@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

It's @SkookumTree, on his way through The Hock!

OTOH, this makes a mockery of conservative opposition to cancel culture.

How long do you have to warn people "don't do this or the same tactics will be used against you when the tide turns" before it's ok to make good on the warning?

I think I remember seeing a lot of discourse a couple of years ago about how Title IX is this awful leftist thing that's the justification of universities' kangaroo court administrative proceedings against male students accused of sexual assault.

I think that was after a similar reinterpretation by Obama. Title IX itself is from the 70's.

It seems like the actually reasonable answer is to de-escalate and decrease the power and influence of the government so people can make their own choices about their own personal lives.

The experience of the past few years clearly shows that that would make them more ravenous to seize the reins of power.

Are you talking about legality, or are you talking about lack of enforcement? Because, although it was a while back, I distinctly remember stuff like a SWAT raid on a raw-milk co-op.

Let's look at the tape

I'm confused, when you give link like this, aren't they supposed to prove your point, rather than disprove it? I don't see any claims of instantenous absolute killing of innovation. I could understand if you're being figurative here, but since you insist that your opponents get your position absolutely right when responding, I don't understand why you think it's fair for you to portray their claims in such a way.

The latter obstinately refuses to make any more specific claims

And so do you. Normally when someone tries to have this sort of conversation in a productive manner, they tend to put forward some kind of framework for analyzing specific situations, so others can run it through various scenarios. I take you are in favor of some regulation, but not too much. How much is too much? Can we know in advance? Is there something we can do to prevent it from going too far? What can be done if it does? If you bothered answering any if these questions in advance, rather than strawmanning your opponents, and then complaining about being strawmanned, the conversation would be a lot more productive, probably.

What are you confused about?

Your specific position. You've come in sneering at your perceived opponents, and when they respond you object that they got your position wrong. For example:

but have objected to hyperbolic versions of them, that any epsilon amount of regulation instantly kills innovation to zero, for example. Some folks have quadrupled down on this hyperbolic claim

No they haven't. Why do others have to get your position 100% right, while you're allowed to caricature theirs freely?

I don't think that taking minor risks is careless.

We've been through this. He's not a milquetoast neoliberal, he's a radical transhumanist techno-surveillanist, with sympathies for (if not direct allegience to) Critical Theory.

"female" is equivalent to one of the many kinds of enemies.

Don't fall for the psyop, man. There's always going to be tensions between men and women, they're probably even necessary for our growth as a species, but we cannot let this turn us into enemies, or Klaus Schwab wins. Do you want Klaus Schwab to win?

This seems like a very strange thing to say.

Why are they the only ones who get to be "pragmatic"? Other people can "pragmatically" realize they have gals beyond the limited version they're proposing now, and "pragmatically" move to deny them their goals, and prevent any coalition from forming, even if theoretically they wouldn't be opposed to the limited version on principle.

Chill the hell out, man. This place isn't your private toilet.

This is so bizarre to me. Ukrainian women are... people? They are not the property of Ukrainian men. They are not obliged to restrain from forming relationships or otherwise trying to live their lives because they happen to be refugees.

Are the men the property of the Ukrainian government? Dase recently got in trouble for lashing out against this kind of "innocent" "shucks! I don't know what you could possibly mean" debate tactics, and while I don't want to be as aggressive as he was, I do share his frustration. This kind of clap-on / clap-off - we're just individuals pursuing happiness / we're part of a larger whole and you have to fulfill your duty to society, is somewhat maddening.

But they keep telling me that we can't do that! That we have to change their culture! That that's the only option!

He's mistrustful of people who request minor reasonable regulations, for fear that they will stay neither. Given the history of law, culture, and social movements in his country, I think that's a largely justified fear. There's ways of having a productive conversation with people who have such fears, but you seem determined to strongly signal you are exactly the kind of person they shouldn't trust. For example:

That this is the only way, that we have to change their culture. If that is required, I am willing to do it.

Ok, in that case I'm out. If it's your way or the highway, and forcing change on a culture doesn't even phase you, I don't know how you can pretend to only want some reasonable regulations.

The culture that I dislike is the "we can keep pumping out trivially-hackable shit because it might be slightly boring to take the basic steps everyone knows and nobody's going to do anything about it" culture.

Tell me again why you were upset about being mischaracterized by Nybbler.

I'm following this conversation from the sidelines, and you're sure not making it easy to understand what you're actually saying, or what's it you're interested in debating, beyond generic sneering.

I have heard of it happening now and again, or in an emergency, but it is absolutely not a regular thing

Weird, was pretty common when I was a kid.

it was definitely not illegal to watch each other's kids

Yeah, it's also not illegal to invite someone over to dinner, that doesn't mean you can sell your food.

Is there any society where owning a house/apartment is not generally considered necessary before marriage?

Plenty of married couples rent? That's without going into the "living like a pack of sardines at your parents' place, possibly with your sibling(s) and their spouse(s)" arrangement that was pretty common in my parent's generation, even in Europe, and is likely still common in poorer parts of the world.

By all means, bite.

I meant something more abstract (but still not necessarily complete). As a kind of meta-moderate between you and Nybbler, I'm interested in the general question between some and no regulation. By heart, I am exactly the kind of "move fast an break things" type you criticized, but some amount of breaking things, and seeing things broken by others, has taught me that there are places where "think before you do" is a better approach, and once good approaches are discovered, it might even be a good idea to codify them. On the other hand, I think there does need to be room for good old-fashioned anarchy in a society, for reasons ranging from (as other pointed out) innovation, through having a lower bound on the quality of goods and services delivered by major producers, and all the way just to plain having a life worth living. My personal way of squaring that circle is that I'm open to regulation on mass-produced end-user consumer goods, and a more freedom on anything that requires some deliberate action.

But they do actually mean that, in that moment, instantaneously, the game is over, the logic is iron-clad, the implications flow immediately, and the only conclusion is absolute death.

Look, I think that whole conversation got off on the wrong foot, and if you guys want it to go anywhere, you need a reset. I understand your frustration with lazy "regulation bad" arguments, and I understand his frustration with underhanded slippery-slope denialism. What I'm guessing is that neither of you is as bad as the other thinks.

It is not "my way or the highway". Again, if you can come up with any other way to make it so that we don't have billions of trivially-hackable shit with default passwords, sign me up.

You are still effectively saying "get rid of things that annoy me, or I'll drive a steamroller over your culture", even if you don't particularly care how those things or gotten rid of, in my opinion that's still accurately described as "my way or the highway"?

But I keep getting told this is my only option! It's not even "my way"! It's the only option! That this is a fact about the universe! Nothing to do with me at all!

You're getting tit for tat, and are acting upset about it, I really don't get it.

EDIT: Give me "your way"! Make it an option! If you can do so in a way that won't result in Nybber telling us that "your way" would break their culture, great! But he keeps telling me that you can't.

I did, and he didn't seem to say anything in response to me, so mission accomplished?

If your idea is to change the culture of tinkerers, then I must withdraw what I said about you, and conclude you're not interested in reasonable regulations at all, but rather are getting off on imposing your views on others / are seething that so many people have managed to escape you for so long.

He's swearing he's not American, but he does seem to say a lot of (sort of) American things. They do have huge swathes of actually wild land over there, so I can understand the sentiment. Though even then, I'm pretty sure plenty of Americans still go hiking alone.

Maybe I'm stunted, but I think this is an essentially elementary school bullshit,

That's how I took it, and in that sense the whole meme seems pretty fun. It's just bants, confused flirting at worst, like you said. But then, I regret to inform you, that the male (or otherwise) feminists are at it again taking the whole fun out of it.

your next thought might be "Is there a hamster on a wheel in my head too?!"

Yes, but I find the thought quite comforting. Looking at it this way keeps me from huffing my own farts, and in the end snaps me back from changing my perception of others. I know for a fact that I do actually think about all the crap going on around us, and I know for a fact that I'm also an NPC repeating other people's talking points most of the time, so, I assume, my thoughts about my interlocutor are just an expression of frustration, rather than saying anything deeper.

Maybe an elite, which really is better than us, and which really is necessary to keep us from all choking on our food because we forgot to chew (metaphorically) is real and required.

After a fashion. They're needed to coordinate society at such a wide scale, but going by the ideas they're implementing they're either not that bright, or comically evil, and in either case, I don't think we need them that much.

Tell me you're American without telling me you're American.

I'm not offended, I just think your behavior is immature, and it's bizarre you expect a response that is not like-for-like. One of your objections early on in our exchange was:

Some folks have quadrupled down on this hyperbolic claim, and are now claiming that I am making a hyperbolic reverse claim - that regulation cannot possibly impact innovation in any way. This is a bullshit strawman.

I don't understand what's wrong with that from your point of view. You love doing that shit yourself, so just let others do it as well.