PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
I enjoyed reading stimulated SSC subs a year ago or so but I found it was banned. It was random too since a ton of other stimulated subs weren't banned so it wasn't a botting tos thing. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Did it temporarily get the axe until reddit admins learned the hot takes were AI (not that I would expect them to care)
That's a good point I hadn't considered. I was focused on the word "preferred" that the original poster had brought up.
the USA's position today could easily be caused by multiple factors acting together, neither one being "more important" than the other in the cause-and-effect sense.
This is simply a moral question of who to praise. Some people say it is the genius of the founding fathers direction, and others say it is the hard work and sweat of slaves.
What is evidence? Is seeing a video recording of the defendant shooting his wife evidence? Recordings can be faked, even if it's unlikely.
I agree with the rest of what you said, that people who predict things will often be wrong.
What's stopping me from being skeptical about everything, even in the face of stuff you call "evidence"? Maybe you & your blog are just a GPT bot. Why should I just assume I'm talking to a human?
Russel's Teapots seems bogus to me. I would absolutely not like to be "skeptical" (not-guilty
) about Russel's Teapot. I don't believe in such a teapot (innocent
). Can it be proven?
When I continued to think about this post, this is the reasoning that occurred to me: I am not completely ignorant. I know a few facts here from experience:
-
Teapots do not naturally form in outer space.
-
Humans do not normally send teapots to outer space.
Based on this line of thinking, I'm comfortable with believing it doesn't exist (innocent
).
The one can come to me and say I haven't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt
but now it feels like we're haggling over the standard of proof, not the burden of proof.
Whereas your post gets the burden of proof right, it doesn't say much about standard of proof. Perhaps that is just a different topic?
In principle it could be a lie if he is snickering to himself and his stream of consciousness contains the symbols "owning the libs."
A truthful self identification wouldn't look like that at all
I've never heard anyone say "my dog is a rescue" and the only times I've heard suicide used as a noun would be cops saying "it was a suicide" and I think its referring to the situation, or its just an idiomatic it like "it's raining outside."
Could you give another example of what you mean?
What if most charismatic and energetic people are dead on text, and other charismatic and energetic people know this as "normal way to text." What you call "not dead on text" is basically mental illness and coming across as way too strong?
But your more general point, that OLD success is based on looks and not texting styles, is a different point. If attractive people can get away with texting however they like, that would support your theory that there is no thing as text game.
Is Greater Male Variability a property of the real world, independent of the IQ norming process? I would be astounded how our genetics or socialization techniques somehow cause GMV.
Have you ever thought about troon or train? They don't strike me as particularly worse than tranny.
I agree that there are absolute truths, but how sure are you that you have direct access to them? I agree that actual, better reason will always illuminate false prophets, but seeing a true proof and seeing a false proof look very similar.
I agree social constructivism is an attempt to dethrone an existing hegemon, and has an agenda.
I think ultimately enlightenment, reason, and empiricism are mistake theory, and require some sort of shared assumptions or shared trust in order to work in practice. Once you step outside of the narrow scientific domain, and into the wider one of relations and conflict, is reason really all that important? Would you accept an argument from an enemy?
So how is the best way to teach data structures, algorithmic complexity, single responsibility, patterns, (more things which are not programming) etc.?
It sounds like you're saying: it has some amazingly funny artifacts of counter-culture that moral busybodies would find OK? Could you give some examples?
If moral busybodies find these amazingly funny artifacts of counter-culture problematic (like all the mean words), then arguments about subconscious immune systems or cultural defense mechanisms wouldn't convince moral busybodies would they? Moral busybodies want to end 4chan culture, in this branch of the hypothetical.
I don't think this is really an important difference.
Couldn't American white southerners (circa 1850) say their culture is about enslaving black people? Abolitionists wouldn't go, "huh you're right I didn't notice that. We wouldn't want to culturally genocide you, so carry on!" they just say: your culture is not worth preserving. Maybe more realistically, abolitionists would say: You can keep your southern food and your southern hospitality, but you don't need to keep slaves.
To the extent that 4chan's culture is dependent on saying mean words, why would "it's a defense mechanism!" convince anyone? Also, what exactly is "that culture" and can it be separated from saying mean words?
-
If it can be separated, then this is what a lot of people are asking for
-
It it can't be separated, then 4chan has enemies
I agree that promptmancy is the appropriate analogy to photography.
But I can't imagine prompt engineering is subjective though. Translating human intent into a prompt to make an image feels like a skill in a way that photography feels like art
But this just might be sloppy thinking on my part, or an opinion I've been socialized to hold
The invention of the crane reduced the reach of the powerlifter status market, because when people look at buildings, they're assumed to all be made by cranes, but you can still watch real people lift weights and they're obviously not a crane.
AI Art will reduce the reach of artists and their monopoly on making pictures. Maybe in the future, people will assume most logos and the like are made by computers. That's all well and fine. But how can you prevent imposters from submitting AI art to museums and competitions? It would be as if a bodybuilder could hide a hydraulic arm under his clothes (or take steroids!) and compete without working.
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?
I don't know if this has already been reported. I tried to search for it but realized my folly as the only search term that came to mind was "Reply"...
In the middle of writing a post I highlighted text in the parent comment and hit "reply." I was hoping that it would automatically quote that text and add it in the middle of my comment. Maybe that was silly of me. But it completely overwrote my comment, where a better user experience would be a kind of "Are you sure? your comment is not done..." kind of alert
. It's a little awkward, because as far as I can tell, this codebase prefers to silently persist drafts when you return to comment (I just now checked with the back button) instead of using alerts at all.
I knew not to fall into the trap
What trap? Is this a married thing?
Where exactly is the list of idealogically affiliated subreddits? I couldnt find that list anywhere on the links you posted.
Fair enough, you're right that actual fat-activists are not the consequentialists I described in my first post!
I still wouldn't support this hypothetical, steelmanned movement because I find fatness disgusting, but the thought-experiment was novel to me. Maybe I'm just behind.
What is the "root" of the problem? Is it that people get fat? Or is it that fat people suffer increased health risks, beauty-ism, and are a literal poor fit for clothes and spaces? I'm going to do a little bit of mind-reading and assume that in your world where the problem is solved, everyone is thin.
A fat-activist does not have any disgust to fat people, and aesthetically values diversity of size, In her world where the problem is solved, there are fat people, but they don't suffer health risks due to improved medical technology, nor beautyism or logistical issues because of social engineering.
To make another unfair comparison to your position -- would you say glasses solve the root problem of poor eyesight? Of course, nobody is disgusted by poor eyesight...
You might argue that you consistently are taking the path of least resistance:
-
the easiest solution to fat people probably is a world where everyone is thin (based on what the past was like)
-
the easiest solution to poor eyesight seems to be glasses
The question then, is what is the fat-acceptance movement doing differently? You say they've given up on solving the root problem, but (if my mind-reading was correct) you would be modeling fat-positive types as giving up on making everyone thin. I do not think they want everyone to be thin. I think they are willing to implement more difficult solutions (medicine, social engineering) to achieve their preferred aesthetics.
I suspect even, that they are so against memocide, that they would approve of societal interventions to increase fatness, because interventions to decrease it are problematic. Whether or not they can do this openly is a political question of optics. This also explains LGBTQ groomers.
All wives are trophy wives
the topic of what you're being a nerd about at the time, or the thing that you're trying to do at that moment, is the 'woman' in this context. Women who do this have either explicitly chosen, or have an innate affinity for, not being the 'girl' in this social context
Could you clarify? Is this saying, "women and girls are the primary attention-attractor in most situations. In nerd spaces, the special interest is the center of attention instead. A female nerd [Tomboy?] abdicates her role as the center of attention [girl]. Tomboys are more common in childhood because little boys still like their action-figures and do not yet like girls."
This is an existential threat for us in a way the average man can't understand (they're missing a piece).
To clarify: us is... [nerds]? Nerds (who want to artistically examine everything) are threatened by the defense (offense?) mechanisms deployed against them. Is there something specific about "average men" that makes them incapable of understanding? Or can we replace it with "non-nerds" and retain the same meaning, if this is just about group lived experience?
(As an aside, I feel like I've seen (you post?) Women, Inc. in lots of other posts. Is there an explanation? I assume there is no Men, Inc. and that Women, Inc. is getting at how female cooperation (as opposed to male competition) means women prospire as a coordinated group. There's also official female-centric organizations with no male-centric counterparts. Or maybe it's a cheeky way to say "We live in a gynocracy.")
average man, or Women, Inc. representative
Ah, unambiguous meaning: A woman is an NPC of the Corporation, unlike a man, who has individual identity.
I also think that those are the people for whom (as you put it) dimorphism exists in the first place. From that viewpoint, that is why it is possible to "be turned [LGBTQP]"
Just so I catch your meaning: We can say only average people are sexually dimorphic. Nerds, but also queers [gender nonconformits] are not dimorphic. To be turned queer is to stop conforming. That's true and not a hot take: just believe them when they tell you what they are.
Finally, in regards to the footnote: Who are "these people" [who claim P is inextricably linked]? Someone who uses the phrase "turned queer?" I think of queer as a Movement/Tribe and that means people convert, or have the pre-existing differences. Is your phrasing emphasizing that queer conversion is forced upon a passive vessel? Take your pick of the meme-ified version of your argument, I suppose. Tomboy hypnosis, medium-rare, for your relevant enjoyment. Still, I don't think the ability to manufacture tribe members says very much. Even an /r/atheist can be manufactured, like with domineering-enough Christian parents.
I don't understand this. What's an example of a real relationship that makes the universe substantially different? How does this indicate that "time and causality are not relationships within the universe"?
More options
Context Copy link