Felagund
14hr ago
It's not just that we Jews are basically breeding ourselves of existence
The link appears to be talking about secular Jews. I get that that's quite common, but religious Judaism is still also a thing, and isn't ultra-orthodox Judaism decently sized and growing? But I suppose that might not matter to those who are only really ethnically Jewish.
Felagund
14hr ago
AI regulation is obviously not going to be helpful, as Maxwell Tabarrok argues.
The biggest threat for "this will kill us all" is plainly the US government making automated weaponry, and there's no chance any regulation that would stop that passes. I suppose AI-designed diseases are a second way to wipe out humanity. But any regulation will just seek to lock out competition and put power solely in the hands of Sam Altman and co, and will treat the government entirely as a trustworthy actor.
Felagund
2d ago
Of course, hence the reference to "intentionally or explicitly racist."
Hence, things like Jim Crow or Apartheid, where laws are being passed for the explicit purpose of maintaining racial division and hierarchy isn't great.
I don't really care about disparate impact, unless that's the intent.
Felagund
2d ago
I figured for the first two, but I would have expected Ottoman ancestry in the Balkans. Huh. Yeah, I don't think it matters too much, hence why I figured they didn't count.
Felagund
2d ago
It pushes Christianity as a multi-ethnic and cross-ethnic community. This can be seen from the speaking in tongues in Acts 2, to the salvation of the gentiles, to some more specific quotes speaking against divisions for being Jew or Greek, barbarian or Scythian. (And, as it was pointed out, male or female, which should indicate that there's a limit to this: it's not like distinctions should be ignored, just that they shouldn't divide, I think) Do I think that means anything like modern leftism? Certainly not. But I do think that it means that our primary unit of identity should not be with our ethnic group, and that there should be cross-group community, at the very least in religious settings.
This would at least make me reluctant to adopt any explicitly or intentionally racist policies.
Felagund
2d ago
Yeah, I agree that it isn't saying that there are no differences. But I do think that it is against setting up social divisions, at least, within the Christian community. We're
Felagund
3d ago
"Here there is not Jew and Greek, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all."
I don't think Christianity has anything to say about racial differences, but it definitely does seem like it has something to say about racial barriers.
we have pretty clear data that when Europe was Christian (and America), there was almost 0 non-white immigration to Europe.
I assume Mongols, Magyars, Turks, and so on don't count?
Anyway, the New Testament does speak against racial divisions.
Felagund
3d ago
I would assume taste is much easier than smell, as there is only a handful of things tastebuds can detect. But then you need to combine that with smell…
I would guess that smell would have to be embedded within a higher-dimensional space than sight or sound? But I'm not certain.
There are languages that have fairly developed abilities to describe smell, just English isn't one of them.
Felagund
8d ago
Not to be rude, but this feels like an ad, with that last sentence an attempt to make it fit this thread.
Felagund
8d ago
You're right, he is ScottA. It looks like he only commented in that one thread.
Felagund
8d ago
Wow, that's bad. Some of that's probably attributable to the thread starting with "what's rape?", meaning that some people certainly thought "that's immoral, but it's not rape, properly speaking" but yeah, that's worse than I was expecting.
Felagund
8d ago
Thomas is great.
Why do you prefer Sotomayor to those judges? She's the one who's most obviously motivated by politics, usually, I think.
Felagund
8d ago
If a few different environmental factors had gone differently, if I had started down that path and been affirmed, I can see it and that terrifies me.
What terrifies me more is how often I've heard this.
Felagund
8d ago
There shouldn't be able to be an innate "simple desire to become a woman," unless you think we come with innate, from the womb, knowledge of what the two genders are. At some point we figure out what genders are, and such desires would only make sense at that point.
Of course, at that point, we could have innate tendencies that predispose us to manifest certain desires or identities.
Felagund
8d ago
Why is it always choose them only if they're better than the best up to that point? At some point wouldn't point, wouldn't it become better to settle for gradually worse partners? (obvious case: in a uniform distribution, only two people left, and you get someone who's at the 75th percentile)
Felagund
9d ago
Looking around a little online, I found some people arguing online that of course temperature and pressure make sense together, by the ideal gas law. But they were saying that this doesn't suffice to say that pressure suffices to explain the temperature, as it could be (for example) that temperature affects pressure, rather than the other way around.
What is your evaluation of that argument?
Felagund
9d ago
They are interested in the climate, but they're interested not in terms of what concrete benefits or harms will it produce, but in whether we're doing a set of things that would be considered bad. Nuclear energy has disasters and waste, so therefore they think it's bad. They don't do a cost-benefit analysis, they just do a cost analysis (for things they don't like) and a benefit analysis (for things they do).
They do genuinely care about the climate, but usually in a scattered rather than coherent way, I suppose.
(Of course, not all climate activists, etc.)
Felagund
9d ago
That being said, on an unrelated note, I did appreciate your arguments against sexual intercourse with black out drunk women and I agree that is a bad thing. Unlike a lot of people in that thread.
Thank you, shit, that was not the proudest of themotte I've ever been. OTOH, it's nice to know I don't quite fit every stereotype here, and to have something to point to as foil to when I explain to someone "look I'm really not that conservative, it just sounds that way sometimes".
Wait, where was that?
Felagund
9d ago
But...are you sure you're in the top 1%?
Top 1% is good, but it's something you see all the time.
If you imagine a typical 100 people in whatever school you went to, take a random 100, and on average, one of them is in the top 1%. That's over 3 million people in the US!
I expect a website that filters for willingness to write longform text might easily get to the point where top 1% IQ is far more commonly represented than among the general population. I'd also expect people with the username "@lagrangian" to have higher IQ.
That said, I'm slightly less willing to trust the 145 IQ, though it's still very possible. Looking it up, 0.1% of people are at 145 or higher. But I don't know how lagrangian evaluated his own, as I wouldn't trust random internet IQ tests, especially on the tails.
It's also worth keeping in mind that each unit of IQ might not be the same (whatever that means), as it's just forced into a bell curve.
They might, but it tends to be significantly less important. In general, Protestants tend not to assert that their denomination is the One True Church, preferring a communion of believers across denominations. In interpersonal compromises, this will obviously lend itself towards the one who cares less about a specific church being more willing to compromise on that. This is augmented by the fact that evangelicals are often more minimalistic with regards to doctrine.
This is a shame; Protestantism is worth fighting for.
More options
Context Copy link