FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
Violence is never the solution for the weak
This is true, if one arbitrarily declares that anyone who achieves solutions through violence must therefore have not actually been weak.
which is what the right is
Are we?
It seems to me that we've gotten to the position we're in by attempting to cooperate with defectors. That position seems to be changing rapidly now that common knowledge of the defectors is spreading.
If anyone who is right-leaning engages with violent methods, people will make an example out of him and you will see far worse kinds of censorship than 2021 but for decades.
One of the things that I don't think most moderates have cottoned to is that enforcement of this sort of thing might not be a viable option any more. For the last several years, we've seen a consistent pattern of long-standing, load-bearing social norms abruptly dissolve, and the way this has repeatedly gone is that Red Tribers achieve common knowledge that the "norm" could not be applied to their advantage, and so simply stopped applying it to Blue Tribe's advantage. We saw this with sexual misconduct accusations, with character accusations, with appeals to rule of law, and many others. I think we've seen the beginnings of this pattern applied to political violence with the riots, Rittenhouse, the j6 pardons and now Luigi and Karmelo. You'll know for sure when notable Red Tribe violence occurs, and Red Tribers simply reject the appeal to "norms" en-masse.
Do you think, in the current environment, Red Tribers won't celebrate if a Blue Tribe politician has his strings cut, after years of watching their friends and neighbors openly wish for and celebrate lawless murder of Red Tribers? If so, I'd say you're quite the optimist.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
Human imagination is a wellspring that flows eternal. Can you point to actual cases of knife use against bullies, even non-fatally, where the knife-wielder was considered in the right?
Is there a way to express that some issues may not have satisfactory political solutions without being modded for fedposting?
Lean heavily into is rather than ought. Describe the specific mechanisms that you see driving people away from political solutions, how this driving works, how you see this process evolving over time. Analyze how it might be prevented, and why you think those efforts to prevent it are likely to fail, if that's your conclusion. Make rational predictions on the expectation you'll be held to them.
And if you really want to do it well, do what I do and before you start, take a couple minutes and contemplate your closest loved ones burned to charcoal, flesh shredded by bullets and shrapnel, their skulls shattered and evacuated brain matter fly-blown in the afternoon sun. Meditate on it, try to capture the sensory details, the texture and smell. Imagine yourself poor, hungry, maybe homeless, in a world that cares nothing for you, scrounging for food while your children sit starving and hollow-eyed at whatever itinerant shelter you're squatting at presently. Imagine fear, bone deep and omnipresent, defining every moment of the remainder of your life. That's what "no satisfactory political solutions" very likely looks like in reality: the rule of hatred, terror, malice and immiseration on a scale unprecedented in the experience of you or anyone you know, and the permanent end of every good thing you have ever known.
This still seems to me to be the most likely outcome, given our present trajectory, but I for one am in no hurry to reach the end of this particular rainbow.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
If this works, it'd be amazing. I have no idea what intentional actions could be taken to make it more likely; the best I can think of is to try to highlight what seems to me to be the incredibly, horrifyingly dysfunctional relationship between the Black community and Blue Tribe, where Blue Tribe gains political support from the Black community by blaming all of their problems on Red Tribe, including those problems that Blue Tribe seems to be explicitly causing.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
He appears to be referring to HlynkaCG's ban, and to my comments following it. Hlynka is probably my all-time favorite poster in any of the versions of this forum, I argued with and then alongside him for years, I credit him for having by far the largest impact on my own thinking of anyone I've conversed with here. I think he was right about most things, and miss him dearly. I also maintain that he decided that he wasn't willing to follow the rules any more, and so the mod team was presented with the choice of either invalidating the rules or banning him. Banning him was the correct choice. I also would argue that inviting a ban was the correct choice for him; he did not seem to need what this place offers any more, would be the way I would put it, and I can respect that. I've been near to that point a few times myself.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
I would add to this that no one outside of the extremists have a credible plan for how to change this.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
You’ve banned many people who did not deserve it.
If I've banned "many people who didn't deserve it", it should be pretty easy for you to point to examples. There's a search bar at the top of the page, syntax would be "author:FCfromSSC banned", feel free to provide examples.
You‘ve even banned what you called a major influence, a friend.
I presume this is a reference to HlynkaCG? Hlynka himself was quite clear that he understood that he was breaking the rules, and would not stop doing so. Leaving aside that I am not in fact the one who banned him; I certainly think it was the proper action for a mod to take, and would ask what you think we should have done, given a long and increasingly frequent history of him breaking the forum's rules?
Then judas gave a tearful eulogy. It was the most craven, two-faced, pathetic display of regret I ever saw.
Are you under the impression that Hlynka expected to not get banned, or that he resented his ban or considered it unfair or unwarranted?
You have invented a caricature in your own mind that has no relation to reality. I fundamentally believe that this forum is built on unsustainable contradictions. I see my job as a mod to be to try to help keep it running as long as possible. If you think I or the other mods are doing it wrong, we're open to arguments for how we can do it better. Sadly, most of the arguments we receive are based on the sorts of caricatures you're deploying here.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
that is worth noting, but it's also worth noting that their fundraiser was allowed to operate, in contrast to those of, for example, Gardner and Rittenhouse. This is a concrete way in which our society observably treats red-tribe lawful self-defense as strictly worse than blue-tribe lawless murder.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
The liberal thesis was that there was some objective grounding to these concepts that people would naturally gravitate towards.
I think we can safely say at this point that the liberal thesis was wrong. "Consensus" is not a fixed, naturally-occuring attractor fit for anchoring a society. Values can drift without apparent limit, and mutually-incompatible value sets are not only possible but are routinely observed in the real world. Attempting to share power between mutually-exclusive value-sets is a fool's errand. The solution is borders; I pursue my values here, you pursue yours over there, and we do our best to leave each other alone. No level of language games is going to provide a sustainable workaround to this simple reality.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
Some people have an argument they want to participate in, and aren't interested in digressions from their mental script. It's disappointing, but hardly novel. The well-wishes are appreciated, though.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
It looks to me like you aren't getting the better end of this debate, and are looking for a way to make this my fault.
If you have an example of me using my mod powers in a debate, I'd certainly like to see it. If you think I'm lacking in morals, it'd be interesting to hear an elaboration of why.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
Just above there’s a thread about karmelo anthony. Where does his murderous rage come from? What ancestral wisdom was passed down through murders like these?
At no point have I claimed that jealous rage is "ancestral wisdom." Jealous rage is an emergent property of human psychology; the ancestral wisdom is about how to prevent, contain, and clean up after it.
I do not know the details of why Karmelo Anthony felt it necessary to murder a fellow student athlete. My wild-ass guess would be that it came down to pride and perceived disrespect, and wouldn't you know it, our society also recognizes that these as legible harms that our social structures must account for. We have entire fields of law dedicated to punishing people for acting with different forms of disrespect. We have specific words that, when spoken to specific people, give those people de facto license to physically attack you. I am not endorsing these social structures; I am noting that they exist, and they exist because we recognize that disrespect and injuries to the pride of another will be percieved as harmful in a significant number of cases.
When you find yourself defending murderers, take a step back.
Perhaps when you find yourself repeatedly misrepresenting the arguments presented to you, you should do likewise.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
You use, excuse and legitimise an extreme minority of rage-fueled murderers to condemn everyone’s harmless daily desires. You've catastrophically misidentified who the healthy humans are.
Whether the daily desires are harmless is the question you are begging. I am pointing out at least one instance where those involved do not act as though they perceive them as harmless. I am not "excusing" or "legitimizing" anything. I am pointing to a phenomenon that has existed at least since the invention of written language, and which seem directly fatal to your argument. If sex is harmless fun, where is the rage coming from?
Nor is this confined to murder driven by jealousy. Long-term relationships being destroyed by infidelity is extremely common, and those who undergo it certainly seem to consider the infidelity to have been harmful, to the point that our legal system explicitly accounts for fidelity or its absence in the legal decoupling of such relationships.
Nor does it stop there. In the last decade we've seen a massively effective social movement aimed at rolling back huge parts of the sexual revolution from within erstwhile liberal feminism, driven by an explicit rejection of "sex is harmless fun" and a demand for a jugaad-ethics pseudo-traditionalism. This movement has very clearly been generated by the broadly accepted belief that in fact sex is not "harmless fun", that it is in fact fraught and requires serious safeguards to prevent serious harm. That their proposed solutions are absurd, unworkable and perverse does nothing to change the nature of the problem: Whether you like it or not, whether you recognize it or not, sex has serious consequences that cannot be effectively prevented or engineered around.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
Because the harm is attributed to the person who chose to commit murder.
They're often choosing to commit murder because they are having what is commonly known as a significant emotional event. Hence the term "crime of passion". Such crimes have been a constant through all of recorded history, indicating that their emergence is not the result of particular social customs. It seems pretty clear to me that sex tends to be deeply emotionally significant for healthy humans, and that perceived violations of trust in these matters cause intense emotional reactions indicates that promiscuity can, in fact, cause significant harm.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
Somehow the kids are having less sex and doing less drugs but no one who was upset about the kids having sex or doing drugs is happy about it.
I am happy about the kids having less sex and doing less drugs. I'm not happy about some of the things they're doing instead, ie either end of the OnlyFans transaction.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
The religious mind may consider harm and sinfulness to be inversely correlated (smoking vs promiscuity).
Speaking in generalities, we do not. On the other hand, regardless of what we disapprove of, whether smoking or promiscuity, it seems that the irreligiously-minded are always ready to explain how our disapproval shows us to be terrible people.
The latter is particularly unfair to the believers and offensive to the gods precisely because the sinners are having fun without repercussions.
It's pretty uncommon to see people commit murder over cigarettes, and yet they commit murder over promiscuity all the time and across a wide variety of cultures. This seems odd to square with claims that promiscuity is "harmless".
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
I am willing to listen to people who claim they understand how the universe works when their explanations allow me to make testable predictions, and those predictions are verified. This holds true even when only some of their explanations are testable; the testable ones increase my confidence in the non-testable ones.
Most people appear to do likewise.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
In that case we're all meatbags about to be ground to dust by an uncaring universe in which all conciousness exists only for a brief flash of hospitable conditions in between eternities of lifeless desolation and oblivion.
What testable predictions does this claim make? Is it falsifiable?
The usual response I get is that this is just Materialism, and materialism is science, and this claim lets us do science. Only, that is very obviously not true, because you can do science without this claim, and also this claim doesn't help you do science better; it has no actual connection to science. Further, if it makes no testable predictions and is not falsifiable, in what sense is it materialistic?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8d ago
After Psycho-Pass I had a brief "this man is a genius" phase, and tried to look up anything he ever did. Somehow Madoka Magica never clicked for me, and I ended up giving up after a few episodes.
My guess is that you quit roughly one episode too early. The series was recommended to me by a friend, I started watching the first episode, and thought, "okay, this is fairly standard magical girl stuff, I'm not even remotely interested", and then shelved it. He kept bugging me, so a couple months later I watched the first episode again, okay, nothing too crazy, watched the second episode, sure, whatever, watched the third episode... and I think it's episode three or four where the story is done winding up, and starts throwing punches.
It does. Just not in the way I was taught it did, and not in the way many people appear to claim it does.
We reason from axioms. Axioms have a shape. That shape allows some evidence to fit inside, and excludes other evidence. Or to be more accurate, it fits specific interpretations of evidence and rejects others. Axioms sufficiently specific so as to be useful generally reject significant amounts of evidence, but this is ignored because they organize a much more obviously significant central mass of corelated evidence, and this evidence-mass is central to the focus of the person adopting the axiom, so they are motivated to ignore the outliers. If the outliers become sufficiently relevant, they might switch to a different axiom that accommodates them, but evidence in and of itself does not cause this to happen.
That's my understanding, at least.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8d ago
But how do you believe?
In my understanding, digging into how Belief itself actually works helped a whole lot. It appears to me to be trivial to observe that the consensus narrative about the nature of belief is pretty clearly wrong, and it is that an ingrained acceptance of that consensus narrative that causes people to be "unable to believe". They "believe" that beliefs are forced by evidence, and that the evidence is all on one side on this issue, so the choice is between rationality and irrationality, and they are already strongly committed to rationality, so the cognitive dissonance eats them up.
But in fact, beliefs are pretty clearly not forced by evidence, and the relevant evidence is not all on one side on this issue. People are believing what they want to believe, always have and always will. "Belief" is not a deterministic result of evidence, it is a prerational act of the will. Once this is understood, belief becomes much, much easier to control.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8d ago
What fruits did you expect not believing in a god to bear?
I can't speak for them, but in my case I guess I'd describe it as "a more effective interface with the realities of life and human existence." Various portions of my life and mind that had not been working well under the Christianity I was raised with got much worse when I became an atheist, and then much better when I returned to being a Christian.
I just know that life is meaningless and we're all just atoms, and nothing happens after we die. Whether I benefit from that or not is irrelevant, it's just how I think things are.
I'm skeptical people believe much of anything because "that's just how they think things are", mainly because I've observed that it's not why I've believed things in the past or present. I think pretty much all reasoning is motivated one way or another.
You're the one claiming elsewhere in this thread that there's a literal government agency that exists to threaten people in this situation into making these sorts of statements. I'm inclined to believe it! I'm certainly confident that the victim's family is under tremendous social and likely legal pressure to toe the line.
That wasn't enough to get Rittenhouse convicted. It wasn't enough to prevent the J6 pardons, or to cause those pardons to have significant costs. It seems to me that neither of those outcomes were predicted by you or others arguing the "Red Tribe is powerless" thesis.
More options
Context Copy link