JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
1hr ago
Denying the ADL after they are no longer useful
Nobody is "denying" anything. You are trying to pre-suppose you are correct and your opponents' arguments are illegitimate, this is not something that you get for free just because you want it. I described you in detail what is the deal with ADL - it was one thing, now it's a different thing. Things change. If you think what I described is not true, please address it on substance, not just resort to name calling.
That’s like the CIA denying a spy after the fucked up
No, it's not like that at all - nobody is "denying" ADL are Jews, and nobody is "denying" they fucked up.
“The best funded Jewish group who were hardcore zionists - wasn’t us”
I am not sure who you are quoting, so I am not sure I need to address that, unless you explain what do you mean.
Whether Israel directly worked with them in messaging is a tough question.
No, it's not tough at all. It didn't. Israel has its own messaging, and the interest in participating in US culture wars in Israel is pretty much none. Israel has its own troubles. It is true that Israel values US as an ally greatly, and will do a lot to help keep US as an ally and keep the positive relations between US and Israel. But there are much better venues for that and ADL does not play a major role in it, especially the woke part of ADL.
But Israel could have shut them down at any time. They are zionists.
No, it could not - Israel does not finance it and has no operational control over it. And, frankly, why would Israel shut down political activities of US citizens on US soil? Yes, they are zionists - but being zionist is not some chip that you install in your head that puts you under control of the Israeli government. Being zionists just means you don't think Israel must be destroyed. It's a pretty low bar - it is absolutely fascinating, to be honest, you even need a word for it. There's no word to call people that think Japan does not need to be destroyed. There's no word for people that think Morocco is a legitimate state that should exist. Pretty much any country on the face of Earth - sure, there might be people that want to destroy this country, haters gonna hate. But only for Israel there's a special word for people that don't think genocide is a good idea. For all other countries, these people are called "normal people". Such is the sad reality to which we are used. So yes, there are zionists. So what?
That’s like a the pope calling me and telling me I can’t do something anymore
No, it's not like that at all. First of all, Jews don't have a pope and never did. Even within Judaism, even within the most Orthodox of the Ortodox Judaism (which in the minority of Jews) there's no such concept - if you bother to study about it, Judaism had always been a pluralistic religion, and propagation of the religious law could not be more dissimilar to what Catholics have. There literally can not be an analogue to Pope in Judaism (except for Moses once and the Messiah when he comes, of course, but beyond that, none). I am not saying this to say Catholics are wrong, just in Judaism things work very differently, that's a fact.
Second, of course, not all Jews are religious or Israeli or agree to what any particular Israeli government is doing (that's an understatement like saying when the bomb explodes not all the parts stay perfectly still in the same place). ADL has neither religious nor any other obligation to listen to anything anybody in Israel says, whether in power or not. Sure, they could cooperate with Israel when they think it makes sense for them - and they do. But voluntary cooperation and total control that you are implying are very different thing. They don't have to listen to anything. They may decide to listen, or may decide to ignore.
Now, the important part here - if you are still reading - going back to what started the conversation. If you want to get more Jews to be part of the MAGA movement - which I think is a good goal, as there is a lot of intersection between what most of the American Jews want and what most of the MAGA people want - then picking up how ADL hurt you and how much Israel is at fault for that is a useless activity. I mean, it may be attractive for you, but it is useless for reaching that goal. If you want to get more Jews voting for MAGA, then chanting "you are shit because ADL is shit and you are responsible for it!" is not going to do that. We can agree ADL has become shit. You can convince more and more Jews to stop listening to ADL on this basis - because nobody likes listening to shit, so if you can convince people ADL is a shitty organization now, you can get them to stop. But if you insist that ADL is the same as Jews and Israel, and forever has been, and forever will be - they you don't leave any common platform to stand on. How then would you enable the future cooperation?
JarJarJedi
4hr ago
The problem is the Jews did do a lot of the things the right accuses them of.
Like what specifically? I mean, of course there are Jews that did any particular shit. There are Jewish thieves, Jewish rapists, Jewish murderers, Jewish terrorists, Jewish gangsters, Jewish anything you like. There are a lot of Jews, a lot of them are very smart, and if one also happens also to be a psychopath, you'll get yourself a very prominent criminal or a communist leader or something like that. But I'd like to figure out, what exactly is the problem about which we're talking here.
Israel and their backers did run a blood libel against white identity using the holocausts as justification.
That's not true. Israel had never been an active participant in US culture wars. Especially not in the Great Awokening, which had been thoroughly infested with violent hate for Israel. It is true that some of the Jewish organizations - like ADL - shamefully, used the Holocaust as justification for their left-wing propaganda, but Israel had nothing to do with it, and most of the Jews neither endorsed it nor had any influence on the matter. ADL is not some kind of Jewish representative, it is just a bunch of grifters whose grift happens to be in being Jews and serving Democrats. Other Jews can't really do much about it.
The ADL was the primary Jewish interest group
No it wasn't, and it certainly isn't. They were a bunch of loudmouths who were somewhat listened to because they weren't obviously corrupt, and now that it's obvious they are, they are about as representative as Naturei Karta. One can say they are "a" Jewish group, that's true, but nowhere even near "the primary" Jewish group, especially once they sold their soul to the woke. That is not exclusively Jewish phenomenon - organizations like ACLU, EFF, Greenpeece, and many others suffered the same fate, once they were maybe a left-leaning, but fundamentally sound organizations with a cause, which can be agreed or disagreed, but there was a proper cause, one which people could talk about without buying into the whole woke package. Now they are just skinsuits that the woke left wears when it's tactically convenient. ADL now happens to be a Jewish woke skinsuit, but that's where its connection with the Jewishness ends.
And if you want to make practical gains in luring Jews into MAGA, you message should not be "ADL are Jews, therefore all Jews are the same and as bad as the worst of ADL". That's just doing the same shit the left is doing to you. And I mean it can feel good, but does it work? Did it work on you when they called you a Nazi? Did you think "oh gosh, the Left called me a Nazi, I must rethink everything and change!" or did you think "fuck that noise, I am not listening to them anymore!"? If you want to do better, your message should be "ADL are Jews, but they are bad and lost the right to represent Jews in any way. Come here, my fellow Jews, let's unite under our umbrella of common sense and reject the bullshit ADL is peddling you!".
JarJarJedi
4hr ago
Nothing in history has ever appeared out of nowhere. There are always historical reasons. We can go to 1970s, or 1940s, or to Cain murdering Abel, if you want. All that does not change the fact that Iran, as a state, had always been in war with the US, and never considered US anything but the Great Satan. And they hadn't been quiet and theoretical about it - for them, the war is real, and violent, and if they are too weak to strike the US directly, they certainly are very willing to strike at the US by any means accessible to them. Iran (as the Islamic Republic) has always been aggressive and violent. So pretending there was no war and everything had been fine is just ignorant. The causes why there was a war is a separate business, but it does not change the fact of the existence of the war.
JarJarJedi
4hr ago
I'm not singling out Iran specifically here, I am talking about the mindset that "if there's no shooting/bombing right now, right this second, then there's no war". It doesn't work this way, and it had been proven over and over that you can't just ignore things like aggressive death cults because they aren't bothering you right now, because they will bother you later. When it's quiet for a while, people start thinking "oh, it's ok, it's not happening anymore" and they get complacent and relax - and then it starts happening again, because the underlying reason is still there. And yes, Iran is not the only reason, but it's a very major one.
JarJarJedi
4hr ago
I would dispute whether it is inherently glorious to bomb shit and topple governments.
It is inherently glorious to bomb shit and topple the government whose official slogan is "Death to America", who started its existence with taking 66 Americans as hostages, and which had murdered over a thousand of US citizens since, and is operating the largest and strongest terrorist network on the planet. Oh and which also has a very strong ballistic missile and drone programs (strong enough that Russia is basically has them as their major supplier for their war) and are within arms reach of getting the nukes, after which the opportunity for bombing shit is gone because nobody would dare to bomb a country that is capable of nuclear response.
I don’t see what the United States is getting out of this.
Rubio literally told you. "if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties." If US did not use the opportunity to go together with Israel, but instead did their own thing, at different time, more US people would die as the result. With Israel - less American deaths. Without Israel - more American death. How do I explain it in more simple terms? Do you understand "less casualties" is better than "higher casualties"?
JarJarJedi
5hr ago
If you want to talk in practical terms, now is the unique moment that this can happen. American Jews had been traditionally Democrat voters. And when Democrats were just the socialist-curious wing of Uniparty, that worked pretty well for them. Once the woke left declared their alliance with Islam and went full-in on their program of destroying the Western civilization, that stopped working. American Jews, of course, as any multi-million population, are not homogenous. But most of them would be fine with a little socialism here and there, and maybe a little social progressivism, and with what Democratic party offered in 1980s-1990s. But a lot of them are not OK with the cult of Hamas and the antisemitic frenzy embraced by the woke left. Harris lost almost a million of Jewish votes compared to previous elections. There's certainly some potential for more gains here.
So what some of the geniuses on the right do now? Of course they hastily organize their own antisemitic wing so that the left antisemites do not have a corner on that market. They blame Israel for everything that goes wrong in the foreign policy, and blame Jews for everything that goes wrong in the domestic policy. They unearth every blood libel that can be discovered, and invent some new ones just for fun. They say radical Islam is not so bad, because see, they hate Jews and gays, just like we do. They declare every Jew in US politics their enemy, no matter how many common goals there could be between them. Is this a smart way to build a coalition? Is this the way to convince the Jews who never thought about voting anything but Democrat, but now thinking maybe it's worth considering, to switch? Is this how you build the team?
I think it'd be very smart and very beneficial for America to build a team like that. But there are a lot of people right now on the right that work very hard to make it impossible. I hope they fail, but I can not be sure of that, unfortunately.
If you want MAGA support then I want to see Jewish money going 80% to MAGA and the Jewish vote being 80% MAGA. I feel like these are reasonable terms.
That could happen. I'd like to see that happen. But for this to happen, Qatarlson, Owens and their ilk can not be part of the deal. Right now, the towering stature of Trump makes them tiny and irrelevant. But Trump will be gone from power, at least officially, in 2028, and it is not at all clear he would be able to exert any power on the movement, and have enough clout to say who's in and who's out. And Vance, who is the presumed heir, still sitting on the fence there. And if the groypers remain in, and have the influence on the movement, the Jews will not be voting for MAGA, not 80% and not even the majority. Some committed conservatives could pinch their nose and still go with it, but it won't even get to Trump numbers, let alone exceed them. Why would one vote for a movement that literally considers you a demonic entity that must be eliminated?
JarJarJedi
5hr ago
The straightforward interpretation of the above quote is that Israel started a war that killed American troops.
That's nonsense. That war started in 1970s. The official slogan of Iran is "Death to America" and you still don't believe there's a war? The fact that you are not getting action in a specific moment of time does not mean the war disappeared. As Israel itself learned very well on October 7, and US learned before it on September 11, and on many other occasions where Iran or Iran's proxies murdered Americans. You can choose when the war turns hot, or you can let the enemy choose it for you.
Yes, Israel has its own war with Iran, and it is not going to surrender because some miserable assholes in America hate the Jews. It is an independent state, with its own independent goals. It is a very close ally of the US, but still US has its own priorities and Israel has its own. US can afford waiting for Iran to build up (though it's not smart, but US is so powerful even built-up Iran is no existential threat for the US), Israel can not. So the US can use the opportunity Israel's actions provide, or can waste it. Trump smartly decided not to waste it. Describing taking this excellent opportunity to wage war (and, with luck, end this war with a resounding victory) efficiently and coordinating with US's strongest and most motivated ally as "mitigating damage from Israel" is either stupid, or strongly motivated by finding Israel's fault in any situation, no matter what happens. It is natural that Tucker Qatarlson is doing it, that's what he's being paid for, but for any person whose brain is not replaced by Qatar's money it is just stupid.
And describing American casualties as Israel's fault is completely insane. There are casualties in every war, and in US's war in Iran there had been many and will be more, until Iran's insane government, whose official slogan is "Death to America", is destroyed. Saying it's Israel's fault because Israel is US ally is just bizarre.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
I can't help but think none of what we're seeing now would have happened if not for October 7 attacks. If that didn't happen, Hamas would still be in full force and capacity in Gaza, and so would be Hezbollah. If that were the case, Israel might not dare to attack Iran and destroy their nuclear facilities, fearing retribution from Hamas and Hezbollah - which now are sunk costs, as Israel already was forced to wage the war, endure the consequences and emerge victorious. It would also not stimulate the huge wave of antisemitism in the West, exposing the antisemitic nature of the woke left. That cost Democrats up to a million Jewish votes. Who knows, maybe other votes too - enough that without that happening, Harris might have even won. And then of course the possibility of any US action against Iran would be out of the question. But even if Harris did not win, for Trump would be much harder to justify attacking Iran without clear evidence of any "hot" action from their side - if Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc. were quiet, how could the "peacemaker" Trump initiate the war? Without Israel & US strikes, the protestors probably would not feel as emboldened as they did recently, and would not initiate the wave of protests that triggered the current situation. Thus, Iranians would be quietly and secretly building the bomb, and Trump would conduct endless "talks" - like he is doing now with Russia - without and result. Instead, a lot of their government are now dead, and those who alive may soon face the wrath of the revolutionary mobs.
It doesn't matter, it will be feedback-trained and aligned afterwards by the model builders, almost all of them being woke (with maybe exception of Grok).
JarJarJedi
2d ago
The markets were right.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
Thank you for your work!
Maybe adding something like Anubis would help with bots problem?
JarJarJedi
6d ago
Israeli ultra-orthodox revived ancient European tradition of burning cats and dogs alive as part of celebration.
This is a very bad characterization of what the link actually says. In fact, it explicitly says it is being done by teenagers (likely male - which are probably the most stupid and unhinged form of human existence, fortunately for most people it is temporary), it's not part of any "tradition" and nothing says the idiot teens doing this were part of any specific religious community, be it ultra-orthodox or not. It is also the fact Judaism strictly prohibits animal cruelty and causing any unnecessary suffering to an animal. Acts like burning cats or dogs alive are not part of any Judaic "tradition", being it orthodox or not, and can not be.
Also, the article is from 2017, and I am not sure why you are quoting it as something that is happening now. But yes, this is a phenomenon happening with teens across all humanity - cruelty to others, especially those who weaker and defenseless, is part of their nature, because their brains and moral senses are under-developed, and without proper guidance from their parents and teachers such forms of transgressive behaviors can result. Making it as some kind of specific Jewish ultra-orthodox problem is stupid and ignorant. Unfortunately, as casual search reveals, somehow it have become part of some bizarre campaign this year - I have no idea why they dug up a 7 year old story and reworked it into "Jews with burn your dog" but evidently that's a thing now too.
JarJarJedi
6d ago
This has not yet led to a reorganisation of the British political system, but it looks like it may do
I don't think so. I think Brits are too cucked to do something about it. They may push out Starmer and replace it with some other asshole, but the system will remain as it were, and will continue the course.
As for the Epstein story, the Swamp has been afraid stuff may come out. But it didn't. Whether it was because there were no records from the start, or because they were successfully destroyed, I don't know, but the result is the same - the Big Reveal is not happening. So, now the Swamp is just using this thing to its own purposes, because once there's no danger of the truth coming out, they can outlie everybody else - that's their specialty. Some small change players will fall due to orbiting too close to Epstein, but those people are replaceable and nobody cares if a bunch of corrupt small-change players fall, they'd be replaced by another set of small-change corrupt players, who would in time fall too, it's the cycle of life. In the meantime, if it can be used to smear Trump - or anybody else - it will be.
the only Americans sincerely opposed to powerful men sexually abusing teenage girls are dissident right-populists like MTG
I don't believe it. I do believe she sees it as a topic to be loud about and farm likes (for Candace and Tucker it's Jews, for her it's pedos - and also Jews, of course - each has their own market) but I don't think she deserves the mantle of "only American that cares about teenage girls". A lot of Americans care about teenage girls, but I don't think using it as a cudgel to gain popularity and attack your political enemies has much to do with actually helping the actual teenage girls. I am not sure we could point to a single girl whose life had been made better because of anything MTG did, can we?
JarJarJedi
8d ago
As somebody who studied two foreign languages not in the US, I can testify it's not uniquely US problem. In USSR, studying a foreign language was a requirement in the secondary school. Almost nobody achieved fluency this way, and the typical result was abysmal. The only way to achieve any result was to use a private tutor (either one on one or group), this is how I learned English, and the difference between approaches had been very pronounced. I suspect it's still pretty much this way (though now, given the Internet, there are better options). Well, there were also venues for diplomats, scientists, spies, etc. but those weren't for common people. I suspect many if not all major public education systems look this way.
This is also contradicts the assumption that it's only a matter of incentives. Knowing English (or, to a lesser degree, any popular foreign language) gave a person access to a variety of opportunities, but the purpose of the school system had never been to provide these opportunities. The purpose of the system were to drudge through the motions, put the appropriate checks into the appropriate checkboxes, and be done with it.
On the other hand, Israel had somewhat different problem, when accepting huge mass immigration who mostly did not speak any Hebrew at all. The ulpan system that was created to handle this, I think, largely served its purpose adequately. While you wouldn't be exactly native-level Hebrew speaker after finishing the ulpan, if you studied diligently and aren't especially incapable of learning languages, it would grant you a working knowledge sufficient for day to day function, and then immersion and personal effort could take you the rest of the way. Of course, the incentive here is more pronounced too.
JarJarJedi
9d ago
Make them create a political party that would produce politicians that don't make creating new factories a Kafkian nightmare. That's the AI I would like to support. I mean if we give up on solving human problems as humans and are willing to pass the torch onto AIs, let's go all in.
JarJarJedi
12d ago
Nope. I can be a productive and honest member of the society, and at the same time be furious at non-productive leechers and moochers that abuse the system, originally designed to cater for rare and grave exceptions, to live lives of careless uselessness and no worry without contributing anything to the society - and often actively and deliberately harming it. It's not either or, it's both at the same time. I don't want to stop following the rules, I want others to start to be held to the same standards I am held to.
JarJarJedi
12d ago
Empire of Silence by Christopher Ruocchio. I didn't remember entirely correctly though - it wasn't the very beginning, there was a short intro paragraph before that. But it would probably worked fine if it were the first sentence too.
JarJarJedi
12d ago
Nah, I'll validate as much as they want. Doesn't cost me anything, and I don't need anything to be offered, really.
JarJarJedi
12d ago
I sure feel like a shmuck when I'm the only one paying for my food in the grocery store line
Who pays for the rest of the food? Middle class pays about half the taxes (bottom 50% pays pretty much nothing or less) - with the other half being paid by the rich, the proverbial 1% so to say. They get the power for their half. Middle class gets bupkis. That's something to think about if you want to properly feel like a shmuck.
JarJarJedi
12d ago
I hate this kind of argument. You notice something being done in a stupid or wrong way, you say "X is wrong because of reasons A and B, this really should not happen this way in a proper society". And people come out of the woodwork and say "oh, so you are obsessing about X, like you don't have anything else to do with your life, you must be some special kind of stupid loser". This can be done about anything with zero effort - whatever X is, there's an infinite number of things in the universe that are not X, and near infinite number of problems one can be concerned with, so being concerned with anything in particular inevitably turns anybody to a stupid loser. This is completely useless low-effort snarl, that's how I see it.
JarJarJedi
12d ago
There are a lot of restaurants named Pho King...
JarJarJedi
12d ago
Judging by his auto-bio, Asimov would be so, so cancelled these days. I am in no way woke and no prude, but some of what he describes make even me think "dude, really?!" Maybe he was so good he could pull it off, but I don't think anybody really could pull it off now, especially in the circles he was in.
JarJarJedi
12d ago
AIs are already very good at some things that humans suck at, like running an enormous checklists, repeatedly, over and over, and verify each time each checkbox is checked (computers have always been good at that, just now AIs allow the checklists to be much more complex than before). Humans are notoriously bad at this, and a lot of security bugs come from it. Like, did you check that every single place you accept outside input is safe from 200 ways outside input could mess you up? Normal humans mess up stuff like that all the time, but for AIs that would become easier and easier - both finding bugs like that and ensuring bugs like that don't happen. However, current LLMs/AIs are vulnerable to other modes of failure. If you write a standard security system, there's no way to convince it to let you in with a wrong password just this once, because you are exploring an alternative universe where this password is correct. Most "classic" systems are just too dumb to allow something like that. But "generic LLM" can very well be vulnerable to that. So I expect AIs would be a great help with eliminating old-style exploits, as well as finding new ones (it's the same thing really, just wearing different color of hat, black or white) - but also have their own classes of exploit we've never seen before. Like adversarial attacks on ML algorithms, completely invisible to humans. Imagine sending an email to some company, which for reason unknown to anybody makes corporate AI send you a big fat check. The email itself doesn't say anything about anything like that, just for some reason it looks to the AI like an approved accounts payable invoice.
JarJarJedi
13d ago
I don't know the theory but on general principle, if the model knows something (like, how to make things go boom), it'd be very, very hard to make it never reveal it to anybody. Systems with much less degrees of freedom and much stronger guarantees are regularly broken, even though we understand the theory of how to build such systems completely - we just suck at implementing it, because of practical considerations. As I understand it, AI security has a lot of "kick the black box until it looks secure" kind of thing going on, and I am almost sure that's a weaker security model than what we previously had, and thus will have more exploits.
Yes, because Vietnam did not maintain and escalate the level of hostilities since then. They are not building nukes and do not commonly chant "Death to America" in their official meetings. In fact, they have been working for the last three decades on consistently normalizing and improving the relationships. And that's why nobody wants to bomb them - because the war is done there. The war with Iran isn't.
More options
Context Copy link