Jiro
10mo ago
No, it isn't; adults that are stupider than the average teenager (including the mentally handicapped and the senile) have more rights than them, so that claim it's cognitive is incoherent.
It's cognitive, but imperfectly.
I'm partial to the argument that undertaking this project in the year 10^9 AD or even 10^6 AD might be a better use of resources than in the year 2025 AD. But I'm also partial to the argument that technology doesn't just progress through time alone, that we can always come up with excuses for why this would be easier or more efficient to tackle later, and as such, we might as well start working on it now.
By that reasoning we should have worked on rockets to the moon in 2000 BC.
Very few of either "realistic" hard scifi scenarios, or "realistic" speculative scenarios have us escaping the Earth only in 10^9 AD. The decades of scifi we've had about exploring the solar system have been about much more recent time periods. Sure, maybe we'd do it in 10^9 AD, but 10^9 AD is a long way off. and it isn't what everyone talking about this stuff wants.
And "excuses" is just a spin you put on "reasons".
Jiro
3mo ago
Everyone here knows examples of when the Blue Tribe does this anyway, so I'll just point out a Red version, which is squeezing of public figures over past sexual indiscretions (ex: Kavanaugh)
That's a blue version.
Jiro
4mo ago
hell, I can look up one of the listed beliefs on wikipedia right now and it is directly labelled a "right wing conspiracy theory"
Wikipedia is biased to the left. I wouldn't go to Wikipedia for information about whether it's correct to call something a conspiracy theory.
Your definition, while it might be more accurate, very clearly isn't the one being used by the rest of society,
There are a lot of things that have a real definition, but are also abused to attack political opponents. "Conspiracy theory" is one just like "Nazi". Would you suggest that because Trump and the president of Ukraine are called Nazis, but I would not call them that, "Nazi" is a useless term?
What is the term actually communicating beyond "I think this theory is dumb and wrong, and the person who believes it does so due to faulty reasoning"?
It communicates that it is a particular type of faulty reasoning.
Jiro
5mo ago
and --according to at least several well thought of books and authors-- Classical Jewish psychology
Yeah, you just had to throw that in for no reason.
I predict we are not actually going to see Jewish rape gangs similar to Rotherham.
Failed discussion norms taught to you by failed kikes like
Yeah, no.
Jiro
3mo ago
Are we damaging our international relations or putting a stop to low-life's trying to come here take 'Murican (comic book) Jerbs.
If we wanted to write a law saying "you can use a non-work visa to work, as long as the industry or the quantity of work makes it laughable that they're taking someone's job", we could have. I hope the reasons why not to have such a law are obvious.
Jiro
5mo ago
American conservatives: we're sick of the wokeness in universities.
Politicians: we will clear out protesters against Israel's atrocities immediately.
Most American conservatives like Israel. Certainly conservatives like Israel more than leftists do. This is a wish done as requested, not a wish twisted.
Jiro
6mo ago
but is there no explanation you can think of for being against the death penalty that is not being "pro-crime" or thinking that there is a possibility of punishing the wrong person?
Biden was not acting "against the death penalty". He didn't commute the sentence of every person on death row, which that would imply. He was selective.
If you're a prominent Jew in early-20th-century Germany and you find conclusive evidence that this Jewish banker you know has been defrauding some goyim clients, you would be insane to publicly accuse him and call the state police.
If I was a prominent Jew in early 20th century Germany and had a gun, I would be justified in finding the local Nazis and killing them in cold blood.
If the situation is bad enough that you are justified in shooting people dead, you're also justified in doing a lot of lesser things that you normally wouldn't be justified in doing. And if you're deluded into thinking the world is that bad, you're a menace to society; this isn't some minor disagreement.
The theory that transgenderism as a movement is secretly very permissive of sexual assault on cis women doesn't survive contact with reality.
"Permissive" doesn't have to mean "deliberately intends to". It often means "has standards which rule out being able to handle". You don't have to be intentionally trying to bring about X for your actions to enable X.
Jiro
4mo ago
he has done a better job of bringing this particular issue to the public attention than anybody on the Motte
This is like the argument that Microsoft is good because it brought computers to the people. Microsoft was the one who did that because Microsoft's own actions made there be no room for anyone else to do so.
It's very difficult for anyone not on the left to bring an issue to public attention, because of the actions of the left. So yes, it's true that he did, but this doesn't mean much.
Jiro
4mo ago
I'd agree that these are racist. I'd also point out that there have been many, many, cases of leftists crying wolf when they supposedly dredged up something racist that someone did, and 9 times out of 10 it's innocuous, happened twenty years ago, or both. Having it actually pan out is unusual. That's why this case was met with a lot of skepticism--most of the time something like this doesn't pan out.
Jiro
4mo ago
China is an increasingly civilised place
Chinese people are civilized. The Chinese government isn't.
After 2000 words... one charged insult, "Yeah, No."
If you write 2000 words that are angry but somewhat justifiable, and then gratuitously attack someone else who has no connection to the incident, having people complain about the one attack more than about the 2000 words is your own fault. Nobody is required to address your points based on number of words, rather than on how bad they are, and the one about Jews was a lot worse, even though it took up few words.
Jiro
6mo ago
Okay; explain to me why left-wing protesters can't simply have George Floyd level riots and burn DC, NYC and every other major US city to the ground in response to Trump's election?
Because Floyd-level riots hurt Democratic-run and Democratic-voting areas (you yourself mention NYC--not a Republican stronghold!) and discredit the Democrats. They have some propaganda value against the right, especially when the media is sympathetic, but they probably hurt the left more than the right. This doesn't depend on prosecutions.
Perhaps I'll add, why didn't democrats rig the 2024 election given that nobody suffered consequences for rigging the election in 2020?
Because their ability to rig elections is not unlimited and they couldn't rig it by enough to push the election to the Democrats.
please give me concrete examples where our predictions about the world would differ?
"They'll allow as many Floyd-style protests as they can get away with, but they will eventually stop" is very different than preventing Floyd-style protests as much as they can. You would predict the latter. Certainly you wouldn't predict prosecutors going easy on protestors.
Jiro
9mo ago
And then, who even gets to define what is right-wing?
This is like the guy on datasecretslox who claimed not to know what race is. People know what right-wing is to enough of a degree to be able to talk about it, even if you can "well, aksually" the edge cases.
Jiro
11mo ago
In this case, sure. But as a general rule, that doesn't work as well as you imply.
First of all, it's a matter of framing. People are likely to assume that having committed a crime predicts someone's future behavior a lot more than it actually does, particularly if the crime is described in general terms. This won't matter much if it's 19 versus 12 which is pretty bad regardless, but suppose the government lumped together some things of different severity? You're a sex criminal if you have sex with a 12 year old, but you're also a sex criminal if you accidentally expose yourself if there's no bathroom and you try to take a leak behind a building. And all that the general public sees in the criminal history is "sex criminal". The public will treat the latter guy as badly as the former. In theory they could look him up in further detail, say "well, he just took a leak behind a building", and discount their judgment appropriately, but many people will take shortcuts and not do this.
Second, it's a moral hazard if you assume an imperfect justice system. It's true that a conviction predicts bad behavior in a Bayseian sense. It's also true that an accusation without a conviction or any evidence predicts bad behavior in a Bayseian sense. By the same reasoning that applies to convictions, we should pay attention to accusations made without evidence. But the danger of this is obvious: it's a market for lemons situation. You don't know whether the accusation is baseless or not, but the person "selling" the accusation does, and therefore has an incentive to "sell" baseless accusations. An imperfect justice system that occasionally convicts disliked people on a three-felonies-a-day basis will face the same incentives as the person making baseless accusations.
Applying these to Trump's conviction is an exercise for the reader.
how do you explain to the autist the difference between black people and white people?
-
if they look unambiguously black
-
if they look ambiguously black and at least one parent is black (recursively)
If the autist is not able to tell if someone looks unambiguously black, there is nothing you can do.
This fails if someone is wearing a good disguise. But that's a general problem with determining anything by sight. This problem also applies in obvious ways to the trans issue.
Jiro
1mo ago
A poll of Jews living in or near Nazi Germany would, I suspect, give higher figures. And that's more analogous here.
Jiro
1mo ago
My proposed gnarglebargles don't pretend that it's a coincidence that transition makes them outwardly resemble the other sex in some ways.
If they are doing it for reasons related to wanting attributes of the other sex, and admit it, then they are trying to be a woman after all, they are just trying to be one partially, and they aren't labelling it as "I want to be a woman". But the original objection applies: conservatives will know they are saying "I want to have these traits, and these traits are associated with being female, and that's not a coincidence", correctly read that as "I am partially trying to be a woman", and object on those grounds.
They would just give up on the semantic debate, and admit that their lifestyle still leaves them closer to very committed crossdressers than to the sex they emulate.
The same people who object to people trying to change sex also object to crossdressing, for similar reasons, so this doesn't materially change the scenario.
Jiro
1mo ago
Or are you perhaps confusing the Dean quoted by Pasha here to be referring to me, the user who goes by Dean
You did say this in response to Pasha saying that ethics courses are in his experience useless:
If you ever get a chance, do a self-driven review a compare / contrast of ethic courses and frameworks for different professional groups with different stakes in human harm. Even if it's just regulators who enforce safety standards, medical policymakers that shape the standards, and state prosecutors who's job it is to give the people who violated the standards a bad day in court, the overlaps and distinctions in what they base their professional-ethic frameworks upon can be enlightening.
This sounds like you were saying "no, ethics courses aren't useless, go research them yourself to find out".
One, a short argument is not a filibuster.... recommendations with short supporting arguments and no time commitment are about as far from a filibuster argument as one can get.
Your argument is "to find out why it's useful, go do it yourself". That is neither short, nor has no time commitment. The sentence may be short, but reading the sentence is not enough to see the whole argument; the rest of your argument is hidden behind the time commitment.
Two, 'I want you to do it on your own' is an honest argument if it I honestly think he would enjoy and benefit more from doing it on his own and I want him to have that benefit.
Again, that's the difference between "do it to gain a benefit" and "do it to see the explanation". You are proposing that he go through an entire field of study in order to see the justification for your claim. This is unreasonable. If you make a claim, justify it. It doesn't matter how much he'd benefit from it, you should be willing to back up what you are saying.
It's also bizarre to suddenly give life advice in the middle of an argument with someone over the Internet. Clearly you told him to do that as part of the argument, not because you have a habit of giving random advice to strangers.
Jiro
1mo ago
The only way a suggestion for Pasha teaching himself about ethics violates the value judgement of dimwit professors teaching ethics is if Pasha is a dimwit professor
Come on. There's a difference between "I am suggesting that people do this to learn life skills" and "I am suggesting that people do this to justify my claims". Ethics classes are recommended in the former context. Your "recommendation" that Pasha study things himself was in the latter context. You should just explain it, since you are the one making the claim, not demand he study it himself.
People are supposed to back up what they say here. "I want you to do it on your own" is a filibuster, not an honest argument.
Jiro
1mo ago
The graph wasn't predicting that cars would go faster than light. It was combining different transports from horses to cars to rockets--the graph was for all human transportation put together. That is, it basically was looking at cars and predicting maglev trains--not by name, of course, but predicting that there would be newer modes of transportation that would be faster than the existing ones. At some point one of these future transports would be faster than light.
Except, at some point, we just stopped getting faster transport. If you look at cars and predict maglev trains, and you look at maglev trains and predict moon rockets, and you look at moon rockets and predict FTL... well, no.
It's like how Moore's Law broke down. Processing power doubled every 1.5 years for decades... until it didn't.
Because they can comprehend things like "I shouldn't be lynched", and voting for "I shouldn't be lynched" is inextricably tied to voting for how the government acts on the market.
More options
Context Copy link