JTarrou
11B2O/IDPAM/USPSAA/BJJB
User ID: 196
JTarrou
11mo ago
Were the vast majority of people literally just making mouth noises that simply signalled their alignment with the current Correct Opinion?
Yes.
JTarrou
11mo ago
This is lazy and ahistorical apologia for criminal malfeasance on a global scale.
The medical industry literally produced a virus, let it out into the populace, killed millions, and then got governments to pay them billions and mandate that people buy their products, and continue getting regular injections for all time!
But yes, everyone was well intentioned and kind, it was a bit of a rough time, we all had a reaction, blah blah blah.
Trump proved polling, politics and media was bullshit. Covid proved the medical industry is heinous bullshit. And the po-faced attempts at reasonability now, three years too late, is pathetic.
JTarrou
11mo ago
Yes, the attempt failed.
The mandate still hasn't been rescinded (for three more days), it's just been gutted by the courts for being wildly unconstitutional, and everyone is ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist. Including you!
That's easy. They're all psychological colonies of whatever the US PMC thinks.
Fuck's sake, Finland holds BLM rallies.
You're all living in America.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM
JTarrou
11mo ago
All this simply assumes that which has yet to materialize. You assume that AI is going to remove the need for much human labor, but that hasn't happened yet, and might never happen. Marx's predictions didn't come true, as most predictions do not. One can always claim that they just haven't happened yet, but that's a fool's argument. The world has ended (according to predictions) roughly every year of human existence. Jesus still hasn't come back, and Paul was certain it would happen in his lifetime. How many christians know better than Paul? Yet we have this idiotic eschatology.
Yes, everything Marx, Paul and Nostrodamus predicted might come true next year. But the odds are that it will not.
This smacks of nothing so much as viewing the current world, realizing that it's not going to change, and fantasizing about a hypothetical that is at least physically possible that would actually produce major change in society.
Call me when the AI replaces my job, and we'll talk revolution. Until then, hypothetical political systems for hypothetical economies that do not yet exist is intellectual soggy biscuit.
JTarrou
11mo ago
Jesus, he used a chokehold, not a glock. How much softer can you get?
We back to "de-escalation training"?
JTarrou
11mo ago
I mean, he probably convened a meeting of ethics professors, focus grouped the results a bit, got a supreme court ruling and a blessing from the pope before confronting the maniac.
You've got fifteen years of martial arts training? What's the better control position to back control? What's the least damaging incapacitation you can do to a person?
Should he have gone for the Kimura and torn Neely's shoulder off? Snapped his elbows off backward? Or just punched him in the head repeatedly?
JTarrou
11mo ago
It's hard to answer such generics
It's not, you just refuse to because the answer is obvious and inconvenient. The RNC is the lowest risk to both parties. It does not sacrifice control like an armbar, it does not require coming to striking distance like mount. Back control is bar none the best control position and the RNC is the absolute least damaging and risky option to incapacitate someone.
This is the absolute minimum force possible that produces incapacity without injury in the wild majority of cases. 99%, with decimals to ten or so places.
If the RNC is not justified, then no violence is justified. The critique of "well why didn't he try some other nonspecific technique which from the keyboard I think might have had a better result after the fact?" is ridiculous.
a 15 minute choke is a bit much.
And why do you think that is even possible, or happened?
You're in a match. You sink a RNC. How long can you hold it before your arms burn out? Fifteen minutes?
JTarrou
11mo ago
almost any way of holding someone other than the really specific RNC position is less lethal.
This is either wildly wrong or extremely pedantic. And less lethal for who exactly?
JTarrou
11mo ago
This is bogus.
"No, you can't carry a gun for self defense, just use martial arts"
:guy gets punched, hits head, dies:
"He should have known the risk hitting someone, he should totally have used something less damaging"
:guy gets choked, dies:
"Obviously lethal, should have used some other secret squirrel thing that only exists in the keyboard warrior's head"
:guy gets tased, dies:
" Yeah, 'less than lethal' means lethal, should have known that this could happen, deploying a taser is lethal force!"
:Guy gets pepper sprayed, dies:
"Why are people allowed to carry obviously lethal pepper spray"?
Strange how there are exactly zero responsible and reasonable uses of force, at least after the fact if something goes badly and someone dies. All the good uses of force exist.......mostly in the minds of critics.
JTarrou
11mo ago
There's definitely a lot of IQ fetishism in the HBD community, but the basics are true. IQ measures academic potential, nothing more or less. Doesn't make people motivated, moral or wise. Does correlate well with low crime and high achievement, because our society uses academia as a status-sorting mechanism. But all that's circular, IQ measuring the ability to satisfy the social sorting mechanism makes IQ predicting social success pretty obvious.
It's certainly not the be-all and end-all of society, nor should it be. Put a high-IQ anti-racist in front of an urban scammer and see who leaves with whose money.
As to "loudest advocates", I have a theory. Any group of any sort is going to have a bell curve of usefulness to the group. Roughly half the people contribute, the other half consume. This is true of sports teams, national societies, knitting circles. The people making big noises about group membership are either those competing for leadership of the group, or the most marginal members. Makes sense if you think about it.
To put it in military terms, the guys wearing the garish, threatening veteran T-shirts are rarely the dudes who saw action.
JTarrou
11mo ago
Not sure exactly what you're asking?
We can get into weird definitional debates about what exactly "intelligence" is. I would argue that it doesn't really matter, because intelligence is whatever the social sorting mechanism decides is intelligence, which is currently academic, and that's what IQ measures. We only fetishize IQ because it predicts one's potential to rise in society. That said, it's the best test we have of raw brainpower (however we define that), and I believe I am reading the science correctly to say that particularly the g-loaded parts of IQ tests seem to measure that pretty well. There are aspects of (arguably) intelligence, verbal, musical etc. that are correlated with IQ but not at all perfectly.
But as a great generality, for the layperson, I would say IQ = smart is probably close enough to be useful. Just so long as we don't presume that means IQ = not terribly flawed human beings with all the same problems as everyone else, just smarter. And obviously, intelligence in any valid measurement will have all sorts of real-world effects.
JTarrou
11mo ago
If by "democracy" you mean the pro-forma elections held with ever increasing participation from the organs of government and the commanding heights of the economy, I agree.
If by "democracy" you mean real mass participatory politics with the people consulted at least about major decisions, I disagree. If that ever existed, it will not for some time now that power is coalescing. None of us alive today will ever see a more participatory government.
JTarrou
11mo ago
There are only two paths available to the US.
1: We continue as sole superpower, power continues to coalesce in Washington, the empire grows (fast or slow), and this collection of power moves further and further from the people who provide its basis. As the captured wealth of the global economy flows into our coffers, politics becomes something not left to the proles. Big stuff at stake. The disenfranchised working classes will eventually be joined by the lower and middle middle classes, and conspire together to get around the vast bureaucracy and get their guy in at the top. This will be resisted, violently. But sooner or later, we will get our Caesar. So long as we are an empire, an emperor is inevitable.
2: We do not continue as sole superpower, whether through division, incompetence, or poor war choice. Then, anything can happen, but it will all be worse for us personally than a gradual shift to greater empire. A modern Caesar eventually ending American Democracy is the good scenario.
JTarrou
11mo ago
On what time scale?
Long term. Took the Roman republic a thousand years to bring about its own destruction, but I don't think we'll have to wait that long. But quite possibly beyond our lifetimes, for sure. You are correct that we have great material wealth at the moment, and that this defrays the impulse of the populace to demand greater power. Great wealth, like great power, tends to congregate in one place. Over time, peace and prosperity bring about inequality and disenfranchisement. Which brings about the great leveller of societies, war. The Romans fought several civil wars before becoming an empire, it is at least possible we will do the same.
Where was Britain's emperor?
Uh, on the throne? Unlike Rome, which kept the Senate as a vestigial cover for the power of the Princeps, Britain kept the monarch as a vestigial cover for their oligarchy.
JTarrou
11mo ago
Yeah, China has elections too. So does North Korea. Any more specific consultation than that is hardly necessary!
JTarrou
11mo ago
Eh, I can split that baby.
Yes, the blue cities deserve what they've voted for, no that doesn't mean it isn't tragic for the individual people it happens to. No, it doesn't mean I need to defend or get excited when blue cities get what they voted for.
I'm not outraged by this, on either side. This is Covington all over again. Nothing fucking happened.
Aside from whatever the politics of some rando nurse in NY are, the right really needs to stop getting outraged when commies do what commies do to other commies. Y'all need to listen to Napoleon, and not interrupt your enemy when he's fucking up. Here I'm thinking more of Weinstein, Christakis, etc.
Think long and hard about who deserves your support, your defense, your outrage. Mostly it isn't going to be people in viral videos.
JTarrou
11mo ago
That is to say, a proper incentive structure should not only contain costs for injecting woke politics into business but also rewards for backpedalling.
Au contraire, the success of wokeness in politics and business has been the exact opposite in tactics.
Depends on what you think is important. Enlisted decide if the officers live or die. And where the real shit happens, there are no officers, so they make exactly no decisions at all. War is run by twenty-two-year-old specialists and buck sergeants, with occasional advice from an E-6 or 7.
JTarrou
11mo ago
Where does the state's legitimacy derive?
Raw force.
Be nice until you can coordinate meanness.
Democracies end in military dictatorships, because eventually the best way to get to the top is simply to co-opt the raw force. As countries become more successful and peaceful, the more impact control of their shrinking military has.
A few reasons:
1: To cover up the fact that our CDC had directly funded the production of the Covid virus, in conjunction with the Chicoms, and it had gotten out. That's bad for China, bad for the US, bad for the CDC, and bad for Fauci.
2: Trump was president yet, and it was an opportunity to tank the economy and change a bunch of election rules to get him out of office. Worked, sort of. Even with all that they barely scraped out a "win".
3: The sheer hatred and contempt the PMC has for normie americans, and their delight in punishing them for the actions and paranoias of the PMC.
More options
Context Copy link