coffee_enjoyer
☕️
No bio...
User ID: 541
Shame only has utility for steering behavior. You don’t shame someone who can no longer modify their behavior (40 and no children), you shame them only when their behavior is malleable. For this problem, it is prosocial to shame young people who don’t settle down, so that they modify their behavior in the relevantly prosocial way. (You can also make them afraid of not settling down, which is distinct from shame, and you can heap praise and respect on those who do settle down, which would be purely positive reinforcement; or you can make them desire it through the awareness of contingent rewards, which is what we used to do through female-centric media and rituals, but contingent reinforcers compete with each other — you can’t desire girlmom and girlboss at the same time, sorry).
The discourse on shame in America is so confused that it’s hard to even talk about it objectively. But shame is just the felt sensation of not meeting a social standard, and it occurs as a necessary consequence wherever there is a social standard. There is no social standard without esteem and shame working together to modify behavior. This is obfuscated in mainstream discussions, where one day a person might complain about “shame culture” (a nonsensical term), and the next day they take to social media specifically to shame a petty social infraction, like cutting in line or a gross Tinder message. What we mean by shaming is the expressed disapproval at someone else’s actions explicitly or implicitly, which (by the way) can only induce shame when the recipient is actually tied in some way to a social group. A homeless person probably can’t shame you, because they don’t matter to you, but a peer can, and a boss can even more. If shame discourse were an Olympic sport America would have the most gold medals in gymnastics right now.
This is the WhitePeopleTwitter effect. Reddit had a popular default sub called BlackPeopleTwitter where everything was positive and pro-black. In order to be an approved poster (?) you needed to prove you were black, unless you were an attractive white woman. Sensing the possibility of a white version popping up, they preemptively made WhitePeopleTwitter and used it to de-potentiate and emasculate white identity. So BPT gives positive valence to blacks, WPT gives negative valence to whites and white identity (intermixed with some humor). I just checked WPT, and the first post is Kamala Good Trump Bad, and the second post is telling everyone to call Republicans weird (a very interesting strategy which deserves its own post, hopefully someone writes it out, but it is the perfect minimization of the entire progressive strategy for years). The third post is actually about white dudes for Harris! The fourth is GOP weird and racist, the fifth is GOP weird. On BPT, the first video is “cool black people interrupted by annoying white women! Colonizing their space”.
Social engineering slop, all of it, certainly. But it works! You want whites to have a negative response when they think about their own group; that is, if you want to subjugate and destroy them. Replace their heroes with black drug dealers who rap and demean their women. So for Kamala, it is helpful to broach the topic of white identity insofar as it is used to vote for a black-indian woman. In the same way, in the corporate world you are allowed to acknowledge you are white when you at DEI training.
Nietzsche’s evasion isn’t convincing and Sparta continues to be a stumbling block for his philosophy. It was the ideal of a strong and militant people in the ancient world, including those whom Nietzsche idolized. Nietzsche saying the Spartans were too hard (lol) and essentially calling them fake (lmao) makes me lower my opinion of him even more, which I didn’t think was possible. Does he like the Supermen or not? Well, there they are, the fiercest fighters who enslaved others, with a slave morality among themselves.
It may make sense for something like fat acceptance, but it loses coherence when you look at Christians in the wild, as OliveTapenade points out above. It’s not enough to get people to cooperate based on what is in their best interest, because an individual’s best interest often conflicts with the group. Once they have riches they may act like Nero, or maybe they realize that their best interest is to defect. It is never in a Japanese Kamikaze pilot’s best interest to fly his plane into a ship rather than surrender, but (were that tactic to work) it would be in Japan’s interest. If cooperation is the ultimate Good in a civilization then it makes sense to “quasi-force” members to develop an extreme and maximal commitment to cooperation, one predicated on dogma and stories and rituals rather than self-benefit.
Christian culture accomplished this well: A loving Messiah teaches loving maxims and standards, based on identifying with your peer as identical to you in worth, and being as prosocial as possible. Because it is a figure in a story it taps into the human instinct of social reciprocation and imitation, rather than logical persuasion. This loving figure suffers a gruesome death unjustly to save you (reminiscent of Plato’s mention of the truly just man being tortured and crucified), which furthers the reciprocation. And there are then rewards of punishment based on your imitation of the figure. This is the most efficient way to turn someone cooperative if done right, because it needs to come from a place of personality and social environment rather than flimsy philosophy.
Also, modern critics like Scott see a story about a self-denying saint and forget that these are the superhero cast of Christianity, not an actual standard that is set for believers. The extreme acts of the Saints are, in practice, a way to jolt a rich person into realizing they should donate a library or fund a school. Because their conduct was so unlivably self-denying, when you remember them you feel an obligation to do your small part. It’s definitely not as simple as “Christianity tells you to sell all your possessions”, which no one does.
IIRC Teutoburg occurred as an ambush due to longterm plan and betrayal by Germans enmeshed in Roman army.
I find the Master v Slave morality discussion not very useful. Which one did the Spartans adhere to? They were selfless and self-subjugating, they did not seek personal glory, they fasted and disciplined themselves, they did not pursue personal riches, and they worked exclusively for the collective Good of Sparta. Amongst themselves they adhered to slave morality, but as a group towards others they adhered to master morality. Why did the Spartans, which the Greco-Roman world esteemed, teach their master soldiers how to be slaves? Because humans are cooperative creatures. If you train humans to be hyper-cooperate then they will dominate other groups. It didn’t matter how many fierce, Superman-y fighters the Celts had; the Romans with their intense training of obedience and selfless cooperation destroyed them.
If you have a group and you are trying to set a standard, there are actually serious problems with making the standard “being the best”. It leads to people being the best at all costs, such as in ways that harm the group; it leads to potentially extreme waste for showboating (Bezos’ yacht); it is not useful for 99% of people who need positive reinforcement yet aren’t the best; it is psychologically damaging to those who fail, depending on the stakes. The proper balance IMO is the sophisticated Christian balance: doing your best to glorify God and glorifying God in the best of others. This means positive reinforcement for all, but no cutthroat competition to be the best SBF or Elizabeth Holmes.
IMO the divergence can be explained through nature (biology). Men are the stress-resilient, systems-oriented, conflict-oriented gender. Women are the nurturing gender, which must remain less stressed to raise healthy children, and remain more innocent (or naive) to identify and bond with her child. It just so happens that politics is a stressful systems-oriented conflict. Yet political propagandists takes advantage of the female nurturing instinct to recruit supporters. Women today are less maternal than ever before, but the instinct doesn’t go away —“nature, uh, finds a way”. That outlet is nurturing the environment, or minorities, or animals, other women. If there is someone suffering and painted as an in-group member, women are there to nurture them. So much of the anti-white and anti-male ideology winds up creating an outgroup connotation to the real ingroup, and studies indeed show that white liberals empathize less with their own race and have a net unfavorable rating for whites (iirc). You can modify a person’s in group and out group through propaganda.
Pro-life may appear at first glance to be the nurturing position to take, but it’s really an abstract idea: the invisible lifeform you cannot sense is actually a child. It’s hard to empathize with an abstract idea, but easy to empathize with a suffering woman, whose face, voice, and story you can sense. Women primarily operate through this social dimension, through personal sensation. (If you are a woman who does not operate this way, statistically you are less likely to raise psychologically healthy children, who require the one-on-one motherly social interface to learn about the world. And you are probably less adept at make-up, which reduces your chance of obtaining a partner).
Beginning your reply with “blood libel credibility aside” is not putting it aside, it is emphasizing it through the classical rhetorical technique of paralipsis.
We are discussing an event that just transpired, and my original comment is inquiring whether we can find evidence. It’s odd that you’re asking for evidence for my… question of whether we can find evidence and then mention of a possibility. If we can’t conclusively determine where the strike originated, and if Israel knows this, then a false flag attack is on the table. What’s my evidence that a false flag is on the table? The false flag attacks I have listed in my previous comments! That’s why false flags are done to begin with: they are useful for the party doing them. So to determine whether a false flag is a possibility, we may ask (1) how possible is it to determine the strike location, and (2) does the the attack benefit the attacked country. For (2), there are four unlikely benefits for the attacked country: no Jews were killed, and the ruling party is an explicitly Jewish party; Netanyahu is in DC as we speak; his party has recently attributed the Paris metro attack to Iran, a funder of Hezbollah; Israel recently struck a school in Gaza.
Maybe Israel has one of the sophisticated intelligence services in the world, perhaps they know that they can weaponize a “libel libel” attack on whoever criticizes Israel. Maybe this has been written about by academics, like Mearsheimer? If Israel knows that their supporters in the West will fanatically impugn the motive of her critics, then this increases the possibility of a false-flag, not decreases.
why should your accusation not be analyzed in the context of unfounded anti-semitic conspiracy theories it shares notable parallels with?
Because there is a more reasonable context to analyze current events. Because the idea that a medieval trope is influencing the modern day perspective on Israel is hilariously biased and unfounded. (Who is promoting this medieval trope? Is it the Jesuits? Of course — a europhobic and anti-Catholic canard). Because many normal people who are not tied to Israel are skeptical and critical of Israel, which you can see by typing “Israel” into Twitter search and sorting the tweets by those liked over 30,000 times (are these funded by Persians or Russians?).
Isaeli claims on Iraqi actions is not structurally analogous to accusing jews of killing children
Israel is fine with making up info that will lead to the death of hundreds of American soldiers. This rebuts the idea that the killing of Druze children (an outgroup with zero influence) is off the table. .
Israel is routinely a target of conspiracy theories
I would argue there are more involving Russia and America. And then probably Syria (gas attacks). The last Israel conspiracy theory that had mainstream appeal was in 2001. Whereas conspiracy theories involving American invention and Russian influence are mainstream and commonplace.
Was the Lavon Affair blood libel? When Israeli intelligence told us that Iraq was responsible for the anthrax attack, was that blood libel as well? When the NYT came out and declared that Israel attacked a hospital, was this also blood libel? Do you think Israel should be given the unique privilege of never being analyzed because of (checks notes) a medieval trope? Really trying to understand what you mean by blood libel here.
I am all for recognizing the potential of false-flag operations
Apparently not?
What is “blood libel credibility”?
It is worth considering in cases where relatively few civilian deaths purchase a casus belli for an important conflict, and where the actor can’t be discerned. The rail sabotage would make sense for Macron if he were intent on blaming (say) Russia and also had a strong geopolitical interest in warring against Russia. Or consider the false flags used by Russia: https://it.usembassy.gov/how-russia-conducts-false-flag-operations/
In 1939, the Soviet Union shelled its own troops outside the Soviet village of Mainila near Finland. It then blamed Finland for the attack and invaded its neighbor in violation of the two countries’ nonaggression pact.
Implying that there isn’t a way to determine who launched the projectiles, it seems like a seriously attractive move by Netanyahu, and only at the expense of some Druze lives which don’t really matter to that coalition.
Is there a way to determine the strike origin? I wouldn’t put it past Israel to false-flag themselves to enhance support for intervention in Lebanon. This attack helps Israel at zero expense (Druze were killed, not Jews), at the crucial time that Netanyahu is in DC looking for support, while covering up the story of the school in Gaza that was targeted.
It tastes good and it’s healthy. The roll balances carbs with fat/protein together in one bite. I would eat sashimi or lox every day if I could. I don’t like cooked fish at all, lox over cooked salmon every day
It’s about persuasion because
White women supported Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016, 47% to 45%, Pew Research shows. In the 2020 election, an even higher number of white women, 53%, supported Trump.
You want the headline, “white women broke zoom supporting Kamala”, even if a chunk of those zoom accounts are fake (no one will ever check). This is probably why the “white dudes” group is organized.
He would have to know the strength of the woman, the weight of the pot, how much water was in the pot, and when the woman was planned on releasing it in the throw. I imagine once he realized the woman was reaching for the boiling water and in the process of throwing it, he was intent on shooting her.
IMO this is all a game of “which world would you rather live in” —
-
Possibly schizophrenic woman throwing boiling water at “guy doing his job” is extolled as an innocent victim by the president and president elect, with “guy doing his job” being painted as a demon and going through a lengthy criminal trial
-
“Guy doing his job” is fired from his job because he is bad at it, but we don’t destroy his life, and we don’t valorize a crazy violent woman, we must move on and possibly implement nation-wide training for what to do in such an encounter
It just requires common reasoning: cops in cities deal with crazy people every day; cops in cities deal with crazy people who turn violent every day; a good intuition is the result of many varied experiences with a given phenomenon over a long period of time especially where those experiences supply feedback. The feedback is whether your colleague is tackled or whether an innocent person is stabbed — add in the high tension release of cortisol which increases memory formation and… yeah. I think my assumption is safe.
training
Training is inferior to experience where intuition is concerned. The best chess players play the most games, as opposed to doing the most puzzles.
flinches and cowers until she is shot dead
is an inaccurate interpretation of the event. See my other comment here. She reached up from the ground and flung the water. Were she cowering, she would still be alive! Really if she chose any other option than lifting up the pot and throwing the boiling water toward the officers.
[snarky voice] pot of hot water, how terrifying
I think an experiment is in order. You may find the results interesting, but you also seem very confident, so maybe there’s something you know that we don’t. Just record it if so, and I’ll try to find an alternative to liveleak.
You may biased from previous media spectacles. Let’s consider everything with the right priors first: two professional police officers are dealing with a woman who is acting crazy. These two officers are trained professionals in recognizing when a crazy person is about to turn violent, because they deal with that every day. Their intuition for recognizing that is going to be top 0.1% in the country. When we hear “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus” and see a vague outline of a person, the higher fidelity vision of the police officers is zooming in at the signs of whether this mentally ill African American woman is planning the destroy their lives with boiling water. In order to prevent their life’s happiness being taken away from them they tell her to step away from the pot of water.
In this video, at about 10:40 we clearly see that she ducks first at the request, without the pot. She is on the ground. Gun pointed at her. Officer saying “drop the pot”. At exactly 10:41.50, she grabs the pot from above her and throws it at the officers. If you watch 10:40-10:45 at .25 speed this is obvious. I recommend downloading the video and zooming as slow as you can actually. She lifts her hands up, grabs the pot, throws the contents toward the officer with a right arm which increasingly stretched outward, and the steaming water splashes feet in front of her, soaking the chair with boiling water. If you do an experiment in your kitchen with a pot of water, you’d note that merely holding the pot and turning it over will not launch the water like a projectile feet in front of you. Therefore, the evidence (arm begins to stretch out toward officer + the splash) indicates a throwing movement, as well as intent of throwing (from the position on the ground, reaching up and grabbing the pot of water in your sink). The shot rings immediately after she picked up the pot and completely extended her right arm, eg a normal reaction time by an officer in good physical fitness.
How about "she dropped the pot of boiling water because the cop shot her in the head."
How about examine evidence fully before making a conclusion
It will come down to TikTok and instagram. Dems lost the Twitter stronghold but if they can shill their narrative on TikTok and insta then they can get a momentum going. I think Gaza also reduces the potency of a Floyd-like defining moment. The problem with TikTok is that it’s difficult to gauge how popular a narrative is because everything is feed-specific. There’s not really a hashtag feature that is universally used and the search function is mediocre. There could be a trending narrative among influential voters and we could have no idea!
On Sunday I speculated that the Dems will use a George Floyd-like psychological operation to increase Democrat turnout in the election. Today, Kamala issued a statement about Sonya Massey, a black woman killed by police whose body cam footage was released recently:
Sonya Massey deserved to be safe. After she called the police for help, she was tragically killed in her own home at the hands of a responding officer sworn to protect and serve. Doug and I send strength and prayers to Sonya’s family and friends, and we join them in grieving her senseless death.
I join President Biden in commending the swift action of the State’s Attorney’s Office and in calling on Congress to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a bill that I coauthored in the Senate. In this moment, in honor of Sonya’s memory and the memory of so many more whose names we may never know, we must come together to achieve meaningful reforms that advance the safety of all communities.
The body cam footage shows two police officers answering a call from Massey about a prowler in her yard. Massey acts mentally unwell throughout the encounter, answers that she is on medication when asked about her mental health, and has a difficult time telling the officers what her last name is or retrieving her photo ID. The officers are somewhat friendly if impatient, but the vibe changes when Massey grabs a pot of boiling water after the officers requested she turn off the stove. The officers say they are stepping back while she grabs the boiling water (crazy people may use boiling water as a weapon, something that has lead Starbucks to ban giving patrons boiling water), and Massey says “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus”. Either because of this statement or because of a physical sign we don’t pick up on the body cam, an officer points his gun and demands that she drop the boiling water. She does not drop the boiling water but instead continues to hold on to it. Right before she is shot the body cam just barely picks up Massey throwing the boiling water toward the officers, with the water landing on the ground and steaming where it landed. I want to thank Twitter user Fartblaster4000 for turning that moment into a helpful gif.
Massey’s death is certainly not the preferred outcome of the encounter. Once the officers picked up on Massey being crazy, they should have mentally decided to leave her house if she did something like equip a plausible weapon. The three seconds that the officer gives for Massey to drop the pot of boiling water was insufficient — of course, the pot was in her hand and thrown toward the officer before the officer shot. Springfield is the third most criminal city in America, so perhaps the officers did not believe they had the resources to call mental health professionals in their place. In any case I do not think that the officers should have moved toward her but instead left the premises until they felt she did not pose a threat. Sadly, it’s not uncommon for crazy people to attack police officers with whatever is around, and it’s rational to be afraid of a crazy person who has a pot of scalding water in their hands, able to disfigure you for life.
According to a UPenn study, BLM may have been the political ingredient that shifted the election toward Joe Biden:
Mutz also notes that roughly 90% of voters reliably vote with their party, and only about 10% of voters are likely to shift their vote from one party to another. It was that group that she focused on, finding that as their awareness of discrimination against Black people rose, so too did their likelihood of voting for Biden. Interestingly, many voters who had voted for third parties in 2016 also shifted to major party candidates in 2020, and disproportionately moved toward Biden.
Concern surrounding COVID-19 caused voters on both sides of the aisle to favor their own candidate more, but it did not cause any significant vote change from Trump to Biden or vice versa. Nor, Mutz says, did factors relating to the economic effects of COVID. As levels of concern about COVID became increasingly partisan, the issue lost its ability to change vote choice so much as to reinforce it. Does that mean BLM decided the election? That question remains unanswered
If the relevant voters are swayed more by victimhood narratives than Covid, this explains why Republicans are bringing up the topic of migrant rapes. I predict we are going to see more victimhood narratives in the coming months!
A public cancellation works a lot like a public execution: everyone viewing it becomes afraid of committing the same infraction. This occurs whether or not you think the person did the crime or deserved to be punished. It changes psychology mechanically, according to the number of trials / iterations of one stimuli paired with a feared stimuli. It works best when the exposure is random, and in this case it works best when the cancelleé is capriciously chosen and otherwise unworthy of attention. (“If even she can be cancelled, I can too.”) There’s a reason that when we write online, we feel some fear at fully writing the N-Word, and some people feel fear writing faggot and retard, not because of some ethical position everyone developed over decades, but because they have experienced trials that paired this formerly neutral word with a punishment. So when we talk about canceling blameless old ladies, we do have to consider that there are significant social consequences to the act of public consequences, making prominent progressives and liberals on Twitter a little afraid of doing similar things.
My favorite reply from a relative: “this is the first time I wish Trump leaned further right”. Comedy knows no political aisle
You’re imagining something like “24yo woman witnesses 40yo being shamed and doesn’t want that to happen to them”, but there’s a better and more accurate reinforcement structure to put in place. 24yo woman don’t put themselves in social contexts where they see the social shame of 40yos because of how age-specific social contexts are, and humans are bad at making 15-year plans, so even if we enacted that plan it wouldn’t work, and that’s implying “shame every older childless woman always” is an acceptable amount of pain administration for prosocial result. We can just shame the 24yos whose lifestyle deters them from fertility, which winds up promoting a lifestyle which is pro-fertility. We don’t have to shame the 40yo at all; when they turn 40, we can completely stop promoting the fertility behavior with shame, because by that point it’s too late. People care most about immediate social pride, rather than what happens when they are 40.
It’s like with shaming bad students. You can shame a bad student because you want to promote study habits so they get the best job they can. Shaming their poor habits is beneficial and for their greater good. But shaming people whose occupation you deem inferior would be sociopathic, even if it had the byproduct of (in theory) promoting good study habits among poor students. This relates broadly to the concept of forgiveness and mercy, which I suppose is very apropos the article…
More options
Context Copy link