@Misembrance's banner p

Misembrance


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 November 22 14:49:13 UTC

				

User ID: 1912

Misembrance


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 November 22 14:49:13 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1912

Have you seen the documentary Dear Zachary? This was almost exactly the reasoning used when keeping Shirley Turner out of prison after murdering her boyfriend, that she was unlikely to hurt anyone else. Of course she went on to kill her son.

Perhaps a more realistic hypothetical I have seen discussed before: Imagine a pill is invented that “cures” transgenderism, as in eliminates dysphoria and causes your gender identity to painlessly conform to your birth sex. Would leftists support this? It seems undeniably good, even if you support gender affirming care as it is the perfect treatment. But I have a hard time imagining leftists actually supporting this, which I think reveals that transgenderism is actually a preferred state tk cisgenderism

motherhood today is very stressful

It has literally never been easier

thoughts and prayers for those wireheaded by the kafkaesque stochastic egregore

Even so, Eva Kor, an Auschwitz survivor, did it. And in a sense, so did World War II veteran Kurt Vonnegut in The Sirens of Titan

Talk is cheap. Hitler is dead so there are no stakes to saying “I forgive him.” You put Eva Kor in a room with living Hitler and the power to kill him and we would see if he was really forgiven. Outside of that this is just virtue signaling

Why does their appreciation matter? This reads like: “If you don’t give your political opponents everything they want they might be unhappy”

Once again, Florida teachers are free to have students read materials on both sides of the issues.

In practice how do you think this will turn out though? I have a hard time believing you are being honest with this act of “Who knows, all the teachers of AP Af Am Studies might just turn out to be David Duke, Chris Rufo and Charles Murray!”

You know damn well 99% of teachers for this course will either be true believers or willing to parrot the true believers in presenting this stuff as uncritically true

There are probabilities concerning two separate questions that are being talked about here.

  1. Is the coin fair?

  2. What is the likelihood the next flip will be heads/tails?

If a Bayesian starts with no reason for a prior belief the coin is biased in a particular direction then their prior probability for the next flip being heads will be 50% (given that any uncertainty the coin is biased to heads is equally balanced by the possibility it is biased to tails)

But their prior belief the coin is fair may be at 90%.

If you flip 1000 times and it comes up 500 heads and 500 tails, then perhaps your belief the next flip is heads is still at 50%, but your belief the coin is fair has gone up to 99.9%

Who is Big Serge and has he predicted anything correctly?

It feels like a successful intelligence operation, similar to school shootings by suspects who were on the FBI’s radar

Are you saying school shootings are intelligence operations? Are you saying this guy was FBI or instigated by FBI? Very offhand underspecified remark for such a wild implication

You are misunderstanding Bayes. For your coin example, your prior belief the coin is fair is most likely not 50%. I’ve never encountered a coin I knew to be unfair in my life, so my prior belief that some random coin is fair is probably upwards of 90%. If I toss the coin a bunch and it comes up pretty much 50-50 perhaps I update my belief that the coin is fair to be 99.9% certainty.

As for whether or not you divorce your wife, well that’s not Bayes Theorem that’s just how you choose to apply the beliefs you have. I am highly certain my wife isn’t cheating on me, to be fair I can’t really say 100% certain, but I’m as close to 100% as I think anyone can reasonably be without stalking or imprisoning their spouse, so call it maybe 99%, which is good enough for me to not divorce her. If some event occurred that caused me to update my belief (she starts having weekly lunches with a male friend) then I would have to choose what to do with that updated belief.

And the choice is rarely so binary as divorce/not divorce. If my certainty in her fidelity fell to 90%, maybe I would just have a conversation with her about her new male friend. Maybe at 80% I’d ask her to please stop having lunch alone with this guy, and so on.

A thief and felon, who somehow managed to convince the right people to let him on the ballots

I think the process here is key. Was any voting necessary? How was this decision made?

This seems like a legitimate failure of the local Republican party worthy of criticism, with proper perspective of course not as an indictment of the party nationally. This post is like an inverse “Republicans Pounce!”

Yes, I believe that most claimed allergies are fake. Just based on personal experience, I know one person that claims an allergy to mushrooms which I guarantee is just an aversion to their taste/texture, I know another two that claim allergies to “artificial food coloring” which is surely just some form of chemophobia and I know another with vaguely defined “gluten sensitivity”. Tellingly none of them have strongly definite externally observable reactions to the allergen.

I have to go off on this. The trend (and it very much is a trend) to have a personal, unique set of food “sensitivities” is very annoying to me, and makes hosting guests near impossible

I recently invited an acquaintance and his wife over for a homecooked dinner and was informed he had a gluten “sensitivity”. Not celiac or a deathly allergy mind you, just a vaguely termed sensitivity. It occurred to me how selfish this is, in a way. Because if more than one person has such non-overlapping sensitivities you pretty rapidly reach a point where the intersection of acceptable foods is empty. If one person is gluten free, another vegan, another paleo, another won’t eat seed oils, what exactly are you supposed to cook?

Any meal can only really support one such person before a home cook has to just throw up their hands and say that there won’t be a meal and everyone should just eat on their own. So by making such a claim you are claiming that one spot for yourself and more or less destroying the meal should anyone else dare to do the same

It especially annoys me because these claimed sensitivities usually just cause the person to “feel lethargic” or some such vague nonsense. Can you not suck it up for the sake of a social gathering once in a while? There was a maybe 6 year period where I was vegetarian, but I would eat meat if at someone’s house for Thanksgiving or some such, it just would have been rude to stick to my diet

Those quotes say nothing more than “I’m right but people won’t listen to me.” Just because something is dressed up as “The Parable of the X and the Y” or is quoting someone from 2000 years ago doesn’t really make it fundamentally different from just leaving it at “I’m right you’re wrong”

This “ugh, just soooo boring” thing is clearly an act and an attempt to shut down discussion. People try the same tactic with HBD. Just collapse the comment tree if it bothers you, otherwise you aren’t convincing anyone with this “so tiresome” tactic.

The truth is, the Holocaust is clearly highly relevant to American CW issues. Clearly many people on the Motte get very upset about revisionism, the way many SSC posters get viscerally angry at HBD. SecureSignals is not spamming about it, just responding when it is brought up and he generally brings more evidence to bear than his opponents (yea, I understand the Epistemic Learned Helplessness issue, doesn’t change it)

Why do leftists seethe at the mere existence of a tiny irrelevant forum where people might be saying things they don’t like? We had to move off Reddit, eventually the userbase will dwindle and disappear and we have no larger cultural influence.

All of the science shows that children with two parents have significantly better life outcomes

Is this true after controlling for money and intelligence?

Trump voting hard red state pipe fitters, electricians, etc) to flip shit because they didn't want to be forced to have more kids than they already had or get trapped into child support, and they voted accordingly. Another who'd gone from lib to DeSantis fan over COVID lockdowns and anti-woke stuff swung back to the Democrats over it. I can't emphasize this enough; people I know who use the N word as an adjective on a daily basis for household objects and even bird species + believe in Q-anon stuff were incensed and pulled the lever to give the pro-choice side a landslide victory when abortion rights came up to a vote.

This is hard to believe that they would react so strongly to largely symbolic bans coming from a party that has been saying this is precisely what they want to do for decades. It would be like suddenly losing it and flipping republican because Democrats decide to give blacks some effectively symbolic reparations checks for $100 or something.

Also having a child this year and I can say my opinion hasn’t moved at all. I personally would want access to abortion if my child had some sort of problem. That said, overturning Roe or various state level bans wouldn’t prevent me from getting an abortion in that situation, my wife could just take a trip if I happened to live in a state where it was illegal.

To me the handwringing about access to abortions reminds me of handwringing about people unable to get any form of ID in order to vote. I refuse to believe there is anyone so poor or stupid they’d be unable to get an abortion or an ID if they wanted. I only see it affecting extremely lazy, short-sighted people who simply hardly care one way or another.

So taken together, I would prefer abortion to be legal but I hardly care either way, it will always be readily available regardless of law

any mandates are tyranny that must be defended against to the death

This seems like overly dramatic macho posturing. Obviously you are still alive and didn’t do anything of the sort.

Can you seriously not imagine a situation where mandates would be warranted? I don’t support the mandates for COVID, but being unwilling to even consider that there might be a point where the tradeoff scales tip is just an unreasonably ideological suicide pact. If there were a hypothetical disease much more deadly than COVID, surely you must be able to imagine such a thing

One of the core tenents of the whole blue tribe memeplex is that behavior and morality exist completely independently of the other. It doesn't whether a man is a hard worker or a good father, what matters is what he thinks and what he feels

This is just absolutely ridiculous and demands justification

You are looking at the people who chose to abandon Christianity, and then suffered serious consequences, as evidence that Christianity does not help. You might as well argue that, having been shot after leaving your body armor at home, the armor is what failed you.

It would be fair to conclude the armor is no good if it has some flaw that causes us to repeatedly leave it at home. Perhaps it is too bulky or too uncomfortable to wear.

Also you are just responding to Christianity’s failure by saying that we just didn’t Christianity hard enough. Which is not very persuasive to say the least

There was a time in the not-so-distant past that the country was effectively 100% Christian and weekly church attendance was the norm. Where did that lead us? Obviously God is not such a bulwark after all and doesn’t automatically eternally guarantee based tradwives until the end of time.

You have to then answer the question: Why will it turn out differently this time?

  1. Racially conscious whites generally are not asking for handouts, they are asking to be left alone and given an even playing field without a thumb on the scales.

  2. If it is wrong to point out how affirmative action (for example) is fucking us over, what do you want? You want us to never discuss how it’s fucking us over? Never vote for politicians that will act against it? What is the complaint here? It seems suspiciously convenient for leftists that your advice amounts to: never discuss how any policy hurts whites, never make advocate politically for putting an end to policies that hurt whites.

FiveHourMarathon seems to be giving the exact same advice to whites an anti-white leftist would: vote for policies that directly hurt you and if this bothers you, you are just a loser that needs to work harder. This honestly feels like the anti-white left’s dream response.

Up to this point any kind of race consciousness among whites has been completely taboo. So up till now we have been following your advice. Conservatives have let affirmative action come to rule every school in the country and the only advice you could give a white kid is “work harder”. If this approach hasn’t worked so far, why do you magically think this will work now?