PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
No bio...
User ID: 890
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
10mo ago
If there was information women are willing to share, then most likely it would already be public and be written by some female journalist. Topic-obsessed men would have read it ten times over.
There is an oft-repeated fact that conservatives pass the ideological turing test more than liberals do (because of the media landscape, and what is polite to say in public)... I would like to assume that men pass the sexual turing test more than women do (because of the media landscape, and what is polite to say in public)
There is, admittedly, a big reason why these are disanalagous. Women are probably hard wired to know how men think. Or rather, female hard wired behavior is behavior as if she knows how men think. Consider: better emotional intelligence/theory of mind/pressure to navigate physically stronger hostiles, etc.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
10mo ago
To throw another explanation into the arena: Alice, Bob and Carol currently hate Stalin but each thinks they are alone, so they don't rebel. If Alice found a credible note saying "Bob hates Stalin. Carol hates Stalin." Then she has learned a little, but her options don't increase all that much.
- She can't try to convince Bob to form a rebellion. Since Bob hasn't gotten a note, he will just assume Alice is an agent trying to catch Bob doing something bad. (Haven't dictatorial regimes employed snitches? Sounds familiar right?)
- She can't really tell Bob: "I know you hate Stalin." Like before, Bob will assume she is an agent. After all, Bob thinks he's the only one opposing Stalin! (Don't governments deploy sting operations to catch detractors? Glowies etc.)
- She could try to be honest and vulnerable with Bob and say "I hate Stalin." This is actually risky. I can't search for it now and probably couldn't find it - a blog post about how these scenarios, and expectations, affect friendships. Since the social norm is to report your friends who hate Stalin, then Alice's admission is like saying: "Report me." Bob can maybe reason that Alice expects to be safe telling her friend Bob this. Or in other words, Alice has accused Bob of hating Stalin. This would freak Bob the fuck out. I know I would freak out if one of my friends said they were into ISIS or some kind of terrorist group.
Anyways, the above bullet points are just Alice's thought process. In reality, Bob also got a note saying "Alice hates Stalin. Carol hates Stalin." And Carol also got a similar note. The problem, hopefully you see, is that the notes are secret.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
10mo ago
Harm is not what we are intuitively referring to is it? Trace and LOTT are enemies in a conflict just like Scott and Cade are. "Harm" language could just be a rhetorical tactic in the conflict.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
10mo ago
I don't think it's uncharitable at this point to say progressive reporters are not really concerned about stopping the general public from snitching.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
10mo ago
Related: the only people who still associate fantasy orcs with black people are people who find the association problematic
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
11mo ago
I wonder if this became a well-known trend, would it bleed out to similar scenarios? For example, especially unsympathetic villains would be portrayed by AI instead of humans? Could it start a euphemism treadmill where humans are only associated with less- and less- offensive things, and AI is used for anything remotely negative?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
11mo ago
For those of us who aren't into televised fighting, what does this mean?
I think WWE is scripted/fake, and MMA is an actual sport, correct? How does that apply here?
My best guess: the left's decisions seem directed towards the goal of winning: do not give an inch. The right's decisions seem directed towards pleasing an audience: the base?
It seems to me that "winning" in the case of the left is really just pleasing the base's preferences: wanting to get abortions. Are you saying the right's base has silly preferences or something?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
11mo ago
For those who still don't realize SlowBoy is correct, read Parable of the Dagger until you are enlightened.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
11mo ago
Thanks for the reminder that Pascal's Wager is about instrumental beliefs and not epistemology. I realized that sometime in between posting this and reading your reply...
I'm not even sure I "should" think according to any mechanistic rules -- everyone notes we don't actually compute Bayes in our heads -- at least not at the high level of thoughts. Just like ethics is more about systematizing what we feel in our guts, I navelgaze because I think systematizing is fun, for example, systematizing what we actually do. I get the impression your argument is prescriptive (not that you personally are evangelizing anyone), so I would like to be up-front and honest that absolutely nothing you say would ever change how I act, except maybe cause me to think of a reply.
It's difficult for me to decouple 1) and 5). The mugging implications seem too real to me. Isn't accepting this just a vulnerability to be mugged by anyone? Upon further reflection, I don't think we even need to bring up infinities to realize that expected value has mugging problems. The mugger will just tell me that there is some amount of reward -- not infinite -- that I should accept since I don't assign anything a probability of zero. As the mugger names higher and higher values, it's true the probability doesn't (seem to) drop comparatively. Without bringing infinity into the mix, expected value seems to have some issues! So I'm not sure if a hyperreal (or whatever) analog to expected value would help me feel any better. You seem smarter than me though, so I'm assuming you already know about this though.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
11mo ago
I'm glad I didn't misread your points, indeed I felt pretty good about my comprehension once I saw another of your replies (An earlier draft of my post included language like: "It seems I am stuck believing in infinite rewards and punishment" in regards to seeing that step 5 invokes scripture, and step 1 merely invokes infinite reward and punishment. It seems the trap I fell into was intended!)
The impression I get from Pascal's Wager: an a-priori argument for God for those who think it distasteful to apply that "empiricism" business to the beautiful question of theism. When deployed in that manner, it is open to the non-empirical attack of "the Atheist's God." The Thiest's retort "that seems unlikely!" amounts to cherry-picking evidence.
Your more fleshed out version of Pascal's Wager appears to be in the business of evaluating evidence. Of course, one would need evidence in order to even consider the hypothesis about infinite rewards and punishments, given that empirically, there doesn't seem to be infinite of anything around us! The police do not open a phonebook and randomly determine a suspect to investigate when they hear of a new crime. The laws of probability and what we might call "reasonable thought" obligate them to possess evidence before considering any suspect in the first place. It would be even more disturbing to learn the accused is a rival of the sheriff!
Your focus on infinite rewards and punishments is not separate from sacred texts. The reason anyone discusses Pascal's Water and infinite rewards and punishments is because of the sacred texts. So this business of "deciding what are the infinite rewards and punishments" is of course a strategic choice of starting point. It seems to me we should start with the evidence in front of us: the sacred texts. Maybe I chose that strategically? I don't have perfect access to my mind's internals. The sacred texts seem to me quite easily explainable as a lie to steer people's behavior by giving them incentives (That's what I meant by "incentive structure")
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
11mo ago
I originally engaged because your step 1 name drops Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager assumes the reward structure (God wants to be believed).
It seems the phrasing of your step 1 should be more like "We should avoid infinite punishments and seek out infinite rewards." Then, you introduce the reward structure all the way down in step 5 or 6, where it is awarded the position of Null Hypothesis on account of the scriptures.
This argument seems to me like a rhetorical device, and not reasoning. Nobody decides to think about infinite rewards and punishments, and then stumbles upon sacred texts. People read the sacred texts and then start thinking about the expected utility of infinite rewards and punishments. Someone doing reasoning would notice if the texts are just an incentive structure, and if so, discard the whole infinite reward business.
I guess this makes me not on board with 1, as this is clearly a rigged game with a pre-written Bottom Line.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
11mo ago
If it's any consolation to you, I had already seen your post on religious "gish gallops" but didn't think much of it. As soon as I had noticed Nelson's long post (and I admit I did recognize his name) and the long reply, and skimming the posts showed certain words, I immediately thought, "hey this is like one of those religious posts that guy was talking about."
(Personally I think I got bored of the CW thread because all that's been said has been said, to a first approximation)
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
11mo ago
Step 1 seems very shaky to me, as it assumes the reward-structure of real, Earth theologies. These gods are likely to involve something like "Infinite reward for belief; Infinite punishment for disbelief."
If we assume God operates on the opposite payout, then Pascal's Wager clearly implies we need to be Atheist!
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
11mo ago
I think "If the culture shifts" means in that world that gays, trannies, or whoever we are talking about, are no longer on the oppression scale
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
11mo ago
Am I the only one who's noticed surprisingly high overlap between describing behavior as "sus" and vague gestures that someone is problematic? Like that entire cluster of person converged on using the same word? That kind of dark hinting has been a primary part of the progressive playbook for awhile, but what's with the word sus?
I first time I heard "sus" was when Among Us went viral. I'm not very good at these social deception games, so of course I was never a fan of playing them. I'm curious, are other average motte spergs similar?
Enjoying those games and applying that lense to everyday social/political interactions seems like the extreme right-tailed distribution version of the oversocialised, status-obsessed sociopath
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
11mo ago
It would be different if we insisted that the cis-/trans-prefix and talking about sex chromosomes is verboten
The cis-/trans- prefix is already on the spectrum of verboten. Behold, the parts of woke subculture that insist on spelling transwoman as two words. This is to emphasize the woman-ness of transwomen and de-emphasizes the transness as a mere modifier, like brunette.
Similarly, if you hang around progressives and always refer to cis women as just "women" and always refer to trans women as "trans women" I am pretty sure you'd get a talking to, eventually. I hope nobody is silly enough to say, "Well that's just a couple crazy people on reddit." I know because my real-life woke friends don't actually mention that someone is trans unless it's to mention how fearful they are for their safety somewhere as a victim.
That you suggest to taboo the word "male" (not "man!") shows just how far down the slippery slope these language games have moved us this past decade. At first, progressives merely claimed the word "man," and left "male" around for us to talk about chromosomes. Sure enough in the current year, progressives act like man and male are synonyms again!
I predict that the ever-more-cumbersome phrases we retreat to, like "biological sex," will also get phased out. Make no mistake, the purpose of putting trans and cis into the same mental bucket is to push normative behaviors onto people. Someone saying "no, no I only date people with a biological sex of female, you see..." is told, "that's not a sexual orientation, that's just bigotry."
What the sequences actually say about defining a word any way you like is that it is a common misconception
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1yr ago
These are the sort of moments, I've learned, where being a quokka doesn't quite pay off, and it would be useful to have the resources available to hit back hard enough to convince this person that it is indeed not worth the smoke but also doing it in such a way that you're not retroactively justifying the hit piece itself.
OK. Let's try to put our "recovering quokka" title to the test and say any response is on the table. Let's also pretend all resources are available to me. What's your solution?
It sounds to me like it's wishful thinking and cope.
On the topic of YouTube comedy that is politically adjacent but isn't really mudslinging:
There are lots of videos on various topics where the authors commentary is delivered by AI voices of Trump, Obama, and Biden. They're usually called "Presidents ... do X" (e.g. play a videogame, react to a trailer).
These might allude to current events but the focus is usually not the presidents or the politics, it's usually the content (like the game or trailer)
More options
Context Copy link