@MathWizard's banner p

MathWizard

Good things are good

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:33:01 UTC 

				
User ID: 164


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
MathWizard


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Good things are good

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 04 21:33:01 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 164


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 13, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I'd argue the defining line is that you know exactly who the KKK are and how they are likely to react.




They don't know every single individual member of the KKK, they're still casting mistrust into the void, it's just a smaller void. If they speak in the public streets of a town with 10% KKK membership is that suddenly acceptable? Is it 1%? I'd argue the KKK meeting is a more egregious example in degree, but not in kind. We live in a society where you know mentally ill schooler shooter wannabes are a non-negligible fraction of the population and how they are likely to react. They want the fame and martyrdom that the media implicitly promises them, and if it didn't give them that attention then most of them wouldn't bother. Nobody was surprised that there have been multiple assassination attempts at Trump. This was expected behavior. I argue that, for a subset of the media, bloggers etc, this was literally intended behavior. That they deliberately incited anger and hatred in the public with the hope that it would inspire literal violence against Trump. And that most of these people did not meet the legal requirements for "incitement to violence" and got in no legal trouble and kept their jobs.




I think a relatively good and objective bar is the line between simply publicly wishing bad things on your enemies and specifically trying to convince someone to commit criminal acts.




For legal purposes that is the best we can do. For moral purposes the bar is much much further into ambiguous territory.


I want you to imagine, for a moment, an ideal stochastic terrorist. A person (or AI agent) who has two main goals:


    

  1. Maximize the probability that violence occurs against target X
    2. 

  2. Do not meet the legal definition of incitement to violence.
    3. 



That is, stochastic terrorism is literally their goal and intended behavior, not an accidental side effect. What sorts of behaviors would you expect this person to engage in? What sorts of words would they use? How does this compare to prominent left-wing media and blog posters in the real world? And more importantly, is this behavior morally good? Are you actually unironically arguing that this hypothetical ideal stochastic terrorist has done nothing wrong because they avoided breaking the law? Or are you arguing that they don't exist and every single person inspiring violence in the real world is doing it accidentally (and that this makes it perfectly acceptable)? I disagree with both of those, but I'm not sure how to focus my arguments because I'm not really sure where you're coming from.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 13, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Let's suppose the year is 1880, and someone who is not a member goes to a KKK meeting and tells them all about how their black neighbor is a rapist. They have no proof or evidence, they just make up a story about it and get everyone riled up. They do not literally advocate for violence, but they went there on purpose and told this story on purpose in this location to these people.


Some of the members, but not the storyteller, go and lynch the accused man.


Is the storyteller merely guilty of slander, equal to anyone else who makes any false rape accusation? Are going to the KKK and telling them in particular this story neutral acts which do not change the moral culpability of the action? Because that seems decidedly non-consequentialist. I agree with Scott that we can't really outlaw stochastic terrorism because it's too easily confused with regular criticism to avoid false positives.


But nobody is ever going to apologize for accidentally committing stochastic terrorism because it is almost by definition not an accident. It's primarily a crime of intent. If someone literally wants to someone to die but wants to skirt around legal prohibitions against inciting violence then all they have to do is carefully moderate their words to just fall short of the boundary and phrase them in a way that wink wink, nudge nudge everyone they're talking to knows mean "please commit violence". Adding "in minecraft" after wishing death on someone does not fool anyone that you literally mean you hope their character dies while playing minecraft but the person lives. Celebrating after someone gets assassinated is not consistent with an ordinary person who didn't realize their words might inspire a psychopath. If the death of the person is an intended outcome of the speech, a feature not a bug, then the people who encouraged it are morally guilty of stochastic terrorism, even if the law can't pin them down.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 13, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
All are saved if they repent their sins and seek forgiveness and salvation through Jesus Christ. As prerequisites this requires


    

  1. A basic understand/belief of Jesus, including his Divinity, Sacrifice, and offer of Forgiveness.
    2. 

  2. A basic understanding of sins., including what they are, why they're bad, and why you specifically are a sinner.
    3. 



Any distorted version of Christianity which teaches "Jesus was a wise human Prophet" or "You only have to apologize for sins that you personally agree are bad" is unlikely to result in salvation. There is some debate about exactly how strict the requirements for salvation are, but making up your own rules because you think you know better than God is not what they mean by "repentance".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 13, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is clearly and obviously not intended as a threat. This is their attempt to signal "we're paying attention to your concerns and are going to try to take them into account while we go forward".


The ad is not actually answering the questions, because they don't have answers. They're not explicitly saying "we are going to solve these problems", but they're definitely not saying "we don't care about these problems. They are implying they are going to solve the problems without making any explicit claims or promises. It's ultimately a hollow attempt at placating anti-AI concerns, but there is no reasonable way to interpret it as a "threat". It's just empty corporate "we care" slop.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
My wife and I met online about 7 years ago, which came after 5 years of my trying online dating on and off because I lack the social awareness to avoid being awkward and/or creepy, but am self-aware/self-conscious enough about it to avoid hitting on anyone unless I am unambiguously allowed to (ie, online dating).


We have never officially gone out on "a date", in terms of going out and sitting down at a restaurant or movie and having it be a thing. Both of us are introverts, both of us are frugal, and we lived 3.5 hours away by car, so didn't meet in person for quite some time. We spent several weeks chatting, and then did video calls, and then found some co-op games to play on Steam together. I half-ironically credit the foundation of our relationship to Gloomhaven for being a fantastic game with a ~200 hour campaign. We did eventually meet up in person, but it was 4 months after we had been talking and playing games together and she sent me the address to her apartment and I drove the 3.5 hours there. She's not going to not show up: she lives there.


But this came when I finally met someone who actually liked me and wanted to interact with me, and someone I thought was actually worth spending time with and stepping out of my introvert shell for, after years and hundreds of failed conversations prior to that.


So... I'm not quite sure what advice to give other than "get lucky". If you go through a few hundred stupid people you'll eventually encounter some in the top 1% in terms of mutual likability (you like them more than other people like them, and they like you more than other people like you). But my other advice, which may vary in actionability depending on your hobbies and preferences, is to try to enable yourself to filter out the stupid people with less effort than setting up a date and getting stood up at it. Find someone who is fun to talk to and do things together with online. Write poems, tell stories, get to know each other. Do all the things you're supposed to do on a first date on the internet by typing on a keyboard, and drop anyone who isn't both interesting and interested in you. Maybe even do a video call as your "first date". This is going to massively filter out a lot of people who might be turned off by this sort of dynamic. I consider that a good thing, because I didn't want someone who wasn't interesting and interested in talking to me, and good with words (and spelling and grammar). But if this isn't the kind of person/experience you're looking for then my only advice is to try to figure out other ways to minimize your cost per person. Because it is a numbers game and you are going to have to go through a lot of people before you find someone actually good.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 13, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The reason I'm decidedly centrist is because the extremists on both sides keep identifying valid problems in society and then trying to destroy everything and cause ten more problems just to fix that one. And then utterly denying that the problems the other side identifies even exist or are worth worrying about. If we're clever and we tweak the incentives properly so that people can't enrich themselves by exploiting loopholes in the system, the system can function better and solve these problems. We should accurately assess problems. We should fix problems. We should not destroy society in the hopes that maybe it might fix one particular problem to the exclusion of all others.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


we will see "scientific" "studies" with the headline finding that self-driving cars actually get into more accidents than human-driven cars per mile driven (and then you dig into it and you find that the severity of the accidents in the former case is vastly lower than in the latter)




100% this, and the way they measure this will be the number of incident reports available in some database, where self-driving cars automatically and electronically send a report every time they bump someone even if there is no visible damage, including someone opening their car door into another car parked next to the, while human driven cars only count if there is a police report or insurance claim.