curious_straight_ca
No bio...
User ID: 1845
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
Not my thing so I'm probably off but since you haven't gotten any replies - Is it obviously not severe poison oak/ivy? this is what the experts recommend. They say if it's not a small rash or you didn't see the poison ivy you should see a medical professional, but it's hard to tell how much of that is serious vs the CYA of a webpage for popular consumption.
Are there obvious insect bite spots? It's possible to get multiple bites, but it's a bit weird for an insect bite to swell up both lower legs.
Mostly disagree - speculation should be on the mark sometimes, but being correct 1/50th of the time about something most people are 0% correct about (or even 1/50th correct about, but a different 50th) can be very useful. If you realize the incoherence of Christianity and move to Deism ... you're still very wrong, but are closer. Early set theories were inconsistent or not powerful enough, but that doesn't mean their creators were crackpots. Zermelo set theory not being quite right didn't mean we should throw it out!. This is a different way of putting scott's rule genius in, not out. And above takes aren't really 'Yud made good points but mixed them with bad ones'
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
So you say there is no deeper relationship, and that's true from a thinking point of view, but not from an intuitive point of view
The easy counterargument is what you refer to as 'the intuitive point of view' is mostly factually wrong and misleading. Both 'being misled' and 'botfly' are unpleasant. And unpleasantness is intuitive. So they're both similar in that way. When I say deeper I mean anything that isn't already covered by "both are bad and both try to hide from you"
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
Yud does read lesswrong, and multiple people there have told him (in a friendly way) to step up his public communication skills. I'd be incredibly surprised if Yud regularly came here
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
He can't make an argument without imagining a bunch of technologies that don't exist yet
Isn't this reasonable and necessary to understand the far future? Given current technological progress, is it really plausible that currently-nonexistent technologies won't shape the future, when we consider the way technologies invented within the past 40 years shape today?
And even if all of those things were true his solution is to nuke China if they build GPU factories which, even if it was a good plan (it isn't), he would never in a million years be able to convince anyone to do
Most thinkers have some good ideas and some bad ones. If you identify a major mathematical conjecture, and then make a failed attempts to solve that conjecture ... that doesn't make you stupid, that's the usual state. wikipedia list of conjectures, most of which were proved by people other than the person the conjecture's named after
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
Why is it interesting that Tor relays are mostly in "large, developed countries" and not the country with strict internet censorship, i.e. the great firewall, that presumably blocks Tor ... or Russia, a single country with less population than half the US? That's what you'd expect.
Not to say US intelligence hasn't tried to deanonymaize tor users, of course they have, and there are accounts of attacks on Tor where large percentages of new nodes are potentially malicious.
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
yeah in that context it's just "MORE QUEER GAY SEX STUFF" in a funny way
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
Do you not appreciate that your attitude toward the misery of others is profoundly radicalizing? Where do you think the people who actively want to cull the PoPs come from?
I'm, at worst, neutral to 'culling them'. I just don't think it's worth throwing away 'due process' to do so. Nor do I think random vigilante encounters are a good way to do so.
Also, schizo homeless people don't murder and brutalize people that much, afaik. Homicides are usually committed either by people you know, or by, like, career criminals.
That's not what's happening here. "Bussy", in the literal sense, refers to a man's ass/asshole in the context of gay men. It then became a queer meme, and then ussy became a broader quirky teenger-taboo sex meme. It's not anti-trans in any way.
We live in an era of total war, of mob war
Only by negation, in that people act like it despite being so far from it. Our total war is less this and more maga racists and woke libs arguing on twitter (or more likely, scrolling other people arguing on twitter) for thirty minutes before driving to work. Where they'll, directly or indirectly, serve desires of consumers of all political stripes, contributing to the general peace and prosperity we all experience. The troubles are still recent, weren't even close to total war, and are a thousand times worse than American internal conflict. A thousand people get fired for saying the wrong thing - it sucks, but it's not a thousand car bombs, it's not half a city being firebombed. Is such a dramatic solution really necessary?
What is an honorable, monarchial victory for one side in modern politics? "The left" wins both on democratic numbers, 'elite' numbers, or raw skill of believers, so ... imposed racial quotas on all jobs? You giving up your political beliefs and accepting Gay Space Communism as your new ruler? The 'purifying nature' of historical war wasn't a new empire conquering your nation and then everyone hugging and making up. Maybe local life would be mostly undisturbed - new elites, occasional conscription of your men to fight more of the empire's wars (not very peaceful). Or maybe you convert to an entirely new religion, with new rituals and social arrangements. The magnanimity of the king is to not continue to kill the conquered, because conquered men are more useful to him than dead men. The king shows his power when claiming new territory so he can use that territory later, not just to 'be powerful' in some abstract sense that's never used. What does the libs 'using you' look like?
preferable to one where the end of any conflict must be the extermination of one power or the other
Nobody's being exterminated! Neither the trans nor the conservatives. Both are almost entirely "free" to live their lifestyle as they wish. Again, notably contrasting to the strict cultural codes of historical societies ruled by monarchs.
Who says Nigger and who doesn’t is at core meaningless. Drawing a cartoon of Mohammed is at core meaningless
So was the Filioque, so was the long-past successor of Muhammad, and yet millions were killed under "personal leadership" for "national honor" from that. One could make the opposite argument - the diffuse social-media war over a thousand different topics eats up man's instinct for conflict, greasing the wheels of the cooperative global economy, or something. If democracy and mass media gives people a mode of conflict-resolution that isn't war - and the conflicts are, as FHM suggests, meaningless - why isn't democracy better? (this paragraph was exploring an idea, not something I believe is good)
I'm not sure your analogies work.
tangent on literal war, to not seem like a l*ftoid: Actual war finely separates the most capable, complex individuals and structures from the slightly-less-so, and as such is a grand, civilizational elaboration of the evolution that produced every trait we hold dear. But it's not peaceful, and it's not clear modern war, even from a consequentialist HBD darwinist nietzche [...] perspective, is particularly useful for anything.
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
The idea was that some amount more of slavery via doubling taxes is less bad than unrest among the forty million unemployable young adults
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
That's a counterargument to 'state central planning', not a counterargument to 'heavily tax the productive parts and redistribute to the now-unemployable', which becomes a lot more pressing when the unemployable are two thirds of the working-age population.
Wikipedia is almost always a better source - in the sense of usefulness and accuracy of the information - than something like (not implying these are the same) nyt/cnn/nypost/local news, or even worse a popular random website, even if that random website is from "harvard" or something. It's a worse source than a paper / dataset / article in a trade publication / review article in the field, but those are hard to interpret if you're not familiar with them.
A solution to what? From here
The FBI collects data on “active shooter incidents,” which it defines as “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” Using the FBI’s definition, 103 people – excluding the shooters – died in such incidents in 2021. The Gun Violence Archive, an online database of gun violence incidents in the U.S., defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people are shot, even if no one was killed (again excluding the shooters). Using this definition, 706 people died in these incidents in 2021.
This is of 26,031 homicides, 20,958 of which were firearm homicides. Mass shootings aren't a sign of mass disaffection or societal collapse, which would exist independently if at all. Even of those 706, most of them are closer to family or crime-related violence than school or nazi shootings (chosen randomly here)
Two people were killed, and three others were injured, after a fight between two biker gangs led to a gunfight in a bar parking lot in the Fountain City neighborhood.[557]
An argument between two men escalated into a shooting that killed a young girl, and another man. Three children, including a toddler, were also shot.[561]
A fight at a house party led to six people being shot, with two dying from their injuries.[568]
A gunman invaded the home of his ex-wife in the Spring Branch neighborhood and began shooting. Two people were killed, and two others wounded including a teenager.[57]
A targeted shooting at a nightclub wounded ten, and killed two, after two men opened fire in the Oakhill Jackson neighborhood.[602]
This isn't obviously personal, but googling the above - "Michael Valentine and Nicole Owens were killed the night of the incident. Owens was Rush's ex-girlfriend, and mother of his child".
Four people were shot, two fatally, in a drive-by shooting in the West Englewood neighborhood.[572]
This is least obviously not a random mass shooter who hates society. "The group was standing on the sidewalk about 7:30 p.m. in the 1900 block of West Garfield Boulevard when someone inside a gray vehicle opened fire at them, Chicago police said.", and no further details were forthcoming on google. But ... intuitively, are drive-bys committed by incel mass shooters, or poor, usually black criminals?
So where does that leave OP? How has NAFTA or unchecked immigration caused high black crime rates? (compare to the lower crime rates of poor asians). What does the sexual revolution have to do with this, if domestic dispute homicides are more common than incel shooters? And race baiting? Non-sequitur.
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
Your data doesn't appear to include local jails, as ireally suggests below. However, rates are not up since 1991, which is at the top or end, depending on the particular stat, of the big crime peak - rates of homicide, property crime, etc have significantly decreased since then, even including the post 2020 spike
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
Aren't those two very different subsets of the large group that is 'center-left people'? Gun control is a very broad democratic issue, while anti-car is a much more niche issue, at least 1/10th the size if not smaller (plenty of suburban moms who have no issue with cars or suburbs are democrats). And I don't see too many gun-control arguments on YIMBY twitter - there's a bit, but the strong advocates of both are different people.
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
All of that said, a society of high interpersonal violence and crime is I believe inimical to liberty
But "wrong door" shootings and the popular type of mass shootings where a disaffected person kills a bunch of strangers are a small percentage of homicides. And it's possible to have high gun ownership but low homicide rate -as low-homicide portions of the US or high gun ownership parts of europe show. The US's crime rate should be much lower, but thinking about mass shootings, wrong door shootings, or civilian gun prevalence as ways to lower it is mistaken, imo.
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
if pretty clearly accidental as in this case
Part of the reason 'killing someone accidentally' is a crime is that, if it isn't, someone who intends to kill someone will intentionally set up such "accidents"! Another part is to discourage risky behaviors that risk killing - for instance, if it's true that the PoP could've been restrained in a way that didn't risk his death, the law should encourage that.
And part of the reason to discourage killings generally, even of PoPs, is allowing them at all will lead to individuals or subcultures who seek out said killings. And they'll sometimes get wrong who the PoPs are, causing a spiral of violence.
State-sanctioned PoP incarceration or execution doesn't have this problem! You can still have trials and bureaucracies and such to make sure you're not killing a doctor who's having a manic episode or something.
A fourth .. reason of sorts is that explicitly sanctioning 'kill homeless/schizo/criminals and get away with it' has a relatively high ratio of 'pissing off the libs' to 'making society better'. If you only kill a few, not much improves, there are a thousand of them. If you shoot a thousand of them in public, then that's a "literal genocide". Even if Bukele had the political power and desire to, say, execute all of the gang members instead of permanently imprisoning them, it might not've been worth it for the scrutiny it'd invite from foreign countries about the "genocide".
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
Also note Scott's discussion in his NRx explainer post about the bizarrely low crime rates in Victorian England
His first source is moldbug quoting some text where a guy just says something like 'We are secure, without crime! You can go out at night without anything bad happening', without much attempt to back that up! Elsewhere on his blog, moldbug has cited some other old texts that say similar things, but never any data, and ... firsthand reports of the vibe of a place like this are often wrong.* Scott then goes on to cite English crime data, and he just doesn't pick a graph that goes back far enough, even back in 2013 there were studies saying pre-1900s english crime rates were high.
*This is one thing I worry about with him, especially in the areas I agree with. He's reading a bunch of old books, coming to rather unusual conclusions, and then synthesizing that across hundreds of (area, period) combinations. It's really easy to make mistakes while doing that, as ... almost every failed grand narrative historical synthesis ever attests to. And I haven't seen many attempts at criticizing his ""historical scholarship"" either - which, if many existed but were bad, would make the claims more plausible.
To your main point - it's def correct that such equilibria exist, but even in your example, the process didn't seem to discriminate too much between 'the accused did something wrong' and 'the accused did nothing wrong but we have social power and want to beat him up'.
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
I don't think this is OP exactly, but you can imagine a darwinist, or a 'might makes right' person, thinking it's good if someone stronger than him commands him, or even kills him and takes his place. Maybe even as a form of altruist longtermism - if I'm replaced by someone better than me, in a non-self sense, everything's improved! Whereas if you're commanded or humiliated by an inferior, that's just generically bad.
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
I agree that a lot of the cases of random attacks are just stupidity (sometimes drug-induced, sometimes not) interacting with being an asshole / wanting to fight, but I don't think the 'avoiding big people' is good evidence against it. "Don't directly challenge large enemies" is a fairly old instinct that almost every living thing that moves has, if despite meth mania you have enough instincts left to perceive where other people are and fight them, you probably have enough left to avoid 6'4 270lb powerlifter bubba
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
Anonymity with respect to other internet users and anonymity with respect to law enforcement after you've just killed someone, who'll physically possess your electronic devices and subpoena your ISP and every internet service you've ever used are different! I doubt he, or many here, have it in the second sense.
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
Honestly, I'm having trouble taking your posts seriously, this stuff is pretty out there even by rdrama lolcow standards.
Taking the not-super-plausible premise seriously: If you take whatever gear and do whatever prep is necessary to survive, you'll make it - and if you don't (e.g. no layers / warmth in cold winter), you won't. And is a woman going to sense, or be attracted to, 'you didn't freeze or starve to death'? How will they be able to tell?
That said, if you read and prepare appropriately, and don't intentionally take too little food/water/protection to 'make it risky', you'll be fine. I'd strongly recommend telling your plan, in detail, to someone who's experienced with the outdoors, and letting them tell you if it sounds too risky / you sound too inexperienced - and if they say so, don't do it. (edit: you say below you're experienced - maybe, idk, the general ridiculousness of the comments make it hard to entirely believe statements like that). I'd also recommend both doing smaller-scale excursions before the big event. But something like that could be worth doing, and it would be something interesting to talk about. It probably won't make a difference with women specifically.
curious_straight_ca
2yr ago
I think CW thread posts get more engagement, and kinda prefer when non-CW related posts go in there, but idk.
Yes, they cite sequences / '10-yud quotes at him often.
More options
Context Copy link