@VelveteenAmbush's banner p

VelveteenAmbush

Prime Intellect did nothing wrong

5 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 02:49:35 UTC

				

User ID: 411

VelveteenAmbush

Prime Intellect did nothing wrong

5 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 02:49:35 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 411

I think the African slave trade largely traded on Africans who lost a political, legal or physical conflict in Africa -- they were (for the most part) prisoners of war, convicts, outcasts and misfits who were captured and sold to slavers by other native Africans. So this isn't terribly different from observing that descendants of convicted felons tend to have worse outcomes, which I also expect to be true. As is often the case in studies of intergenerational disparities, genetic heredity can provide a satisfying explanation, which is upstream both from their current status and their ancestors' enslavement.

It also seems plausible to me that slave breeding that took place in America was dysgenic, which could have long-lasting consequences. I don't know if it was, though. If that is correct, it's quite the political hot potato: the folks looking to avenge past oppression are generally not going to want to accept that genetic inferiority mediates the legacy of the oppression, and the folks looking to blame the underclass for their plight are generally not going to want to accept that their blameworthy tendencies were foisted upon them by the sins of America's forefathers.

That is a completely different kind of "progress" than the progress that Elon Musk believes in. What are we even disagreeing about at this point? You think Elon Musk is a progressive in the mainstream sense of the word?

Hillary tried to make Trump the 2016 candidate (they succeeded, but lost), and the Dems in 2022 tried to make Trump's Senate picks the GOP candidates (they succeeded, and trounced those candidates), so it's really just a return to form at this point.

Not sure if it'll work. I think the GOP base is coming around to seeing Trump as incompetent. If the deep state screws you once, you're a martyr. If the deep state screws you twice a week for eight years running, you're a loser.

What is "progressivism" if not a belief in capital-P Progress?

I already defined it in the post you're responding to. It's somewhere between tedious and dishonest to insist that words should be used to mean the opposite of what people actually use them to mean because of their etymology.

Here's the dictionary:

pro·gres·sive

/prəˈɡresiv/

noun

1.

a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

"people tend to present themselves either as progressives or traditionalists on this issue"

2.

GRAMMAR

a progressive tense or aspect.

"the present progressive"

I think the point is essentially that Musk stands for a very slightly different form of progressivism. This is fundamentally still not only Hegelian grand narrative, humanity’s destiny, march of history type stuff, it’s the specific variant of that stuff that emerged in mid-20th century America. America has been liberal from the start, but this is a sub-variant of a sub-variant of liberalism that seeks to bring about the same thing as sought by the social justice advocates, just slightly differently.

What? Progressivism? Is this just nonstandard terminology, like when libertarians call themselves Classical Liberals, as though libertarianism bears any resemblance to liberalism in the modern taxonomy? Or do you see Musk as actually caring about anything that Nancy Pelosi fights for? In the modern world, "progressive" means "the liberal wing of the liberal party." It's the Squad, John Oliver, pronoun-ism and anti-racism.

Best I can see he is purebred John Galt: low taxes, OSHA can get off his property, openly ridicules pronoun people, doesn't give a shit about worker protections, busts unions as hard as he can, acts like every pointless midwit diversicrat who draws a salary from his companies is effectively stealing from him, and has the absolute audacity to think that people who achieve things deserve more credit and power than people who don't.

Why is this specific action 'bad'?

It undermines the norms of monogamy and private sexuality. Why isn't it bad? If you're the one proposing a radical change in public norms, shouldn't you bear the burden?

Why are those dudes who go naked under their trenchcoats and then flash children on the subway bad? Do you agree that they're bad? What specific harm are they causing?

I like it!

Maybe. Brand advertising is weak in a crappy economy, but when the demand is there, competition will push them into reasonable ad space.

I dunno, "it's not illegal" is a far cry from "it's not his fault." It isn't illegal for him to engage in public "puppy play," but it also isn't illegal for us to criticize his extreme and gratuitous violation of social norms.

Kanye's antisemitic speech isn't illegal either; did Adidas err by firing him?

I'm seeing a lot of people talk about how Brinton is at fault for the extra attention due to their appearance & persona. But that's not Brinton's fault (unless you believe that Brinton is just making it up).

I mean... setting aside the way he dresses and his pronouns, how is it not his fault that he makes his "puppy play" fetish part of his public persona? Why can't he keep his kinks and fetishes inside the bedroom?

So advertising dollars would be your way to determine what forms of 'harmful' speech you'd allow? If old Twitter told you that they banned deadnaming due to advertiser concerns, would you support that move?

Simple necessity (via the brand advertising market) would be my way to determine how close the product can come to the absolutist free speech ideal, yes. If I were Musk, I'd go as far in that direction as I could without blowing up the economic viability of the product, forcing bankruptcy and leaving it in the hands of creditors, who are likely to more resemble Larry Fink in their outlook than @Home or @VelveteenAmbush.

It's wild to me how people can brazenly lie and expect to keep getting away with it.

Consider the proposition through the lens of expected value and it may seem less mysterious. He made a lot of money, and I doubt he'll be made worse off following the perhaps-inevitable reveal than he would if he had never tried.

There are some truths that we pretend not to notice even when they are staring us in the face -- among them, that steroid use isn't basic fucking table stakes for the masculine ideals ubiquitous in video entertainment, that whoring their bodies to disgusting slobs with executive producer titles isn't the same for young women seeking roles who aren't blood relatives of someone powerful, and that the cat-and-mouse game of using PEDs and defeating PED testing isn't as central to the skillset necessary to succeed as a professional athlete as being good at kicking the ball or whatever.

Which of the three hands that I offered are you taking as my position? If there is a way to author a comment that is less prescriptive and more descriptive than what I did, I don't know what it is.

I don't want Twitter to ban even swastikas or n-words (or "fag" -- I'm an equal opportunity free speech absolutist). But that's about as useful as not wanting fire to be hot or water to be wet. It dies without advertising dollars, simple and lamentable as that.

The stuff that black people are supposedly institutionally annoyed by whites at, like police shootings, don’t have anything to do with Jews (who rarely become police officers, certainly outside NYC), and Jews are also very rare in the Deep South, where the great majority of American black people live. Hotep complaints are quite different to the complaints of the average black progressive racial activist, in general many fringe black nationalist or conspiracist groups are socially conservative, patriarchal /misogynistic, and at odds with black progressive activists.

If you look at the “progressive stack” in your average Deep South town where the average African American lives, there may be whites, but there are no Jews to place.

None of my comment relates to the Deep South nor to the classes of whites and blacks who live there, all of whom are all but irrelevant to The Discourse. Kanye and the ADL influence elite discourse; Billy Bob and Jamaal don't influence it and probably aren't even aware of it; at best, they are objects of it, when the coastal Eye of Sauron fixates upon some squalid incident to elevate above the hundreds of thousands of quotidian but equally depraved behavior to advance an argument or storyline in the Great Culture Game (e.g. that black jogger guy who got shot by those white rednecks -- Arbory Aubery or whatever). This is a struggle that plays out in the commanding heights of culture, wherein I hope it isn't controversial that the Jewish community participates well in excess of its share of the population, such as when the Sulzberger dynasty manipulates the gimbals of Sauron's Eye to find his sordid teachable moment du jour.

Sure seems to me like Biden is running again.

I agree. Honestly there's no way Twitter can remain viable to advertisers if people are posting swastikas or the n-word everywhere, so obviously there's gonna be a hate speech restriction of some kind, whether explicitly or practically. I would love a Twitter where everything was allowed except what a court ordered them to remove, but it isn't in the cards.

On the one hand, they might as well own up to it and write it into their policy.

On the other hand, it's all a continuum, and it's very easy to start by banning hate speech in the traditional sense of the n-word and similar, and end up banning anyone who doesn't agree with every element of the progressive catechism. So maybe the best way to resist is with a bit of dishonesty. Take down the n-word under the untenable pretense that it's a direct incitement to violence, and then just don't make that same mischaracterization with respect to misgendering or deadnaming or whatever.

On the third hand, I don't know how this latter approach works when you need an army of T&S people handling user report tickets. Surely there's gotta be some internal document that spells it out just to maintain any kind of consistent approach.

Yes, let's make sure Twitter gets bankrupted / regulated out of existence, that'll show those censors!

Fine, but call yourself a free speech pragmatist.

I dunno, Clinton actually did pass harsh mandatory minimum sentences, overhauled welfare to replace it with TANF which generally required people to get a job, etc. He wasn't just talk.

To save the freedom of speech, we must curtail unpopular speech!

Hard pass. Calling this "free speech maximalism" is an insult to the intellect.

They've already confirmed that he didn't check a bag on that flight, he did not act to return the item when prompted by police, he has been formally indicted and placed on administrative leave. I think his goose is cooked.

Dems are done with this shit, they are swinging back to the center on race and sexuality issues and focusing on abortion and bread and butter liberal economic issues like healthcare and student debt forgiveness since the midterm proved it works. They passed a statute codifying same-sex marriage, and that is the face they want to put on "LGBTQ" issues, not this rolling disaster of a person. SCOTUS is going to deep-six affirmative action and that is not a winning issue for the Dems, plus it doesn't work to motivate their racial client groups, so don't expect any more BLM-branded racialist muckraking. We're going back to First Term Obama, minus the drone strikes.

I am free speech maximalist (note that's different from absolutist) and I would have shut Kayne West down.

Can you define free speech maximalist? Because it's weird to see a phrase like that proposed as consistent with censoring swastikas.

Always, always when I have people over for dinner or something, something comes up at some point where people get into a progressive taking point that I disagree with, and I just sit there really uncomfortably and can't say anything because there's no tactful way to do it, or I don't want to get into a giant argument.

If they're friends, just signal that you disagree but that it isn't a big deal. People follow your cues and if you aren't defensive or emotional they probably won't be either. Like if someone makes a comment implying the police are racist or something, just kinda lean back and smile and say "oh man that's a tough one for me, I'm pretty law and order to be honest. More wine?" People don't want to argue. They're probably just trying to make conversation on what they assume is a shared premise. If you signal that it isn't a shared premise, but you aren't aggressive about it, they'll probably take it in stride.

Forget crypto, if someone can just figure out what Bankman-Fried has to reduce people like this to squeeing fanboys and then bottle it, that's a sure-fire fortune!

These insane asset bubbles are torture for professional asset managers obligated to deploy capital in related spaces. Sure, they can try to sit it out, but the crypto clown-car has been rolling for years now, with idiot 23-year-olds popping out as billionaires left and right. Andreessen launched a crypto fund and returned something like 5x in just a couple of years. Where's your return, investors and colleagues ask? What's your crypto strategy? How many years can you spend shifting uncomfortably in your seat and muttering "well, but, in the fullness of time..." before you make a move?

I don't know. The FTT collapse seemed preordained once the Coindesk article was published, even if CZ was the catalyst that toppled the house of cards. And I think pulling out of an acquisition was inevitable for the same reason that SBF's attempts to "fundraise" after the FTT crash were doomed: their balance sheet is a black hole, and no acquirer on earth with the resources to bail out their customers would come to any other conclusion after even a cursory look. SBF's whole "well played, CZ, you won" shtick looks delusional in hindsight.

If anything, CZ probably wishes that he had just quietly sold as much of the Binance FTT holdings as he could after the Coindesk article landed. The outcome would be the same, but he wouldn't feature in the headlines, and they'd have probably recovered at least $100M or so in the sale.

Ha yup. "One possible novel sorting algorithm is to blow a party horn and then use quicksort."