PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
Am I misremembering or are you speaking figuratively? Didn't Rittenhouse kill 2 and wound one?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
This goes the other way, too: I've seen LGBTQ friends complain about conservative signs that say, "we support all sexes, races, religions" for not "mentioning anything LGBTQ" and "even said sex instead of gender."
That is to say, it is simply tribal signaling. The reason I am annoyed by white-bashing isn't because I identify with my racial coalition. As you mention, much of my outgroup is literally caucasian.
The white people that support her simply see a neon sign that says "ingroup." You see a neon sign that says "outgroup" but is it really because they call out straight white men (ironically by not calling them out), or because calling out straight white men is the kind of things your outgroup does?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
My biggest complaint is that one night the cops were eating blue lo mein out of a takeout container with chopsticks. They couldn't change the trope up just a little bit?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
My intuition tells me that it's fair game to consider QAnon "political" but that tarot, astrology, and otherkin are "not political." This is true even granting that my worldview is opposite those who believe tarot etc.
If some rhetorical trick has been played on me to recenter QAnon nearer to the center of "right winger" and no such trick has been played w.r.t. tarot and the left, please elaborate on that.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
I dont think they were saying, "The Right thinks the Left believes in a secret masonic lodge" or "The Left believes in a secret masonic lodge" or anything like that.
They were saying that "QAnon is insanity" and "White Patriarchy is not insanity," and then described a hypothetical world in which White Patriarchy was insanity.
It's probably not hard to find a QAnon true believer that professes a cabal of elites that make literal sacrifice (which is Insanity)
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
Motte: White Patriarchy is empiricism
Bailey: White Patriarchy is a theory that the observations are caused by a self-perpetuating system of laws, institutions, people
Strawman: White Patriarchy is a conspiracy theory
It's possible I'm being too charitable here, and what I've labeled "Bailey" is what someone else would label "Motte" and what I've labeled "Strawman" is what someone else would label "Bailey." I suppose it all depends on if in the real world, there are activists out there who behave as if there is a conspiracy of white people keeping the common person down.
Still, the self-perpetuation theory is promoted by people who I suspect also attack science and empiricism, so it's no surprise that this position is bears more resemblance to a religious faith than to a scientific theory. (I've certainly never read about anyone trying to falsify this position, while coming from an angle of trying to reduce racism).
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
What does centrist really mean here? Can you give an example of fringe and centrist?
I don't know of centrism is a theoretical position that lets us come up with fringe opinions, and I suspect we use it to mean like "a median belief"
Fringe and centrist should have the property that: the left and the right feel about the same about it, but also nobody holds the belief? Does that mean the left and the right equally condemn it? Would a fringe centrist belief be "Murder is good?"
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
I found a motte-like (almost certainly male) friend by doing a long-term programming project. Since it's online, we mostly talk, and it's mostly talking shop. But, we sometimes talk personal life. It just so happens the project is also a reverse-engineering project, which means the work is already more scientific-method than merely programming.
If you have male-dominated hobbies, are any of them tilted towards high verbal intelligence? Do you like reading a particular obscure philosophy? I recommend a Discord for any of these hobbies, and just start talking. Some individuals might stand out to you. Why does the person have to be male? Or did you specify that as a prediction of the kind of person you like?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
LessWrongers typically believe that real intelligence is changing the world (writing to it), not just predicting it (reading from it). But, in practice you need to be able to predict it in order to change it.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
Whites still get plenty of status and power in institutions, as long as they're the right kind of white. For example, if your kids pretend to be are LGBTQ, they might do very well for themselves.
-
Do you lament a particular culture dying out and being replaced with another monoculture? Are you rural, christian, or some sort of free-speech absolutist libretarian?
-
Do you hate the particular woke monoculture for some reason?
-
Do you care about skin color specifically, removed from other things like: how your children are treated?
-
Do you want your kids to believe, act, or virtue signal a particular way to carry on your legacy?
Unless one of these bullet points applies to you, I don't see why you're concerned. But, maybe there are more possible bullet points I missed.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
On the subject of "vibes": "good vibes" etc is a phrase I started hearing only in the past 5 years or so, and I noticed the kind of people who used it were inarticulate socialites. I started also hearing more people talk about "radiating energy" and what not. Before, I used to think it was primarily something uncommon, only said by spiritual-yoga types.
I wonder if its a coincidence that vibrating particles is literally thermal energy, and if those phrases are somehow related in that way.
I didn't even consider that "vibes-based" education here could literally be referring to sound.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
Actually you might be right the "at least" is basically there to apply to hyperbolic space or something like that. Of course, high schooler me had no idea about that stuff.
There is a certain beauty to some definitions of Rectangle. The one I am singling out is
a parallelogram containing a right angle
Why? this was the definition listed in my high school Geometry textbook. I remember it because the wording was a little peculiar. But, later I came to enjoy it. This is the kind of subtlety only a math nerd could appreciate.
I began to appreciate it once I learned how feminist theory defined patriarchy. The wording (doubtless there are many) I recall is, "a system of gender roles which is harmful to men and women" or some such. Some might say that this definition smuggles in a claim: that gender roles are harmful. That's not quite correct. You see, a non-harmful system of gender roles would simply not be Patriarchy as a matter of definition.
The reason I wrote this post was because of the earlier discussion that "Rape is about power, not sex." I was reminded of many past times I've heard rape defined this way. You might say that this definition smuggles in a claim: that men are motivated by power (or some such). But that is not quite correct. You see, a man who is motivated by sex is simply not committing rape as a matter of definition.
My textbook used the phrase, "at least one right angle," like Wikipedia uses a right angle. This is critical to leave the reader mentally itching, to leave him thinking that maybe a rectangle contains a mix of angles -- some right, and some not.
If a parallelogram has one right angle then it has four right angles
Behold! The full force of a theorem (not a definition)! So there is no doubt in the mind that there could ever be a parallelogram with mixed angles. This relation between the angles cannot be expressed with mere definitions.
Much later, I learned a name for this: The virtue of precision. Definitions should be as small as necessary.
What other imprecise definitions smuggle unproven claims?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
This imposter! I bet this username was chosen so we would falsely attribute to him all the great things Scott Aaronson has posted!
(I think Scott Alexander is pretty great, too)
Just kidding, but the real reason is so we could make this joke, right?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
I would call it a "Kolmogorov Treadmill" or something. Centrists can't be the only group. I wonder if "Classical Liberal," if not the same cluster, is at least a related one and also has undergone the treadmill. By that, I mean a few years ago I heard a lot of people self-describing as it, but I feel like recently, people have caught on and I've only heard "classical liberal" be used sneeringly.
"Free Speech" is probably another such term, where originally it's this unobjectionable, nice-sounding thing that someone can describe themselves in good conscience. Now some people do still call themselves supporters of free speech, but it's definitely a Bingo square now.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
Centrist sounds an awfully lot like a "Not-Rightist" to me. While it's true that "Centrist" doesn't use "not" or any derived root, it's well-trod ground that centrism is one of the few "ideologies" thats defined by what it isn't. S.S.D. doesn't feel like a good rebuttal to me.
What is Kendi's antiracism a better example of?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
Saying it when you want to communicate "are you 100% sure about anything at all" is miscommunication, even though it fits your literal words.
Help this geek understand the quoted portion of your post, and what it communicates by ordinary conversation standards. Because what I interpret is that you thought I was as trying to give this lesson. I wasn't. Let's suppose 100% is a probability, and people can be fully confident about whatever. I assumed that this would have been obvious when I wrote "Even if you're 100% sure human rights must be protected at all costs..."
Now I'm thinking you completely misunderstood my point altogether, which makes me want to reiterate and rephrase it, but I suspect you don't think the "abortion is a human right" discussion is very interesting.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
I thought you meant "do not emulate Shapiro's style" which is what I took "act like Ben Shapiro" to mean. I asked about emulating Shapiro's position while not emulating his style and the only way to do that is emulate his position while denigrating him. I also do this, as a defense mechanism because there are consequences otherwise.
The bit about Pocahontas is riskier, and I'll give you more credit for that. If I was motivated to pick that apart too, I would say you seem to be capitalizing on "50 Stalins ambiguity." It feels like your trolls would just say things like, "Pride Month and Woke Race Representation is so annoying; companies are so insincere." Like the Pocahontas example that implicitly assumes AA and diversity is good, you attack the excess of the Left, but not really from a Rightist perspective.
These are all very safe positions, I say stuff like this because it does show intellectual dominance (was that an edit?).
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
Firstly, let me say that my preferences match yours: I don't care about object-level signals in partners. I care about meta-level engagement styles. If someone asked me why, I would just say I noticed a correlation between the kinds of people I enjoy, and the engagements they have.
-
Am I making a category error by calling that my reason? Maybe that's just my strategy to satisfy my goals?
-
Would you accept that as your reason? Does there need to be some grand, real underlying factor?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
It sounds like they believe that nobody could intellectually engage with trump to conclude he was playing 4d chess all along. Or; that nobody could intellectually engage with twitter and conclude that mobs are right and useful. Use of the phrase "marching orders" hints at this.
Mino (if I may speak for him) and I both agree that this is just a farcical comparison of apples and oranges. A person who executes tribal signals is not a person that is said to be having beliefs.
Really, 5HM is listing out annoying tribal behaviors while the topic under discussion is "irreconcilable political beliefs."
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
I mostly see "human rights" as a useful rhetorical trick, it feels like a crushing argument to pro-lifers. I doubt anyones' internal thoughts are best described by "the matter is so important that edge cases are not up for discussion."
I suspect that if I wrote the following
Abortion might not be a human right. Even if you're 100% sure human rights must be protected at all costs, are you 100% sure abortion is a human right?
Nobody would be enlightened, or even take the time to read the linked article.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
No, almost none of this requires being especially attractive. "Trump seems pretty ok" is the riskiest one here, do you ever caveat it, or what's the context? I can easily get away with the rest of these.
I also would have predicted that the only way for you to call Ben Shapiro right would be to dunk on him. This is unsurprising, since most people ignore the literal and logical implications of words and go straight for the emotivism. If your claim is heard and understood as merely "Fuck Ben Shapiro" then it doesn't imply anything interesting about what you believe.
I mean actually, seriously, can you profess, "Graduating high school, getting a job, and avoiding kids out of wedlock is just how you win at life"? Because that implies certain beliefs about the agency of a person, for example, many people would say discrimination or other factors come into play regardless of doing those. Or, they'll say that discrimination or other factors prevent some people from doing those, and so Ben Shapiro is wrong insofar as his prescriptions are incomplete.
It sounds like what you're saying is, "if you're hot you can troll with inflammatory-sounding things that creatively shit on the right." I attest I do that regularly at progressive women, because it shows wit and intelligence (and a disdain for the right). So I doubt this really is an instance of the halo effect.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
If that was true, "I'm not a racist, but..." would be resistant to being labeled racist.
I think you and me must have very different intuitions on what the overton window is, and what "normies" believe. Many of these things are heavily regional, and even more importantly, I'm probably a mentally ill hermit (I won't speak for you).
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
4yr ago
Sure, a nicer beautiful person will attract more people than a mean one, but this motte is not what is implied by "they can't say whatever they want"
There are people so beautiful who can say whatever they want, and will still out-score people who walk on eggshells.
You're still focusing on the words as being vehicles for literal meaning the way a scientist would use language. What do you mean they can plausibly say they support anyone? The sign is a rather obvious signal of conservative allegiance posted in the 2020s. You don't need plausibility to get that documentary "What Is A Woman?" removed for hate speech when the signaling game is obvious to everyone except mistake theorists.
Absolutely nobody makes this distinction you're making between:
what the conservative sign did -- listing a couple of axis (axes?) and omitting other axes
what the politician did -- listing a couple of directions on an axis and omitting other directions
More options
Context Copy link