@VelveteenAmbush's banner p

VelveteenAmbush

Prime Intellect did nothing wrong

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

				

User ID: 411

VelveteenAmbush

Prime Intellect did nothing wrong

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 411

The threshold is defamation.

If Alex Jones defamed the parents, and harassment by unreasonable whackos was foreseeable and transpired as a result, then yes: they have suffered clear harm that was clearly the result of clear defamation.

I tend to agree that the old religions have been rendered obsolete, more or less empirically; science has reduced them to Russell's teapot. Some people still believe in them, genuinely, but that's more of a feature of their personal psychological ability to believe things as a result of cultural overhang or because they want them to be true than of any epistemological strength of the belief systems, the latter being similar in some sense to QAnonism.

Science taketh, but science also giveth, and thanks to the empirical advances of machine learning and the retreat of the soul in prevailing theories of cognition, there is now plenty of room for new religions. The Simulation Hypothesis is fertile ground for spiritual entrepreneurs to build neo-gnosticisms. Roko was the John Edwards of Yudkowskianism. Reports abound of the emotional tortures of EA types who have heard his brimstone sermon, and I trust their sincerity. Scott's The Hour I First Believed is a more sophisticated and pro-social synthesis.

Then the argument moves to, well isn't puberty blockers irrecoverable harm

By moving the argument to puberty blockers, are you agreeing that all gender confirming care for minors that is more aggressive or less reversible than puberty blockers should be banned?

Otherwise, I assume you'd move the argument to those instead, right?

What if the children just wanted their ears removed? This wouldn't render them deaf, just leave them visibly mutilated by prevailing standards. Is that irrecoverable harm? Who is to decide what constitutes harm, and what constitutes the realization of one's inner truth however aberrant by wider standards?

Much worse to spend that sentence in a men's prison than in a women's prison, I assume.

I agree that Rittenhouse and the "smirkgate" kid were defamed and deserve compensation, but even so the journalists who defamed them were much closer in relative terms to having a reasonable and good-faith opinion than the deranged shit about "crisis actors" that Alex Jones said. It's apples and oranges.

The President does have significant executive authority, and it can be used to advance an agenda even in opposition to the legions of bureaucratic lifers in DC. DeSantis does this in Florida on the regular; it can be done, but it's hard, and Trump didn't do it.

Who knows, we could live long enough to see the full inversion: if we don't let her commit suicide, she might go trans!

Maybe that seems far-fetched, but we're already transing the gay kids. The LGBTQIA+++ revolution eventually eats its own. Only a matter of time till we add a D for death-inclined or something and tell the trans to check their privilege.

Beats me, fortunately it's all outside of my experience. I guess it's just one of those things... you can set up a hundred nice wholesome pray-away-the-gay camps, but just a couple of your friends do some electroshock torture on child prisoners and suddenly that's all anyone wants to talk about. 🙄

Just to be clear: you claim that arguing that Rittenhouse murdered those two guys is on par with arguing that the Sandy Hook massacre never actually occurred and Sandy Hook parents are literally just acting?

Only if the speakers commit defamation.

Because there's an awful lot of defamation on the level of Alex Jones going around

Where?

What about every journalist and outlet who, even post-trial, smeared (falsely) Kyle Rittenhouse as a murderer or other sort of problem?

Kyle Rittenhouse can and should sue them. I don't know if he'll prevail, but it's worth a shot. But whether what Rittenhouse did constitutes murder is a lot closer to a reasonable opinion than that the bereaved parents of murdered Sandy Hook elementary school children are actually crisis actors.

Some people think that eating meat is always wrong. If you think it's okay to eat pork but not to eat human flesh, are you "haggling over the price"? I'm not sure what purpose your comment serves.

LOL, are you curating a Stereotype Paragon of the Race collection?

In my opinion no human, no matter their genitals or gender identity, should on these grounds be excluded from the open/mens category.

Even if they're taking testosterone supplements?

Can natal men also take testosterone supplements and participate in the open/mens' league?

What about Hillary Clinton repeatedly calling Donald Trump a variation of "Putin's Puppet", or otherwise accusing him of capital offenses and besmirching his character? It's hard to imagine a more damning smear in the political sphere -- being a Benedict Arnold is a way to go down in history for the worse!

Impugning a politician's loyalties or motivations is objectively less crazy than claiming that the Sandy Hook Massacre literally did not occur.

What about Mary Lewanski, who carried water for the Waukesha murderer, and said the citizens there deserved it because it was karma?

Disagreements about moral dessert is objectively less crazy than claiming that the Sandy Hook Massacre literally did not occur.

How about Rep. Haukeem Jeffries peddling various falsehoods and inflammatory bits of misinformation, such as lying about what happened in Kenosha with Kyle Rittenhouse, or the shooting of Jacob Blake, rapist, child abductor, and felon extraordinare

You can disagree with the framing (as I do) but it does not contradict physical reality nearly to the extent of claiming that the Sandy Hook Massacre literally did not occur.

You want to say Alex Jones is a piece of shit who bullies innocent people for his cause, makes up lies about their trauma, and in general deserves a harsh punishment?

And specifically that he does so with ludicrous bad-faith falsehoods, such as claiming that the Sandy Hook Massacre literally did not occur.

I feel like you've tried throughout this exchange to avoid grappling with the actual craziness of Alex Jones' claims.

The process and values involved in that 'treatment' are awful though. If you take someone borderline suicidal and put them in temporary-jail with a bunch of differently insane people - maybe they even become friends, as in the OP - is that really going to help?

Yes, of course it's going to help when the alternative is just to watch them finish dying in the first place.

What would it take to convince you that she was actually in constant, terrible pain?

I suppose I'd like to see physiological evidence to corroborate that she was in terrible pain. Like -- actual pain, not just unhappy, per the actual dictionary definition: "physical suffering or discomfort caused by illness or injury."

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"

Check this shit out (hat tip @DaseindustriesLtd). I don't know the objective truth behind the accusations, but there's more than enough grist for CFAR/MIRI to get absolutely dragged by the mainstream press if they had anywhere near the public prominence or power that FTX had.

Yup... and they support that stuff because they've internalized the idea that trans are higher on the progressive stack than women.

They also shouldn't require public recognition of it in order to feel fully validated and functional.

Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry someone they're capable of finding sexually attractive, or that the recognition shouldn't go beyond marriage?

True, but it also doesn't mean the suffering is real, or at least that it is comparable to living with actual chronic pain.

Yet doesn't euthanasia, at least for the non-paraplegic, require you to drink the latter-day hemlock yourself? In which case, does this not require an approximately similar amount of courage as downing a pint of vodka and swallowing a handful of barbiturates?

No. The hospital provides the cocktail, and the hospital bed, and the softly cooing coterie of palliative care nurses. Even if the final act is done voluntarily, it is done having been stripped of its transgressive nature. If you want to kill yourself, you should want it badly enough to break through the transgressive barrier yourself, without the soft susurrations of medical experts gently lowering it to the floor.

No, I don't agree with a definition of natural in which everything that occurs in our universe qualifies equally. But no, I also don't want to go down a rabbithole arguing semantics with you.