cuwurious_strag_CA
No bio...
User ID: 190
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
They follow what other people do - and - they want to get a non-racist republican elected.
The same happened with trump, right? Shouldn't all the anti-trump people have still been there after the primary?
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
See my other comments - everyone is aware the "idea is widespread", but can you justify it independently of that? Kids seeing a drag show ... whatever. Why does it matter that much? If them seeing sexual material is a problem, television shows or internet advertisements or porn websites are much much much worse. Someone seeing a drag show, in practice, doesn't seem to have much impact!
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
I intended the "in the 'they usually grow out group'" to be the focus there - i.e. how do you know that both are "things they usually grow out of"? 'sociogenic' is not a useful category either, IMO - 'epidemeologically', iron forging, belief in general relativity, self-identification of homosexuality, and "eating potatoes" are all epidemiologically sociogenic, in the sense that they're all behaviors that spread from person to person. It doesn't tell us anything useful about the behavior, almost all good human behaviors are partially learned, as are almost all bad ones.
Not relying on academia
I agree entirely. My only disagreement is that - even if the surveys weren't ideologically captured, they'd still be very unreliable.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
That really does not make sense. I use twitter a lot, and most of the people I follow do not have checkmarks, and none of them are going to buy it because they are just people who use twitter for fun or on breaks from work or w/e. Random repliers in comments sections still aren't gonna buy the checkmark. And there are already parts of twitter where most people are verified and have a lot of followers ... and they still get piled with scams replying to their comments.
I believe the theory is that once bluechecks are common, anyone without them will be more suspicious
Can you draw out a specific scenario here - what part of twitter, in reply to what accounts, where the scammers are currently using unverified accounts successfully but won't be able to anymore because most users will have bluechecks, as they are more common, so the scammers will stand out? I can't think of a single section of twitter where that will happen. Either all the big people already have checkmarks and their followers do not (and that will either not change or nobody will have checkmarks because people won't pay 100/year for it), or none of the posters or repliers have checkmarks, and that will not change.
Like, "8/mo bluecheck prevents spam" doesn't make sense, at all. Do people just believe it because musk says it will? Do they assume he figured it out?
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Otherwise every organization (including unions!) should follow the same logic
Well, the corporations that organize and deliver the work and economic output do follow that model - one leader (ceo).
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Why can normal accounts suddenly not spam people? That'd require better spam prevention for non-verified accounts, which you can implement without this change. Doesn't seem related.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
You - and all other social conservatives - want to keep children away from sex education so they get pregnant young, maybe not consensually, and then deny them abortions to force them to have children.< / blockquote >
Obviously that's not true! At all! Some conservatives do dislike the current form of sex eduction, and some conservatives don't want minors to have abortions. A few even claim they don't want raped minors to have abortions. but they don't want ... all of that, above. Most of them would prefer the minor doesn't get pregnant young, in particular! You can do this for any controversial position. Democrats are RACIST and have JEWISH QUOTAS IN COLLEGES just like HITLER!
Similarly, trans activists would not say "i want to mutilate and sterilize children. and i'm jerking off as I type this. Hail Marx."
That is the terminal reality of living as trans. Being permanently medicalized, mutilated and sterilized
The point of charitability rules here is that people don't generally discuss 'children being sterilized and mutilated', or 'hitler jew segregation racism', in a particularly useful way. While I'd rather have a totally-freeze-peach style moderation where you can say whatever you want and get moderated if it's not useful, there's clearly a correlation between the two. What productive response do you expect your interlocutors to have to "you are literally mutilating children!" How does that work!
Ideally, the interlocutor would carefully investigate the meaning of that, referring to many irl examples, and figure out precisely what is happening to children, how it matters, how it relates to the traditional nature of sex and modernity or whatever. But, again, that doesn't usually happen when you call someone a "child mutilator".
The thing is, sometimes things as bad as "child mutilation" do happen. And trans may be even, in a broad sense, as bad as "child mutilation". So saying mean-sounding things can be useful, when they are happening. But saying 'child mutilation' doesn't help at all, it just says it's something bad ... happening ... to children. But the disagreement is if it's bad, if wearing girl underwear and getting euphoria <...>s are bad, if HRT and SRS are bad, etc. Both sides are aware that is happening to children. And it distracts from the fact that all of that is happening whether or not teachers push it, because people are coming across it on the internet and deciding to do it themselves. (even censoring the internet isn't a good option!)
Let's say I brought up being raped as a child in a discussion about abortion or parents' rights or something. Any individual should be able to have precise intellectual conversations about that, one with strong disagreement, clear claims, and details - in principle, right? But unless you frequent 4chan or WPD, that's just not gonna happen - it's a taboo topic and saying anything other than "that, and 6 degrees of kevin bacon from it, are cursed ground and must be righteously condemned lest we harm the victim" is just not okay.
In order to discuss the topic, we need to consider how the your teacher telling you to wear girls' underwear might, actually, be good. (note the immense cringe it takes to type that out - i'm basically a pedophile for saying it!). Sure, it isn't, but there are multiple ways something can be bad! And not being able to consider that it might be good means, essentially, you can't discriminate between the ways that it's bad - because "realizing it's not bad in one way" and "realizing it's good" are, in the moment, rather hard to tell apart. After all, if the reasons you previously believed it's bad are mostly wrong ... And there isn't any "uh, it's still actually bad though" you can fall back on to ensure you're safe from "dangerous questions", because that's just an empty claim that prevents you from finding the real reasons.
Notably, that teacher doesn't actually want to have sex with you. At all. Which makes it ... not ... grooming. And not pedophilic. At all!
It can still be bad for being sexually degenerate or anti-nature or a simulacra of appearances or something, there's lots of approaches. But it's not pedophilia. And if it's not pedophilia, why is it grooming?
But if you think it's a serious issue worth being emotional about, why can't you come out against teachers doing it?
And this is just a struggle session. You need to personally condemn the outgroup, or you're as bad as them! What? What does this have to do with ... figuring out why something is happening, what its causes are, why it matters? Why does any person need to "come out against" anything? This is a discussion forum, not a cult.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Several people have told us that they think a clear case of grooming a kid into weird sex shit doesn't actually count as grooming to them, which tells us all we need to know about the whole conversation.
If you're not referencing any particular post, what did you mean by "Several people have told us"? If there's someone who told 'us' (themotte) this ... who? There's only one set here, and the set is finite, so you can't claim ~AC or anything.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Who has HBD fallen out of favor for on the far right? They may be posting detailed IQ analyses less, but not because of any disbelief that blacks are lower iq or do more crime bc genes
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Understanding precisely what's going on with some stupid set of beliefs can be enlightening.
It can also be useful - if, hypothetically, said beliefs were held by the vast majority of the smartest, most influential, and most powerful people in your country / civilization (and also by most of the less smart, and less powerful people too). In that case, it's probably worth figuring out what they mean and why! Saying "lol this is dumb who cares" doesn't seem to help with that, or suggest ways to solve it.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
like domestic violence, is violence within a context where there is a special duty of not committing violence, specifically, within the family
Yeah, but that's only held to be true in cases like 'beating' or 'spanking', not for murder. I don't think anyone recognizes the idea that murder should be punished more because it's against a family member. And most people would find it very strange to call 'a father killing their 5yo child' domestic violence. The bad parts of domestic violence - the idea that a husband can 'psychologically manipulate' a wife or something, the battered wife, or the vulnerable child - don't make any sense in abortion, given that a hospital is administering it, the fetus can't talk or take action, etc.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
surely desantis is being 'undermined' because democrats dislike republicans, as usual, similar to how republicans 'undermine' biden, not specifically because of voter fraud?
Any evidence here? Did the past journo-list leaks have any instances of "this guy is cracking down on voter fraud! better get him, we depend on illegal voters!" or even something vaguely similar to that?
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
-
"there is no evidence that black people commit crimes more often than white people"
-
"there is no evidence that jews control the media"
-
"there is no evidence sex ed teachers are grooming children"
-
"there is no evidence democrats hacked voting machines to swing the election with 5M votes"
1 is plainly false, and justified by a ton of hedges and lies. 2 is ... eh, jews are profoundly overrepresented in the media, but going from there to 'control' or claiming jewishness is causal isn't proven at all. 3 is mostly true, sex ed teachers really aren't grooming anyone, but it's a cover for 'lgbt be bad' - which is arguable - and its own claim. and 4 is entirely true - that just didn't happen!
Just because 'the no evidence game' is played doesn't mean it isn't true sometimes.
As you yourself should well know given your background, only 19 instances of prosecution/conviction is not the same thing as there being only 19 instances of a crime
his point is the evidence for anything more than that is entirely lacking.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
It's both a little trick that's selectively used in cases where they agree with the conclusion and something they actually believe in a vague sense - vaguely like "this is a woman, i am a man, i am privilege, i cannot disagree with her , because it's socially unacceptable and hurts oppressed person". It's usually not knowingly or intentionally disingenuous.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
A person has what might be termed a "true identity." This is an objective list of that person's qualities, experiences, associations, everything. Examples are hard because objective accuracy is hard.
What? Is it part of your 'true identity', for instance, the value of the wavefunction (ik that's not really how that works) at each planck volume of your body - 65 liters times (planck's constant 1 / 1.616255×10⁻³⁵ m) ^ 3 (that's ... a lot of values, 10^100 float32s)! Except you specified 'assocations' - those have something to do with the outside world, so do we need to include, say, the volume of the earth, too? How do you distill all those atoms down into an 'objective list'? (the problem of knowledge-as-a-list-of-facts is extensively discussed by western philosophy, and is at any rate mostly nonsensical - which facts?). And - there isn't really anything else in the sense of 'qualities' or 'lists' ("materialism" is separate - if people have souls or experiences distinct from atoms somehow, it isn't a static list of associations and experiences). So I don't think this really means anything. Anyway, "true identity" here just seems to mean ... physically everything, every fact or idea that could possibly exist in the universe in total. If you're a physicist, and you're 20, and at age 40 you discover general relativity ... i guess that's part of your true identity? It's an association, after all.
He also has a "self-conception." This is his own perspective of his true identity, and usually is flawed in various aspects
Do they, though? Let's say you're about to eat a new kind of meat. You don't know, in one sense, that the meat is gonna taste good - yet in another sense, the potential to know it (i.e. the configuration of taste buds, experiences, etc to taste it) is already there. Is that part of your identity yet? And - does it even make sense to say that every association and quality is an 'identity'? I probably had some kind of cereal for breakfast 5723 days ago. Is that part of my identity? It is part of my 'experiences, associations'. This can't really be what we mean. Similarly, the fact that my 'perspective on' eating that cereal is 'flawed', in that I don't remember it - seems fine? And since an 'identity' covers ... every relation and association I have, is it an "imperfection in my self-conception" that I can't quite prove a particularly complicated theorem without looking in a textbook right now, despite doing it before? ... I don't think 'self-conception' or 'identity' really mean anything at all. Anything that are either of them are just complex relations people have to things that exist, that they're trying to understand or accomplish, and have precisely as much to do with a 'self' or 'identity' with what I had for breakfast today.
He also has a "social identity." This is an aggregate of what other people think his qualities, experiences, associations, etc. are--it is literally a social construct
What exactly is aggregating them? If Joe thinks i'm an evil fascist nazi and Tom thinks i'm cute and valid, what precisely is my social identity?
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
No, 4channers use slurs because a combination of 'intending to piss people off because it's funny' and 'actually disliking trans/gay/black people'. ("based?") The ratio between the two probably has changed over its history. But it isn't to keep out speech policers!
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
What does this response mean? You're still claiming it in either case? And ... how could ivermectin cure that many different subtle aliments that so many people have? Do any other drugs work like that? There are hundreds of pharmaceuticals and each one treats one or a few specific diseases. The only things that are 'broad-based cures' are things like vitamins or foods that have many components treating starvation etc.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
so you've heard ... vague improvement from many people. But feeling / vibes / personal health regularly changes, so a substantial number of people who take ivermectin (when they're sick or not) reporting they felt better afterwards, in a variety of ways that aren't really related, should be taken similarly to how people on TheMotte reported feeling better days after taking fisetin (which wasn't even supposed to do that, it was a long term anti-aging thing) - as a bunch of people looking too hard at nothing at all.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
But as I said, if he was returning to a different topic, that would ... also be internal, like, neurons, or maybe a soul or something, so the external/internal dichotomy isn't useful here? Presumably he returns to the topic [in this theoretical example because I still have no idea what the topic is, or what ymeskhout is alleged to be doing here, this is just a tangent about some psychological argument] for some specific reason. And that reason would be about external things - he's trying to inform us, the topic is interesting, etc - just like the reason would be if he was talking about something else instead! So I don't really see how it's external or internal, but just incorrect vs correct.
Also, can you just say what the "topic" is, and give an example of "prior engagement" being ignored, or something? I genuinely have no idea what you or dean meant.
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
This seems right, phonics 'working' [might i will read more] come out of the same body of knowledge that produced learning styles, growth mindset, etc. The comparison to learning spoken language seems obvious - there isn't a "phonics" for spoken language, you just learn it via immersion!
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
Maybe I just want to get to dislike gays like 2 decades ago. But the bundle argument which gay marriage seemed to be the spears tip seems like it’s been a giant negative for society
why not just say ... ok, gay marriage is kinda meaningless, doesn't change much, but being gay is bad because it misses the point of sex (reproduction, children)? What does the natural desire for children even mean without actually having children, if it's targeted at M/M? What's the point?
My argument is, essentially, that "abusive" has no more content than "bad", and attempts to smuggle in unproven connotations.
Taking a child to a strip club is not 'abusive' in any sense aside from the extent to which a child going to a strip club is bad. If I had, at age 9, gone to a strip club - I'd expect that not to matter at all. Same for drag shows!
Also, the average 12yo will have seen several dozen naked women on the internet, so something drag queens is an ineffective way to prevent children seeing sexualized stuff.
but does anyone want to argue this is an appropriate activity for a child?
This is just argument-by-appeal-to-social-taboo. Nobody wants to argue it, because the very concept is disgusting. Why don't you make the argument against it instead? And why do many arguments in this area sound like this - vague references to badness?
cuwurious_strag_CA
1yr ago
the point is that, if the only reason you're calling it "marxism" is that above, then ... it isn't marxism, because those kinds of conflicts have existed for millenia.
What are your thoughts on contingent-racism: judging people exclusively on their individual capability (obviously this isn't really what nazis or even republicans are doing), and then ending up with a class / friend group / group of employees that's smething vaguely like 33% jewish, 33% asian, 20% white and 20% indian/middle eastern (0% black/hispanic)? Is this racism? Would it be racism to say this has something to do with genes? Because "no discrimination based on skin color in hiring, promotion, etc" would do that (and already has to significant extents) in those places.
More options
Context Copy link