MathWizard
Good things are good
No bio...
User ID: 164
MathWizard
Good things are good
5d ago
...and are sufficiently dangerous that preventing a bite on fellow officer is worth messing up your arm
I don't think this is true. I don't think he had time to reason "this action is going to mess up my arm and end my career, but the dog bite is so dangerous to my fellow office that I am willing to sacrifice my career to protect him", he pulled to try to stop the dog without messing up his arm.
If dog bites typically created permanent, crippling, career ending injuries, I don't think they would use them in the field like this even against criminals. I'm sure they hurt a lot and probably require medical attention in a hospital, but I don't think most targets end up permanently crippled. This was an accident and a mistake, not a worthwhile tradeoff.
MathWizard
Good things are good
7d ago
I wonder if Taiwan could threaten this as a form of self-defense. If China starts making hostile overtures against them they plant a bunch of bombs in their own factories with deadman switches so that if they lose control then all the stuff China might want self-destructs.
MathWizard
Good things are good
8d ago
To be clear, this particular split I'm talking about is skew to the typical left-right divide, though I do think it correlates with it. I think there are more of the female-supremecists on the left than there are on the right, but there are some on both, and this illusionary alliance of pro-children allows both factions to exist together on the left or on the right without even realizing they disagree on fundamental issues.
That is, there are "pro-children" people who are for abortion who think fetuses aren't children and therefore don't count, while the pro-female people are for abortion because they think women should be allowed to kill children, and both of them are pro abortion and make fun of the right together.
I admit I don't have a very good understanding of conservative women who are pro* Lindsay Clancy. My best guess is that they combine a strong notion of property rights and familial autonomy combined with a view that children are property, or something like that. But even then, you'd think the father would get a say...
it's important to remember that the pro side still want her committed to a mental hospital.
Some of them do, some of them don't. There are an awful lot of tiktokers who insist that the husband killed the kids and should go to jail while Lindsay Clancy should be completely free. I suppose on some sense this is a different faction than the ones who think it's literally okay to kill kids, but it's all tangled together among people who want her to be free first and foremost because she's a woman and are just looking for excuses.
MathWizard
Good things are good
9d ago
Violence against children has, understandably, a massive cultural taboo attached to it.
This seems like a case of an accidental alliance among different factions who often don't even realize that they're different factions except when things like abortion come up.
The pro-child, pro-life side people think that life is valuable and worth protecting for its own sake. Children are especially worth protecting because they are vulnerable. A child dying is bad because that child loses their ability to be alive in the future and do things and live a life. The terminal utility being lost from murder was the child's utility.
The pro-choice, pro adult-human-female, feminist, female-supremecist etc side thinks that women are valuable. Every child has a mother, most mothers love their children and experience deep suffering and loss, therefore killing a child usually causes lots of harm to a woman. Killing someone else's child is bad because it causes a woman to suffer. The terminal utility being lost is from women (because adult women are what they care about)
So the taboo "killing children is bad" is generally supported by both sides and the taboo is upheld for completely different reasons. When some serial killer or rapist goes around harming children they both rise up and say "this is bad". They both care, because they both perceive harm being done to someone they care about. But one faction's care is conditional on that child having a mother who loves them and is harmed, therefore when that no longer applies they flip. From the perspective of a pro-life person, this seems like a complete 180 that came out of nowhere, but the feminist is being consistent according to her own logic and sees attempts to condemn child-killing mothers as the 180 flip that came out of nowhere. You used to be on her side protecting mothers, but now suddenly you're trying to suppress women's rights.
The taboo seems so strong because both sides have very strong feelings, but the edge cases are different and so when it frays it frays hard.
MathWizard
Good things are good
9d ago
He had no legal expectation of privacy to begin with.
He should. The jury system was very obviously not designed/intended to go up against hordes of angry activists trying to intimidate jurors into voting in favor of the mob.
MathWizard
Good things are good
10d ago
I am pretty lapsed in my faith, and haven't examined doctrine closely since becoming a competent and intelligent adult, so I can't especially speak to the specific underpinnings. But I would advise caution on stepping up into a leadership position for a church with shaky epistemic foundation.
That is, why is the church dogmatic about something you don't agree with. Either they're making a fundamental mistake, or you are. On an epistemic level, a rational person should almost never be confidently wrong. If the evidence is ambiguous (as much of Revelation is given the metaphorical nature of prophecy), then I would be skeptical of anyone being dogmatic about it.
It also potentially raises issues of priority. The core elements of faith are things like the Divinity of Jesus, salvation through Him, and various tenants on how to live a good Christian life and avoid sin. On a pragmatic level the rapture doesn't matter very much, because it's not actionable. You can't predict it, you can't prepare for it, and since it hasn't happened for two thousand years, the probability of it happening in our lifetimes is best approximated as small. I don't remember the exact tenants of my church, but looking up evangelical policy more broadly, the core beliefs are:
-A personal, bodily, and glorious return of Jesus Christ. -That the exact timing of His coming is known only to God. -That this return demands constant expectancy and serves to motivate godly living and ministry.
which sounds accurate to me. The specific timing is vague, and therefore different people are allowed to believe different things about it. If your church is not teaching that the timing is vague and open to interpretation, or worse teaching that their one interpretation is definitely correct rather than just a leading theory (ie, we believe this is probably what's true but other people believe differently and we're not entirely confident) then that calls into question their entire epistemic policy. What else might they be dogmatically overconfident about? How and why are such decisions made, and what happens if human politics get involved?
I don't think this automatically disqualifies them from being something you should involve yourself in on a leadership level. But it's something you should be considering.
MathWizard
Good things are good
11d ago
Yeah. My guess is that she's broadly pro-choice in terms of prioritizing adult women's bodily autonomy, then after getting pregnant the hormones caused her to become emotionally attached to the fetus and so didn't want to abort. She probably doesn't believe that fetuses have an inherent right to life in general, just this one is hers and so she wants to choose to let it live.
MathWizard
Good things are good
13d ago
but where is the shadowy cabal who planned everything out
White supremacists? This is somewhat vague, but not much more so than blaming things on "the Jews" or "the elites". The belief of these theories is generally that racist white men in positions of power dislike minorities and are deliberately structuring things to favor their own kind and perpetuate the systems that promote new white men to these positions, at the expense of minorities. If you were to put people on trial, it would be every white CEO, every white dean of a university, every white chief of police, etc. Potentially broader than a 2020 election stealing, but I don't think you can disqualify this from counting as a "conspiracy theory" unless you likewise disqualify most conspiracy theories that claim broad reach rather than individual events.
MathWizard
Good things are good
15d ago
This is definitely a thing I remember reading about. I don't remember the details, but I'm pretty sure they do better academically and socially, which I think persists into adulthood and higher earning levels.
MathWizard
Good things are good
15d ago
but I think it’s best to assume that anything you type into the chatbox can and will be used by Sam Altman/the government/The Basilisk.
ftfy. There's no reason that them using it would be against you.
MathWizard
Good things are good
22d ago
If we look at history, it's clear that a lot can change in a few decades. Europe was not like this 70 years ago, Europe will probably not be like this 70 years from now. This masochistic self-hatred is a recent phenomenon, not an inherent property of Europeanness. It has been metastasizing for decades to reach this point, but the fact that this was possible demonstrates how attitudes and behaviors can change over time. Progressivism thrives in weak, spoiled, privileged populations who value appearances and virtue signalling over hard truths. When put through a crucible of hardship and suffering with a clear causal link to Progressive policies, people become disillusioned. The story of ex-leftists come when they witness of experience leftists being awful and it actually effects them (similarly, ex-rigthists often have similar stories of encounters with awful racists).
The balance of politics to me appears to be one of negative feedback. Whichever side is more powerful and complacent with enabling their extremists to cause more harm starts to bleed followers until they get their act together or lose their power. I just don't see a plausible future in which the majority of people just lie down and be like "yup, I guess we have Shariah law now". That's not how humans work. They are selfish, myopic, and ignorant, but they are still selfish. They will act in their own interest as long as there isn't a large opposing majority stopping them. So if the majority of them are threatened the majority of them will act.
MathWizard
Good things are good
22d ago
This seems like too static/linear of a view when the actual dynamics are nonlinear. It might be the case that when the muslim population is small then the marginal increase in muslim acceptance might align with female political power. But if we reach a state of muslims actually becoming a substantial voting block in their own right and trying to institute shariah law this would significantly curtail female political power and outweighs any of these more subtle effects. I can't see the broader white female population sitting down and accepting that.
When people on the center or right say "Islam was right about women", the left doesn't agree and then continue with what they're doing, they get mad at the very concept and play word games and have cognitive dissonance. This is only possible when they have no skin in the game, when the islamists are still rare enough that they themselves are not affected. They don't literally want Shariah law, they are in denial about it being a realistic possibility. If reality actually threatens them with Shariah law they will step back and have regrets, precisely because that threatens their female political power and actual daily lives.
MathWizard
Good things are good
23d ago
Sorry, that wasn't speaking plainly. I mean that women implemented unchecked mass muslim immigration, and the likely consequence of this is that Western countries will soon be Muslim countries, with Muslim laws and customs, eliminating feminism and putting women back in their places.
I don't see that happening in the majority of them. A more likely outcome is that eventually after a lot of rape and bloodshed the normies will eventually wake up. If this happens soon enough there will be riots, bloodshed and mass deportations, but then they will recover. If it happens later there will be civil wars and/or genocide. But I suspect the native populations will come out on top due to superior technology, entrenchment in their locality, and the ability to enlist the aid of allies in the event of literal civil war (ie the U.S.) Progressivism's primary path to victory is in superficial virtue signalling in which the majority of people inflict costs on people other than themselves. Once the majority of people's safety is threatened it will fall from grace. It's just a question of collateral damage.
MathWizard
Good things are good
24d ago
Yeah. I basically just treat the deaths as non-canon, especially given how prevalent and underwhelming they are all at once at the end. She's basically just like "okay, I don't need this character for the rest of the story, might as well kill them for some cheap feels". I'm not sad they're gone because I don't think Rowling earned it, in the same way that an author who has their character train for 10,000 years in a hyperbolic time chamber offscreen hasn't really earned their power spike and I don't treat the number seriously.
MathWizard
Good things are good
25d ago
I had a Mrs. Boob and a Ms. Bytheway.
Also, not a teacher, but my one classmate's last name was Pisupati (pronounced Piss-oo-potty)
MathWizard
Good things are good
29d ago
When you live in a democracy, if 51% of people want something to be legal it will be legal.
What if they don't believe that it's good or want it to be legal? Do you not understand the distinction here? Are you claiming that you have never, in your life, wanted or been tempted to do something that you philosophically believe to be wrong and would not publicly endorse or vote to make legal?
Were all of these in writing as the official agreement? Or just de-facto true? It could be that this is Greenland giving us permission to do what we already intended to do in a way that staves off international complaints and lets them save face.
More options
Context Copy link