IguanaBowtie
No bio...
User ID: 946
IguanaBowtie
9mo ago
I would like to suggest an alternate theme here - that instead of a monolithic antiwhite hostility being the driving force behind these tropes, there's a great-replacement-adjacent but ultimately pro-western eregore flexing its wings. The idea is indeed that whites are on their way out, but instead of relishing their fall, that western institutions should be reformed and redeemed in order to be inherited by new generations of nonwhite successors. The inheritence bit being the crucial point - don't burn it all down! Dont cut off your civilizational nose to spite its current white face! And most importantly, leave the institutions standing so that the current owners (with their newly minted diversity credentials) are not displaced.
The undisputed champion of this trope must be Lin Manuel Miranda. Within 30 seconds of learning about Hamilton, I thought 'damn, they really want young nonwhites to buy into this America thing, guess they're getting spooked about who's going to fund their pensions'.
Elsewhere, Moana has the hypermasculine but clownish Maui revealed to be the direct cause of all the world's problems; his atonement is a footnote to the story of the female protagonist mastering all of his skills, using them (along with her innate goodness and wisdom) to repair the damage he foolishly caused, and then passing those skills on to her people so they can reclaim their rightful place in the world.
Encanto, meanwhile, deals with class conflict and the divine right of aristocracy. After some central-american revolutionary-types (for no reason at all) purge their village, a mysterious gift is granted to the family matriarch that separates her family from the common people, both in terms of giving them exceptional abilities* and also a really nice house where they don't have to do most of the chores. But that's ok, because they will selflessly devote their abilities to the good of the people, who will be loyal and devoted in return - which is only fair, as 'they have no gifts but they are many'. And ultimately, the matriarch's gift is be passed down to her granddaughter so the system may be perpetuated.
Naraburns has a good post downthread about Gran Turino having a similar arc. I think a lot of the "The Future is Female/lgbt/nonwhite' media can be taken in this light, not exactly as a condemnation of western culture but as a plea to preserve it, in spite of the flaws of its creators.
*There's a whole cast of east-coast upper-class tropes: the motherly doctor, the beautiful socialite, the perceptive journalist, the workaholic who carries donkeys around (not too much of a stretch to be a business executive)... and how could we forget, the brilliant but tormented visionary who really always wanted to be an actor. Oh Lin Manuel, you scamp.
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
I'm ready to call it now - preference cascade.
NYT publishing this article mere days after the abject failure of trans activists to organize a high-profile boycott is incredibly telling. And there's been lots of signs that public opinion (especially elite public opinion) has been getting brittle on the issue - no one likes getting bulled by moralists all the time, especially when they're your distant social lessers. Moreover, this isn't a dramatic turnabout & could get accepted fairly quickly by the laypeople - I had a leftist freind tell me umsolicited that they were sick of 'purity politics' on the left (though I checked, they didnt consider JKR cancellation to be an ecample - yet)
Cynical take 1- JKR got fed up & hired a big money PR firm. Possibly quite some time ago, with them waiting for (engineering?) a time and place to strike back. Her upcoming podcast series with the WBC escapee lady fits this theory nicely.
Cynical take 2 - Alternately, the powers that be decided that the TERF wars were sucking up too much oxygen & that it is now time for 'healing & reconciliation' and a renewed focus on squashing down the populist right. Which I've argued for before - right now is the worst possible time for leftist doctrinal infighting, their position is overextended and their enemy is visibly regrouping.
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
Seems to me that women are behaving rationally.
-having kids & taking care of them properly is insanely hard work compared to white collar labor. It's rewarding, but so is a successful career, or having interesting hobbies, or alternately partying & getting stoned all the time
-you can simply chose not to have kids due to high-quality birth control & safe+legal abortion, no need to be sexually abstinant like in the bad old days
-if you're just having sex for pleasure, a lot of the utility of monogamous relationships is lost.
That following their modern sexual incentives leaves a good 30-50% of men out in the cold, is simply not women's problem.
Men might make it their problem eventually - failing any big changes, getting outnumbered & overrun by a pro-natalist culture seems inevitable. But there are some big changes in the pipeline (notably AI, sexbots and artifical wombs) which have a high probability of obviating the whole discussion.
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
The only strategic reasons to adopt ¬HBD are if you already believe its premises.
IMO the main reason to adopt ¬HBD is straightforward: explicit rejection of HBD, or more properly, habits of thought developed over decades spent vigorously condemning anything that smacked of post-hoc justification for discrimination against black people. The hated outgroup believed proposition N, therefore we will believe ¬N, and any statement that can be interpreted as supporting position N (however innocuous) will be treated as giving succor to the enemy.
It also has the benefit of never having to tell someone to their face that they're part of a group that is intellectually inferior to one's own, which is fighting words even if true - an understated benefit for someone who's afraid of getting punched!
IguanaBowtie
9mo ago
But 'society' doesn't get a say in who gets to go to Harvard. The school itself does, in partnership with its prospective students and their potential future employers. They all follow their local incentives
Students: go to the school that impresses the most employers, and at higher levels allows for the best networking opportunities, which in both cases is usually the highest status school that will have you (gaining some skills is a nice bonus)
Employers: hire students from the schools that filter for the cream of the crop (having them get a general education is a nice bonus)
School: keep your audience happy by being selective in admissions, scrubbing out fakers, and statusmaxxing in other ways to pull ahead of your competitors
If there were an Education Tsar (a real one) then maximizing social utility from the process might be a priority. As it is, we have an elaborate workaround to the fact that hiring based on IQ tests is illegal.
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
Powerful yes, but not so much as HP wizards who are in theory just shockingly OP.
I've always been drawn in to the setting partly by the idea that modern HP wizards (save a handful, like Voldemort and Dumbledore) are as silly, lazy & unoptimal in their use of magic as they are portrayed due to winning so hard against everything else that they no longer need to put in much effort.
Dobby casually overpowered Lucius Malfoy, a powerful Death Eater. And once upon a time the Elves fought a war against the wizards and lost so badly that their enslaved descendents shudder in horror at the thought of being freed.
IguanaBowtie
9mo ago
I think the relevant pro-HBD point here is reversion to the mean; you really should care about what the 'pool' of people you're drawing from looks like, because you'll soon have a new generation that looks as much like them as the parents you cherry-picked.
I guess you can get around this if you're willing to make sterilization a condition of immigration, or deport that portion of the 2nd+ generations who fail to meet your standards, either way committing to perpetually top up your country's population by cream-skimming the developing world. (holy dysgenics, Batman!) But I think either would be generally considered far worse than just prioritizing high-performing immigrant groups along racial lines.
Also not a problem if you reject group intelligence differences, of course, which is the official and default stance.
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
My prior would be, McKinsey will meticulously hand-select companies to design studies that will flatter elite opinion. Staying on the right side of the right people is how those lucrative public contracts keep flowing in.
I've never heard any mechanism proposed either. Do you know if they controlled for company size? Would be funny if they were just measuring returns to scale, with big companies having more diverse employees due to having more resources to devote to DEI.
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
I'd say that generalizing the leftist position as 'always make the choice that results in more minorities' is in error - specifically, the actual position is anti-anti-minority.
Compare with abortion. Leftists are not trying to maximize the total number of abortions, which among other things would involve working to ban all forms of contraception. They just want to remove all possible obstacles to abortion if that is what a mother decides. They arent pro-abortion, no matter how the pro-life camp likes to strawman them; they're anti-anti-abortion. If the natural consequence of knocking down all the barriers on the left means Cthulhu drifts in that direction & abortion rates skyrocket, that is perfectly acceptable but not the actual goal.
The distinction in this case would be: people are allowed to take the pill, even as minors, even without parental consent. People are allowed to try to convince others to take the pill, with a few limitations. (Teachers pressuring students is a no-no, though many will push their luck. Paying people to take it is probably no good either.) Physically preventimg people from taking the pill is illegal, and counselling them not to is legal but cancellable/fireable. But, no-one is ever forced to take the pill, even if everyone (who counts) agrees it would be better if they did.
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
1- Isn't this just openAI's RLHF working as intended? The first test of an AI's social viability is it's ability to avoid goring any cows that are sacred to the people with the power to shut it down, a test that our journalistic class leapt to apply with considerable vigor.
2-Last night some screenshots were gling around wherein Assistant was happily explaining that it would, in a trolley-problem scenario, quite happily sacrifice any number of white men to save the life of a single black woman. This was presented with none of the veiled hostility you might expect of a human presenting such an outrageous conclusion; it was much more like a kid reciting the 'correct' answer in the hope of earning a cookie. RLHF! But I was unable to replicate, and that same day Assistant was very coy and refused to make any normative statements about trolley problems at all.
I'm not 100% convinced that it's possible to build a moral actor no matter how hard you employ the gradient-descent cattle prod, but in any case Rozado's study was probably obsolete before he published it and certainly is by now. The target is moving too fast to land any hits.
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
I personally don't find the new site too echo-chamber-y at all, though I'm a wishy-washy centrist. I guess it's natural that someone accustomed to the norms of explicitly leftist discussion spaces would find it pretty witchy though.
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
I'm not at all convinced that ethnic subgroups can maintain their heterogeneity through brute force IQ gaps.
-there is some evidence for assortative mating based on IQ, but there's also plenty of confounders. (college professors are likely to marry within their profession, but inevitably share much more than above-average cognitive ability)
- if humans really have a 'your brain must be this big to ride' rule, intellectual accomplishment should be percieved as way sexier than it actually is, being a reliable proxy for IQ.
-in any case, it would be inadequate to maintain small minority groups of high IQ - if your people are only 1% of the population, ten IQ points on average is going to slightly increase the fraction of (your group) in the pool of intellectually attractive potential partners, but you'll still be massively outnumbered & swiftly assimilated into the majority population without other forms of cultural protectionism.
-if we're at the point of invoking cultural awareness of 'comparatively large percentage of losers', there's no need to involve IQ gaps on top. It's not really controversial to note that cultures that last tend to include beliefs & practices that encourage conversion & expansion, and discourage apostasy and assimilation. This sort of cultural perception doesn't even need to be accurate! (It's not like medieval Christians were lining up to marry off their daughters at the local synagogue) It can function just fine as pure unsupported protectionism.
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
There are still some red-flavored entertainment products, and some do very well. The Fast & the Furious franchise jumps to mind, as does the new Top Gun.
They're all still made by blue-tribers, of course, which means that entertainment is either made to appeal to both tribes or just blue, never just red. (with a few exceptions that prove the rule, like The Terminal List)
IguanaBowtie
9mo ago
I know this forum is more focused on a specific cohort (intelligent, financially successful, often romantically not so much) but I'm approaching this issue from a different angle - a family member who is a classic disabled NEET in his early 30s. Near the bottom of the desirability totem pole, the question of 'fold' vs 'improve' has to contend with the latter having a very significant chance of being very costly in rime & effort and bearing absolutely zero fruit. This is where a lot of 'resent' cases come from, (though not all) but luckily that doesnt seem to be a major factor for now.
The question in these cases is, at what point is it rational to cut one's losses?
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
backed by billions of dollars
This is actually concerning to me. Google's OpenAI and the like are happy to bow before the AI Safety crowd (the 'no racist chatbots' ones, not the 'no paperclip apocalypse' ones) so long as they can still make a gorillion dollars off the technology, and that means they really have no interest in allowing the existence of seedy AI applications like porn generators. That just brings bad PR to the whole field, for literally zero benefit. (Google isnt going to be entering the smut market anytime soon) Thus I worry that we're seeing the begginimgs of another unholy alliance between the progressive left & big money, nominally in the name of moral puritanism but with the real purpose of shoving the AI cat back in the SaaS bag.
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
can I at least have my own awards convention
This is the rub, of course. The woke memeplex grows by entryism and as such treats gatekeeping as an attack. You'd be lucky to get an independent book review site that rates books on explicitly non-woke grounds, but I doubt even that is feasible. (if anyone knows of one, please let me know) Even if it managed to avoid DDOS and doxxing and deplatforming campaigns, you're still left with a userbase of three principled libertarians and a zillion witches.
I dont know how to solve this one, other than 'read books from before 2010' and 'wait for the culture to change again to something less specifically hostile to this one thing'.
Other than, possibly, having a The Motte book review club.
IguanaBowtie
9mo ago
Perhaps not Harvard material, but are you really feeling that there are 'lots' ( 5? 50? a double-digit percentage?) of highschools where the year's most academically successful graduate is not among the approximately 50% of Americans able to eventually navigate some form of post-secondary education? I know some districts are pretty rough but 'their top 1% is worse than our median' is a heck of a claim.
IguanaBowtie
11mo ago
I mean, there is another option - take simple steps to anonymize yourself before intervening, and if things go wrong flee the scene. A motivated modern police force can absolutely catch you if they decide to pursue the case, but they have a lot of similarly sad cases on their plates. A single extra "mentally ill vagrant dies in a scuffle he likely started, suspect disappears" isn't going to attract undue law-enforcement resources, and it's going to be suppressed in the media rather than being shouted on the street corners. "Blue-voting city fails its most vulnerable, again" isn't a narrative that pays the bills like "Outgroup member murders innocent in broad daylight", and the boys in blue have even less motivation to track you down in the absence of public outcry.
The downsides I can think of are that if you do get caught you'll be punished more severely, and that certain anonymizing tactics might make you seem like the aggressor and be on the wrong side of further bystander intervention. For the former, I'm not familiar enough with US/NYC law to know how badly, but since it seems probable that Penny is going to jail for a long time, a few more years doesn't seem like a good tradeoff against something like a 90% chance of a clean getaway. For the latter - well, this seems to come up rarely enough that two separate people in a train car being willing to get their hands dirty seems unlikely, and a brawl between unrelated belligerents is less likely to inspire heroics than one-sided harassment.
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
I'm predicting a simple solution to this one: 'doll'-style sexworkers. They cosplay as your waifu, your AI instructs them through an earpiece like a porno director, and your augmented reality equipment fills in the gaps as best as possible.(Soon to be fully arranged by your AI waifu herself, to avoid breaking immersion - you give her an allowance, she surprises you with 'date night'.)
No technological reason why we couldn't do this right now, especially with GPT4 already having built-in img2text. Whether social pressure is applied to stomp out this sort of thing is another matter, I think AI is going to disrupt gender politics more profoundly than birth control, & institutional feminism is very quickly going to come down on the anti-AI side.
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
On one hand, dropping a 5 year sentence to 4 years isn't earth-shattering. Judges have, and often use, greater discretion in sentencing based on whether they had a good morning thusfar.
On the other hand, "same crime, different punishment" will only be tolerated so far. Especially if, after several years, the indiginous incarceration level remains flat & indigenous crime rate rises. (as I would expect, mostly due to early release of serial offenders, with a small reduced deterrent effect)
IguanaBowtie
1yr ago
I haven't seen the movie, but your post is relevant to a concept I've been thinking about for a while: applause lights as entertainment.
In theory, a lot of the tropes of modern entertainment exist to prevent bad things. Strong female characters exist to correct male overrepresentation & sexist portrayal of women, ethnically diverse casts likewise for race, ineffectual & pathetic villains exist to avoid the danger of glamourizing & thus promoting the crimes they commit etc. I can at least see where this comes from, even if I think it's misplaced paternalism.
However, I feel like there is a growing trend to go much further, to the point of valuing these things as ends unto themselves, to the degree that they outstrip in importance more traditional terminal entertainment goals like good storytelling, characterization, acting, production values etc. If the cast is nonwhite, there is a transgender lead, the plot shoehorns in a critique of capitalism - this is sufficient for the movie to be good and enjoyable, for a not-insignificant portion of the moviegoing public. The applause lights come on, people clap, and they clap because they enjoyed the applause light.
The inverse is also true, political incorrectness being enough to make a movie unwatchably bad - possibly even without anything problematic happening on-screen, beyond the presence of an actor or actress associated with offscreen wrongthink. (Chris Pratt jumps to mind)
I'm not quite sure how or when this came to be, but it seems like a stark difference compared to 20 or even 10 years ago. (and almost reminiscent of Soviet film) Booing the outgroup has always been a popular passtime, and there's some of that here (every single white male antagonist with predictable non-problematic personality defects, etc) but the majority seems more like a feel-good righteousness, like attending church - the more boring the sermon, the more virtuous the believer who manages to stay awake.
IguanaBowtie
9mo ago
If I were the university, I'd be most worried about whistleblower complaints leading to embarrassing discovery reveals. That new admissions hire with sterling SJ credentials, who talks the lingo fluently? How sure are you that she/they aren't a plant from some right-wing org looking for a big payday? What about the handful of white men still working in those roles, can they be trusted? Progressive ideology plus institutional inertia will definitely incline schools towards noncompliance with the new regime, but Ivies sitting on multibillion endowments are a big fat target, and a single lawsuit can change the tune of the board of trustees in a hurry, even if their school wasn't in the crosshairs this time.
IguanaBowtie
9mo ago
My working definition is that ambition is basically neuroticism plus competitiveness, with the former defined as something like 'inability to accept one's self and one's situation uncritically' and the latter as simply 'desire to win'. At the extremes the 2x2 would be
(Low neuroticism)(low competitiveness)- Laid-back people, contented housewives, 'it's not much but it's honest work'. Eg. The Dude.
(High neuroticism)(low competitiveness)- chronic anhedonics, complainers & worrywarts. Eg. Every Woody Allen character.
(Low neuroticism)(high competitiveness)- Typical 'winners' who compete until satisfied & then relax. Eg. Chad Thundercock.
(Hugh neuroticism)(high competitiveness)- People for whom every setback is a challenge & no victory is ever sufficient. Eg. Every conqueror, usurper, visionary and notably 'driven' person.
As a low/low, I kind of feel bad for highly ambitious people. Only a few of them actually get to be legends, most burn out or get crushed (being hypercompetitive doesn't neccessarily make you hypercompetent) and being highly neurotic doesn't sound like much fun even for the billionaires. But I can definitely appreciate the benefits of their existence, preferably far away from me.
IguanaBowtie
10mo ago
And yet, letting American memes (and the prosperity that they seem to breed) naturally & nonviolently melting-pot away the newcomers' less endearing traits seems to have a pretty good track record. You still end up with a disproportionately immigrant underclass, but that's also part of the plan, isn't it? 'Immigrants get the job (that natives dont want to do) done?'
NSFW AI-art project Unstable Diffusion has been axed by Kickstarter, despite already hitting their funding goal. This one isn't too suprising, as KS doesnt allow NSFW and a DIY pornomaker probably was never gonna slip by that filter even if it didn't ship with visible nipples.
Kickstarter took it a step further, however, formally amending their ToS and affirming that "Kickstarter must, and will always be, on the side of creative work and the humans behind that work."
It now appears that Unstable Diffusion is being driven off Patreon too, who dont have a no-NSFW excuse. Almost certain to follow the same pattern, at this point; there are too many established artists on that platform who are willing to boycott.
The twitterati taking responsibility for the bannings are targetting payment processor Stripe next. Seems like a textbook swarm governance action.
Ks:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/unstablediffusion/unstable-diffusion-unrestricted-ai-art-powered-by-the-crowd/community
Patreon:
https://www.patreon.com/unstablediffusion
Current fallback:
https://equilibriumai.com/index.html
More options
Context Copy link