PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
Obviously it is an argument in favor of Nazi style death camps, minus the whole "killing 6 million Jews" bit. Your argument relies on conflating these things.
With regards to the OP, I have (only a little tongue-in-cheekly) argued in favor of various feminist "solutions" to low-fertility: gender ratio control like this poster suggests, and also taxation-based polygyny (see recent paper making the rounds on Rightwing Twitter). When I promote these, the purpose is to show that the solutions require horrendous measures.
You might call this "accelerationism but for the future incel uprising"
The problem with this is that males become a kind of elite celebrity class, where the average male will have higher social status than the average female. Women would probably get jealous at this state of affairs. Many women would think, "why couldn't I have been born a man?" It wouldn't look like a feminist utopia.
I legitimately think that female envy (which is what drove Western Feminism) requires something of a low-status male slave class to rule over. Similarly, humans only think themselves rich when they have poorer neighbors to compare themselves with.
From this perspective, the humane solution to female emancipation is something like male p-zombies. Of course, that would require a Big Lie, so is it really humane?
Yes. The boomer attitude about personal prejudice is that it is a cognitive barrier to rational thinking (it will make your hiring less meritocratic and your company make less money). It is a-moral because boomers were not brought up in PMC culture, just around for early Civil Rights.
Casually Racist Young Man (as opposed to young man with boomer tendencies) is probably similar to Satanists. As a reaction to Christianity, they are still a slave to its moral frame, just inverting it. This is essentially Curtis Yarvin's primary objection to some of the online right, I think. So the young man is racist because he is rebelling against mom, basically.
Another way this is stated is that a lot (though maybe not all) of online right types are Blue Tribe apostates -- not Red Tribers. If we start to see casually racist Red Tribers, it would be weird. It would probably indicate that Red Tribe is really losing cultural ground to the Blue. I don't mean in the "is lower status than Blue Tribe" way. I mean Blue becoming so hegemonic that Red Tribers start to identify themselves with it at a level enough to be apostates and become enslaved to its moral frame.
If you go far back enough, anti-racism was a controversial position and so was a poor proxy for how socialized someone is. At some point, when Civil Rights and proto-wokeness started to become the official civil religion (that is, taught in schools etc), it became a pretty good proxy for good socialization. Afterwards, only dysfunctional people act racist. I couldn't give you the exact year.
I've never read Dune but this makes me think I might like it. Is it like reading a textbook? Do you like reading textbooks?
Both of the fiction books I've ever binge-read were hard scifi. I only read them because I had heard second-hand what the themes were, and they sounded interesting. Both of them had "that one chapter" where the author dropped the thin veneer of story to dictate the book's theme like a textbook. This is not a criticism exactly, but just something odd I noticed.
If apples are constantly falling up even though we're always told they fall down, it would seem to be a systemic, periodic problem and not just a silly premise.
So it sounds like: the initial Isekai premise is just the first instance of the inevitable general tendency to Make Shit Up (commonly called 'bad writing'?)
Thanks for your response, although I'll admit it didn't help me very much. For one, I didn't list "trash" as a reason, and the closest analog was "not enjoyable." I don't understand art criticism, so if art critics (or other taste gatekeepers) give vague criticism, I just phrase it descriptively as "they did not enjoy it." Should I just note that as your position?
"Not justifying major plot points" is interesting. Is a premise the same as a major plot point? In lots of fantasy there are magic systems that do not have any justification. I'm assuming that this is not a case where there are repetitive, periodic deus ex machina or a systemic problem with bad writing? If the premise is this unrealistic thing, like who cares? Is It's A Wonderful Life trash? Is the issue that Isekai tries to steal valor by having a dumb premise and doesn't even bother to do something interesting (="enjoyable") with it?
I hear Isekai and its tropes trashed constantly. Why is that? Compared to other genres (kung-fu fighting shonen, school slice of life), is it more predictable, more numerous, not as enjoyable, or something else?
I was always a "smart kid" growing up but I hated reading. Of course I discovered blogs 10 years ago and I enjoy reading Discourse about news and current events (and i don't do it to learn about the issues or the events).
I realized a couple years ago that I just don't like fiction and narratives that much. There are dozens of us maybe!
Whites, Hispanics, and Asians are not single-issue voters. "Jews/Israel" really means Ethnocentric-Israel-Single-Issue-Voters. Up until recently, their single issue hasn't been an issue -- being impartial to either party.
One argument for using it: is that the argument for not using it is essentially a kind of cultural relativism. The euphemism treadmill is real.
Another argument for using it: your main argument is an isolated demand for rigor - caring about the feelings of retarded people, but not about the feelings of losers, for example (whose condition is also routinely used as a punching bag).
What do you mean now by interesting?
Have you just tried https://www.astralcodexten.com/ comments on the blog? For example, there are frequent open threads.
If an empirical survey of actual communities and their evaporative cooling endpoints results in a particularly skewed distribution... how should we interpret that other than "unwilling or unable to have polite dialogues?"
Are you saying leftwing moderators are just bad at curating debating clubs?
Matt is just saying a tone-policed version of "Do better." to Israel. Of course Israel wouldn't want to hear that! And alternative theory 1 is just "How can Israel get what it wants?"
Mentioning such obvious facts like "actions are related to public opinion" does you no good. Saying "Actions determine public opinion" is a normative statement ("Do better.") disguised as a factual one.
Zionist model of antisemitism is the same as the basic model of all -isms: due to various antisemitic biases, people hold Israel to high and unfair standards.
I don't mean 2010s manosphere content was better, and so I find it more credible. I meant seeing misandry.
Looksmaxxing ideology, PUA, redpill, and incel are kind of like "alternative media" or "intellectual dark web." That is, they satisfy a demand that original information sources couldn't meet. A lot of people do not think mainstream sources are credible on the subject of "status for men." By mainstream sources, I mean ones that follow the background Western memeplex (which is feminism). If the question is, why do people feel feminism is not credible on the subject of "status for men," I am a little biased.
For me personally, it is probably because of being on the internet in the 2010s. For kids these days, I'm not sure. It's hard for me to imagine what its like to see the cultural landscape with fresh eyes. Probably all the boys these days notice that all the help goes to girls, and never to boys. Indeed, if any help were to ever go disproportionately to boys, the culture has a ready-made, uncostly way to rectify this and give proportionate help back to the girls. The reverse is not true.
I do think Covenant being Jew-coded is a red herring. Even as a child I noticed the names are spiritual in general, and not belonging to specific religion. This is why the vehicles have names like Banshee, Ghost, and Wraith. So it never would have occurred to me that it was a hitpiece on actual religions.
In fact, since the religious lore features as part of the plot, I would say they just wanted their aliens to have an interesting motive, not just a boring "we want your resources" like in, Independence Day (1996) or something.
The only problem here is focusing too hard on the Covenant = Jews [in particular] angle. You admit there's also Christian and (was?) Muslim imagery too.
The Covenant were not driven from their homeland, there is no diaspora, and I think its a stretch to compare the Forerunner heresy to that white nationalist idea that actually Whites are God's chosen people (which I assume you were gesturing towards).
Otherwise, I think your sincerity analysis is right: it is like a Xenophobic US Military versus weird foreign religious nuts. You are right of course, for the simple fact that Halo could not get made in Woke era. I could imagine an academic whitepaper calling Halo problematic. It would fit perfectly with a Last Jedi-esque subversive TV show that angers manchildren or whatever. That paper would indeed call the UNSC white-coded [pejorative]. Even if the most famous Marine, Sgt Johnson, is black!
Very nearly so! Except -- Rogue One was made under Disney (and also came out after The Force Awakens), so it's a bit gerrymandering to compare it to Halo. Still, like most conventional star wars fans I actually enjoyed Rogue One.
Also I am obligated to say how much I like both Rogue One and Reach, and the fact that their stories are so similar. Nerds on the internet talk a lot about this.
What do you mean, "draw the same conclusions [about height]"? Height and intelligence are very, very different: it's not taboo to talk about height. So I would never draw the same conclusions about height in our world.
To be clear, I think intelligence makes a difference in the world even without society. Intelligence was evolutionarily useful. That is the kind of world we live in. I suspect the moral valuation rule came after.
The post is mostly about intelligence taboos and how it upholds a (n evil?) normative belief: that belief that intelligence is linked to human dignity.
It seems I've miscommunicated what I meant by "moral status." Maybe most people call it "moral value."
I am not saying that this society thinks that smarter people are better people. I am saying it thinks smarter people are worth more as human beings. It is rude to call people stupid, because in this society it is like calling them worthless, or not-human. This is horrible, maybe even evil. Specifically, "this" is the moral valuation of society that sneaks in the ought. Other things like beauty, athletic ability, kindness -- these afford people status, and are celebrated of course. But the reason it's not very taboo to insult people along those dimensions, I think is evidence that society's actual moral valuation rule is intelligence.
(Another way you see this is in laypeoples' discussions of consciousness, in that some people start talking about moral value at all, which is quite strange. But it makes perfect sense that intelligence and consciousness are both fuzzy signs of human exceptionalism.)
Some people are pointing out specifics of the thought experiment, like that its unrealistic. Yes, its not our world. It would require height to actually be functional and useful to all domains, the way intelligence seems to be. That world would be very strange. To give an example, everything would have to be on very high shelves for inexplicable reasons. In fact the rest of the society would be completely alien indeed. I was not interested in those details -- who cares why intelligence is useful in nearly all domains in our world? I am more interested in how the taboos ironically uphold the moral valuation rule, and with a focus on who specifically upholds the taboos.
There are a couple of strange personal attacks toward me, accusing me of being racist, or that I live in a bubble. "Rationalists are weirdos who talk about IQ all the time" is a very standard attack. Of course, in this society, discussion of intelligence (not that IQ measures that exactly, although it is certainly the closest proxy we have) is like discussing who is human and who is sub-human. Attacks of these nature are once again examples of upholding the moral valuation rule. Do people get attacked for "talking about beauty" or "talking about athleticism?"
But the real evil here lies in society's arbitrary moral valuation rule, not in the facts, right?
This thought experiment is perhaps "overfitting to a desired conclusion," (and is certainly an unsubtle allegory) but I want to see what other people think. Where else has this comparison been drawn?
In a world where moral status (or, as you will soon see, we could call it moral stature) is defined by a person's height, what might we expect?
Well one thing is it would be very rude to point out that people have different heights. To minimize cognitive dissonance, we would notice that rulers and yardsticks are banned, or at least tabooed. The taboo of course has justification:
- a person is too complex to reduce to a single measure
- this thing you call 'height' is so multi-factored. I mean, there's the length of the shins, the size of the torso. Even peoples' heads have different shapes.
- we don't even know that this 'height' thing is real, it is socially constructed
- in the past, people who are obsessed with measuring 'height' were the most evil
I think they definitely would not go around saying "tall people are morally better." And if you tried to gently tell them "Well you certainly act like they are: tall people make more money and have better life outcomes! And you don't call it unjust!" they will probably get angry and call you evil for suggesting that people have different heights. They will say, the injustice is that life outcomes are inequal among the abled and disabled; between men and women; between supposed racial groups; and so many other axes.
They seem to be making a category error. How can a fact of height differences be evil? So you smuggle a ruler into the room. And you point out that Alice is in fact taller than Bob. "It is just an empirical fact" you say. Of course the reply will be something like, "You think your words are disentangled from context, but the social function of your sentence makes a moral claim." This response is inevitable, even if you bookend your remarks with the notice: "THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF THIS CLAIM IS TO POINT OUT EMPIRICAL FACT"
At first you think, well its society's social context that is smuggling in the moral "oughts." The problem is certainly not with reality. But then you realize they are kind of right? The social function of this claim, indeed has moral content. In this society, height simply is the gauge of moral status. Stating otherwise doesn't make it go away, just like saying 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't make it true -- that's reality for you. It's at this point you realize your neck is getting a bit strained, because you're constantly looking up -- everyone else in this room is very, very tall. These arguments evolved in Tall Clubs around the nation and are handed down from the credentialed Tall to the less-credentialed mid-statures.
It makes you wonder why all of their interventions to the low-status involve treating symptoms and correlates, instead of identifying how to change the moral valuation, which is the root cause of it all.
So by now most of you are thoroughly short on patience, having realized immediately that "height = intelligence." But the real point: the academic and intellectual authorities that are loudest about the problem are the ones stringently enforcing the taboo holding it all up! Is that a coincidence?
The asymmetry appears to be, "Wanting [or not] to talk to people who disagree with you." Worth noting that the original OP did not use the word "polarization" but explicitly mentioned "talking to people with different political opinions."

Easy, its a lottery.
More options
Context Copy link