@PutAHelmetOn's banner p

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

				

User ID: 890

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 890

Yes, discomfort with white solidarity often manifests as labeling it "racism," but it's not clear this can said to be a cause.

An example cause: Historically, white solidarity has lead to genocide, so people are uncomfortable with it.

It seems a bit sad to believe his own wife loves him only in the way he believes in God (which is to say, not at all)

This reminds me of a comparison I made recently between faith and love, apparently not well-received by the audience.

The comparison is: "I don't believe in God like the way I believe in gravity. Likewise, I don't love my wife the same way I loved her when we were dating." That sounds terrible, and it's more romantic to label the tribal-fork "love" and the properties-fork something like "infatuation."

The only way to fight this is to ensure that everything is squeeky clean and beyond reproach, which it won't be because too many people are taking all the talk about about subverting the process to defeat Trump too seriously.

It sounds like you're saying there are some people that actually think trump is bad enough to subvert normal processes. The OP was asking for specific evidence but you didn't give any.

Unfortunately, showing evidence of people saying trump is a unique threat to democracy or whatever isn't enough because they could be exaggerating.

I admit it would be funny if it became a common talking point to get anti-Trumpers to say stuff like, "it would be right to commit electoral fraud or murder to save America from Trump, but I wouldn't do it"

All wives are trophy wives

We might call her a "sex-communist," although I prefer "sex-conflict-theorist." Specifically, the faction that advocates for the woman's class interest is feminism. I think she has all her facts right, too. I didn't get through the entire article (or her first one) but I suspect I got the gist of it.

I admit I can't explain why "feminist" in the public imagination is sex-positive. Was it a shadow campaign by the Chadiarchy to trick woman into Hookup Culture? Did feminists falsely believe sex-positivity was in woman's interest?

Obviously in 2024 a woman who wants to be in the professional workforce is normal and doesn't have a defective brain module. Can the same be said of the woman in 1950? Would people (you, or others) lump the 1950s woman in with queers and call her "confused" because she is non-conformist? Would people not lump her in with queers, because queers gross them out, but she's just a little weird?

The only wrench in my argument is there may not be such a woman in 1950 - or rather, any woman in 1950 that wanted to be in the professional workforce was probably also a butch queer.

I notice a parallel between the Christian's love for God and his faith in God. Your post is about the tension between loving an object for its properties, versus loving an object inherently (the latter I still maintain is quite meaningless). In faith, there is tension between believing a proposition because of evidence, versus believing a proposition inherently.

It's an old idea around these parts that Christians do not believe their religion. The Christian's behavior here is not really confusing. Professions of faith are tribal signals of group loyalty, not beliefs. But it would be wrong to ruminate on "the contradiction of belief" and ask about "is belief based on evidence" or "do people believe inherently?"

Likewise, "loving things for their properties" is just a different kind of thing than "tribal signals of loyalty." You're damned right I am loyal to my wife, what of it?

There could be two different alternatives:

  1. A man fails at online dating for the same reason he fails at a club, which is he doesn't meet women's standards. He is equally (un)successful in both arenas.
  2. A man fails at online dating but fares a little better at a club. One reason for this might be men do not take as many flattering photos of themselves as women do.

(2) seems to be the case in my experience. This is not to say the fundamental dynamics are different, or that 2's become 8's in person. But all men should get off dating apps, or hire multiple professionals to revamp their profile.

What if the word "fair" is actually normative? It seems everyone in the groupchat attempted to defend it under (b) but if someone said it belonged to the separate magisterium of (a), wouldn't you need another example?

Do they get to demand a first-class flight with their choice of hot meal, too?

To be less flippant: probably few believe God gives them that right. Whether the state gives them that right is a question of law. Everyone will have their different opinion, for example I disagree with the cases you list:

I don't see any sovereign right for a country to dictate where an individual goes next

Since you don't speak of God or law, I'm unclear on what you mean. You seem to just be giving opinion on how nice the state should be to deportees. You give your opinion on reasonable guidelines that compromise between the state's burden and the deportee's comfort. It would indeed be kind for the state to ask where the deportee wants to go. Take away the talk of "rights" and this is just a debate over how the state should act. Are "rights" just rhetorical techniques for debating how states should act?

if I invite someone into my house and then rescind the invitation (as I'm absolutely entitled to do), it's required that I give them a chance to leave in an orderly fashion before forcing them out.

I disagree. If someone gets violent in my house then I do not ask them to leave. Probably though, it would be nicer of me to ask before physically removing. If my guest didn't start any violence, then I probably wouldn't either, but I do that out of kindness or maybe some kind of custom. Whether the actual deportations match this hypothetical (are only criminals being deported? I don't think so) is irrelevant -- you and me clearly disagree on how to run our house, and we would probably run a country differently, too.

Firstly I will say I don't have a camel in this race because I don't care much what two strangers do to each other. I don't think Israel is Good but its tough to convince me they're Bad:

It seems to boil down to: (1) they're bad allies to the US; (2) they treat their enemies as enemies. Now I will grant you (1), since you're probably right and I don't care either way. But I'd like to push back on (2).

So Israel is Bad for valuing one citizen over a hundred Arabs. Does Gaza value the life of a Jew equally to one of its citizens? Does Iran? I haven't researched what Gazans and Iranians think of Jews, or read anything their governments say about various attacks and grievances. I have however seen some Gazan propaganda television teaching their kids to hate Jews, so I know where I'd put my money.

Finally, I agree with you that Iran and Palestine are entitled to take their revenge on Israel. It seems Israel already thinks their enemies want that anyways. So, I also don't begrudge Israel turning their neighbors into glass. Actually I'm quite impressed with their restraint.

Why is it a wild read? You seem to be saying Scott is part conflict theorist, but I don't think you've argued it well.

A mistake theorist does not lie down on a train track to kill himself. He will move out of the way of an oncoming train. A mistake theorist will not try to have a discussion with a train. Likewise, a mistake theorist knows that conflict theorists exist. He will probably not try to have a discussion with them.

Know the difference

  • The Mistake theorist says: "My opponents are conflict theorists and do not respond to argument. They are making a mistake. We want the same things. Forgive them, for they know not what they do."
  • The Conflict theorist says: "My opponents are conflict theorists and do not respond to argument. They are enemies in the conflict."

For Scott to "be a Conflict theorist on some things" you would need to demonstrate that he believes his opponents to be the enemy, in the #2 sense. I think you've only demonstrated that he does not lie down on train tracks.

We may take your "genocide" observation and ask: why discomfort with white solidarity manifests in calling its repugnant feuds "genocide."

I wonder if the focus on white solidarity truly is misguided. Indeed, as we have seen this year, accusations of genocide are not exclusive to white people. (Depending on if you think Jews are racial shapeshifters, I guess)

I still haven't a clue why specifically the discomfort some of the time. It probably is different for different people. For many, I imagine the colonialism and power imbalance really is a big deal. For someone like Toruk, obviously it isn't. Others still are surely just reciting tribal deepities.

Welcome to themotte!

People who think gender is defined circularly have a certain intuition about words - namely, that words don't really mean anything. These are usually highly systematizing people who would feel at home in a math textbook. In math, there is no particular reason why the particular words are used. Math could be done with random words as long as the relationship between the words is the same relationship as in our real math. This kind of person is over-represented in this forum many times more than in real life because of this forum's genetic history. Go back 15 years and some of the people on this website were reading a systematizer systematizing things

The reason why they would say these definitions are circular is because these definitions revolve around the use of the literal word "ma'am." If we played the randomize-the-word-keep-the-relationship, it starts to look kind of empty to say something like

A fnord is someone who wants to be called "ma'am"

So what is the meaning of the word "ma'am?"

In any case, I'm not sure "circular definitions" are the true objection to following trans-activist policy and culture proposals. You have a reasonable desire, which is for people to treat you a certain way. I think "transphobia" really is the best word for the reason why people don't treat a trans person like they desire.

Likewise, widespread shortphobia among straight women is the reason why society doesn't treat short kings like people.

It's not even clear to me how that fantasy is supposed to work. If I'm a pro football player, who is the female equivalent? If I'm a programmer, who is the female equivalent? If I'm scrawny, who is the female equivalent?

Without a principled reason to assume materialism (the Sequences attempts to get that worldview across), we all have a simple and obvious knock-down argument against materialism: consciousness.

It is not to say that the Christian worldview is robust against evidence, just that materialism, like blank-slatism or any other axiom that Science, Inc. passes down to the laymen, is ultimately a matter of faith and not purely on the basis of evidence.

materialism is definitely losing steam (especially amongst the right) as we see more and more cracks form in the edifice of Expert Scientific Opinion(tm).

Huh? I've never seen anyone (on the right or elsewhere) go from "the institutions are politically compromised" to "there is nonphysical stuff."

As for discussion about symbolic beliefs: The famous quote "all models are wrong; some are useful" is actually redundant. It just needs to be "some models are useful." Useful means wrong, because if a model was right, you wouldn't give up and call it merely useful.

Anyways, symbolic beliefs are false. The Christians here are actually Christian, so why would they engage with symbolic (false) beliefs?

Are Boomers in particular an obstacle? Can you give some examples of Boomer reins of power halting solutions from being implemented?

It's true that Boomers might deny the problem. They are the quintessential caricature to say "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" but everyone -- not just Boomers -- shares that sentiment.

This is just a consequence of the contrarian discussion norms here, which is getting dogpiled by disagreement. Rarely do people waste space voicing empty agreement. For example, I agree with the tone and content of all your posts, but I'm only replying here to disagree with you!

I'll add: my first thought after reading your top-level post was that you were essentially engaging in consensus-building. That is to say, you were not looking to discuss the topic. You are mostly looking to persuade/change the vibe of the Motte. (Persuasion is not really against the rules, but most top-level posters here do not exude such visceral offense at the ratio of posters who share their beliefs; most people poast for the fun of it.)

Oh, this doesn't make Scott a Conflict Theorist (Know the difference between #1 and #2). This just means the Conflict Theorist's description of reality is correct - Power is power.

While its true humans try to engineer AIs' values, people make mistakes, so it seems reasonable to model possible AI values as a distribution. And that distribution would be wider than what we see real humans value.

Still, i'm not sure if AI values being high-variance is all that important to AI-doomerism. I think the more important fact is that we will give lots of power to AI. So even if the worst psychopath in human history did want to exterminate all humans, he wouldn't have a chance of succeeding.

I don't see how "consequences" is the right model here. The current administration (and future ones with the same goal) would enforce immigration law regardless of what Democrats do in power.

Unless harsh consequences is actually a thought experiment/answering the question? Do you have any ideas for harsh consequences?

I think that is kind of what they are saying - that Trump emboldened Wokeism and caused it to break free into normie spaces.

Presumably conspiracy is a crime because planning crimes is also a crime.

I could see the argument that a threat to commit a crime is not a plan. A threat is usually contingent on some condition.

If the threat is to be believed (presumably threats are punished because we think they are credible) then there's no stated plan as long as the condition isn't fulfilled.

I suppose as soon as the victim ignores the threat, then perhaps the threat can be assumed to be a plan.

My guess is he (and others?) consider 'traditional conservative sexual morality' to be the female-biased opposite of Hookup Culture. They would describe it as men giving commitment to women for a long time and the woman not putting out. Presumably, this is what the substack author would want.

Of course, you and I both know that's a secular perversion of the Christian sexual morality. Isn't the actual Christian sexual morality the middle ground where couples move from "no commitment, no sex" into "commitment and sex" in one fell swoop?