Westerly
Talk to me on Discord! Westerly#7626
User ID: 316
Westerly
1yr ago
This is 100% your bubble. I have never met a woman that owns a sex toy or masturbates. This is media programming of masculinized blue tribe women
Westerly
1yr 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
1yr ago
I am sorely disappointed the post was deleted and I won’t receive any credit for this
Westerly
1yr ago
I want to point out the humor of the next top level post below this one beginning with the words “I liked it before it was cool”
Westerly
1yr ago
The objection based on cost seems insincere, and an invented practical justification for a more ideological belief. This is like people that oppose the death penalty and cite the increased cost relative to life in prison. If perfectly tracking disenfranchisement was implemented at zero cost, would your opinion change? If the death penalty cost less than life, would death penalty opponents suddenly change their mind? I really doubt anyone is deciding this issue based on cost
Westerly
1yr ago
IIRC Scott has written about having very little interest in sex as reason for letting his trans gf (male) cuckold him. So I doubt it
Westerly
1yr ago
Wouldn’t you get the same feeling volunteering in or contributing to a local kitchen? Or mentoring through Big Brothers/Sisters? Coaching Little League
an affective bias against giving and working where one is
You seem to fundamentally not understand EA. In principle, it is not about hating your local community, it is just that mentoring through Big Brother is hard to justify if you count the life of an African child anywhere near to the value of some kid geographically near you. Even if your mentoring was able to save that kid’s life, that kind of one-on-one volunteering is a highly inefficient use of your time compared with just earning a few extra bucks to buy malaria nets with.
You can spend several hours per week for years as a Big Brother to save one kid, or you could take that time to earn money, donate it towards malaria nets and save many times more (depending on your earning ability).
Now you can say you just don’t care at all about the lives of African kids, which is fair, that’s why I’m not a part of EA. But if you claim to value their lives at all it renders these time-intensive charity efforts like coaching sports highly inefficient
Westerly
1yr ago
Why should you give to your community when you could give even more to your son? Perhaps it is utterly evil and repulsive to help your community when your son could use a second xbox?
Westerly
1yr ago
You’re getting dogpiled in the comments here, which I hate to join in on, but in your comments you just seem to be repeatedly missing the point people are making.
Your post does nothing to contest the validity of the common meaning of 2+2, it just points out that by using far, far less common definitions of the symbols (either different meanings of ‘2’ or ‘+’) you can arrive at a different result.
Everyone is pointing out that this is trivially true, but very silly to use as in example. Because in reality, if someone wanted you to interpret the symbols in a nonstandard way it would be incumbent upon them to make that clear to you.
I suppose your larger point is true, but not particularly meaningful. So a statement that seems easy and clear to interpret can actually be misleading when your interlocutor is deliberately trying to confuse and deceive you by omitting key information? Ok, but that’s not exactly a surprising or interesting conclusion
Westerly
1yr ago
You’re missing the point. It’s not that you literally changed the base, but you did effectively the same thing
Westerly
1yr 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
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
Westerly
1yr 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
1yr 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
1yr ago
Why does Hlynka get a lifetime pass for bad faith, low effort, uncharitable takes, namecalling, “hbdtards”, you name it? I guess he is just treated as a fixture at this point, but if he were a new user he’d have caught a ban already
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
Westerly
1yr ago
All of these premises are just plainly ridiculous. They don’t follow from one another at all. Am I obligated to be friends with retards, schizos and sociopaths? Am I obligated to have sex with 100-year olds, men, and retards? Are blacks not allowed to say “I just feel more comfortable with black friends”? Are women not allowed to reject incels?
If the answer to any of these is “no” then we know what this is really about. This is just cover for browbeating white people for having white friends or partners, or anyone for rejecting trannies. If the answer to all of these is “yes” then this is such a silly fantasy it needn’t be taken seriously
Westerly
1yr ago
If I understand you correctly, this is what you are calling the Phenotypic Null Hypothesis: that a trait being heritable does not mean it necessarily has a direct genetic cause. Particularly relevant to HBD, my understanding is that you might say that blacks scoring lower on tests might be shown to be heritable, but perhaps that could be because of racism. Since blackness is also genetically heritable, if blackness were to cause them to experience racism which causes their test scores to be lower, then this would be a plausible explanation for why low test scores appear to be genetically heritable in blacks, but it would actually be due to blackness being genetically inherited and that causing low test scores through a more indirect means than low intelligence.
That seems plainly reasonable and true so far as I can tell. I think people are perhaps responding to you defensively because this feels like an isolated demand for rigor or weakmanning directed specifically at HBD, without considering the epistemic failings of hardline blank-slatists which are surely even greater. Also I think that showing a trait to be heritable has to count as weak Bayesian evidence at least in favor of a genetic explanation.
Westerly
1yr 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?
Trad macho posturing bullshit like this is always so laughable being posted on a community that is an even less productive use of time than some Minecraft open source project. Say, MeinNameistBernd, shouldn’t you be teaching Sunday School, bodybuilding or reciting Greek poetry right now?
Westerly
1yr ago
The only specific example you provide is very obviously not a bot. Is that all you’ve got?
I believe you are right, and it is interesting how completely taboo it would be to suggest to a gay person, “Maybe a heterosexual relationship and a family would make you happier?” What percentage of people in heterosexual relationships experience little or no sexual desire for their partner? Between the elderly and the ugly I would guess >50%, but plenty of hetero people are fine making that compromise in exchange for a friend, a companion and a family.
Westerly
1yr ago
”Groomer” as I understand it, is a person who’s making a covert attempt to directly modify a kid’s sexuality in unhealthy ways
This is the equivalent of wokes using “white supremacy” to include timeliness, dress codes and objectivity. Maybe you feel turnabout is fair play, but it’s dishonest and is a transparent attempt to leverage conditioned emotional reactions to a different, narrower concept against a newly broadened category
I also really doubt any supporters of this would say its purpose is to punish reds as opposed to “protect trans kids.” I think it’s fair to ask whether “protect trans kids” or “hurt red tribers” is a model more predictive of actual behavior, but you have to actually ask that, because this law is consistent with both so far as I can tell.
Desantis is not funny or cool. The 2016 primary debates were hilarious and will never be topped. Trump is way more entertaining. Who wants some boring unfunny guy
More options
Context Copy link