Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
No bio...
User ID: 265
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
7mo ago
You can't just say 'we won all the battles and got a great K/D but some weird political stuff happened and we left the other guy controlling the territory' - wars are about politics.
If your metric is fighting ability and military experience, then you sure can. Isn't that what you were originally questioning?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
7mo ago
Just some feedback as there are no replies here. There is a distinction between a wall of text and an effortpost, but it can be subtle. OP reads more like the latter, to its credit. But while I was nodding my head according to the first 5 paragraphs or so, I had an intense desire to "get to the point". While I understand the value of dripping out information and keeping the reader hooked and engaged, I found myself skipping ahead to try to find the thesis, or novel point being made.
I have a concrete suggestion: if it takes more than 5 paragraphs to "get to the point", then you're better off summarizing and defending, rather than buttressing and presenting.
To be clear, I guess I am delineating two different rhetoric styles: buttress and present, where by the time the point is presented, it's basically a foregone conclusion; and summarize and defend, whereby the point is not hidden til the last minute but is instead presented early, allowing the reader to grapple with it, and then defended later by the author.
Both styles have their places.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
Interesting, because Oz is perhaps surprisingly more woke and lefty despite the "pioneer spirit" which would lean very much the opposite. But, I suppose, now that the vast majority are softies in the cities, it makes sense.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
It's mostly wasteland, so very desolate and unproductive outside cities. So it's urban in that sense, but only a tiny sliver of the geography is actually urban.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
become a minor celebrity by breaking the law to embarrass her and then claiming prosecution.
* persecution?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
I'd strongly suspect there is a prison pipeline that feeds "Aryan Nation" type ideology, and these types do buy into it.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
Conceivably BYND could have gotten a little flywheel going and continued to innovate into healthier better options.
I sort of get what you're gesturing at. A flywheel represents the difficulty of spinning up a new market. You need to solve both supply and demand at the same time to get the engine running. Failure is catastrophic while success is a money machine. If there is an imbalance, the flywheel is bottlenecked and doesn't want to spin.
In this case, the flywheel represents the pseudo-meat market, I suppose. There have been meat substitutes and meat replacements before, but this is really a new kind of market and new kind of product. Maybe this particular market is cursed, but if the flywheel gets going, then maybe:
continued to innovate into healthier better options.
AKA the pivot
The technical term is 'scamwick'.
Interesting. I'm not really a crypto guy (read Satoshi's whitepaper when BTC were going for pennies), or a trader, but I know a little bit about technical analysis. The "wick" here is the wick of a candle chart, which shows the open & close, high & low, for a given trading period. The delta between open and close forms the body of the candle, while the high and low (which necessarily equal or exceed the open and close) form the "wicks" (upper and lower) of the candle. A so-called scamwick is a recognition of suspicious price movements which indicate price manipulation.
My prior on "price manipulation" is that most manipulators lose in the long run, at least for deep markets, but that the attempt to manipulate prices is an important part of price discovery and akin to "random noise" which motivates the true price.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
Love Michener. I read Hawaii but still didn't recognize the main characters in the film review. It's about so much more.
Belated appreciation from me. I did not intend my criticism so literally, but this level of honesty is becoming.
Also, I just learned about Dennett's version of Rapoport's rules:
In a summary of Dennett's version of Rapoport's rules, Peter Boghossian and James A. Lindsay pointed out that an important part of how Rapoport's rules work is by modeling prosocial behavior: one party demonstrates respect and intellectual openness so that the other party can emulate those characteristics, which would be less likely to occur in intensely adversarial conditions.
Boghossian and Lindsay (Jimmy Concepts) are practitioners of Rogerian Argument. The aggressive form, but nonetheless an update towards.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
I get accused of bad faith regularly (whether the accusation is earnest and made in "good faith" is another question) and I agree completely that a naked denial doesn't accomplish anything. Like you, I usually can see what the accusation is based on and so what I do is acknowledge that the suspicion is reasonable (it often is!) and then explain why it's wrong. If I can't see what it's based on, then I ask something along "what could convince you otherwise?" Sometimes there's nothing that could dislodge the truck stuck in the mud, and it's good to know that.
This hits for me, in that I like your reasoning and most of your positions, but every once in a while, and predictably, I'm all like "that motherfucker!", and it's not because I'm frustrated by your argumental wizardry but more that it feels like you are being deliberately obtuse and/or using Dark Arts or just being somehow hypocritical or applying double standards. But really, I think it's just a value difference. We all are hypocritical and apply double standards according to our values.
I love your approach in the latter half of the quoted paragraph. I am also a fan of Rogerian Argument where the objective is to find the largest areas of agreement, push those boundaries as far as possible, and just understand the areas of disagreement and map them out. Accusations and denials are discouraged.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
Could be. I have a vague recollection of like 3 or 4 like minded individuals from that era.
So if Yang is a wolf and Corinna is a wolf, who is the lamb?
The strawman of trans ideology, that which is pushed by activists, and worse, activist-practitioners. I might not disagree with the steelman of trans ideology, but the lamb is the reality of gender-affirming care at this moment in the US, as I understand it.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
Ah, I'm sure I skimmed over the honorifics to try to determine my interest level and just plunged in from there. My bad.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
Wesley Yang (coined "Successor Ideology") interviews Corinna Cohn, former trans activist, now regretting his (born male, now prefers male pronouns) transition as a teenager in the early 1990s.
I seem to recall the name from maybe 5-10 years ago, with some annoyance, like maybe pushing ultrawoke Code of Conduct mandates on open source projects. Might be wrong, haven't yet checked.
Now Cohn acknowledges being male and rejects his transition, but for health reasons remains on estrogen treatment. I suppose there is some question of what it means to be a detransitioner. Wesley Yang is well equipped to tear into this lamb, and does so, as far as I can tell. This is gonna hurt.
I have only read the posted transcripts, a tiny sliver. An excerpt:
On Affirming Parents
Corinna:
“For every parent who is transitioning their child, here's the future: your kid is going to get into their 20s and 30s. somewhere in this range. Even the ones who are failing to launch are going to figure out how to actually get their shit together at some point. Every one of these kids is going to start to ruminate. “How did this happen to me?” None of them are going to say, “Why did I do this to myself?” Because they didn't have agency. They didn't know. It doesn't matter if they said, “Oh, I really, really, really want to be a girl, mommy.” They don't know. They've got no idea. They're not even going to remember that. Right? They're not going to know that.”
“They're going to start thinking — “How did this happen to me?” And they're going to get to know kids. They're going to get to know children. Newborn babies. They're going to be involved with the lives of these children. They're going to watch them grow up and become thinking human beings. They're going to even watch them become adults. And they're going to know what innocence looks like. And they're going to start to remember that their innocence was absolutely destroyed.
And they're going to want to know why. And they will know at the time — I'm telling, I'm telling you now that the reason that this happens is largely because of the sexual interests of men like Rachel Levine, Admiral Levine, and other men who have continual fantasies that they wanted to be little girls”
So you have you have sent these children to satisfy the fantasies of these men. These children when they become adults are going to realize that this is why their innocence was destroyed: to make these fantasies come true. And the first people who will get the blame for this will be their parents. That is the future. That is the future.
Wesley: So I don't remember his name, bu he's like, “I'm 28 Look at me. I'm puberty blocked…”
Corinna. That was Seth.
Wesley: That was so powerful. And you're saying like, that's gonna happen to all these fucking parents?"
Corinna: Yes. It will not matter to these adult children…
Wesley: …that they begged and demanded and connived in order to get this is…
Corinna: I’m not even talking about that part. It won’t matter to these kids that their parents’ calculus was they want zero of one child to commit suicide. They don't care about one in 20,000. They want zero of one to commit suicide.
They won't care about their parents’ concerns. A lot of them aren't going to be able to have their own kids and so they're never going to even learn how to think like a parent. They're always going to think like a child. They're not going to appreciate what their parents were up against — being lied to by the government. Being lied to by their president being lied to by their doctors.
They're going to think “my parents ruined me.” For what? Why did my parents did my parents do this to me
So parents: that's what you have to look forward to.”
Corinna is no lamb at all. This is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
What are your sources on this? You write authoritatively and with seeming knowledge of Japanese discussions, commander psychologies and thought processes. Is this an original work of yours, basically synthesized from all the relevant facts that bounce around your head, or ?
I don't mean to sound doubtful or critical. Just curious. I love the overall approach and depth; it's been a great series. It just feels like it lacks citations. But it's already way beyond an "effortpost", so bravo!
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
If you want a glimpse of the future, look at Call of Duty. A bunch of transparent grifters running around a multi billion dollar game franchise desperate to please the lolcow community managers so they can get more power, status and money to continue grifting off of the sub-100 IQ brown normie playerbase.
I'm aware of CoD but never played it. What is the phenomenon you reference here? It sounds interesting.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
The cost of enforcing zero bike theft is generally higher than allowing a few thefts.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
(2) It is perfectly reasonable to encourage students to report what they think is a hate crime, and then let the police sort out whether it really is. It is pretty standard operating procedure to encourage people to report if there is any doubt. Eg: "see something, say something."
If the intervention is merely "say something" then this is entirely sensible. I suspect the intervention recommended requires more culpability in order to defend.
Thoughts on transparency and accountability for "subsequent edits"
I often edit my posts a couple times within the first hour or two. Mostly typos and grammatical fixes, but sometimes adding a paragraph or removing something regretful. When done in good faith, this is typically not a problem. My historic norm is to create a new section with a big "EDIT: ..." at the front, just to demonstrate good faith.
Edits in bad faith can be very powerfully bad. For example, posting an adorable puppy pic to /r/awww and then editing it to GOATSE after a couple hours worth of upvotes. More relevant to a space like this, goalposts can be shifted or snark inserted to ridicule subsequent (but pre-edit) replies.
Some thoughts:
-
Earlier edits are cheaper than later edits, with a grace period
-
Tiny edits should be numerous and cheap
-
Large edits should be few and expensive
-
Pay for edits with internet points
-
By default, surrender all internet points on the prior content for any edit
-
Rings or Tiers of Whitelists, if the post has no replies
- 10% for grammar / typos
- 20% for word change
- 30% for sentence edit
- 50% for paragraph replace
- Something like that, by some metric
-
Big penalty if the edited post has already been replied to
-
In the edit UI, have a score that shows how much karma the edit costs
-
Show on any edited content:
- how many edits
- the current edit "distance" or score
- how much karma the edits have cost
- the last edit time
EDIT: added @Gdanning in show of good faith ;)
Wouldn't FdB say that Marxism is quite egalitarian?
More options
Context Copy link