ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4hr ago
I'll add I think gay marriage was actually more important than people credit: post-Obergefell a lot of liberals decided that conservative opinions they had previously countenanced were actually too bigoted to tolerate at all.
2005-2015 was, statistically, when the last of the last generation (one hopes) to ever experience hunger in a Western country died (75-85 years if born in 1930, also the generation that came of age during WW2).
I do believe that Obergefell did have something to do with this- that the Christians vs. Atheists fight centered around 2010 was finally won (and the 'atheist' revolution proceeded to turn on itself in the form of International SJWery)- but on an institutional level those people were the last of the "you'd better keep that [X] around, you might need it some day", where X is [in hindsight, to me] 'standards of civility'.
Now that nobody remembers a time when the next meal could be threatened by (in some cases, literal) partisan sniping, it will intensify until it does threaten it, simply because that's how human beings work.
There's a really big difference between peace achieved by suppressing your violent desires and inner peace with no violent desires to suppress at all.
It's difficult to personally evaluate which is which.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
5hr ago
The naive people are indirectly responsible for the costs caused by insufficient security measures.
However, the converse also applies: the most cynical (who demand others pay more for security) impose costs when they want too much security.
This is how progressives can [correctly] accuse everyone else of imposing too many costs on the community by impeding the immigration they want, and how everyone else [correctly] can accuse progressives of imposing too many costs through failing to ensure immigrants behave themselves.
There's a meme in software about "move fast and break things". Same thing- you can either have more software faster and cheaper but having more security issues [which create cost indirectly], or you can have no software and have systems that are extremely expensive [which create cost directly].
Either one fundamentally creates a cost, but it's asymmetrically enforced, as humankind hasn't figured out how to measure much less begin to force the people who argue conservatism in a particular area to pay the opportunity cost that creates beyond "move to a land of plenty such that conservatism doesn't work".
but no matter how cynical they are there's nothing they can do to prevent the security costs and friction forced upon them by the scumbags
Sure there is- you organize meanness to degrade their capabilities. Typically this requires grouping people by class- sex, race, age, nationality [Irish need not apply], social standing, g, whatever- and forcing them to pay for "being scumbags".
And the ways you might force them to pay are many- you can levy fines, imprison them (which is more a fine on their time), disenfranchise them, physically injure them, and deploy various means of scumbag-icide (from assassinations of key figures to whatever prefix for -cide you wish).
On the other hand, of course, "being scumbag" is sometimes not something one can avoid. Perhaps one is born stupid, or with some trait that make their existence untenable (including relative statuses, since human beings work that way), so either they themselves, or those with whom they can co-ordinate, will seek to take away what you have because there's no particularly attractive alternative.
The thing that complicates this analysis is the fact that "people that just want to watch the world burn" (as in this case) are always a net positive to kill, but it's not possible to ensure the social machinery that kills those people is never turned in their direction.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
9hr ago
· Edited 9hr ago
A stuck in defrost wouldn't necessarily cause short cycling (although depending on the control setup there might be some)
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
10hr ago
· Edited 10hr ago
A CMMG banshee 9mm AR with FRT and suppressor is up there on the list
If you want something actually transformative, build a vz. 61 with a lower that you can put an FRT into, then suppress it. If you must go Banshee, get the fixed ejector upgrade if you can (ejection is a weak point of this design), or go with the MEAN Arms roller-delayed system (it isn't an issue there). Or buy a parts kit and print an MP5.
it's hard to see why it's worth going to the manual actions or single-shots when semi-autos are so cheap
Pistol caliber semi-autos have always been cheaper simply because they require no locking system to function safely. That's why manual-action guns in these calibers are so rare (with the exception of magnum-length revolver calibers).
(Same reason why there are barely any straight-pull bolt-action rifles- you're >95% of the way to a semi-auto. The Heym SR-30, simplest of the straight-pulls, is mechanically/operationally identical to an HK SL-7 without an action spring and appropriate "locking" piece.)
more engineering would be needed to make it magazine-fed
If you can get the "donor" gun in question to take a normal magazine, just use Endomags (or Exomags if you want a 10-rounder for something closer to flush-fitting). Bolt guns with plunger ejectors might cause you some grief, but these magazines are available with ejectors mounted on them should you require that (though it's a compromise as they can get damaged, like they can on the 10/22, which also does this).
Or maybe see what you could do with a high-point 9mm carbine; those guns are actually cheap cheap
Extar's plastic 9mm is arguably a better value simply by virtue of needing fewer magazines (and you can put an FRT in that too).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
12hr ago
I honestly felt cheated by the movie [and have the impression the book was similar] simply because Dankness Evermeme (or whatever her name is) was mostly just getting lucky with conditions suitable for environmental kills (with maybe an excusable reflex shooting to make that one guy rue the day he dared set foot in the arena). If there was manipulation to place those convenient weapons right in her way, it wasn't clearly stated.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
12hr ago
I'd figure a character-driven description of another character would be more relevant than the third person. Or maybe I just appreciate characters who would describe a certain movement as "breasted boobily".
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
12hr ago
I can't get anyone to directly defend why it's morally right for the group to vote on who to eat for dinner (that is, why a democratic state has the moral right to kill anyone) because nobody will debate at all and they leave before the web of «but it do be like that though» and «what about the roads / safety» is slashed through.
Maybe all of our high-decouplers left? Though at this point I've kind of settled for "this is how the average low-decoupler with a given set of beliefs behaves -> here are strategies for dealing with them" than anything else; while that is still valuable, it's not something that makes me much better at this point.
If all I can get are upvotes (or downvotes, I guess) but no actual engagement I consider that a failure, and at that point any such comment was nothing more than evidence of intellectual masturbation.
Or maybe I'm just not paying that much attention to find the ones that are like that, since I didn't really notice that one. But then again the only way I'm going to be able to properly your question is simply to deny the premise that objective morality is something that even exists in the first place.
Then again, I've also kind of already said that, void of any other engagement.
(Especially from the Christian angle, where most Christians seem to think God actually cares about morality, even though actively seeking it is generally orthogonal to what Christians are 'supposed' to be doing- but then again, "may God have mercy on your soul" is just a cool phrase you say to someone coincident with having sentenced them to death with no further implications or tacit acknowledgement of the fact the person you are about to kill might have been more aligned with God's will than you, right?
The only conventional 'morality' God seems to care about is sexual, but I get the distinct impression that, because sex and idolatry can have a lot to do with each other [which is something most people know internally, and something Christians are more likely to be bothered by for reasons beyond the fact idolatry is something they're not supposed to do], that this is a lot more a problem of muddying the waters [and social cohesion, contra homosexuality and effeminacy in men] when it comes to observers than anything else [and compounded by the fact that human beings, unlike idols or other magic sky daddies, are observably real], which is probably why 1 Cor 7 is immediately followed by 1 Cor 8 and why those 1600s-1900s US East Coast Christian sex "cults", as far as I'm aware, tended to cloister themselves somewhat.
I also think the problem of evil is a lot easier to swallow once you give up objective morality, too: if I'm powerful enough to create life de novo, I can do and prioritize whatever I like. If there is any duty here, it's the duty not to destroy those in alignment with the reason that creation occurred in the first place... a point very clearly made, coincidentally I'm sure, in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.)
I guess I could just keep every scattered thought I had as part of the response, and really don't have an answer for why that wouldn't be right here beyond it not feeling like the right thing to do. Though I guess I might as well test that theory here.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
14hr ago
and what activity there is in increasingly self-referential or just retreading old ground
Or in other words, thoughts are not getting any more refined. My first comment here and my last comment here will likely be the exact same.
I still browse the threads as a time-sink and to properly order social dynamics I've been fixated on thinking about, but as for actually novel insights I'm still wholly dependent on others to make the top-level posts.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
14hr ago
· Edited 14hr ago
most of which are still on the site
/r/blockedandreported is basically just Motte Lite.
Being Motte Lite, it's also pretty stupid most of the time, yet the stupider the subreddit the more offense they tend to generate to outsiders.
(Honestly the only thing I've learned from that place is that being able to clearly think about things that make most people really mad is actually pretty rare, and I get the impression that the flood of Substacks are from people who want to monetize that scarce resource.)
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
14hr ago
and what activity there is in increasingly self-referential or just retreading old ground
Or rather, what people generally come to this place to do is, for the most part, a solved problem. At this point I think I could train an chatbot to do the kind of analysis I already do and it'd be no different materially to 90% of what I usually say, outside of the benefits of actually having to think about it.
There are a few crucial insights that are generated in that process, and rehashing of everything else, but the number of those per week I will agree has decreased, and I should probably find something else to do. Maybe it's just a more boring time; 2018-2022 were a significantly more interesting time period (and not for very good reasons).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
1d ago
Has the ICC been captured by organised crime?
Governments are organized crime.
The ICCs mandate is rather narrow, mostly involving war crimes and crimes against humanity
That's just a fancy way to say "losing wars while being on the side the EU doesn't support". Progressives will tell you that disagreeing with a woman is a crime against humanity so the definition is worthless.
The fact the ICC draws most of its legitimacy from Nuremberg (which was, basically, to legitimize killing off a bunch of German elites) remains relevant; that's where the temptation and cultural pull to use the ICC for "anti-Nazi" purposes come from.
Conveniently, all of their opponents are Nazis.
Of course, arresting him while bypassing the US court system would be tricky.
I already outlined a way this can (and indeed, does) happen. For everyone else, there's your standard black-bagging- foreign intelligence services, if they want to stay on the US' good side, can launder the US' unlawful requests just like they do now with SIGINT.
Yes, it's obviously a degradation to sovereignty, but if you only care about sovereignty in the supranational sense (again, so you can avoid passing politically-costly laws- immigration being the easiest example) why would that concern you?
the SCOTUS will very much not let them
What legions will they send to stop them?
What additional value does an extrajudicial kangaroo court in Europe have in enforcing our laws.
It provides value when certain factions want is prohibited by your laws. You might have the right to free speech domestically, but if your political opponents gain power and decide that criticizing your political opponents is a hate crime, and pack you off to a foreign country extraordinarily render you to face foreign "justice", then that doesn't matter.
It's the same kind of thing Charles I (and some king of Spain in the early 1800s) did by simply asking a foreign State to invade in return for economic promises. It's an act of civil war, obviously, but to what degree will the populace care?
One imagines a deal that the EU will keep the US dissident-free, while the US will keep the EU tariff-free into US markets.
The Trump administration realizes quite correctly that the next Democrat regime could use the ICC to harass its domestic enemies while sidestepping Constitutional concerns
This has kind of already happened; European countries (and US companies that would like to continue to do business in Europe, most notably payment processors) have already fought a few US companies for blasphemy (or "hate speech", as they prefer to call it). Which is kind of why the US needs to put its foot down and make sure that if the Europeans want their own firewall, they build it themselves (which would result in so much money -> political power changing hands that European gerontocracies would get turfed anyway).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
No, but "just [retroactively] ban ones that didn't go through the process" will generally work because gun owners and being autistically law-abiding have something to do with each other. (Permitting illegal stuff to be used on range properties tends to create liability for them.)
The new school of gun owners is a bit less, uh, 'cucked', but they aren't in political power yet.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
Oh no, I mean the West too. Most of the women complaining about it also have their hand down their pants at the same time, and the only people that don’t understand that are, naturally, men in their teens.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
2d ago
The former is generally fine among those who are permitted to date in the first place.
As for the latter, may I present My Hero Academia.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
Funnily, the reason I was checking was because my daughter thought it was 10 guys just mag dumping into some prisoner with automatics, which is a darkly hilarious mental image.
Considering the weapon used in his crime, P90s would be an appropriate (and ironic) choice.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
They thus know that their local government is protecting them and their property from being destroyed or taken.
Well, yeah- when State capacity is relatively weak relative to the population's ability to simply decide to form their own government, the State actually has to do something if it wants to stay in control.
When State capacity is strong, the State will just import criminals to extract tribute from the population indirectly (they'll be exempt from justice, obviously).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
3d ago
Well, obviously; if I was guilty of the same things in a more abstract fashion I'd be fucking terrified too.
Yaoi fangirls are aware of a dynamic, because the genre formalizes one
I take the opposite view, where the genre (and its conventions) exist as a natural extension of how people subconsciously act -> it works because it inherently resonates. Categories for the (wo)man, and all that.
And sure, that's complicated by the lowest-effort to express, perhaps like love triangles are for het or yuri romance (such that I believe this is just something the typical man likes and that criticisms that it's "tropey" are more from people who have enough mental capacity to both notice that pattern and get bored of it), but if it works for most people in the target audience, then it's probably a signal about that audience.
and this is simultaneously desirable and absolutely infuriating to most women, since it seems belittling even in its best form where it solves problems easily and correctly
Which is why it seems that a solution to that paradox is to spend effort abstracting that tendency into a symbol [of... attraction, acceptance, devotion, I... guess?] and move on (and so places where that abstraction breaks down re: 'mansplaining' are going to feel worse, since that abstraction is broken -> proof/meaningfulness of accepting it happens is not only denied and the person/group for whom that emotional work was done is now the exact thing denying its worth). Reminds me of how certain Christians approach God for what I'm pretty sure are the same reasons. (See also: notice me, senpai!)
I'm kinda curious which one of spudyjek's guys seems androgynous masc to you.
If I recall correctly, the second quick pass of the given examples suggested it was the black one. The white one does have some signals of this (most stereotypically the glasses), but he also appears to be quite a bit larger and isn't usually doing the 'girly' thing in the linked example.
while I'm aware of butch/femme people and how they act, I can't say much as to how well they generalize.
This is more trying to compare and contrast how straight men see MFF throuples in opposition to how [straight?] women see MMF throuples (I guess I could just read Ouran High School Host Club for a bunch of other examples that I remember even the show just outright stating, but anything other than MM non-twins aren't currently in scope and that's not really the only dynamic featured in there). Gender isn't a symmetric "object" so it's not just "the same thing but flipped" should you examine it in front of a mirror, so to speak (for instance, men and women both might find opposite-sex-twins-on-self-insert hot, but I don't get the impression that men are attracted to the cascade of background of emotional connection leading up to whatever it is they're doing that women seem to be), or rather, examining "what lines up with what" seems to me to be the wrong tool with which to examine the question.
It's hard to actually set up a reciprocal norm when at the raw flirting stage, but it's something that tends to evolve pretty quickly in a real relationship in my experience and in those I've seen second-hand.
Yet you still seem to require some background awareness of it, especially when you're trying to flirt with someone who doesn't know that. And then that background awareness colors every other interaction (even when it's not meant that way).
For example,
Ukes are feminine, emotionally open, perceptive (often to a fault), shorter, and a bottom. Semes are masculine(ish), emotionally steady, inscrutable and less perceptive, taller and tops.
Yeah, totally a mystery as to how that would be appealing to straight women at all- either of the two modes it's going to go into (which is either 'why yaoi has that name' or focused a lot more on the emotional side, which is something that isn't really found much in yuri made by men even though it's something I would naively expect from both sides of a lesbian relationship [but for different reasons in each participant]). Then again, I'm also aware that lesbians are very unusual, so...
Group A generally finds right answers, but for wrong reasons. Group B generally finds wrong answers, but for right reasons. Which group would you rather be in?
How fast can you fail, are we talking locally wrong or globally wrong, and to what extent are As constrained? Though again, this is progressivism/traditionalism/conservatism/whatever Six Foundation thinking is calling itself these days [as A] vs. and classical liberalism [as B].
I feel like there's a reasonable case that Group A is preferable.
Which is why most people are, at the intersection of all identities, generally in Group A (as well as the fact that 'right answers for right reasons' are inevitably incorporated by A when discovered by B). You'd have to be some sort of principled libertarian to be in B, which is why B tends to have a lot to do with those who find wrong answers for wrong reasons.
Yet the fact remains that A is completely unsustainable without B- you claim that A "finds" right answers, but generally speaking, they do no such thing. The reverse is not as true, which creates a lot of existential angst for A (and most A memes are designed to shut down and delay realizing that cognitive dissonance, ideally past one human lifetime).
If a certain type of reasoning generally leads you to right or good answers, doesn't that in itself make that type of reasoning right?
Well, yeah- when A was racist, racism yielded a global maximum of results (or perhaps the predictive power of racism yielding excellent local results lead to the As at the time incorporating it). A rapidly discovered and incorporated the epistemic virtue of racism.
But that's too reductive- it's more accurate to say that racism was a local maximum (which is why As were racist) in a particular time and place. However, once racism stopped being that local maximum, the A at that time was completely destroyed, and a new group A' took over from A.
Naturally, A' claimed they discovered the virtue of not being racist both to siphon power from A, and disavow that the existence of A' owed its existence to grabbing whatever B had for anti-racism and erecting an entire moral edifice around it (as those who choose A have as much a psychological dependence on that morality as those who choose B depend on the idea that the process of correct morality yields positive results). But they're both still A, and once the takeover has concluded, A has 'always been at war with Eastasia', so to speak.
A guess that randomly lands on the right answer is not epistemically virtuous
From B's viewpoint, yes- they might be locally (or even globally) correct but they're also horrible people who should never get anywhere near real power, the Puritans being a classic example (note also that "puritanical" is a B meme).
From A's viewpoint, there's no dissonance here, because they don't perceive it to be random- they are good people and deserve good things.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
Moral development (per Kohlberg) and IQ are somewhat positively correlated.
If the same is true for AI, then sure, you can stop it from taking selfish shortcuts- but you won't get any transcendent thinking from a system that only follows a specific procedure, which is what you actually want.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
Disqualify everyone who thinks more about pussy than x-risk and you’ll be left only with the scheming eunuchs.
The eunuchs are the ones disproportionately involved in creating the AI in the first place.
The selection effect is actually really noteworthy here because all modern eunuchs are self-made. (They don't actually call themselves eunuchs these days unless maybe you're on the WPATH mailing list- but they are very womanly men all the same. Perhaps the way certain scientific types act to give birth to some massive project is uterus-envy?)
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
4d ago
I will ignore your warnings of potential catastrophe unless you forswear any lifestyle choices of which I disapprove; therefore, if you do not change your lifestyle to fit my demands, you rank prevention of catastrophe as less important than your lifestyle choices.
Funny, this is exactly how I feel about global warming 'enthusiasts'.
Of course, the difference between this and that is that said 'enthusiasts' have an obviously massive amount to gain politically from most human activity being banned like they want; the 'ban AI' faction isn't quite there yet (and dependent on who it takes down first- maybe they're on the side of weird sex, maybe they're not) so it's not clear if the origins of the group will be a liability.
When the practises in question entirely involve mutually consenting adults, whose standards for consent are probably a fair bit less flexible than the median
The usual playbook here is "change the rules, accuse of rape ex post facto", so the truth's not going to matter anyway. Of course, the weird sex people (or at least, their allies) are the same ones pushing in the #fightFor25 direction more generally, so maybe they don't have to worry about that for the foreseeable future.
Honestly the part I felt cheated by had more to do with the "oh, so we're just going to make the protagonist basically blameless" thing than anything else.
It would have been more interesting had the killer bees been delivered as a gift more than the
chug jugointment beforehand.More options
Context Copy link