Fruck
Lacks all conviction
Fruck is just this guy, you know?
User ID: 889
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
But it was recently pointed out to me that the beginnings of what might be termed cancel culture (less individualized but still targeted pressure campaigns) were way earlier. Remember Christian groups trying to cancel different movies because of inappropriate content? Certain songs, company actions too. Actually plenty of moral crusades going back even farther. And the left of course had the apartheid boycott, Vietnam era protest against officials and companies supporting the war, or certain college speakers, stuff like that.
Those fit with what we call cancel culture, yes. They are the examples I, and many others like me, used in apoplectic exasperation when we were begging progressives (donglegate, elevatorgate, gamergate, etcetera ad infinitum) not to enable a culture of getting people fired for saying dumb shit in their private lives, because by the noughts we were finally establishing a moderately stable and coherent application of free speech to the home/work divide, and the only thing that was required to keep it, the only thing that people had to do to maintain it, was not be petty vindictive assholes who stew for days over words on the internet. But apparently that was a bridge too far.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
I think rights are more than just tools we use to protect higher values. They're the values we aspire to themselves because we're happier living in societies that carve out spaces for different human activities. I think depending on where you are in society you're going to have a different view on what kind of society you live in. In my own case I can agree with what people like Jaron Lanier says and I think many people in country's across the world would say the same thing for themselves, even without an explicit commitment to free speech. If you're a black teenager that inherits the circumstances and conditions of having to grow up in inner city Detroit, you still may not say you live in a tyranny, but you live in a dog-eat-dog world in a 1st world shithole society that doesn't care about you, from some of their perspectives. And it's hard to disagree with that when it's baked into your life experiences. Those communities would greatly enjoy a little more security and a little less freedom if you offered it to them on a plate. There are compromises to reach on civil liberties which include free speech. I used to get criticized all the time for "not understanding" how important freedom of speech is. I can assure people I absolutely understand it's importance. But it's important to understand there are different sociopolitical planes and axes that people live under. And freedom of speech isn't a one-size fits all solution. Countries do what they believe makes sense in their circumstance and history.
I have had trouble answering this, because I think we're essentially in agreement about rights, you're just focused on the immediate future while I'm focused on the distant future. Because yeah it does come down to trade offs, and it's hard to support the idea that the first (or the second) amendment is what some poor kid in Detroit or Chiraq needs more of. So it's a bit selfish of me to insist on them just because my own community is in the position where the greatest assaults are on our freedom by pencil pushing bureaucrats making up rules to justify their pay cheques. But that is the position I believe I am in.
But having said that, that Detroit kid also isn't benefiting from getting fired from his job at Wendy's for posting a video laughing at the death of some white guy whom the media claims says black people were happier as slaves. And I do worry that part of the problem is that modern society sees rights too much as values and not enough as tools. Like we've sacralised the idea of the human right, and now everything from the internet to hormone treatment is a human right that people are willing to burn down society over. And maybe I'm pattern matching too aggressively, but I can't help but see a through line from the increasing abrogation of the first amendment under Obama and subsequent administrations and the rise in chaos online and off. It's obviously not the incitement, but I think it definitely plays a part.
Sorry this isn't more coherent, it's a challenging subject to deal with. You nailed it with your second paragraph though.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
Do you really fight for that out of some inherent admiration for a higher value or because tolerating those views is a price you pay for advancing good ideas in hopes that they flourish? I'll take the heat for my own stance on this but I don't regard free speech as an absolute value even though it's virtually impossible to overstate it's importance. It doesn't give you the right to harass people. It doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of your actions or statements. And I don't regard free speech as a value so high that it means we should burn the whole house down so one person can have his right to say something he's highly attached to.
I don't think there's a difference really. Rights aren't prayers, they are tools we use to protect society. I do think free speech and expression is the most important right, but that's because it is the last line of defence against the tyrannical - even if they lock you up, if you can talk you have the opportunity to convince your captor to let you go. Sure in practice that is very rare, but the potential is better than nothing. In abstract I can agree we shouldn't burn the whole thing down just because one guy can't shout obscenities at passers-by, but in practice that historically means I'm next. Unlike many on the right these days I will still defend the right to speak of people I find abhorrent, which is why that congressman annoys me. But fighting for it, that is fighting for your own demise.
The sad part, in my view, is that many of those who will suffer the consequences of 'belittling' speech will have been indoctrinated into it and raised in an environment where their speech didn't have consequences. They are victims of a zeitgeist shift, but to them, unaware of history, it will look like right wing authoritarianism run rampant. The cycle will begin anew. I'd be worried about that if I didn't think it inevitable.
Then you're fighting for a near non-existent number of people who feel the same way that you do. Unfortunately that isn't what most people want. More people will fight for privilege than principle. Inside of everyone (and especially where it concerns ideological lines) you're never going to coax the majority of people out of their friend/enemy distinction; whether they'll admit it to you or not.
Oh man, I know. And looking back, my life would have been much easier - and better - if I'd embraced the friend/enemy distinction. I used to feel like a poster child for 'here's why you shouldn't live by your principles.' But I think I'm just meant to stick to a smaller community, once I started focusing more on improving my community on the local level my life improved immeasurably. Liberal democracy is not entirely stable in a polarised society I think, it tilts back and forth. People like me will never be in power, but we remind those in power that their righteousness is false, and they can and should do better, which - up to a point - is useful imo. It is also probably cope, but it works for me.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
I don't think assessing tone requires as much prompt engineering as honest and objective feedback, which is largely a fool's game ime - I think I've mentioned my 'Tiger mom' prompt before, and as far as 'non sycophantic feedback without writing a 3k prompt' goes it's good, but compared to another person it's terrible.
My error was in that direction though - if you prompt grok in a fresh private chat to assess those posts it picks up animosity in the second post just fine, but I did it in the app, which remembers I have schizophrenia, so I think I'd already biased it in my favour.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
That congressman is a dumb asshole feigning virtue for political points. I think calling to lock up people who made belittling tweets about Kirk is worse than authoritarian, it is spitting on the very principles Kirk championed - free expression and debate.
That said, it is because I remember 2020 that I struggle to care. The people currently cheering for Kirk's murder wouldn't return the favour, they would silence me as quick as lightning given the opportunity. I am happy to fight for people who have views I find abhorrent. I can push down the disgust I feel and focus on the principle. I will not fight for people who would turn around and lock me up for fighting for their right to speak. The left were warned over and over and over again that they wouldn't remain in power forever and shouldn't do anything they wouldn't like done to them. We shouted until we were blue in the face that if they weaponised expression they would suffer when the right took charge once again. We were ignored at best and more often ostracised.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
Yes. Well, like I said I generated my own reactions, I just checked the tone. I am an idiot savant at reading tone, sometimes I nail it, usually I have no idea what's going on. And also profanity is my muse, when I get started attacking someone I have a lot of trouble reining it in. Especially when intelligent people I respect are being thoughtlessly cruel fucking idiots to some of the least dangerous people on the fucking planet. Tt. Moving on.
Like I said, it has immeasurably improved my ability to not piss off everyone around me. So maybe it's a placebo effect, sycophantically telling me my posts are lucid (except for the times it didn't) because they were fine in the first place. I think that's unlikely, my unthinking immediate reactions based on misfiring brain cells were only ever tolerated on /r/cwr, but more than that I have seen the improved outcomes.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
And I am sure that you have plenty of data to back that up right? Or any data? Because lots of studies have been done on this and actually schizophrenics who turn violent are overwhelmingly dealing with substance abuse, which turns everyone - even normies - into violent psychopaths. Schizophrenics are more likely to commit violence than normies, that would be a defensible statement, but no, they are not more likely to inflict aggression than to suffer it.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
Can I assume what you find wrong is something to do with the idea of me outsourcing my determination of the lucidity of what I wrote to an AI or maybe the AI that is considered unhinged?
I put every post that I think has the potential for mod action (well, except when I'm too angry to care) through an AI first and ask if I'm being reasonable and lucid. I would have done this my entire motte history if I could, it feels to me like I got mod action on two types of posts - posts where I fly off the handle (so mod action is fair) and posts where I am struggling to believe someone posted something with what I consider obvious flaws (and mod action is imo unfair) - and it has been a huge weight off my shoulders (up until now) to not have to worry I was swearing too much or making oblique references or that statements I wrote in exasperation or incredulity would appear aggressive from a different perspective. I don't outsource my thinking to it in my perspective - I have no interest in letting an AI argue for me, but I do use it to shore up my Chinese room approach to the psychology of other people. It has also immeasurably improved my ability to not piss off everyone around me.
Also I currently have access to Supergrok, and in my opinion unless you tell it to be unhinged (in which case it's nuts) it's usually on par with Gemini. I know this because I have been asking it and Gemini the same questions for the last week. Of course it failed the first time I decide to rely on it exclusively, such is life.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
Alright, Gemini explained that my incredulous shorthand looks the same as anger to an outside observer, and I can see how it reads that way now so I am sorry. I am annoyed though, because I anticipated a mod response, as I do in any interaction with Skibboleth, and Grok cleared both those posts as lucid and even handed before I posted them.
Edit: clarity
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
That was always the alternative? You did it to belittle me, to paint my perfectly lucid and even tempered replies as unhinged. Because you had nothing else.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
Well it's a good thing I checked my notifications before replying to one of the other lazy attacks on the mentally ill. Why are you bolding voluntarily by the way?
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
Yeah I would run too. Because it isn't willingness to consider alternative explanations, that is merely a pat justification. You immediately came up with your alternative, in the exact same post as your original, and your alternative is to lie and claim the original explanation. That is what makes you duplicitous. That and your feigned moral outrage while you scramble to throw the mentally ill under the bus.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
It is generally pro-social to maintain the idea that you'd have to be a deranged nut to resort to assassination
Not if you're schizophrenic it isn't. And the fact you have offered this alternative take makes it impossible for me to believe you believe your first claim, since you are in effect saying that you will make the first claim whether you believe it or not because it is better for society to throw the mentally ill under a bus than it is to be honest about what got him shot (poisonous ideology).
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
Borders and liberals coexisted for a long time before everyone lost their minds. And conservatives were equally useless at arguing against progressives on this topic, as the US demonstrated.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
How would you feel if we could achieve a 1 to 1 The Prestige style copy where the copy believes they're the real one? I know hand waving getting there has real 'draw the rest of the owl' energy but I'm interested in your answer anyway.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
So it's a warning? I'm happy to take it for what it is, I wanted clarity. I don't think that's out of line. Do you not wear the hat for warnings any longer?
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
I mean TBH I did submit my post and then go back and instantly edit it because I felt the specific question (as opposed to the context) was worth addressing. I'll come back to that.
I didn't mean to imply that you were being somehow duplicitous by using the fake edit, if that was the impression I gave - even if you just decided you didn't want to mess with the flow of your post, it's just a part of forum culture imo, it happens, and I don't see much difference between seconds before/seconds after - but it also feels
But yes, I am upset and I obviously have a bit of a hair trigger for this issue, however I would have been less frustrated with your response if you had said you could diagnose psychosis in one post - that's undeniably possible. But I guess the real sticking point for me is that the op is clearly not schizophrenic. Call it insane (in every sense) stolen valour. (Obviously it's more like the opposite, I don't want others to suffer the same stigma I and others I know have and I know people's brains don't delineate between shitposting and advice so neatly.)
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
Is this a warning or a ban? Because I don't see your hat. If your response here is as a user, and simply using the language of modding for some reason thanks for your concern, but I have always been aware I have to fight my own battles here and I am perfectly content to.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
That's weird, I thought you answered the question perfectly well before your fake edit - it was unprofessional and not the way you would have gone about it, and you need other symptoms to diagnose schizophrenia. You just caveated it with the fact that you are sometimes unprofessional. My assumption is that if this was a beauty forum and someone pointed out that it's fucking disgusting of you to casually label someone 'guaranteed a landwhale in my medical opinion' for having a bp of 190/120 you'd realise you made a mistake and cut it out. Then your explanation of what schizophrenia is further made my point.
Also I'm fully aware of where my feelings come from, they come from the knowledge that I joined a community based around the writing of a psychiatrist I respect, a psychiatrist I know would never treat schizophrenia so flippantly despite using it quite a bit as an example in broader discussions of mental illness and the culture war. They come from my expectation that other doctors had a similar level of self awareness and, if they acted unprofessionally and were called out, wouldn't spin a bunch of childish bullshit excuses up like 'waahhh other professions aren't held to the same standard! I'm not on the clock at the moment! You didn't bitch at the laymen! Prove he isn't schizophrenic, go on then!' They come from learning that you too claim you diagnosed schizophrenia in one post despite just explaining earlier in your post that no, you fucking didn't. You at best spotted symptoms much more obvious than anything in the op, because the writer of the op isn't fucking schizophrenic.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
You might not find it insulting to have someone casually dismiss a post that is sloppily written stream of consciousness, but expressing coherent thoughts with philosophical precedent with two fucking sentences: "Not enough em-dashes to be standard LLM psychosis. Perhaps standard homegrown schizophrenia?" but I assume you aren't fucking schizophrenic. I have said before that I have learned to tolerate that kind of casual prejudice, and you will note I didn't object to anyone else saying anything like that. It doesn't particularly bother me when members of the public talk like that. But a fucking doctor casually lobbing a term that instantly makes people lose respect for you (and any psychiatrist who doesn't know that needs to prove to me they still have a license) out like that IS insulting. It is insulting to schizophrenics, it is insulting to doctors and it is insulting to the concept of the motte as a place where fucking smart people who think things through go to talk about shit they can't talk about elsewhere.
I only objected after the pivot from that to 'well hold on I know I flippantly dismissed you with the barest thought moments ago, but I am a doctor so you should listen to me'. Like I said, you can shitpost, or claim the mantle of medical professional. One or the other. Pivoting like that, assuming the freedom of shitposting and then pivoting to demand the respect of your profession is point blank unprofessional behaviour for a doctor and just outright fucking stupid for a fucking psychiatrist.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
Holy fucking shit this is fucking retarded. @Throwaway05 how many posts does it take to diagnose schizophrenia?
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
Do I look like I'm on the clock here?
Off the clock doesn't mean ethics are optional does it? Are you allowed to fuck your patients after work?
An "insult" implies, at least slightly, that there's no merit to my claims.
As they used to teach journalists, the primary metrics of an insult are delivery, intent and impact. Even a merited comment can be insulting if it's used to demean someone publicly. And legally we're talking ethics, not lawsuits. Your delivery started with labeling it as 'LLM psychosis' or 'homegrown schizophrenia,' then backpedaled to psychedelics and 'high risk'. That's not constructive critique, it's pathologizing a philosophical post.
I am intimately familiar with crankery, and I know the symptoms of someone at very high risk of psychosis.
You should try focusing on ethics for a bit. Or diagnostics. I don't care how 'intimate' you are with crankery, you can't fucking diagnose it off an internet post. That's what is supposed to set psychiatrists apart from armchair psychiatrists, part of what you are supposed to learn at medical school isn't how to spot crankery it's how to distinguish between spotting crankery and being a dick and why diagnosing over one internet post is always the second one.
Someone offering legal, programming or engineering advice would not be held to the same acuritny.
IANAL is an age old internet acronym because lawyers are held up to a similar level of scrutiny. You are correct that it is not the same however. NAD didn't take off the same way, because most of your profession know not to give medical advice over the internet. Most of them understand that they have traded shitposting for a higher level of respect, for the opportunity to be listened to when they do leverage their medical credentials. I can see a scenario where you notice a regular poster change over time, or fixate and spiral, and warily offering them advice. You called this guy a schizophrenic who fried his brains on drugs after ONE OP.
In this case, I invite you to examine his arguments and see if your claims that I'm being irresponsible stand.
My claims stand. I didn't read the op again, it wouldn't change anything. My claims would stand even if he'd smeared shit and blood on a picture of the Pope, scanned it and attached it as an op. My claims are not about his behaviour, they are about yours.
If you are really determined to maintain your right to shitpost with your credentials, show me what in the op you decided met the diagnostic criteria for either schizophrenia or drug-induced psychosis.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1mo ago
That's not slightly rude of you, it's unprofessional as fuck. You are leveraging your medical credentials to insult a guy on the internet. What is fucking remiss of you is to diagnose someone based on a collection of posts, and then to broadcast that pseudo-diagnosis in a public forum.
You get to shitpost or enjoy the prestige and respect of a doctor. Pick one.
I have been playing Hollow Knight Silksong. God damn, I agree with pretty much all of the criticism - it's brutally difficult and more of an expansion for hollow knight (gameplay wise) than a sequel. But I love the shit out of it. The visuals are great, Hornet makes a great protagonist, the story is intriguing and it is packed with cute and interesting npcs. And the music is just phenomenal, absolutely gorgeous. But yeah it's hard to recommend to anyone who doesn't already froth Hollow Knight. There are enemies in the second biome who do two masks of damage a hit, meaning you are three hits from death and there is a buttload of pogoing necessary for progress, and since hornet's pogoing is different to the vessel's (diagonal instead of straight down) you have to learn a new system - and forget the muscle memory of the old system. But if you liked hollow knight you should definitely play it (although you probably already are) and if you haven't played hollow knight but like metroidvanias or souls likes, get on it!
More options
Context Copy link