TV Tropes becomes helpful here.
Old games were full of this stuff.
Jiro
1yr ago
Old games are rarely hard.
Have you ever finished Battletoads? Or Ninja Gaiden NES?
(Of course you did say "rarely", but those are very well known games.)
Women wearing trousers/pants were once upon a time regarded as "that is men's clothing" but now we accept that "no, it's women's clothing too".
We accept women wearing pants, but women don't wear pants in the context of getting sexual excitement from being women who wear pants. More generally, there's a difference between wanting to wear something of the opposite sex as clothes, and wanting to wear something of the opposite sex because it's from the opposite sex.
Jiro
1yr ago
Lincoln was president in the 1800s. It's easy to believe that class divisions back then didn't work like they do now, especially given the proportionately greater rural population.
Jiro
1yr ago
The public should be educated such that members of the public who are capable of understanding self-governing are taught it.
You could ask "what if society is so complex that it's not even possible to teach people?" but I'm skeptical that this can be a thing if the elite is capable of understanding it. And "the populace can't be taught" is a magnet for motivated reasoning (or lying thinly covered by motivated reasoning) and probably won't result in an accurate assessment of whether the populace can be taught.
Jiro
1yr ago
Naive people think "they are paid more if it sells for more, and it is in my interests that it sells for more". They ignore that the agent wants to make a maximum profit per unit time, not a maximum profit per sale.
The "they take all our jerbs!" refrain against immigration is fundamentally selfish and rent seeking.
I'm beginning to see why Ayn Rand got a following. The world runs around people acting selfishly. EAs may claim they should give as much of their income as they can for malaria nets. Non-EAs earn money for themselves and their families. Yes, not wanting competition from immigrants is selfish. So is saying "you should hire me for this job over the other applicant" whether immigrant or not. So is spending money to buy yourself ice cream instead of donating it. So is saying "I really would like to keep my kidney even though someone else can use it more than me."
Maybe your parents told you "don't be selfish" growing up, but kids are told simplified versions of things. Look out for your own interests.
Jiro
1yr ago
Exactly which group do you claim is the most privileged people on the planet?
Certain jobs confer not only money and status but a non-trivial amount of societal level power.
Being valuleless in the sense of not accomplishing anything isn't the same as valueless in the sense of you not getting anything from it.
So there's no contradiction between thinking a job is valueless, and wanting the job because it provides you with money and power. But if you think the job is valueless (in the first sense), you'll think of being "unqualified" for a job as just an excuse to deny you money and power.
Jiro
1yr ago
My rules > your rules, fairly > your rules, unfairly.
Free speech is "my rules".
Speech restrictions for conservatives is "your rules, unfairly".
Speech restrictions for everyone is your rules, fairly".
The best choice is still to be principled, bu the second-best choice is to at least apply the speech restrictions to some of the left as well.
A luxury belief is not a belief that someone should be harmed, or else "bank robbers should be jailed" would be a luxury belief. It's a belief that harms someone you supposedly care about while not harming yourself.
So that's not a luxury belief because your opponent doesn't care about Guatemalans (or claim that restricting immigration is good for them). If you explicitly are willing to say "I don't care whether immigration hurts blue collar workers", then supporting immigration wouldn't be a luxury belief for you, but themotte frowns on putting such words in people's mouths.
Jiro
1yr ago
This is why people talk about luxury beliefs. AI can't do legal services at half your rate. New immigrants, especially illegals, can't either. You can be rest assured that your ability to sell legal services depends on a bar exam, many years of education, and a lot of overhead costs such as opening an office. It's not possible for someone to undercut you because he's willing to live in poverty, forcing you to live in poverty in order to compete.
Jiro
1yr ago
These other colors are rarely mentioned and fall under "putting them in the list is OCD and is harmful to the goal of the list".
Jiro
1yr ago
Insect welfare is what you get when you take ideas seriously, but normies have the ideas a lot without taking them seriously. Normies who "believe in animal welfare" don't take the idea seriously. Even vegetarians don't treat seriously the ideas that lead to vegetarianism. Actually believing the things the normies are saying and taking them seriously leads to this mess.
(In this case I don't think even rationalism would support letting the insects live. Insect welfare falls out from animal welfare because the sentience of an insect is small but there are billions of them. There are not billions of insects in your apartment, so the disutility of killing them is low even if you take animal welfare seriously. I would agree that this sounds more like OCD.)
"Wignat" is obviously a pun on "wingnut" which you really should mention in that entry. Also, I've never seen it here.
In general, rare terms shouldn't be in the glossary. The glossary is to help people, not to become an OCD magnet. There is a cost to putting a rarely used term in the glossary. I don't recall the last time I saw if-by-whiskey.
Also, any glossary should be posted with a heavy helping of "what do outsiders think if they stumble on us and read through the glossary", especially if they think we emphasize the things written there. And if you think an entry should be removed for this reason, remove it. Don't be coy about it. You're obviously not spelling out what HBD means because it's wrongthink to do so. In that case, leave it out. Putting in "yeah, but we won't tell you" is calling attention to it and is the last thing you should do; it gives the impression "we have something to hide".
Pascal's Mugging: A situation related to Pascal's Wager where people believe it's rational to act based on an unlikely event that has a positive probability and enormous consequences, but is not actually infinite. A standard example is one where a mugger claims to be a powerful being and says "Give me your wallet or I will cause this mathematically enormous amount of suffering". A naive rationalist may multiply the tiny probability that he's a powerful being by the enormous amount of suffering and conclude that he should be obeyed.
Someone else can do Roko's Basilisk.
Jiro
1yr ago
I was, in fact, referring to a best-selling manga series with this description.
Naruto is an extremely noncentral example of a child soldier.
A more understandable rephrasing is probably "They who make compromise with sin, enslave their children's children".
Jiro
1yr ago
She detests these people who have established a system that expects her to sacrifice her biological and spiritual drive to bear and raise beloved children in the name of economic productivity and ruthless inhuman competition.
Is that actually correct? Unrestrained capitalism, as far as it's political, is associated with the right. Women having equality in the workforce with men is associated with the left, and continues to be.
You could equally well have argued, in the years before women's rights, that companies wanted women to stay at home so as to support the men working long hours in the name of economic productivity and ruthless inhuman competition.
Jiro
1yr ago
Looking at blades of grass won't help you because you have prior knowledge that blades of grass aren't crows, and actually looking at them provides you with no additional evidence that is not subsumed by your existing knowledge.
If you started picking random things in the universe without prior knowledge of whether they are crows, and then it turned out that they were all non-black non-crows, that would be evidence. It would be very weak evidence since the universe is filled with lots and lots of things, but if you kept doing it you'd be gathering more and more evidence and if you somehow managed to look at every object in the universe and they were all non-black non-crows (or black crows), you would indeed have proven the idea.
Jiro
1yr ago
Women (are seen to) drive ticket sales, and they are perceived (not without reason!) as not particularly interested in the sort of sort sex scenes or nudity that populated major movie focuses of the 90s and early 00s.
Do we actually know how accurate this perception is?
Jiro
1yr ago
Wingnuttery is not 99% recognized as false, Holocaust denial is, unless you're in Iran.
Jiro
1yr ago
Is it classified as 'substantial' when the amount of people clicking the holocaust denial link drive it to the top of Google search results?
Just because they click it doesn't mean they want it. It's like clicking on a scam, except that unlike a scam, which is false and trying to take your money, this one's just false. People don't want false pages.
No. People are noticing it because it's not common. Using it is a sideswipe attack on Jews. And there's no backdoor or dogwhistle; it's blatant.
More options
Context Copy link