Westerly
2yr ago
I think you are giving too much credit to the content of their beliefs. History has shown that Christianity can be compatible with and used as justification for any number of completely contradictory actions. I think @4bpp has the right idea, the average person simply doesn't believe things with 100% confidence and logically follow them through to conclusions that are not openly endorsed by their social group and peers. They just sort of pick up their morality from social cues, while texts are used on an as-needed basis to post-hoc justify conclusions they had arrived at by other means in a sort of parallel construction.
Westerly
2yr ago
I’m nobody special, but neither is the guy that decides we need to have a policy ensuring no children starve, but his policy shapes evolution just the same. Nearly every policy that touches on life and death is influencing evolution whether you like it or not. At least we can acknowledge that and bring it into the discussion of tradeoffs. Instead you seem to just want to stick your head in the sand and pretend our actions have no effect on evolution.
I don’t seek to impose any values. I’m not arguing for sterilizing Africans or whatever you think I’m angling towards. I’m just trying to explain eugenic/dysgenic to someone that seems to be willfully misinterpreting it
Westerly
2yr ago
I don’t even understand what argument you are making and neither do your interlocutors seem to. What is the point of the haggling over the price comment if it has (apparently) no bearing on anything?
Westerly
2yr ago
Just being honest, it is pretty well known that you can post any uncharitable thing you want as long as you bury it in 500 words and don't descend into slurs.
Westerly
2yr ago
Is he claiming to be king of all Ireland? Did the commentator specifically make a false claim regarding the ethnicity of his ancestors?
Westerly
1yr ago
The TTI seems like a meme for attention-seeking victimhood-chasers on TikTok. I would definitely be interested in such a post because my instinct is to dismiss all their claims as general “trauma” nonsense
This is a very Motteish, meta contrarian hipster thing to say. This seems absurd, contrary to reason and personal experience. Intelligent people are not right about everything, but I would find it hard to believe they are wrong more often than stupid people.
The upper classes are not entirely devoid of superstition and conspiracy theory, but talking to an average lower class person for even a few minutes generally exposes truly wild reptilian-level beliefs in a senseless mishmash. You are romanticizing retards
Westerly
2yr ago
Why does your experience trump mine? OP said every woman he knows owns and talks about sex toys proudly. I said my experience completely contradicts this so it must be a bubble thing. Is this really so hard to imagine given he is the kind of guy who attends sex toy parties? Isn’t it a little bit likely that is evidence his bubble is somewhat skewed on this issue? I have never even heard of such a thing and neither has my wife. If you are attending sex toy parties that probably puts you in the top 5% (just pulling a number out of my ass (definitely in a totally straight way though)) in terms of progressive sexuality.
But now people in the “attends sex toy party” bubble are boldly asserting “No way, every woman you know definitely owns vibrators and masturbates secretly.” It would be equally supported for me to claim “No way, all those women claiming to own vibrators are just lying to you for feminist cred”
For some reason blue tribers have some obsession with claiming that definitely everyone is sexually degenerate/adventurous as they are and any claims otherwise are false/lies/social pressure/shame. Like I said, this is like Kinsey citing outrageously inflated numbers for homosexual activity in men.
Westerly
2yr ago
Sure this Bankman guy fucked up, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find any ideology without its share of bad actors. It can be fair to dismiss an ideology at some point based on this heuristic after enough consistent failures with few counterbalancing successes (maybe communism comes to mind as an example of this category). But does EA fit that condition?
Does it consistently lead people to bad actions? More frequently than other systems?
Westerly
2yr ago
Suicide takes less than 1 second of action, and zero persistence through pain or discomfort. It is closer to watching tv than bodybuilding. If you told me you badly wanted to watch tv, but a tv was in the other room and you simply lacked the will to walk in there and turn it on I absolutely would question the depth of your desire to watch tv.
Westerly
2yr ago
I may have misread the original comment, but I don’t believe he suggested affirmative action caused BLM, but rather that blank slatism did. And that blank slatism also causes affirmative action
I believe the argument would be like this. Blank slatist observes more black men are shot/killed/imprisoned by police and the justice system. Because of blank slatism the only conclusion can be that this is a result of systemic racism, as opposed to any difference in criminality or violence in the affected populations. This same reasoning is leveraged for affirmative action and BLM: that any different average outcomes can only be the product of racism because of blank slatism.
In my view this is an accurate diagnosis of the faulty reasoning underlying both movements
Westerly
2yr ago
But that’s not the point of his post. If he had to establish white nationalism was desirable first he would never be able to get to the questions he wanted to ask. I do agree that he could have probably gotten to his questions without revealing his personal preferences to such an extent though
Westerly
11mo ago
What left wing posters are there even to ban such that it could possibly go the other way? Outlaw and Stingray?
Westerly
2yr ago
I really do not see what is wrong with their wording. Are you saying Politico made some specific diminishing statement that the NYT is trying to weasel their way around with their wording?
Westerly
2yr ago
A somewhat related question, but just how does this outright denial of intelligence as a concept square with every day experience? I don’t even understand how this quasi religious taboo can hold up. I mean, are dogs not less intelligent than humans? Do dog breeds not differ in intelligence? Have they ever interacted with someone vastly less or more intelligent than themselves? When you interact with someone maybe 40 or 50 pts lower than yourself the difference is just glaring, I just don’t even understand how you can hold to a denial of intelligence in light of such experiences.
I will always love Scott no matter how much of a cucked cowardly bitch he becomes. Posts like this remind me of why he’ll always be my love
Westerly
11mo ago
At the moment the top post on simpssonshitposting: https://old.reddit.com/r/simpsonsshitposting/s/mvwsGG6CPf
I swear it feels like the new talking point just rolled out. Maybe this is what all right memes feel like to leftists but this feels really manufactured and astroturfed
Westerly
1yr ago
The opening image, quote and first sentence are like a parody of these pretentious dissident right bloggers.
Westerly
1yr ago
Alfie Evans as well, nearly identical. That case shocked me. Absolutely brutal and senseless
Westerly
2yr ago
The OP was not criticizing the personal choices of SBF but the principles of EA. You can read his comment below, he very much does seem to think it is utterly evil to buy malaria nets for Africans
Suppose we made a policy all children will be provided the necessities of life (food, medicine, shelter, whatever). This would be selecting for those who have the most children regardless of their ability to provide for them. So I mean in a sense this would be “evolution doing its job”, insofar that it was maximizing reproductive success given the situation.
But I think most would consider it dysgenic, because “has children beyond their personal means to provide” would seem to be an undesirable trait to most. To some extent we can control the environment within which “evolution does its job”, so what kind of evolution will the environment we’ve created lead to? A kind we want? Or a kind we don’t want? So the label of dysgenic or eugenic is just passing a value judgment on the results of evolution given the environment parameters we control.
I would think most evolutionary changes would not be value-neutral, so every change to the environment that affects evolution could be considered either eugenic or dysgenic. I guess you might disagree here if you consider all or most things to be value-neutral, but I think most would disagree
Sorry, but what do you find utterly repulsively evil about it?
Edit: To clarify a bit, you never explained what your problem with EA actually is. You just stated that focus on “global moral enterprises” is utterly evil, but why? I can understand valuing your own country higher than one halfway around the world, and perhaps you can’t emotionally identify with the EA view, but calling it utterly evil seems bizarre and ridiculous
More options
Context Copy link