ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
In my head, MA like in mall sounds vaguely British, but I have nothing to back this up.
I mean, it is how the Brits would pronounce that word, because the first letter of the British English alphabet is "aw" and not "a" (just like how they pronounce the letter "o" as "oi" under certain conditions, like in the word "no").
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
It’s also worth noting that between May and October 2020, the mob (and mob supporters) were in control of large portions of the country, to the point that the government couldn’t mobilize a proper response to them. Hence the claim about “deep state” holding more water, and that people that originally voted for Trump saw him do nothing about that, so they voted for the mob’s candidate instead.
This didn’t happen in other countries more or less at all.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
How long do you wager it'll be before a major car company [thinking of Tesla here but I'm pretty sure they all do this now] bricks a significant number of its electric cars by pushing a bad update (rendering the car unable to start)?
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
Yes, I'm talking about the BLM riots.
The government arms nominally tasked with quelling them refused to do so; by definition, the government lost control of those areas. The faction responsible for the riots then proceeded to win the election in 2020.
Thus I don't believe it unreasonable to assume the continuity of that faction's governance also includes the summer of 2020 (and the actions of the bureaucracy that specifically enabled them by exempting them from public health orders). The same would not have been true had that faction lost. What supporters of a particular faction do matters to the general public's perception of who's in charge.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
Considering the overall quality of automotive software is 100% garbage I'm not as certain a massive screw-up would be as unlikely.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
Usually the newest iPhone. They’re expensive, so only paying 20-30 extra over 2 years generally works well for people, especially those who can’t afford 1000 dollars up front or don’t want to pay the whole shot unless they irreparably break it.
If you’re careful with your stuff this is a non-issue but those people tend more often to have 1000 dollars laying around.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
and short of 'joining the community' it's impossible to locate the information now.
It also means that there are more angry gatekeepers to that information where before there were none. I guess forums were kind of like this too, but because Discord is federated and forums were not, you have more attached to using a particular account to seek information and a username that doesn't change. Hence there's more "at stake".
And while sure, you can use Discord in a way where you have a bunch of different accounts, it's still a massive hassle to do that (and the way they currently do implement it is vulnerable to enclosure via Nitro).
buying a ~$500 A-series pixel or Oneplus something-or-other
Or a 400-dollar iPhone SE, which is the phone I recommend to everyone either unwilling or unable to install ad blocking on Android (with a side of "I could do this, but I refuse to be tech support for this person") because iOS is a better experience than Android is under those conditions and the hardware is powerful enough that, unlike Android devices, you'll actually get 7 years out of it.
It honestly shocks me that particular phone isn't what most consumers who want iOS want, but then again, sometimes you have to know enough to ask for it (and the pricing on the latest models, which aren't actually any better than the SE outside of the camera and screen size, is significantly more than the SE making consumers think there's a massive difference between the two even though there really isn't).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
Can you really put a price on being the only American citizen to whom the First Amendment meaningfully applies, though?
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
What is the threshold for the court viewing it as an illegal scheme?
If the charge structure doesn't match the Progressive stack it's illegal.
In its simplest form, it would be illegal to charge women more than men, but not the reverse.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
But Matrix is a mess.
It was broken by design.
People think federation is a feature for some reason, but the only people it helps are not people you should ever empower, because it allows them to bully you across instances for the crime of not sharing the same killfile.
"Federation" as far as the client sees it is just managing multiple accounts, which doesn't tilt the playing field in favor of the bullies.
Oh yeah, and the server needing 2GB of RAM to run is absurd. We accept that from clients, but when it's the server it's an entirely different story and makes it even more difficult to run.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
Any technology your faction didn't create is a tactical and strategic liability. This is also the root of why people are bothered by AI censorship.
As far as conspiracy, this stuff was in the works far before tech people noticed they needed to stop giving ammunition to people who hated them- that only became apparent after 2015 or so and both ActivityPub and Bitcoin both predate the first mask-off moment.
create a structurally good system that does not rely on good people controlling it
Sure, but in that case you have to make it sufficiently difficult to use that the bad/stupid people can't access it. Which is why Urbit is the way that it is and has the adoption that it does.
And while "smart enough to access something" or "conscientious enough to pay for something" usually means "a better class of person", that's still no guarantee that remains true (for instance, modern progressivism comes from SomethingAwful, one of the only paid forums).
I guess I'm autistic enough, that a part of me still wants to believe
I don't like operating in adult mode either, but not knowing when, how, or why to do that has consequences. The difference between a autist/child/classical liberal is that they're not looking for ways to hurt other people with the things that they do, where adults/progressives/traditionalists are at least preoccupied with if not actively seeking ways to hurt other people.
Child-like outlooks on life must be actively defended if they are to survive. (Actually, come to think of it, it's very interesting that in Western canon there's very little mention of how to do this- but people who have lost the ability to have anything but an adult outlook on life almost never create things with staying power like that in the first place, so I guess that makes sense.)
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
"Federation" as far as the client sees it is just managing multiple accounts
The point of federation is that you use the same one. So, for instance, if Reddit was my homeserver and I wanted to post to TheMotte's Matrix instance, I'd be [redacted]@reddit.com.
The problem, then, is that if you don't like that homeserver I can't use my main identity to talk here, and it's a single point of failure to only have a single account on an instance that doesn't belong to me (in which case it's "banned for coming from an instance that doesn't answer to you").
Messaging about trying to appeal to users that were on the run from overly-censorious website operators that their selling feature boiled down to "more hassle and still just as much censorship" was the opposite of a good plan. This would have been fine in the early '00s where culture war hadn't yet come to the Internet for cultural reasons, but it's not the early '00s any more.
but can’t you just create your own insulated private swarm of Matrix servers like IRC networks?
Of course you can- Pawoo and Gab are the largest such isolated instances, though as I understand it, that's more "most of the network has them blocked".
It's as common of an anecdote as it is a media trope, the 13-17 year old boy who gives his rough stepdad his first black eye to fiercely let him know that he's never going to hurt him or mom again.
It is probably also worth pointing out that, for males, the ability and willingness to do this (to parental figures or to authority more generally) is the ultimate dividing line between child (who can't and aren't) and adult (who can and will).
For females, this dividing line comes when they can successfully convince an adult male to exercise that capacity for violence on their behalf.
If your opponent has more capacity for violence than you it will result in your subhumanization/demotion to child (relative to the more powerful) 100% of the time given infinite time, though whether anyone happens to care is another question entirely.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
Federation has already failed. A common protocol is important, but we only have that by inertia too.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
But if that’s the case, then this is just arguing that the conflict is justified instead of arguing that there is no conflict.
In topic-oriented spaces, there are 2 genders: male, and political. Especially on the internet, where nobody knows you’re a dog- the only reason one would want their gender to be relevant is because you’re looking to leverage it as an advantage.
Which is why “tits or GTFO” is the expression- you either disclaim your protected status by doing something that demeans it, or you don’t participate. It is a gatekeeping expression to keep women away, but if you assume that at least some of them are naturally driven to make it all about themselves and that the highest-value women aren’t bothered, then it is useful.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
already makes this distinction with "you" and "ye/yiz".
That might have worked in the past, but I think using the latter these days just gets you branded as a Kanyesexual.
But everyone is motivated to support their side.
Except for mistake theorists, who are [in and according to that theory] more motivated by the desire to get the correct answer. People who think other people work like that are mistake theorists. It's that weird brain thing that makes some people choose "co-operate" as the first move in a prisoner's dilemma game.
The problem is that for people who tend to get right answers most of the time, their mistake theory is functionally indistinguishable from conflict theory in favor of "people who get the right answers more often than not" privilege (from the perspective of people who are wrong). Their correct answers oppress those who don't get things right, thus the need to redistribute their correctness, by force if necessary.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
ideological schizophrenia within Feminism
I think it's better understood as "the Junior Anti-Sex League wearing a rotting skinsuit of sex positivity", which is why feminism for the last 10+ years has been very concerned with promoting everything-but-straight-sex.
The problem with doing that is that eventually, you run out of road and have to get more extreme to still be considered sex-positive, which is why they've pivoted to things like valorizing the castrated (i.e. transgenderism) and ensuring that, provided you pass a paper bag test, the age of consent does not apply to you.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
You get a cohort of females raised without discipline from father figures, and eventually realizing that the only thing restraining their bad behavior is nothing, and maybe noticing that there's a shortage of people who are capable of using physical force to stop them.
Which describes the state of '80s and '90s particularly well. If the nastiness in gender relations is cyclical (and relative equality should suggest that it is), then you'll get the men doing it next.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
It has also already toppled one nation, though whether one considers Afghanistan a nation is up for debate.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
11mo ago
[I hope this is at least somehow coherent. If I had more time I'd compose a post that has more of a condensed point.]
Sex is not, in fact, harmless fun; it simply has too many consequences, physical and psychological, for it to be treated as such.
Sex is harmless fun so long as you're a man liberal. Most people are not men liberal, a lot of people resent the fact they're not men liberal, and the gender role of men social role of liberals is to make devotion to them not degrading (a role in which they have failed as is in their nature to do, and something that "well, the man brings home so much money that I can deal with the occasional mistress standards of living are increasing so quickly that even spaces free of all that liberalism are enhanced by accepting that the sanctity of the commons is diminished by their presence").
The Sexual Revolution made it possible for a lot of women to enjoy being men liberals too. Technology and antibiotics brought the risks of straight sex to an all-time low; so women on the margins (with a slightly higher risk tolerance) could reasonably expect to get more action without getting knocked up. Which is good [citation needed]. It helped marriages in all sorts of ways, too; you could actually have a healthy marital sex life without having so many children that you couldn't fit them all in the station wagon.
And then the '80s came and the places you could meet people all died. And a turbo-STD came out as a death sentence. And the economic golden age ended, so the social stakes went higher (to the point where the non-liberals were once again empowered to whip out their purity boners and fuck up everything). In short, sexual liberalism stopped being affordable; it recovered slightly in the '90s and '00s only to take a dive [suspiciously coincident with the rise of ZIRP economics, now that I think about it].
Do I think it was worthwhile to encourage high-value transgender liberated people (as in, people who are liberals inside but unable to come out of the closet for various sociopolitical/socioeconomic reasons)? Yes, because I think that when people who can do that get to do that, it makes them happier and thus more productive (and considering the people who can do that tend to be of high value more generally- one only need look at how many furries in tech there are- keeping them happy has far more value than keeping an angry wokescold happy and therefore that wokescold should be oppressed by having to suffer the existence of furries). People who are able to act like children/liberals/mistake theorists all day are more innovative than those who have to act as adults/in self-defense/conflict theory; that's why tech startups outcompete large firms. And so on. (If men must toil, they might as well maximize return on investment while they're at it.)
[I do admit this is more 'feelings' than anything else; I haven't measured workplace productivity across free and non-free societies and I'm not even sure you can given different starting conditions. I have noticed that most people who migrate from less liberal nations to more liberal ones tend to be unusually productive, though.]
So yeah, I think there is value in having less friction in sexual relationships (because the negative consequences are less salient, you can disengage from a relationship that goes south much easier), and the need to fuck defensively is net-negative for the enrichment of a class of person who does not actually create anything (while they do tend to spawn 200 pounds of cat food upon death that's not intentional on their part). Especially if we can encourage the people who eventually might end up in the unproductive class to not even consider it.
For that matter, it seems likely to me that the same is true for LGBTQ2A+
I'm honestly not sure how their position follows. I think that the only thing that's going to do them in is some unforseen upheaval that puts them in the same company as the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts (i.e. they fall out of favor with old women while old women are in power), and because they're an excuse for old women to wield power through weaponized tolerance, well...
sweeping its contradictions under the carpet
I think the problem with liberalism/childishness is that it's an emergent property of a society (enabled by its wealth) and not a coherent means of political organization (mainly because once they can organize they're too busy enjoying the fruits to plan long-term). If it was able to do this, it wouldn't be liberal, it would be something else.
Unless your whole world at that point is limited to schoolchildren; their importance simply expands to fill the void that should have been filled by other things. Same dynamic in workplace violence too, I suspect.
More options
Context Copy link