the community members escape with their lives by promptly fleeing, losing their community and much of their wealth and resources in the process, does not change the fundamental nature of the situation. Nor does that nature change when the fleeing is conducted under color of law, through sale of their property.

@Supah_Schmendrick is correct. The "Boston Massacre" was absurd propaganda, and the troops involved were successfully defended in court by one of our founding fathers.