@GorillionRialGraphene's banner p




0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 19:47:13 UTC

Hopefully funnier than that last guy...


User ID: 692



0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 19:47:13 UTC


Hopefully funnier than that last guy...


User ID: 692

If you've browsed alternative politics communities for any period of time, you've noticed that people on supposedly opposite sides tend to use each other's language and terminology "ironically". (IE, "Moid"/"Foid", "Incel", "Chud", "Libtard", "Dudes rock") Likewise, people tend to enjoy the same entertainment media: Strategy games, dialogue heavy RPGs, The Cyberpunk genre and it's associated political themes. Why do supposedly "leftist" subreddits (stupidpol, Redscarepod) get flooded with rightoids when there's a banwave?

I have a theory that many people are actually sort of a meta-fan of the politics fandom. When you're into weird, obscure political philosophers like Julius Evola or Ted Kaczynski or Max Stirner or whoever, you're not actually "more right" or "more left", you're into alternative politics itself.

If you believe that the US government is controlled by a select group of international enthonationalists, it's not that hard to generalize that belief to a class-struggle framework. Likewise, if you believe in class-struggle, it's not crazy to notice that certain upper classes, particularly in Washington DC, have over-representation from certain groups and strong in-group political loyalty to those groups.

Anyone else notice a similar effect? I'm still trying to develop my thesis.

Seems like a lot of words to say very little. You needed 1069 words to say Australians wanted to be white untill 1960?

The problem with trying to study modern history is that the world is simply changing too quickly for definitive conclusions! The whole truth is rarely revealed when things happen. Today, people think google is immortal, and yet, 20 years from now, we'll look back at the memoirs of the executives and project directors and see that the writing was on the wall when they unambiguously choked on AI development and dropped the ball to Microsoft and Meta.

Studying the past is much easier, since rumors get cleaned up and facts get checked.

I can't see any mainstream social media site besides reddit being valuable for AI training data. Twitter isn't longform enough.

For anyone who was wondering about this, the federal government was going to withhold 10% of the highway funding.

Zionists aren't one person, neither are any other group. Everyone has their own reasons for supporting war in the middle east. For some, it might be some religious God's chosen people dream. (which they will swear is different that Nazi aryanism, of course) For others, their goals are more pagmatic, they want Arab countries to be destabilized to get cheap oil.

a particularly egregious use to block student housing because the students themselves would constitute an environmental impact

Yeah, humans tend have an impact on environments they live in. Seriously, how did we get a system that is so self defeating? It's insane that Califorians can't build houses.

I'm struggling to understand exactly how students are being "brainwashed".

Do Asians get a part too for all the ethnic genocides they've been through as well? Seems a little Eurocentric.

point-blank what you think "we" should do about it

Simply be transparent about it. Stop lying that AIPAC/Ultra-Zionists don't control the government. Powerful special interest groups have always dominated politics, it's just the way the world works. However, I have a problem with bankers/media execs who exert massive, disproportionate power over the general public, and then when criticized for their actions, they hide behind a photo of a shoeless orphan.

Well, the question is what is the difference between real imagine, and a fake image that is visually indistinguishable on a technical level from a real one? (Assuming you do not have an external knowledge about the subject matter in the image.)

The theme of my username is commonly associated with trolling campaigns.

I am aware that this is a very hot button issue to ask, and had cleared it with a mod before posting.

Terrible idpol response:

  • There aren't state laws mandating Irish potato famine education courses in 23 out of 50 US states.

  • The US doesn't give disproportionate amounts of money to Ireland, and then also have to give money to their neighbors to incentivize them to play nice with the irish.

  • Ireland has never been caught spying on US politicians or planting Stingray units around the White house. (However, in fact checking this, I did discover that the IRA got weapons from the USSR once.)

  • Our relationship with England is not actively sabotaged by the Irish.

While clever, this works the same for Italians or Germans. You could even stretch it to work for Asians too.


Ignoring the obviously loaded question video title, here's him talking about it.

I'm aware that Jewish people are smart, and intelligence is a predictor of improved life outcomes. However, you'll notice my post only contains the word jewish once, as I'm specifically referring to the subgroup of zionists. Bernie Sanders (or at least, the idealized 2016 version of him) is "Jewish" but very clearly has a different agenda then zionists do. Netanyahu is clearly a zionist, but is becoming unpopular with Israelis.

Basically, Jews have been so poorly treated by others that they were funneled into doing things others did not want to

I've heard this one before, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument that as to how money lending is an oppressive job. If you were to oppress a people group with high intelligence and labor skills, it would probably look like the Nazis forcing interned Jews to assemble radios and electronic components.

It's a reference to the naming scheme that was used by the ban evasion subreddits for Million dollar extreme, which follows the Number, Currency, Rhymes-with-extreme pattern. Sure, I might be biased, but I've been reading a lot of rationalist stuff recently, and I've been reconsidering some of my viewpoints. (I'm a problem theorist, not a conflict theorist.)

If you've used right wing websites for any amount of time, you're bound to find someone pointing out the vast and far reaching influence of zionists in the US government, media, and finance. I'm sure you've seen the infographics showing the prolific and far reaching influence of groups like AIPAC or other powerful zionist special interest groups, as well the Epstein/Maxwell Mossad connection.

  • I define "zionist" as people with a real or imagined Jewish identity or loyalty, conspiring to promote their ideological and financial interests at the expense of others. This is done through finacialization, campaign finance and lobbying, and manufacturing consent through media.

  • Race is a social construct. George Soros literally changed his race to white, and worked for the Nazi party during the Nazi occupation of Germany during WWII.

Now, I've heard plenty of arguments pointing all of this out, but what are the arguments against it?

Since I'm capable of self-reflection, I'm aware that Black identity politics have a similar view of white people.

  • I might have a high probability of seeing zionists among journalists/bureaucrats/intelligentsia I don't like.

  • However, a Black person will look above them and see a white person in power nearly 100% of the time. After all, the diaspora of "white" people are quite prolific.

I want to try taking off my magic sunglasses that cause me to see zionists everywhere, and see a different perspective. Most left-coded media either denies that this is happening at all, or accuses you of being a bad person for noticing it. What other arguments are there against it?

Byuu's emulation and reverse engineering efforts were more meaningful than anything KF has done. Privacy is a requirement for free speech.

Apathy. Disinterest.

I appreciate the response, but again, this isn't sentience. GPT is just text completion. It's not an intelligence, it's a tokenized list of words. Finding links between ideas by consuming the literary cannon of the human race is a really cool trick, and undoubtably helpful, but not general intelligence.

For once I’d like to hear an argument that doesn’t rely on Cartesian dualism, stoner metaphysics, or from people still clinging to GOFAI nostalgia like the Japanese holdouts.

Sure: I'll consider AI to be possibly sentient when it can tell me a thought it had 10 minutes ago, and then prove that it actually had that thought by showing me a peek into the workings of it's mind.

Language models aren't sentience. When you ask the AI if it feels pain, and it generates some thoughtful paragraph about it being a machine or whatever, that's not 'the AI' sharing it's thoughts. It's a text completion algorithm generating some text based off human literature about fantasy AI personas waxing philosophical.

Well, the obvious one is that if you acknowledge your weaknesses, you can better address them. For example, we all agree that boys are generally more aggressive than girls, and therefore benefit more from special instruction to control their anger.

As a hypothetical example, lets say you had a race of green people who were biologically adapted to utilization of violence, corporal punishment, and emphasis on the spoken word. If you wanted green people to have better quality-of-life outcomes in a technologically advanced liberal society, you would want to place special emphasis on teaching green children to suppress their emotional intuitions in favor of liberal platitudes. (I.E. Sticks and Stones...)

A while back on 4chan, I saw an interesting quote from a book that said something along the lines of:

The larger a system is, the less diversity it can support. Something something, the galapagos islands have vastly more biodiversity than north America despite being much smaller

Now, I didn't save the picture, and it was photograph of a page of a book. I tried searching for "larger" "system" "less diversity" "support", but you know how terrible google is about finding anything that isn't an "approved" mainstream news article nowdays. I ended up finding a paper called Why do several small patches hold more species than few large patches? that was tangentially related, but it seems to be more focused on conservation. Any idea what I could search for to find more information about this as a general topic? I feel like this could "The larger a system is, the less diversity it can support" is a very interesting premise that could describe a lot of topics, especially sociological and economic topics.

I rewrote this comment like 5 times, but I would concede to the feminists that women probably do deserve some special privileges, as they have been subjected to unfair evolutionary forces.

For a large part of human history, women have been subject to evolutionary pressure that removes their agency. Being unable to fight back against men's sexual advances results in a successful propagation of genes for weakness and mental vulnerability. As such, women tend to have a biological predisposition to certain "negative" traits.

This basically a vulgar version of the radfem argument, if I understand it correctly, right? Same reason they say all sex with men is rape: All the women who didn't like rape were killed off, resulting in the genetic stock of the human race consisting of women who "like" rape.

It's funny because I figured EA would take several years to go mainstream, and I was trying to sound prophetic in a story I was writing about a year ago, but it became real wayyy faster than I expected.

No, it's not unreasonable to ask people to use content warnings. Ousting people for having sensitivities is what purity spiralers do. I'm particularly thinking of this effect in """right""" wing communities where there will be extremely vocal people who insist on spamming NIGGER at every opportunity, despite the fact that this type of user doesn't make original content, doesn't contribute to the codebase, doesn't effortpost, and refuses to be nice to people who do. They end up chasing off everyone else and cutting off the fresh flow of content. Any online community is 100% better off without these types of people. It's perfectly reasonable to ask people to spoiler-ize sensitive content. Not everyone wants to see gore, porn, or whatever, and that's OK.

Sure, SJWs say something that sounds similar, but SJW types practice their own forms of purity spiraling. If you don't post a black square, you can't be in the group. If you don't allow me to inject my political views into every topic, we can't be friends.