BANNED USER: obnoxious, culture warring, random internet bullshit
>Unban in 0d 04h 26m
dailydogma
No bio...
User ID: 4231
Banned by: @Amadan
dailydogma
30d ago
Part of why people are single is that women expect a provider in a marriage. If they are asked to pay half the rent they will naturally leave much more. Dual income marriages are not really an option under normal human nature and so being dual income is not the solution to the problem. It's more like a huge part of the problem itself, that people think it should even be needed.
dailydogma
30d ago
The underclass is gonna underclass. As if they didn't blow all their money on gambling, alcohol, and clothes back in the 1980s. The fact remains that at the mean, young people are poorer for BS reasons.
dailydogma
30d ago
I like how being poor is referred to as house hacking.
dailydogma
30d ago
Presently unclear to whom? Not to everybody, surely?
dailydogma
30d ago
You are technically correct.
dailydogma
30d ago
No, that Egypt game was rigged. Without that corrupt ref they would have gone to extra time at least. And that doesn't take into account the way teams feel like they can't properly defend against Messi because if they breath on him they get fouled because he is FIFA boy. Messi is a top 5 striker surely but is he really number 1? How can we know? Well, they want to make him look like number one by giving him two world cups in a row. But after some of the reffing it doesn't look legitimate to me. It's a team sport too, just because his team keeps winning doesn't make him any better than eg Ronaldo at the same age. The cult of personality around him is too insane.
dailydogma
30d ago
How is it a rivalry when they only play every 25 years?
dailydogma
30d ago
Also Argentina's one strategy the entire tournament, other than paying for rigged reffing (except during the England game., too expensive or obvious at that point maybe), has been to tire the opponent out for 75 minutes and then kick it into gear. I'm suspecting they do it on purpose to make betting market dips. Who knows, at least it was easy to capitalize on.
dailydogma
30d ago
So yes I think today’s generation is poorer in a lot of ways that really matter due to less social capital (but richer in other ways).
Only richer in ways that are shared by the old, namely tech. Housing, food, and culture are all much more expensive / worse than 40 years ago for sure. If you buy into simple supply and demand, it must be immigration to blame. When the population drops, housing demand falls while demand stays fixed. Therefore housing becomes cheaper. Farm land stays fixed while food demand falls. Food becomes cheaper. Culture stays very similar if the gene pool is not being radically flooded with new genotypes. The old people voted for this though so I don't blame the immigrants themselves. They need immigrants so their house appreciates, so getting it reroofed is cheap, etc. They preferred to destroy their homelands than give their children their fair share.
dailydogma
30d ago
It's not a threat, it's obviously targeted at median people. It's aired on a sports match, it's all about grandma's medicine and if AI will help the works of the world pay off their credit card debt. If you go to the hard questions url it's filled with median looking teachers and unemployed disability check receivers babbling about rent, la favela communidad del pueblo, and «medicine» for their «chronic health conditions.»
dailydogma
1mo ago
allegedly prompted by pressure from their hardware partners like Asus and Lenovo (who themselves are worried about Windows instability leading their customers to jump ship to the Mac Book Neo).
They should just ship with Fedora KDE. Imagine the day...
dailydogma
1mo ago
Many people in FAANG have no idea how to use AI effectively
I thought they were the best? Is this why my VSCode is eating half a macbook pro battery in 3 hours?
dailydogma
1mo ago
The question of what to do with junior engineers is an interesting one.
That's easy. Fire the greys and replace them with juniors that have claude. Same productivity, half the wage.
dailydogma
1mo ago
They're not bots but they're dumber than LLMs so they might as well be. The average IQ on the internet has dropped a point a year since 2010 I'd say. Reddit used to genuinely have its median person be a professional software engineer, like hacker news now. Reddit sold out to trash and now its median person is median, probably sub median by western standards. It's approaching global median. A lot of southeast asians and so on have gotten phones and they like reddit. The median person can't reason. The median person on hacker news, which is the old reddit demographic, can still kind of reason. You can assume the same process happened on other web 1.0 forums.
dailydogma
1mo ago
Contemporary surveys from 1910 of Italian American immigrants at the beginning of the last century show about an 8:1 frequency of Italians marrying other Italians versus marrying out.
They didn't assimilate.
dailydogma
1mo ago
I'm not misunderstanding anything. Your point is trivial and uttering it appears to be based on several modeling errors. First, you underestimate how obvious your point is. I think I'd have to be below average IQ at least for your irrelevant, but trivially true point to by anything but obvious. Obviously, I am not below average IQ, and if you genuinely thought otherwise, your world modeling was very off. Second, you are modeling me as a politician, when I'm actually just engaging in leisure time. This is what makes your point irrelevant. Even if I did not realize your point, I do not need it and will never use it, because I am not in the business of convincing people of anything. I just want to debate on the internet for fun.
Moral substance doesn't really exist, so yes I am stripping that away.
So you don't think rape is wrong? What about racism? Genocide? Torture? I focused more on your strawmanning than your amoralism because honest amoralism is extremely rare. Most people think rape, murder, torture, and genocide are genuinely wrong. Liberals in particular invoke amoralism when conservatives state conservative moral positions, but it's a strawman since most liberals hold deep moral positions on other topics.
(Perhaps badly, apparently!)
You didn't speak clearly about your moral framework until now. Instead, you strawmanned my descriptive positions and my best guess was that you have an average moral framework but wanted to bypass the difficult moral argument to attack a strawman of my position.
dailydogma
1mo ago
Your fallacy is like saying the following in response to a claim that murder is morally wrong:
You think murder is wrong? But people can murder. They do it all the time. Unfortunately, that is a reality you have to deal with. They might get caught, or they might not. They are hard to stop if they don't care about the risk of being caught. You're going to have to deal with the fact that murder is, in fact, possible.
Questioning the moral frame directly and proposing a substantial flaw with it and alternative frame is a valid argument. What you do is respond to a different, irrelevant, strawman descriptive position, like murder is impossible.
I said
Cheating and mass immigration effect the set of legacy American families and people, each individually in a bad way. Whereas a 25 year old dating a 17 year old effects no one in a bad way.
This is in fact a moral argument based on consequentialism. You went on to strip the argument of its moral substance and to strawman the descriptive positions I take: apparently you thought I said that other people don't exist, and that nobody has different views than me. You wrote a rebuttal of that other, strawman position:
You exist in a world with other people. Those other people may have different views to you.
This is not a productive reply to what I said. Productive replies include criticizing my consequentialism directly, or disputing my actual descriptive positions.
dailydogma
1mo ago
not my experience.
dailydogma
1mo ago
And I can claim anybody reading that has progressed beyond Kohlberg's conventional stage of moral development will understand that responding to normative claims by wrongly interpreting them as different descriptive claims is fallacious. Do you have an actual argument otherwise? Your descriptive assertions do not make a normative argument.
dailydogma
1mo ago
I don't have to ignore you. I can just keep responding to stop with amoralism every time you post it in response to a normative argument. I don't have to make an argument that you find convincing. I can in fact just keep pointing out that I want to have an ethics argument, and you are responding with descriptive trivialities after misinterpreting what I said.
dailydogma
1mo ago
Most Jane Street traders aren’t cheating or doing anything interesting. They’re exploiting tiny quirks in foreign derivatives markets or the repo market / basis trade or creating ever more complex ways to eke out margin when ETFs rebalance all with huge leverage so that 1bp becomes a moderately large figure.
That's cheating if a 140 IQ person can't do it from home. The world exists for smart individuals, not grinding ekers.
dailydogma
1mo ago
It should probably be 10x the amount.
dailydogma
1mo ago
It's not that deep bro. A discord is not a conspiracy theory.
dailydogma
1mo ago
This is a discussion forum, so you don't get to control who responds or the frame of their arguments.
You did it again. You turned a criticisim of your logic into an attempt to control what you write, and then remarked the obvious fact that I can't control your fingers or delete your comments from the forum. That is fallacious and pointless to say; it adds nothing to the conversation. You are responding to something I didn't say, with descriptive facts everyone knowns, instead of actually engaging with my position, which is normative.
Of course. But does that makes it presently unclear, in a general sense, or just unclear to you and people like you? What if it is clear to me?
More options
Context Copy link