@campfireSmores's banner p

campfireSmores


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 11:43:11 UTC

				

User ID: 539

campfireSmores


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 11:43:11 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 539

^LOL, I don't know what to say about that. I can only hope they get what they want.

Laughing at people protesting against tyranny is cruel and small-minded. In my opinion.

What arguments do you speak of? What about them do you find unpersuasive?

https://psmag.com/news/kings-garbage-76228

The article's sub-headline: "In 1993 the Anti-Defamation League was accused of espionage, illegal surveillance, theft, and the treasonous sale of classified information to a foreign government. I was one of their victims."

The crimes of the ADL go beyond simply spreading child knife-rape.

I'm in the Wellness thread though. I'm fine with debating it in the culture war thread. If anyone disagrees with me they can just ignore this post, or make your own post in the culture war thread. I'm not trying to start a debate in the wellness thread! That's not why I made this post

Next time you're masturbating, pay attention to what parts are sensitive and what parts aren't. I think you'll find that only the circumcision scar and everything below it are sensitive.

The less players in the AI game the less impossible it is that humanity will survive.

What does it mean to care about this issue but not care about human rights? I care about making the world a better place, and ending infant circumcision would do that.

People should get in the habit of solving coordination problems. Yudkowsky, dath ilan, etcetera. The "weirdness points" thing is a coordination problem.

ultra-hardcore Taiwanese nationalists

There's something to be said for using nukes. Game theory. I'm sleepy, but using game theoretic deterrents are kind of rational, I think. Maybe, I need to read up on that.

Let's talk about infant male circumcision. Common in the United States, considered beastly in most European countries. But they don't spend much time criticizing the United States about it, perhaps due to fear of being called anti-semitic.

Reasons not to do it:

The foreskin has functions

Bad for the infant's brain due to inadequate aenesthesia

Complications ranging from meatal stenosis to more grisly and life-changing outcomes

Etc etc

Anyway, besides just introducing a topic I believe is underdiscussed both on the Motte and in general, my questions are this:

How do you rate the importance of this issue relative to commonly discussed culture war stuff? If it is true that circumcision is a serious violation akin to rape, then it seems very very important.

and

Does anyone on this board support routine infant circumcision, or is this thread just going to be full of a lot of devil's advocate stuff?

At a Q&A I asked Scott Alexander if he was going to circumcise his kid and said he was in favor of it and his wife was against it. I'll be honest, I'm kind of shaken. I'm sometimes able to argue persuasively against male genital mutilation, but I wasn't on that day. I sort of made a fool of myself, I guess. It's a painful subject for me.

It's also just kind of shocking and dismaying, because I think that noticing that male genital mutilation is bad is something almost anyone with basic rationality skills should probably be able to notice, and he didn't. Now I want to ask Yudkowsky. I'll choose my words more carefully.

He mentioned the adversarial collaboration on SSC on the subject, which to me had a lot of obvious holes and flaws in it.

Purposes of the foreskin:

  1. Prevents the covered skin from contacting clothing. Clothing contact desensitizes the penis through a process called keratinization. If you're circumcised, you'll notice that the circumcision scar and the places below the scar are what's sensitive, and everything above that isn't very sensitive. That's not normal.

  2. The foreskin has densely packed nerve endings.

  3. The foreskin provides lubrication, both through natural lubricant and through a gliding motion.

  4. Protective against health conditions including meatal stenosis.

I can also rebut the purported positive outcomes of circumcision, and talk about the risks of the procedure. I have videos of men with botched circumcisions talking about their suffering.

I don't really want to get into a debate about circumcision here. I just wanted to provide an example of what someone arguing the point looks like.

My question is this: Is anyone else shocked/saddened that Scott is pro-cutting?

Well this seems like a good time to do the standard rationalist technique "what evidence could convince you otherwise".

What evidence could convince you that infant circumcision reduces sexual pleasure?

Because it seems to me like once you understand what the foreskin does and how sex is different without it, how could it not?

Why?

File under "the world would be better if people understood basic economics".

On the plus side, I think people will slowly come around to dynamic pricing. It might become standard in 15 years or so, if the world lasts that long.

I have a response to this, but we shouldn't be having culture war talk in the wellness thread.

I was not being sarcastic about anything. I'm not sure when you think I was being sarcastic.

I think there are reasons not to make a lotr show at all. Politics, IP rights issues, Game of Thrones ending poorly, lotr being an inherently difficult property to work with because of its focus on the ineffable and deep lore, etc.

My thoughts exactly.

I just included the list because I felt frustrated with myself for not being able to summon it earlier. There should be a guide for how to talk about stuff like this in the Wellness thread.

You can submit questions to the candidates.

Interesting...

Magnolia is my favorite Cruise performance.

Good catch! I should have done a twitter search.

bone headed move on my part! Yeah, it's not really a motte group. Just a rationalist group. I'll post it on rationalist spaces too.

I don't think the initial story is small potatoes. The initial story is the VP of the US trading money for influence.

As long as an employee doesn't go beyond the allotted number of sick days, is it that big a deal to the employer what they use them for? Is it worse for the employer than calling in sick when not actually sick, something Americans have done since who-knows-when?

I don't think I've ever called in sick just because I wanted a day off, but it seems to be not such a shameful thing in our culture. Is this worse (for the employer) than that?