FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
How can you detach from yourself to form an attachment that could be construed as "owning" yourself? It's just a figure of speech that doesn't correspond to the reality of the matter
I guess this becomes dicey when we get close to the brain. But certainly a person exists detatched from their limbs (is amputation death?)
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
We all know how to share. It's one of the first things we were taught. I don't have a private definition for it.
I think I understand intuitively what you're trying to get at - e.g. why not let a billionaire share his summer house with homeless people? (Is this the kind of scenario you have in mind?)
Are you trying to propose a system where people are obligated to share stuff they aren't using? (so in the system, I don't have to "share" my computer, coffee mug, or charger, since I'm using them now - but I should share my electric cooker with someone else because I'm not using it now)
If so, do you not think there's value in having "right of access" 24/7 for various items? In my case, I like the fact that my books, my bed, my crockery, etc are all "on retainer" to be used whenever I want. Whereas if I had to share them all the time, it would cost me utility. Is there nothing that you "own" (I know you are against this concept, but I mean in the sense that society believes that you own it) which you don't like having unfettered access to?
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
I view inheritance as part of meritocracy. If you have an inheritance, excluding adoptees, chances are high that your parents are some variety of high-quality stock and you will be too.
I agree that the practice of inheritance is eugenic. And it is probably going to make a better society than a pure meritocracy where everyone is raised by the state starting with no assets (will people still be motivated to make the enormously outsized contributions that make a billionaire, if they cannot pass it down or take it with them?)
But the point of the word "meritocracy" is distill the concept of rewarding people for their individual accomplishments, and explicitly avoiding rewarding them for "higher order" traits (parents, race, sex, age, disability, etc) that correlate well with actual useful contributions and achievements (growing a company, solving an open problem in maths, constructing a house, etc)
If you, the inheritor, are not well adapted to present conditions then you’ll lose all the money and it makes its way to everyone else anyways.
"Well-adapted" is a spectrum. Yes, if the inheritor is a total moron, he will throw away everything passed down on gambling, drugs and alcohol. And if the inheritor is as competent as the progenitor, they will preserve all the wealth. Somewhere in between these levels of adaptedness, there is someone who would not be able to create a large amount of wealth for themselves, but could preserve it.
If you really don't give someone any advantage from an inheritance, then people wouldn't go to such lengths to give their children inheritances.
I consider that there would actually be a lot more meritocracy if there was an effective way to keep coffin-dodgers from spending down most of their children’s inheritance just to hang on to another 4 or 5 years of rapidly decreasing life value. I also reserve blame about this for descendants who are unwilling to just let Mom and Pop die with some dignity.
If you just replaced the word "meritocracy" with something like "utility" or "a better society", I would agree.
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
Both of those statements are true, and are just different ways of framing the same thing. I would say you "gave me your car" because I am fine with the fact that ownership involves depriving other people of an object. If I were OP, it would make sense to frame it you "ceasing to deprive me" because I would abhor what I see as a backwards, oppressive social construct.
Normal people absolutely do use this double-negative framing for more controversial issues. For example a leftist might describe the state not giving someone asylum (Article 14), denying a transgender person gender-affirming healthcare ("trans rights are human rights") as "depriving them of their human rights". I can't give any (mainstream) right wing examples, because standard conservative/libertarian ideology believes that there is a meaningful distinction between "positive and negative rights", and that people are only entitled to negative rights (a conservative would view e.g. free speech as different to the above examples - a state does not "deprive" someone of their right to free speech, because infringing on someone's right to free speech requires them making a positive action to repress them - instead of just passively not giving them something they want)
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
My honest first reaction was simply what I said: “is this guy supposed to be famous or is there some in-group reference I’m missing?”
You're saying that you didn't think to yourself - "that sounds like a Black man" (even given that the topic of the OP was DEI in the US, a practice that heavily rewards Black people)?
Even linking his faculty page like you did would have been a more effective point and IMO a valid comment. In fact, pointing him out as someone with an obvious career stake and bias towards finding bias IS a good point.
Sure, but that is an additional point, going beyond the original comment. The point of the original comment is just to point out that the author is Black - we can infer he has a particular bias towards finding bias because he is a Black intellectual (so the alternatives to systemic racism would be especially unflattering to him) - Magus' point still makes sense even if we couldn't see any of his works/publications.
You might believe that judging him on his race is morally or factually wrong. But I don't think that expressing such beliefs should count as a rules violation if done plainly and in a calm tone, so while this comment is rule-breaking, the implied point should still be expressible on the forum (e.g. if Magus had explicitly said "the author is Black"), without having to add further justifications and context about his career choices, publications, etc
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
... it's clearly not standard and obviously not how [CONCEPT] normally works
Sure, but that doesn't a priori mean it's a bad idea. A lot of the most useful things in rationalism involve taking a normal word, and making a better, non-standard definition that fits better to a coherent concept (e.g. "belief" is just a predictive model of the world)
Do I deprive you of my car? Does my mother-in-law deprive you of the vegetables she grows in her garden? Does my landlord deprive me of the apartment I rent? Do I deprive my employer of the wages I earn? Does a customer deprive a store of the products he buys? Does a hunter-gatherer in a jungle at the other end of the world deprive me of some berries and a squirrel? Do you deprive me of the device you use to post here?
Yes, to all of the above. Not just if we assume OP's worldview, but just in the normal sense of the word - all of these are examples of OP (and me) being deprived of something.
But, under the way the world currently works, these are all things that the respective parties are allowed to deprive OP of.
This is ass-backwards.
I think OP is wrong in wanting to change the system, and also in describing the right to deprive others as the "essential" part of the concept of ownership. But he is right that ownership of X is fully encapsulated by the notion of "having the right to not let others use X".
I just think this falls under the general pattern where people attempt to pathologise normal, functional things by "deconstructing" them and describing them in bizarre, but technically accurate ways ("marriage is a way for a man to control a woman's body", "capitalism is a system where billionaires spend millions on yachts whilst homeless people freeze to death on the streets", "we live in a Eurocentric, cisheteronormative society", "jail is society locking human beings up in cages")
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
the proper way to begin one's political reasoning from: not what you are willing to kill for, but what are you willing to die for
Both of these feel like a strange and arbitrary place to start my political reasoning from (I would start from "what does my Utopia look like?", and then see how close we can practically get to that Utopia when constrained by the laws of physical reality and conflict theory)
But it's a reasonable question anyways, so I'll answer it. I am indeed willing to die for some things, examples off the top of my head:
- To save the life of my own child that survived past infancy
- To save the life of the mother of any of any of my children that survived past infancy
- To avoid a credible threat of being tortured to death
- I would kill myself if I was very sure that nothing was left except pain and misery (e.g. if I had some incurable terminal illness and 3 months to live)
What comes above utilitarian calculus?
But doesn't all of this just fit neatly into utilitarian calculus? If you just assign utility -N for your own death, then if you are willing to die for X, that just corresponds to ~X having a utility -M < -N. I'm not pretending to be some genius rationalist robot man who calculates everything in utilons to make decisions, but the idea of utilitarian calculus is just that all of the rational (in the weak sense, where we don't use logic that leads to contradictions) decisions an agent can make boil down to maximising some utility function (or in practice, a protocol that approximates this maximisation)
in the thought experiment, you will let yourself be shot in the head, instead of capitulating?
Seriously? You're saying if some dictator came into power, and tries to violate your rights (even if you don't even care that much about the object-level thing - like literally just clenching your fists), then you would just steel yourself up, and deny him. That you wouldn't back down - even as the situation escalates to the point where some agent of the state is literally holding a gun to your head? In this situation, you'd just grit your teeth, look your executioner in the eye with righteous anger, and be "nobly" shot in the head - not to avoid even mild physical suffering, or to protect the life of a loved one - but literally just because you've decided that freedom "comes above the utilitarian calculus"?
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
This gets to why having a framework of ownership, and via ownership exclusion is useful!
I agree with your point about ownership, and generally just being allowed to "control your own body" being a useful social construct in most cases. I just disagree with your claim that it is some kind of elegant "natural" law, because actually we all live in a shared reality and all of our actions effect other people, and vice-versa (but often the externalities are so negligible, we can just use the approximation of "live and let live" - e.g. pseudononymous users arguing about politically incorrect topics on an obscure web forum)
Nudists can have spaces where they are nude all day and they can exclude prudes who would be upset by this. Everyone else can have spaces where they exclude nudists.
How do you interpret the nudists not being allowed in public spaces? Is it that you see the public spaces as being owned by the government, so it is the government's right in this case (not as specially privileged actors, but just as the group that happens to own this particular space) to exclude the nudists?
(If that is what you think, can we not just remove people's rights in practice by using the loophole of "excluding" everyone who does(n't) do X from using any kind of public space - "let the transphobes/communists/Catholics construct their own parallel society, without any help from the existing one of course, where they can be transphobic/communist/Catholic all day long")
We've already seen that its possible to exclude people on basis of vaccination status.
But do you think this is morally okay? (why can't the anti-vaxxers "control their own body"?)
Likewise, you can exclude people with 'ugly' tattoos or require them to cover up (but now you've smuggled in the topic of aesthetics which, hoo boy).
From public? I haven't heard of any such laws, not even laws requiring people to cover up tattoos in public (I've certainly seen people walking around with tatoos!)
I didn't mean to smuggle in aesthetics. But even if we allow for the sillier tattoos as having some kind of artistic value, I can think of deliberately shocking and obscene tattoos that I think almost everyone would find "ugly", in the sense it would upset them to see it (perhaps a hyperrealistic image of a penis being split apart by a modified pear of anguish in the urethra)
"Society" can be built on a framework of people agreeing to respect property boundaries and agreeing to abide by rules set by the owners under penalty of exclusion.
It can (it could also be built on a framework of "equality of outcomes", or "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need, or even "we should minimise suffering, so we should sterilise everyone and start encouraging people to OD on heroine), but why? I don't see how this framework handles anti-social behaviour that harms society as a whole (like not vaccinating yourself, loitering in public spaces, public nudity, public drug use, etc)
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
I actually know full well that at least I am capable of not capitulating to threats
I don't understand - are you saying that in the thought experiment, you will let yourself be shot in the head, instead of capitulating? And that during COVID you actually didn't follow the rules about distancing, masks, vaccines, etc? (didn't you get in trouble?)
... it's actually slightly less crazy than what many governments in the world tried to do to their citizens
I understand you hold some kind of libertarian principles that make you respond negatively to such acts of government coercion. But surely you are exaggerating here? At least in the COVID case, there was a supposed benefit for this restriction of rights (but in the fist closing example - it is literally just a gangster being drunk on his own power)
But you wanted to paint the people who refused to capitulate to the abrogation of their bodily autonomy as the ones harming society.
So, in the specific case of COVID, I weakly believe that the government response (at least in the UK/US) was disproportionate to the actual severity of the pandemic. I haven't done any research or calculations here, this is just a hunch based on my lived experience (but given your comment, I think you agree with this point, so I'm happy to go along with this premise)
But this is a more general discussion about the principle of bodily autonomy, and in the general case it just seems straightforwardly true that an anti-vaxxer would be harming society. If there is a disease that really is sufficiently deadly (i.e. the mortality rate outweighs the major inconveniences to the entire population of mandatory vaccines, lockdowns, etc), and there is a vaccine that is sufficiently safe and effective - then yes, the government should vaccinate people against this illness (and if they refuse, they should be met with escalating consequences that eventually peak in their death, as is the case for any other illegal activity)
Given what you wrote, I assume you are against the mandatory vaccination purely on the liberatarian principle of bodily autonomy. I agree with you that the feeling of freedom is a good thing, that we all want to have. But I think, like all other good things, it is just N utility points (and N is on a scale of more mundane things, like being able to have a delicious meal each day, or being exposed to lots of sunlight and fresh air), and can just be traded for other kinds of utility. Do you disagree with this? (Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I get the impression that libertarians, and sometimes also normiecons, view "liberty" as something kind of sacred, that is incomparable to other kinds of good things, e.g. New Hampshire's motto)
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
Or, if I'm particularly brave or foolhardy, they don't.
Then what.
Well, then you get killed by the gangster, so in this formulation you maintain "ownership" of your body (at least before you die, then they control it)
And also most people (like me, and I think, in practice, you too) would just close their fist, despite the gangster not having to put much more effort into it than you would - which violates your principle of "I own my body, and I can exclude you from control of it, as a pure matter of fact, for all practical purposes."
But isn't it just WAY SIMPLER for us to agree "yeah I control my body, you control yours" without overphilosiphizing it.
For your contrived example, yes. In practice, there is just no incentive for anyone to threaten deadly violence to make someone close their fist. And I'm happy to accept that everyone has the negative right not to have their fist closed without consent.
But if we are going to step out of philisophical thought experiments, then "yeah I control my body, you control yours" is not really that simple. There are a lot of non-silly situations where someone is just, on an intuitive level, "controlling their body", and in doing so causing harm to society:
- Refusing to be vaccinated
- Loitering in public spaces
- Public nudity
- Making a political speech to a large crowd that advances an ideology that worsens society
- Getting visible tattoos that look ugly
I'm sure you would be happy to just allow people to do many of the things on my list, but I disagree that it is some obvious "easy, fundamental, universal concept" that no reasonable person could oppose, on the level of, say, "not torturing people to death because you like to hear them scream"
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
If I have fewer 'steps' to take between the signal I send and the event that occurs, you're surely going to agree that I have 'more' control over that event, no?
The number of "steps" isn't a well-defined concept (if I go into arbitrarily fine detail about the mechanism of a human body I can extend you "having my brain send a signal down my arm" into infinity steps) - I think the only coherent thing this idea corresponds to is how easy it is for you do it.
But there are systems where someone other than yourself could make you close your fists with just the effort of sending brain signals to their voice-box and jaw to speak. They could be a very powerful dictator or gangster, with an established history of extreme and brutal violence, and just order you to do it, or else.
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
- Usurp rights over resources (physical or intellectual, materials or people or property) by fiat and, if necessary, by fraud and/or force
- Kidnap (abduct) said resources (e.g., put them into captive situations with no alternative)
- Hold hostage
- Demand ransom
- Release upon payment
This description of Capitalism applies to middle-men (e.g. quant traders, supermarkets, etc) - but it doesn't seem to fit the central example of a business: where it actually creates value by making a resource whose utility is greater than the sum of its raw resources (e.g. a shoe factory). If we treat the raw materials (leathers, rubbers, dyes, etc) as being "usurped and kidnapped", the shoe factory definitely does more than just "hold them hostage" before release.
Also I think it just doesn't make sense to refer to storage/warehousing as "holding hostage". The entire point of holding X hostage (even something non-living) is that you threaten to kill/destroy X unless your demands are met, and when someone pays ransom to release a hostage, they generally do not own the hostage. When I buy something from Amazon, it is so that I can own and use it somehow, at no point does Amazon threaten to destroy the merchandise if I don't pay up (and if they did, they would be met with perplexed indifference)
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
I agree that the commenter should not have darkly hinted, but I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse here...
To make the point explicit - the name "Tatishe Nteta" strongly suggests that the author's race is sub-Saharan African (and we can look at his faculty page to clear up any doubt), so the fact that he carried out a poll that supposedly shows public support for DEI (i.e. state-backed anti-White discrimination) gives another example on a long list of non-White (but especially Black) intellectuals for whom almost all of their published works are attempts to critique and undermine White people/identity.
I'm guessing, beyond the poor forum ettiquette, you also take issue with what is actually being darkly hinted at here. Perhaps you just don't believe in HBD (in which case there isn't much to say, since I would agree with academics like Ntete under ~HBD) - but if you do believe in HBD, then what do you think is wrong with what Magus implied?
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
I am not claiming that this is the criteria libraries use in real life to decide what is allowed on their shelves (I will join you in not being a rube here), or even that it should be the criteria they use.
I'm arguing that this is the criteria for whether something is erotica or not, and that it's disingenuous to call Gender Queer "erotica" and deny the fact that it does indeed attempt to convey complex ideas and emotions (albeit ideas that offend some people's sensibilities, and whose spread may well be damaging to society)
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
What I have argued and will continue to argue is that there is a constant churn of Cthulhu swimming left, towards greater and greater degradation of the commons...
I agree with the pattern you observe (but I have mixed feelings over whether it is a bad thing), and I also find it very annoying that normie progressives simultaeneously show radical acceptance towards the thing of [current year] and hostile disgust towards the stuff that hasn't yet been normalised.
But I believe that: a) In the specific case of gender queer, it is not happening b) When it does happen (now or in the future), it's not that bad.
... it’ll be someone defending librarians pushing kids towards cutesy drawings of some author’s autobiographical exploration of the first time they let their dog fuck them.
And if that does happen in the future, that would also not necessarily be erotica. It's not about whether you, personally, find the lifestyle choices being proselytised gross or icky - the question is "does this work attempt to convey complex ideas and emotions that provoke the reader to think?" (or in the other direction - "would anyone want to read this work with both hands outside of their pants?")
I can easily imagine a serious piece of literature being written on this topic, in the style of "Gender Queer":
- The author describes feelings of alienation around the time of puberty - the other children keep talking excitedly about having sex with boys, girls, they/thems, and some even express not being interested in sex at all.
- The author thinks they are asexual, until one day, when they petsit for their best friend, they have a "horrible" revelation that they do have a sexuality after all...
- Some occassional, short, tasteful scenes depicting their awkward teenage attempts at sex with animals ("Ugh! I didn't know dogs would have such bad breath...", "I guess female ducks really do have corkscrew vaginas!")
- The author's philisophical musings about the capacity of their partner to consent (how can animals, who cannot speak, convey consent?) and the need for them to consent (we are okay with killing them to eat their flesh - is it that bad to have sex of questionable consent with them...?)
- Anecdotes about an initially unaccepting friends and family, and teasing/bullying from classmates
- A saccharine last page showing the author and their non-human SO affectionately licking their face, with captions "I know I've struggled a lot with being your owner... but I love being your partner!"
And yes, we can play this game again for any other "degenerate" aspect of human sexuality that also currently lies to the left of the Overton window (pedophillia, necrophillia, vore, etc)
Or maybe you’ll find your grandkid reading it in the library’s booknook and you’ll be appalled. I don’t know. But your current arguments are toothless to me because my stance is that Gor in the school library was already too much.
Why is it so terribly awful for children to be exposed to actual erotica? (I am now moving onto point b - I maintain that Gender Queer is not erotica) My school library did not stock "Gor", but it did stock an adult fantasy novel, whose last half was a thinly-veiled femdom porn fantasy:
Soon after, Richard is captured by a beautiful young Mord-Sith named Denna, who tortures him for a month. Mord-Sith wear skin-tight red leather catsuit, blood-red, to hide the blood of their captives during the training sessions. They live to torture and condition men into obedient pets, who live and breathe to please them, and Mistress Denna is the best of all Mord-Sith at this task. After only half an hour at her mercy, he is left groveling on the dungeon floor, begging to please his mistress to avoid pain. She chains him up by his wrists from the ceiling, in order to being his 'training'. She then trains and break him into her obedient slave by the use of several instruments, including a painful small red leather rod by the name of the Agiel. Once Richard is broken, she takes him for her sexual mate
The actual book is even more sexualised than even this account would suggest (his "training" spans many pages) - I recall the "Mord-Sith" telling the protagonist to focus on her latex-clad breasts to avoid the pain of the Agiel (it can read the submissive's victim's thoughts, and hurts them when they think bad things about the domme Mord-Sith), another Mord-Sith who is implied to castrate her "pets", and another still who actually makes them communicate in barks and go on "walks" with her through the town naked, collared and on all-fours.
As a pre-teen, I did indeed find this "confusing" (I was not aware that it was supposed to be erotic, so I wondered if there was something seriously wrong with me for finding graphic descriptions of "torture" arousing), and I remember feeling deeply ashamed about my enjoyment of the book and all the fantasies I had that were inspired by the book. And now... I'm an adult - and nothing bad happened. I don't have some kind of PTSD, I understand that was just a fantasy written by a horny guy (and Denna is not an accurate representation of female sexuality), I didn't develop an irrational fear/hatred towards women because I associate them with Denna, etc. Reading this synopsis of the book now, I can only laugh at how silly and over-the-top the whole thing was in retrospect.
This was not a good thing (as in, I'm not going to encourage any future children I have to read TWFR so they can experience what I experienced) - but in retrospect, this seems to be on a similar level of badness to the long list of other minor things that made my teenage years less than storybook.
But going back to point (a) - I think it's borderline even whether something like TWFR counts as "erotica" (the first half was just a normal fantasy novel, with mature themes, and the book did seriously explore the idea of being tortured - the Mord-Siths were not dominatrices, the torture depicted was very real and non-consensual, with blood and genuine agony)
Gender Queer is nowhere close to this border. Having skimmed the book, it totals 240 pages, of which there are exactly 2 short scenes that are of a sexual nature (the strap-on blowjob mentioned by the media, and also a medical exam showing the author naked without any scenery censor) - all of the remaining pages are just ordinary comic book drawings with pro-LGBT storylines and perspectives.
It is a reasonable position to be against titles like Gender Queer on the basis that you are against their underlying message, and do not want to normalise pursuing sexually deviant lifestyles (especially not to impressionable young children) - as I said at the start of the comment, I also have mixed feelings over the LGBTQ+ movement. But I think it is completely unreasonable to object on the grounds that works like these are pornographic (because they aren't)
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
My results:
-
Full scale: 136
-
Memory: 132 (VM 76/85, EM 15/26)
-
Verbal: 137 (V 25/34, A 22/27)
-
Spatial: 136 (MR 16/17, CP 13/18)
It is almost midnight for me, so I was fairly tired, but judging from other comments this is standard (in practice - who's actually going to block out some prime focus time in the midday to do an unmoderated online IQ test?)
My thoughts on the test sections:
Visual memory
I think this was a pretty good test in being robust to gaming - the only issue I can think of is the question of whether you can move your mouse into a convenient position whilst the image plays (I decided the fair thing to do is to not touch your mouse at all until the animation finishes)
Exposure memory
This felt like the most "IQ"ish test for me, in that there was no conscious thinking at all. I initially planned to just rapidly repeat the sequence to myself as it played, then I realised I can't articulate an image like this in words in a fraction of second. (Was there anyone who could actually generate short verbal encodings for the icons on the fly?)
My strategy was to just passively consume it and then just click whatever icons "spoke" to me without thinking (and then adding in any others I remembered properly with a few seconds conscious recall)
Vocab
I had heard before that Vocab is extremely g-loaded, and this EOK article gives r=0.8 (I haven't read the article though, I just skipped to the table)
I always found this really weird. When I first started believing in IQ (as a measure of something beyond "how well you do IQ tests") I had always assumed that any word stuff would be less g-loaded than "maths" stuff like shape rotation (because STEM people are smarter than humanities people) - I suppose since we hear/read so many words, even really weird ones like "diaphanous" come up at least once, and if you're more intelligent, you process your stimuli more efficiently, so fewer strange words and concepts fly over your head.
Anagram
I think this is the worst subtest. Some other tests are gameable in this specific interface, as there is no time limit, and they could just be fixed by adding a timer.
But I know from personal experience that anagram solving are extremely trainable - I have a friend (of similar intelligence to me, based on exam results and working together) who can unscramble 9 letter anagrams in seconds (even using bizarre words), as he enjoys playing "word games" like this, and knows various patterns, heuristics, etc. I believe he would easily max out this test.
Mental Rotations
As @Pigeon pointed out, the shape rotation was too easy (I got 16/17, and I believe it would have been 17/17 if I had used my \infty time correctly and checked my work properly), especially without a timer. I just did a "mental rotation" without much effort or strain (I suppose if you didn't partition the shape into "plane" + "protrusion" it might have been hard, but I suppose you need good spatial intelligence to notice something like this)
Center Points
After the test, I looked it up - it turns out this is a "thing" - it's called the Geometric Median, and there does not appear to be a simple "trick" that allows you to estimate it in your head.
I'm not sure to what extent they wanted us to just go on vibes for this one (The most advanced maths I used here was to count the number of squares in each group when they were clearly clustered) - I remember around Q10-ish I realised there were 24 questions and got impatient and started almost instant-answering a lot of questions.
Also - I realise the vague "mental picture" I had for this problem was completely off - I did not clock that the optimising set has to be convex (since the objective is convex), and had mental images of things like arcs or isolated points (and I think I even hallucinated correct answers of this form in my memory as I progressed through the rounds - maybe because the first question, of a 2x2 square doesn't look convex since the guide answer doesn't include the 2x2 itself)
This doesn't massively effect the actual problem, but curious if anyone else also had the same wrong picture in their minds? I don't know why, but it still feels sort of wrong to me that the objective is convex (even with really weird point placements, you can't get any local optima?) - but on the other hand... it's literally a sum of convex functions! This feels like quite a big oversight on my part, hopefully I was just tired...?
Amongst my close friends in undergrad, there used to be a guy who had a ~150 IQ (he was the only member of the group who had it measured "properly" by a professional - he had a psychologist friend and he agreed to be one of the test subjects for something), and he was noticeably duller than the rest of us in [hard STEM subject we all studied] - this was evidenced objectively in exam results (and he worked to try get good results) I'm not sure if he is just one of those unfortunate people on the vertex of the functionality/IQ ellipse, or if it really was just a "culture" issue (maybe he was just overloaded with extra-curriculars, he had test-anxiety, etc - normally I'd discount those explanations as cope - but then... 150 IQ!)
Anyways, I always secretly hoped/fantasised that maybe the 150IQ really did correspond to the expected level of functionality, and that I was actually more functional - so maybe I was actually some kind of genius with a +4 sigma IQ (and I've never done genius things like getting an IMO gold medal because something something environment something something Newton was an unremarkable undergraduate something something) - so it was a little disheartening to have my unlikely fantasy extinguished completely.
And I think this is part of why I've never actually taken the effort to find an online IQ test (despite thinking about IQ and intelligence, and even talking about it with friends, a lot) - but obviously that was bad and irrational. More information can only ever add utility, because you can always do whatever you want anyways. I can already face the reality of having a 136IQ because I've been living it for my whole life, that which can be killed by the truth should perish, the cat was already dead before I opened the box, etc
FlyOnTheWall
7mo ago
I think the squeamishness is less about Black people in general and more about the physical danger posed by exposure to a demographic that, on the group level, is ~10x more likely to commit a violent crime than Whites. The current state of civil rights is that it's basically on the say so of the Black - if a Black is in a White space, they are allowed to be there until they actually commit a crime. They would actually have to punch, stab or try to rape someone to be removed. But until then, all they have to do is claim to be a law-abiding citizen - no additional qualifications, White friends to vouch, etc - and no one can do anything about it. In fact, it's much more likely that a White person who objects to sharing spaces with Black people will get in trouble for being "racist" than the Black will.
But in all seriousness - as far as I can tell, the usual arguments for sex-segregated spaces (and anti-trans policies in general) apply pretty much verbatim to race-segregated spaces. Specifically, the idea that if group X is much more likely to do [bad thing] than group Y, society should segregate the 2 groups (and in practice, just prevent group X from interacting with group Y, and have "X spaces" just be for everyone) And even though such a policy hurts the majority of group X who are totally innocent, the physical safety of group Y outweight their wounded ego.
You can just yeschad.jpg and say you want Jim Crow again (and there are probably users on the forum who would), but this does not seem to be the position of the majority of those who oppose transgender ideology (even on this forum) - so I ask, how do you explain such radically different stances on these (seemingly similar to me) issues?
Why would it make you vaguely uncomfortable? ... Is it the deference for white people that makes you feel uncomfortable?
For a typical person, I think they'd be uncomfortable for broadly that reason (Well, I think a conservative wouldn't find it uncomfortable initially - but they absolutely would once you point out the dynamic)
As far as I'm concerned self_made_human's attitudes are perfectly valid, and should really be the norm for all immigrants
I agree - but obviously that can't happen in the current state. The official line is that all races are equal - and in this worldview self_made_human's attitude is deeply problematic, and a manifestation of trauma from the White supremacy enforced upon his ancestral homeland during colonization (if that were the case - I would also find it deeply uncomfortable)
I'm not sure how you'd envision this actually becoming a norm (maybe you're just idly wishing) - I don't have a serious proposal.
I wonder how far you'd get by "just" by making HBD common knowledge, and no further interference - how would a typical "brown" person (here I mean neither White nor Jewish nor East Asian) react to the knowledge that the ultimate cause of the dysfunctions in their old home is not White supremacy, the government, or even the culture - but the actual race who make up the country (which includes them!)
I mean this is already going to make them feel guilty - especially if they were progressive (these would be the main source of principled people who oppose SMH's sentiments): this whole time it wasn't White people causing the problems of the world - it was you! (The arguments about how White people are guilty of perpetrating White supremacy by being complicit, "silence is violence", etc - these are all still true on the meta level - except now you realise you're the one causing harm)
Also - in the case of a indidivual skilled immigrant, it is indeed a mutually beneficial arrangement. But obviously the benefit to the immigrant is massive compared to the country, to whom each specific person is just a rounding error - so already a kindness is being payed by actually affording them all the same legal privileges as the natives despite having all the leverage (in the non-HBD world - this is something the immigrant is morally entitled to since the country is only such a nice place to live because they stole resources from the 3rd World - how else could a tiny island of a few million people, of equal competence to all other humans, manage to have so many nice things?)
I'll comment on just one specific point that Walt/Yassine make vis-a-vis Black crime.
Y: But when you say something like protecting whites from crimes committed by other races, I don't know. What does that mean? Like, are you talking about white [enclaves] -
...
Y: - But how would you protect against that when you say protecting whites from crimes committed by other races how does that look different from just protecting against crimes?
W: I would just say a harsher carceral state in general.
Y: A harsher carceral state for black people or just in general?
W: For everybody.
...
W: In practice, all you'd have to do is crack down on crime more harshly generally, and it would it would mostly be black crime that you're containing. okay but so it doesn't look any different right it doesn't but but the reason you can't do that is because of pro-black like religion basically in america we have this religious political instinct and i write about this in my essay the metapolitics of black white conflict you know my basic theory like we have this like cycle in american history where we alternate between like sort of like worshiping or fetishizing black people and desperately trying to like bring them up to uh like the white standard and then sometimes there's there's a very like vicious sort of uh crackdown on, on, uh, on black people, right?
Yassine asks - what reason is there (other than just simian hatred of the racial outgroup) to advocate for White interests specifically? As he correctly points out - the end state that Walt wants (a race-blind justice system) doesn't obviously require any appeal to White identity.
He's not quite right - as Walt points out, you can't just do race-blindness without addressing the inevitable racial disparity.
But this still doesn't get us to White Identarianism - the (truthful) explanation for Black crime is simply HBD: Black people commit more crimes because of their genetics.
Walt claims that telling the truth would be politically infeasible. This isn't crazy - there's a reason why HBD isn't discussed in the mainstream (and why it's now called "HBD" instead of a more descriptive term like "racialism")
But to be blunt, Walt's proposal of reparations with strings attatched sounds even more insane and unlikely to work. He understands this won't actually make Blacks happy (very soon all the disparities will re-emerge), but he hopes this will catalyse some kind of spiritual awakening amongst Whites, as now instead of abstract differentials in crime rates, the harm caused by Blacks would be concretely manifested as the yearly "Reparation Tax". Aside from the fact that Affirmative Action basically does this already (and hasn't helped reduce tensions), this just sounds too complex to work (There's a lot of moving parts, and each step of reasoning is only sort-of plausible)
So do we conclude Whites should logically just be "race-realist but not racist"? The problem is that even if we could magically snap our fingers to get to Walt's end-goal - this would still be anti-White.
They both talk about being "harsh on crime" as though this just means we turn up a dial that puts more criminals (a disproportionate amount of whom are Black) into prison. But in practice, enacting any such policy basically has to make general society a lower trust (i.e. worse) place to live in. For some specific examples:
-
The fact that "inner city" schools have to include this ugly protection with their vending machines
-
In France, FGM has become a problem To quote the article:
We explain to doctors the importance of examining all children. In that way they can check not just for FGM but for sexual abuse
In other words, by simply having Africans exist in France (and adopting an anti-racist ideology), the native French population must now have their young daughters undergo an uncomfortable, embarassing check-up for FGM, despite the fact that this literally never happens for them (I know this is a non-US context, but I think it illustrates the general point quite well)
- And for an example in the other direction, in Japan people can leave their bikes unlocked without worrying about theft.
Now you could reasonably point out that every example I gave is pretty trivial - I mean it's not that hard to lock your bicycle, I doubt the FGM-check is invasive, and a slightly uglified vending machine still produces the same snacks. But all of these little things add up, to make the environment around you feel generally crappy and prison-like, and maybe more importantly, to make you feel worse about yourself (the vending machine protector, the FGM check-up, the bike lock - they're all there because a generic person, like you, cannot be trusted not to do a smash-and-grab, mutilate your daughter, or steal a bike)
To be clear - everything I said only proves that even race-blind policies (as opposed to segregation, a different justice system for different races, ethnic cleansing, etc) would be anti-White. I haven't said anything on what would be moral (even if you're a White Identarian, the interests of Whites wouldn't be the only thing you judge morality on)
FlyOnTheWall
1yr ago
The image is meant to reflect Abrahamic perspectives on India, not the reality. India sucks, that's no surprise. Many other countries suck too. Why pick India as the target for a 2 hour 4chan doc (rant) ? Indians being 'hindu' is fundamental to how the world views it. The same squalor would be treated quite differently if this was a christian/muslim country.
Okay I see what you're saying now. The motivation for this was already discussed in another chain - I think it was most likely done by a White Canadian. I think the internal motivation for this was just because, in the case of Canada, the Indian immigrant population is of poor quality (hence the natives would get angry - in the same way a lot of UK natives have come to dislike Islam/Pakistan)
... Ofc, That was an era when holding colonies was already become politically untenable across the board.
This could be interpreted as further proving that it wasn't a proper "victory". It had become "politically untenable" because the West had personally decided it was unfair (this is how I see it, but of course you could argue that the morality stuff was just an excuse to save face)
In any case I don't think the means by which India gained independence matters. I was mainly responding to your comments about other countries being "conquered" but not India (every example you give of China, etc being conquered seem to be things that also apply equally or worse to India)
eh, I'm not sure I buy this.
Within a given race*, most traits follow a bell-curve. In some cases we have extensively studied the trait, given it a name, a measuring standard, etc (e.g. IQ) - so we can just compare races by measuring the mean and variance (then the (non)-existence of extreme individuals follows by integrating the area under the curve)
The video shows examples of extremely "degenerate" (I don't like how vague that word is, but I honestly don't know how else to describe it) things that don't happen elsewhere (minus maybe Africa)
There is some trait(s) within the people in those videos that makes them act in this way (I think low IQ explains most of it) - they do not represent the average but the fact they exist tells us about the average (The small number of instances is still meaningful, because the normal distribution decays so rapidly at the tails)
*In the case of India it is slightly more complicated, since the castes are effectively separate races themselves with separate bell curves. So the videos don't actually directly tell us about Brahmins/Upper Castes (. The success of Indian immigrants in the West is evidence that there is human capital there. But it does raise the separate question, already talked about in this thread, of why these people are willing to allow all of this)
Take a decade of all the shitty things done by white americans, scale that by 8x.....and you'd be able to make a similarly disgusting movie about the US. I dispute how representative it is.
Well this is the entire point of the video - the argument is you can't make such a movie. The West has even more technology than India, and there's no censorship confounder like with China. Yet are there any instances of American Whites doing anything like what's shown in the video? (I don't need a movie, but I would like to see at least one single video of any of this stuff happening in the US by Whites, not just in nature but also degree)
It definitely isn't representative - but as I said above, it is reflective of something bad.
Agreed. So let's start with reducing malnutrition first. 35.5% of Indian children are malnourished. In the 90s (those who are now adults), it was above 50%. I'd bet that <5% of Indians have a sufficiently high protien intake for optimal brain development.
So from what I can find online, in the most severe cases (which I think reasonably applied to ~1/2 population in the past) malnutrition can lead to a loss of 15 IQ points.
So even in the most extreme case (where since most people will be malnourished to an extent, we count them as being severely malnourished) such a program would add 15 IQ point, raising the country to a little over 90 IQ.
I think this is still way too low (and this is already a generously high estimate) - the average IQ of US Blacks is 85 and they function poorly even with a 1st world country pre-built for them.
So I think some kind of eugenics program is still necessary (also unlike curing malnutrition, this would have a positive long term effect beyond the individual)
In the coming decades, the bottom 80% is going to be completely irrelevant to the GDP of a country. There will be a huge internal services sector, and a small skilled sector which generates all the actual productivity. India needs a high enough average IQ to run an effective service sector and enough geniuses to run the 'high productivity' sector.
This sounds reasonable (in broad strokes, no idea if the 80% figure is too high/low)
But I don't see why this makes average IQ obsolete. Even for accountants, programmers, etc having a higher IQ will make them do their grunt work more efficiently (you say "high enough", but I disagree there is such a thing, things can always become even more efficient - and remember that China has a racially homogenous population with average IQ 104, so unless something is done our (optimistically) 90 IQ internal service sector is going to lag behind)
The 2 are not tightly coupled. A country with 5x the people doesn't need 5x the number of geniuses. You need about 100k competent new-grads to run everything in the country. Everyone else can be manned by an average base population. You just need high compliance.
My previous point about average IQ still applies, but even more so. Again, no country "needs" any geniuses at all, but if you want to come to the top, you need to have more geniuses than everyone else: more innovations will be made by 500 geniuses than 100.
And when you remember the geniuses are arising as the top whatever quantile of a normal distribution (or in India's case, a few different normals), this means that if you're able to produce 500 instead of 100, the 500 will all be of higher average quality than the 100 (the probability density only gets more and more concentrated at the threshold as you move the threshold further to the right)
This is the only image you need to understand the 2 hr documentary and the 2000 word blog.
I disagree. I read the blog but didn't watch the movie (though if I understand correctly it is just a montage of the most degenerate extremes of India)
Neither of them are really about litigating pros/cons of British/Mughal rule - they focus solely on the present state of the country, and make the claim that it's very bad.
...The west permanently conquered every civilization except India.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like you actually mean this literally (in another comment you say "These [Japanese and Muslim] people have been squarely defeated." - if so I don't really see your logic:
Based on my (limited) understanding of Indian history, until the mid 1900s essentially the entirety of what would become "India" was under the control of the British. Independence was something the British voluntarily gave to India because a growing anti-colonial movement had made the Raj too inconvenient (notably - there wasn't a part where the proud Hindu forces teamed up to cast of the chains of their old masters and launch a counterattack on the UK)
Furthermore the original government, whilst Indian in blood, was clearly Western in thought and education (Nehru literally went to Cambridge!) and English continues to be the co-national language of India.
In the eyes of the west, there are only 3 major civilizations - Abrahamic, Chinese and Indian. African and Native American cultures get a lot of praise, but only because they are considered to be ideologically harmless. The west sees Chinese and Indian civilizations as threats.
This doesn't really line up with what I hear from my Western friends, living in the West. I think for the most part, no one in the West (excluding Canada) thinks about India. I have never gotten the impression that Westerners are threatened by India.
China is wierd. First, China nuked its own civilization and replaced it wholesale with communism (an explicitly western construct). Second, China was isolated (hard to access information on internal suffering) and became successful (harder to critisize). Lastly, China became an enemy. There was no reason to use dirty methods for critisizing China, because you could now be aggressive over the table. "Every Chinese person is a spy. Ban their brands. Sanction them to death, etc. etc.". It helps that China's population is in steep decline, where they might self-own themselves into extinction anyway.
On the isolation - yes this would have made collections such as this harder to obtain. But the problem is that a lot of these things (to take one specific horrific example: eating the cow dung) literally never happen elsewhere (maybe in SSA? But is that really an acceptable standard?), it's not that there just lots more examples in India vs China (or even a country with a similar GDP), there are literally none. Of course these are all the most extreme of extremes - a normal Indian person isn't this way - but if the worst of the racial stock behaves this way, it suggests the average is still very bad.
As for the bit about there being overt Chinese racism in the West, this is completely insane. Whilst it's true that the West has a hair-trigger for anti-Black sentiments, it would still be completely unacceptable to be genuinely racist to any non-White group (you may get away with a well-intentioned joke about e.g. Indian accents, EAs all looking the same, etc - but not an actual criticism of the race)
India on the other hand remains an intact competiting (well, not so successfully) civilization that isn't an enemy. It has preserved its civilizational values. And if you're American, the Indian diaspora appears to be ascendant. Indians here are rich and peaceful citizens. They are now becoming powerful. And worst of all, for the first time, they are getting portrayed as cool (Monkeyman, RRR, list goes on).
What "civilizational values" has India preserved that say China or Japan has lost? (To go back to a previous point - English is one of the two national languages and the entire government was modelled after the Westminster system)
So the rich and peaceful part is accurate (Indians appear to out-earn everyone-excluding-Jews by quite a margin, I cannot find any data on crime rates that doesn't just cover "Asians", but since they're high-earners I think this pattern holds for Indians in particular too)
As for becoming powerful, I have heard this said online sometimes, and it certainly seems possible in the future (the incomes/crime-rates suggest a good genetic stock) - currently they're just proportionally represented Again this is fairly impressive, but they're hardly at the level of Jews for instance.
Your point about movies feels unconvincing. I've never heard of Monkeyman, and I only heard of RRR because it was referenced on The Motte some time ago. As someone who probably watches too many US TV shows, without any numbers at hand, I would not say that there is any significant representation of Indians.
India is the best country to be portrayed as the worst in the world. India is civilizationally distant (so ciriticisms aren't self-owns). India is ascendent (so it is a threat). Indians near you are rich (so it is okay to make fun of them). It has no consequences (unlike China or Muslims, where such a documentary would have implications) and there is an ounce of truth to it (India is still very poor).
This feels completely off to me.
India has indeed been improving rapidly, but it still lies miles behind the West (On visiting India to see family basically everything was significantly worse than in the UK) - I really do not think that the West sees it as a threat (indeed I personally do not believe it is a threat, except in the big-picture sense that every non-White race is a threat because over centuries they could evolve and overtake Whites)
As I said previously, you can "make fun" of Indians (and Jews, Chinese, Hispanics, etc) in a way you cannot do so for Blacks. But anything even approaching this video/blog post in tone, content or intention would be completely out of the question for any non-White race in the West - it goes beyond being politically incorrect and into travel ban/jail time territory.
I don't understand what you mean by "consequences". This wasn't a piece of government approved propaganda, it was done by a twitter anon. What exactly do you think would happen if "Thames" had made a similarly hateful work on Chinese/Muslim people?
As for the "ounce of truth" - what precisely is the lie? Do you dispute that the events that occurred in the film actually happened? Or are you saying the conclusions regarding racial inferiority aren't legitimate? (If so - I would like to ask if you also think the cornucopia of Black crime videos on right-wing Twitter don't reflect anything about Blacks)
My dream in life is to under-go a public cancellation. It means you are threating enough and your competition has ran out of ideas. They're pulling out every dirty weapon to bring you down, and if you make it out this. You're part of the ruling class for good. An inevitable 'rite of passage'. India seems to be facing (very very) early signs of something like this. If the Indian economy keeps growing, I predict this kind of hatred is about to get a LOT LOT worse before it gets better.
What "dirty weapon" has been used here though? Whilst Kulak and Thames obviously hate the Indian race, the images weren't doctored, and the events that transpired occurred without any foreign influence. You compare this to a (presumably unjust) cancellation, but this is not footage of rural Indians jumping over toll booths or wearing torn clothing. Do you honestly think that any of that stuff is acceptable, even for the most primitive elements of a race?
Also I disagree generally with your logic that hatred is only ever motivated by jealousy. Do you also think that DR Twitter is "jealous" of the state of the American Black when they post video #34839 of Black teenagers destroying a convenience store / harassing random White people?
This isn't to say I think this wasn't in poor taste. But if we're doing metaphors, this makes me feel upset in the way you would be if a stranger decided to make fun of your profoundly mentally retarded younger brother as he drives the family to bankruptcy and eats crayons: there actually is a serious problem, which necessitates drastic measures - but the stranger humiliating you about this is unhelpful (and quite aggravating!)
To every Indian, I have the same advice. Everything is a dick measuring contest. Grow a bigger (economic) penis. Your economic penis is the only thing that matters.
I strongly disagree here. I've only done some very cursory reading on HBD stuff, but I think genetics (especially IQ) is much more important (From what I found just now, IQ correlates with GDP at r=0.82, which is insane by social science standards)
I believe that (especially in the long-run), the most important thing to get done if you wish to be a serious Hindu nationalist is to improve the racial stock of the nation. In the past such measures have been attempted but never on a particularly large (by the standards of India) scale. Also alongside coercive sterilisation, there would have to be some kind of government program to encourage high-IQ couples to have a lot more children (as we can see, already several states are below replacement, and since low-IQ people tend to have more children, the situation is even worse than the diagram suggests)
Until then....sucks to be us.
If by "us" you just mean Indians in India who care about the future of their race, then yes. I think being an Indian in the UK (and more so in the US) is quite nice (assuming you're not too much of a racial identarian, but then of course it doesn't matter much where you are)
FlyOnTheWall
1yr ago
What's your feelings about this quote... Does that just read as empty rhetorical flourishes to you? Does it seem too old and out-of-context to be relevant?
Well sort of, yes (but I freely admitted that already)
They read as "empty" to me because - like all rhetoric involving "rights" - it fails to consider the part where, in the process of separate individuals living in a shared society seeking out their God-given right to Freedom, Pursuit of Happiness, Safety, etc, these "rights" come into conflict with one another.
The reason this quote (and countless others isomorphic to it) sounds so appealing is because it basically just says that the writer endorses maximising goodness in the world. To attack the weakest part - consider the phrase "pursuit of happiness", this describes literally everyone who wants something bad enough (Indeed, most trans people feel very happy when society uses their pronouns)
But to address the bold part - the fact the people have the "right" to abolish a tyrannical government is meaningless - rights, obligations, etc only make sense on the personal scale. Once we consider entire nations, in the absence of a higher power, stuff just happens, and we all have to go along with it.
In terms of emotion, it does resonate with me a bit (despite what I said above, obviously I think it's a good thing if we live in a world where people are free, and can pursue their bliss) - it presents only one side of the issue, ignoring the trade-offs (as all good propaganda does).
But I can do that with basically any issue. Since this started with progressivism, here's a pretty popular quote for leftists: "We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” - James Baldwin
I mean this sounds pretty reasonable. Baldwin is happy to have an open debate, just so long as you don't dehumanise him. And I'm sure there's no way two reasonable people will disagree as to what constitutes "dehumanisation"
Some compulsion is always necessary, but there comes a point where it's too much, against too many, and at that point society ruptures... People who don't see the need to limit compulsion are like a person lighting cigarettes in the middle of a gunpowder factory: a danger to themselves and others.
Yes I agree there's a limit to how much you can mistreat people before something gives.
I even think that the trans issue could end up being an important part of a rupture. However that would be through the part where a parent has their child taken away from them for refusing to affirm their new gender and consent on the child's behalf to HRT/puberty blockers (This is an actual problem I have with the trans movement - aggrieved would be an understatement if that happened to me in the future)
But forcing us to use trans people's pronouns (and hence lie)? No, not really. Maybe people might complain about it on internet forums and amongst close friends (I have friend who finds it annoying like you do), but I don't think they'll do anything about it.
I don't believe this is a necessary compulsion, but I think in degree, it is on a similar level to the other necessary compulsions: like not walking outside naked, not being allowed to comment on someone's disfigurement, not being allowed to voice politically incorrect opinions in general, etc.
FlyOnTheWall
1yr ago
The bailey is that it's one side of a strategic asymmetric rule similar to Dreher's law of merited impossibility
That technique is also used.
But here I'm talking about the completely logically coherent argument that the struggles faced by the in-group simply are more serious (for object-level reasons particular to a specific issue) than the outgroup:
If we do X:
- Neutral for the outgroup
- Completely awful for the ingroup.
If we do Y:
- Neutral for the outgroup
- Good for the ingroup.
Not a big deal if you comply, but a massive deal if you push back.
But in all cases, this isn't some kind of Bailey. The progressives openly admit to holding this view. If you're convinced that the outcomes of X/Y are as above (perhaps it's marginally worse for outgroup if we do Y), then it's completely reasonable, even if you belong to the outgroup, to do Y.
There is no doublethink, merited impossibility, etc going on here. It's a disagreement on the object-level.
Maybe "it's not a big deal except that it is"?
Isn't this just a rephrasing of Merited Impossibility?
That's a valid rebuttal.
But I think most progressives genuinely struggle to believe people feel so strongly about free speech/compelled speech. I think this also contributes to them distrusting liberals who oppose the trans agenda - to them it sounds like you're just making up excuses to hurt people's feelings.
As I've drifted away from progressivism, I have come to believe that some people really do feel a deep level of discomfort and "ickiness" from being forced to say something they don't believe is true to avoid punishment - from observing non-woke people in real life and reading forums like this.
But personally I really don't think I can relate. I've read the stirring prose explaining how it's every man's natural right to be able to speak his own truth, etc. But I just don't feel it.
When I call a trans person their preferred pronoun, I'm not an emasculated liar, at least not any more than everyone else who is alive today and not part of some remote uncontacted tribe: whether you like it or not, you are totally controlled by society.
If the government says tomorrow that we have to eat bugs and live in a pod, there's actually nothing you or I could do about it (either we comply, or there's an escalating series of negative incentives that culminate in death) - the only reason we don't have to do that is because society doesn't want us to do that right now.
All of our freedoms are privileges that the establishment grants us - whilst morally you could argue X is a right, in practice, the government can take X away if they want to, and believe it won't lead to a revolt.
My question to you, and to anyone else that sees the compelled speech thing as a genuine issue - why do you feel this way? Why is this such a big issue for you? Can't you just tell people, who've made it abundantly clear they aren't interested in hearing your actual opinion, what they want to hear?
We don't even need to use hypotheticals as @sarker did. There are people all over the world who need your money more than you do (you could save a child's life with a malaria pill for just 1 dollar)
There are various reasonable arguments for why you deserve the money more than these children do, but I strongly suspect you don't believe in any of them (but I'd be happy and surprised to be proven wrong!)
So why aren't you donating all of your money to save these lives? What gives you the right to, in your own framing, "deprive" all these sick, unfortunate children of urgent medical care? Even if you totally bankrupt yourself, you could go on welfare or just be homeless and live off the kindness of strangers (you'd still be better off than all those children)
More options
Context Copy link