Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
No bio...
User ID: 265
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
2yr 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
2yr 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
2yr 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
2yr 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
2yr 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
2yr 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
2yr ago
The cost of enforcing zero bike theft is generally higher than allowing a few thefts.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
2yr 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 ;)
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
2yr ago
That's an interesting take. Much more appealing to me, honestly.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
2yr ago
Orwell's O'Brien does not care much whether the ideas that he tortures people into accepting are demonstrably true or false, actually he would probably prefer that they are false because for him the point is to have utter and complete power over others, and you have more power if you force someone to believe a thing that is demonstrably false than if you force him to accept something that is true. And to take it even further, O'Brien even claims that essentially, reality outside of what The Party claims is unimportant.
Yes, O'Brien is not the prototype of thought crime but its demented endpoint. I suppose this is a slippery slope argument now, but the entire category of thought crime seems cursed to me.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
2yr ago
Sure. I don't think most people who call JS a "hate crime" are making a claim about how the victim was selected. I don't think they understand the statutory burden to declare an act a "hate crime". When people call JS a "hate crime", they are saying "they attacked JS because he was black, because they hate the blacks". This is a different sort of claim, and it revolves around thought crime.
While I'm willing to concede for the sake of argument that "statutory hate crime" is carefully defined to avoid constitutional issues, I am talking about "hate crime" in the colloquial sense, as gets reported on in the news etc as demonstrated by my several links.
Briefly:
- Swastika: agreed, it can be a small piece of evidence but is insufficient on its own
- Typical rape: agreed, the statutes appear to require evidence (nearly impossible to obtain in most cases) that the victim was selected as a representative of the larger group. Typical rape wouldn't meet this.
- Jussie: I think shouting "nigger" or "faggot" during the underlying crime is insufficient. I think we're going to need Mississippi Burning style evidence.
- ADL: Prior agreement that they are not the arbiter of "statutory hate crime", but they very well represent colloquial "hate crime"
- Oberlin: Like the ADL, they are using "hate crime" in the colloquial sense, not necessarily the statutory sense. It's hard to imagine they are recommending students make a legal determination of a hate crime.
- Baltimore: It's amazing they were charged at all. I agree the case did not meet the statutory burden, obviously so, yet it's strange that the article was so credulous.
I think these illustrate that the colloquial sense of "hate crime" dominates the "statutory hate crime" in human discourse. I also believe that without the constitutional protections in the US, hate crime statutes in Europe adhere more to the colloquial sense. Note further that the FBI (not necessarily a statutory authority) was quoted in one of the linked pieces:
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias.
T H O U G H T C R I M E
As I've attempted to demonstrate in another reply, I mean hate crimes in the colloquial sense, not necessarily the statutes in the US (but possibly so). When people described the Jussie Smollett hoax initially as a hate crime, I don't think it was a claim that the crime would meet the statutory burden for a hate crime, and I think they are largely describing a thought crime on top of a purported actual crime of assault or whatever.
I suspect there is a bit of motte and bailey going on, where there is lots of activity in the bailey that I find concerning, but your position is wrapped up tight in the motte.
For example, two women were charged with a hate crime for burning a Trump sign. Arson is the underlying crime, with apparent hatred (towards what protected group?) adding an additional hate crime: http://web.archive.org/web/20210624142206/https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-trump-sign-charges-20170418-story.html
Princess Anne police have charged D'Asia R. Perry, of Baltimore, and Joy M. Shuford, of Owings Mills, both 19, with multiple offenses, including second-degree arson and committing a hate crime, the Maryland State Fire Marshal's Office said.
"The intentional burning of these political signs, along with the beliefs, religious views and race of this political affiliation, directly coincides with the victim," a Princess Anne police officer wrote in charging documents to support the hate crime charge.
By committing arson, "in doing so, with discrimination or malice toward a particular group, or someone's belief," was the reasoning for charging the women with a hate crime offense as well, said Caryn L. McMahon, deputy chief fire marshal.
Here is another take on hate crimes in the US: https://mises.org/wire/how-much-problem-hate-crime
However, one major problem with this is how hate crime is defined. According to the FBI, “A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias.” The underlying problem with this definition is it elevates non-criminal activity to the level of a crime. Spray painting a phallus on the side of a building is vandalism. Spray painting a swastika on the side of a building is a hate crime. To get a true understanding of hate crime, the underlying action must be fully understood.
This reads more like the bailey I am familiar with. Is it possible that the bolded section is true? Can painting a swastika on the side of a building be considered a hate crime? Not in the motte. What about in the real world?
Here is the state of NJ, according to the ADL (Anti Discrimination League, Jewish): https://www.adl.org/resources/media-watch/hate-crime-laws-cover-everyone
Hate-crime laws protect everyone, not just Jews, as the letter writer incorrectly claims. New Jersey’s hate-crime law defends all citizens from any crime committed because of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
Bolding mine. It looks like the typical rape is a hate crime in NJ. Obviously this is not an accurate summary of the statute, and the ADL does not have the definitive take. Take the Jussie Smollett hoax. Widely described as a hate crime, but without any of the necessary evidence like "watching a racially charged movie beforehand, then discussing hey let's beat up that black Empire faggot".
One more clarification: Hate-crime laws only apply when there is an underlying crime to prosecute. The First Amendment protects speech — even bigoted and ignorant speech like the letter writer’s — and ADL staunchly defends this vital democratic freedom.
Biased language must be combated with positive speech from community members and leaders. But when someone goes beyond speech and commits a crime inspired by hate, then hate-crime laws have a vital role to play in ensuring justice and protecting the entire community.
Note ADL says the crime must be inspired by hate. That's not in the motte. Again, non-definitive, but still, there is a concept of a hate crime which is largely thought crime.
Here's Oberlin College: https://www.oberlin.edu/campus-resources/bulletins/condemnation-anti-asian-violence
Tips from Stop AAPI Hate on what to do if you experience hate and how to safely intervene when you see harassment or a hate crime taking place. (SMART Program, San Francisco, CA)
So Joe Random Blogger is going to somehow witness a "hate crime", including the watching of a racially charged movie beforehand and then the witnessed discussion to target someone because of their protected category, and be able to rightfully intervene?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
2yr ago
In the US, at any rate, hate speech is not illegal.
But it sure is punished. The test is not illegality but punishment.
And "hate crimes" are crimes in which the victim is chosen because of his group membership (real or perceived). No hatred or other ideas need be shown.
I am rather certain I can find examples in the US in which someone was charged with a hate crime, possibly convicted, where it is simply not possible to know why the victim was chosen. By your standard, any typical rape of a woman is now a hate crime, as the female victim was chosen because of her membership in the group of women. I believe the intent and wording of hate crime statutes go beyond your standard and presume to read the mind of the perpetrator, mostly as inference from actual acts (speech or otherwise) committed.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
2yr ago
The older I get the more I realize libertarianism is a second order belief after you have a good culture. Humans are social creatures. Nobody would want to live in a world where 90% of society becomes fentanyl zombies. You’d rather just ban fentanyl.
Also when existential risks are involved. Martial law sucks, but it is sometimes necessary.
Let's taboo "thought crime". It's just meant to be a convenient label / handle, but with extra salience from Orwell's 1984.
A thought crime emerges when one group of people decides that if a person is suspected of believing X, then that person should be punished.
I'm talking about society's seemingly reflexive need to punish wrongthink. This is corrosive because it's very difficult for society or its agents to determine exactly what an individual thinks. Furthermore, only acts (and not thoughts) have relevant consequences. We generally think it's ok to wish harm on one's neighbor for a brief moment.
Simple examples of thought crime include hate crimes, hate speech, accusations of being a racist rather than doing a racism.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
2yr ago
Arnold Kling on Michael Huemer on Thought Crime
Michael Huemer has a meditation on the phenomenon of thought crimes. A thought crime emerges when one group of people decides that if a person is suspected of believing X, then that person should be punished.
It kind of goes without saying, but inherent in the notion of "thought crime" are both crime and punishment. If it doesn't deserve punishment, then it's not a crime.
the status of ‘thought crime’ does not in general attach to beliefs that are so conclusively refuted that anyone who investigates carefully will reject them. Indeed, it is precisely the opposite. It is precisely because epistemic reasons do not suffice to convince everyone of your belief that you attempt to convince them through moral exhortation. When the plea “Believe P because the evidence demonstrates it!” fails, then we resort to “Believe P because it is immoral to doubt it!” Indeed, you might reasonably take someone’s resort to moral exhortation as pretty strong evidence that they have a weak case, and they know it.
Calling something a thought-crime is a dominance move. It is coercive. You only have to coerce someone if you cannot convince the person voluntarily. If X is demonstrably false, then you should be able to convince someone voluntarily not to believe X. It is only if X is plausibly true, or ambiguous, that you have to resort to coercion.
This makes the accusation of thought-crime highly suspect. The more that you try to force me to believe that the virus could not have come from a lab, the more suspicious I become.
Amen, brother. But is this just preaching to the choir? Consider: A whole lot of NPCs and talking heads sure ate up The Narrative. Propaganda is effective, to an extent, but beyond that extent it is deeply corrosive, particularly to any intellectual class, who become disillusioned and cynical. Thought crime is next.
Religions in general, and Christianity in particular, are all about thought crime. You have to take the salvation of Jesus into your heart or something, and if you don't, have fun with eternal damnation. I can accept Aquinas, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis. These are men who appealed to reason, writing to convince and persuade.
I imagine only atheists see the appeal of comparing woke (progressive, successor) ideology to a religion of sorts, likely filling some kind of primitive need for tribal loyalty, purity tests, and expensive signals (rabid adherence to nonsense). I'd love to hear Antonin Scalia's take though. Or L. Ron Hubbard's. Perhaps what we are seeing with successor ideology is not an individual need for such, but instead just the character of mass movements, the nature of power, its patterns of growth and movement and perpetuation. Are propaganda and thought crime inevitable?
Let's take it back to 1984. Orwell demonstrates the existential horror of a regime that can successfully deploy thought crime. Didn't he make it blindingly obvious for everyone? I'm pretty sure we were all nodding our heads in 8th grade English class about the evils of totalitarianism, only a few years after the USSR fell. I suspect this issue is particularly salient for me, as a libertarian.
Anyways, I'm not mad, just disappointed.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
2yr ago
The way that HBD is used around here seems to imply some amount of believing that
racialpopulation-level differences in traits like intelligence (1) exist and (2) are significantly heritable.
Would he really disagree with this? It's basic statistics. The sketchy part is attempting to map a distinct population onto some kind of "race". Since our populations are not as isolated as they were five hundred or five thousand years ago, race is a muddy lens today.
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:
Boghossian and Lindsay (Jimmy Concepts) are practitioners of Rogerian Argument. The aggressive form, but nonetheless an update towards.
More options
Context Copy link