@dr_analog's banner p

dr_analog

razorboy

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 14:10:31 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 583

dr_analog

razorboy

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 14:10:31 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 583

Verified Email

Aside: I would post this in the main CW thread but it's Sunday and don't want it to get lost when the thread rolls over. So I'll just do a lower effort slightly trashier post here.

HAS LIBERALISM PEAKED IN OREGON?(!)

In 2020, the state of Oregon passed a referendum, ballot Measure 110, which decriminalized all drugs(!) with a vote of 58% in favor.

Voters in Oregon (such as myself) believed this was the path to enlightened drug policy, being informed by the revered Portugal model. Tacked onto the referendum was a bit of social justice theory as well: the police would be required to document in detail the race of anyone they stopped from now on for any reason. To ensure the police weren't disproportionately harassing the, say, 5 black people who live in Oregon. (okay okay they're 2.3% of the population)

The ensuing data was an almost perfect A/B test, the kind you'd run with no shame over which kind of font improved e-commerce site checkout conversions. By 2023, Oregon's drug overdose rate was well outpacing the rest of the country, so much so that the police officers regularly Narcan with them and revive people splayed out in public parks. Sometimes the same person from week to week. It's true this coincides with the fentanyl epidemic, which could confound the data and have bumped up overdoses everywhere but that wouldn't explain alone why deaths have especially increased in Oregon. The timing fits M110.

Anyway! At some point someone decided to compare notes with Portugal's system. Some stark differences!

https://gooddrugpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/PortugalvOregon1.pdf

Briefly, Portugal uses a carrot and stick model with a lot of negative incentive, whereas Oregon just kinda writes a $100 ticket and suggests calling a hotline for your raging drug problem maybe lol.

In the first 15 months after Measure 110 took effect, state auditors found, only 119 people called the state’s 24-hour hotline. That meant the cost of operating the hotline amounted to roughly $7,000 per call. The total number of callers as of early December of last year had only amounted to 943.

The absence of stick appears to not be very effective in encouraging users to seek treatment.

Are the kids having fun at least? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/31/health/portland-oregon-drugs.html (paywall bypass: https://archive.ph/fHxWk)

“Portland [not Portugal, just to be clear --ed] is a homeless drug addict’s slice of paradise,” said Noah Nethers, who was living with his girlfriend in a bright orange tent on the sidewalk against a fence of a church, where they shoot and smoke both fentanyl and meth.

Yes. At least, that's the brightest part of the article. The rest is pretty depressing and sad and sickening and worrisome.

After a few years of this, the Oregon legislature yesterday finished voting to re-criminalize drugs.

The NYT again: https://archive.ph/3zksH

Critics are out in force, arguing that the legislature overrode the will of voters (remember it was passed by referendum) and that the state sabotaged the program by not efficiently distributing treatment resources to addicts. This poster believes the low uptake and missing negative incentives prove that drug harm reduction is not primarily about access to treatment, but about incentive not to use.

The governor has indicated that she would sign.

tbh I'm surprised Oregon repealed this so quickly. Has liberalism peaked in Oregon?

As someone who voted for the referendum back in 2020, I'm a little sad that some of the overdose deaths are on my hands. Kind of. Like 1 millionth of the overdose deaths perhaps. It's good to run experiments though, right? This was a pretty good experiment. We at least have an upper bound on how liberal a drug policy we should pursue.

I suppose this depends on being significantly stronger than the other party. Like, if you have nukes and the other does not.

It's cute we can still laugh at the "A|B testing" ravaging our cities like this is all a Sim City game and we can load after the aliens destroyed the map.

It is cute but I think it's actually good to run experiments? Don't we bemoan vetocracies and general unwillingness by politicians to take risks? Initiative petitions (referendums) appear to be a good outlet for some direct democracy.

We do get some good outcomes from time to time and the fact that we rolled back so quickly is a credit.

If you asked this question two years ago I'm sure the sentiment would have been that the West Oregon leftists that dominate state political power would never roll back such a pro-drug law that was wrapped in racial justice.

I thought the update (from more than the Huberman camp) is

  • studies that show any benefits to even moderate alcohol consumption were p-hacked
  • there aren't any health benefits at any amount
  • but there probably isn't significant harm from a small amount, like a drink a week

From a game theory POV I would think you'd want to hit back much, much harder to discourage future retaliation in the first place?

Have we really gone so far down the rabbit hole that the only moral lens we are allowed to look at things through is consent?

I mostly like Huberman but I think this is bad behavior. As per the article, I can't really imagine banging 5+ women and letting them each believe I'm exclusively with them (through either bald-faced lies or lies of omission) so that they feel safe being raw dogged.

Lol they actually went for it.

I'll just kind of treat this like the planes walkers are in a Rick and Morty multi-verse and stumbled on the DEI dimension and summoned a black elf and be amused.

shuts eyes

crosses fingers

trans paladin. trans paladin. trans paladin

More woke

How is this coming through in the game? Black elves? Trans paladins? Or do you mean that WotC woke corporate politics is a spectacle?

My general impression on the ground, as it were, with two children and teaching 600 elementary children, is that there is not necessarily any One True Way that will work for every child.

Today our teenager’s school was put on lockdown. A few days ago someone claiming to be a student posted on Reddit, anonymously, a specific threat to shoot the school up. Then has been anonymously emailing every night threatening to do it the next day.

Everyone has been on edge.

While our kid was in class today, An announcement came on to enter lockdown, this is not a drill. The school procedure for this is that each classroom door should be locked, shades drawn, and students should huddle up in the part of the room with the least line of sight (fire?) to the outside.

They texted their families while huddled up, shaking from adrenaline but also trying to stay quiet.

It took 45 minutes for the school to give the all clear. It was a false alarm. A rando maintenance person that some staff didn’t recognize was on the grounds and then they lost sight of the guy and escalated.

So.

Home schooling sounds pretty good to me.

I guess I was hoping to see a definition of "conservative role model" that didn't automatically imply religious.

Seems like the ghist of it is

  • happy embracing fatherhood
  • devoted/providing husband
  • works hard
  • successful at work
  • proud of work

Right. The state legislature did touch it in this case! They rolled parts of it back and re-criminalized drugs.

Initiative petitions are often a clown-show, but on the other hand, they're a good vehicle for testing risky policy that career politicians might never put their name on. If it's a huge disaster the career politicians can step in and take credit for rolling it back.

This seems good, actually!

Oh, also, I'm noticing none of the starter kits at the game store involve black mana in their decks? What's going on there?

Here is the liberal-individualist boomer par excellence. He tours the world and waxes poetic on the quaint social life, yet considers himself above their primitive family and social ties. He sits down with large families to eat, he attends their communal festivals, and he transmits this all to the solitary Americans in their living room. He is the rootless cosmopolitan, an omni-tourist, an enjoyer of spectacle over substance. Seeing all these wonders of the world, he’s yet unable to internalize their moral significance and necessity.

Wow.

You've really cut to the heart of what I was fumbling at here https://www.themotte.org/post/933/what-caused-the-suicide-of-anthony/202738?context=8#context

Progressive types see him as a hero. Purely virtuous, a man to aspire to. Implying his suicide could have anything to do with his spectacle is the closest one could come to commiting a sin.

"Travel is not a reward for working it's education for living" -- Anthony Bourdain

The irony. It's too much.

But if you are a business owner considering opening a new branch and you need, to know, say if workers or buyers will do something complex or buyers attempt to steal from you,

Business owners already suspect this and want to act on this. We call this behavior racist. Why would the general acceptance of race-IQ change this dynamic?

That is, racism doesn't necessarily stop being racism just because some of the stereotypes are true.

Not posting in the Gaza/Israel thread since this is more generic, IMO.

In the most recent Sam Harris podcast, he elevates the problem with Hamas to the more general problem of jihadi terrorism. The episode is here and there's also a transcript here.

In this, he paints a picture of Hamas being a jihadi terrorist organization that's beyond reasoning with in terms of any reasoning we'd consider compatible with liberal western civilized order. He reads this quote from a member of a different jihadi group that had just finished slaughtering young children:

Human life only has value among you worldly materialist thinkers. For us, this human life is only a tiny, meaningless fragment of our existence. Our real destination is the Hereafter. We don’t just believe it exists, we know it does.

Death is not the end of life. It is the beginning of existence in a world much more beautiful than this. As you know, the [Urdu] word for death is “intiqaal.” It means “transfer,” not “end.”

Paradise is for those of pure hearts. All children have pure hearts. They have not sinned yet… They have not yet been corrupted by [their kafir parents]. We did not end their lives. We gave them new ones in Paradise, where they will be loved more than you can imagine.

They will be rewarded for their martyrdom. After all, we also martyr ourselves with them. The last words they heard were the slogan of Takbeer [“Allah u Akbar”].

Allah Almighty says Himself in Surhah Al-Imran [3:169-170] that they are not dead.

You will never understand this. If your faith is pure, you will not mourn them, but celebrate their birth into Paradise.

He makes the point that atheists have a lot of trouble understanding how utterly fanatical and unreasonable jihadis can be. People of Christian or Jewish faith know, because they know how powerful their own faith is in their lives. But atheists are eager to attribute this kind of proclivity towards sadism and murder as a reflection of terrible conditions that they must be living under. That people living in a utopia would never succumb to such depravity. Sam argues that Muslims of faith are just as destructive outside of Israel and disputed Israeli territories.

For more concrete stats, I found this from Google generative results

According to a French think tank, between 1979 and May 2021, there were 48,035 Islamist terrorist attacks worldwide, causing the deaths of at least 210,138 people. Of these attacks, 43,002 occurred in Muslim countries, resulting in 192,782 deaths. This represents 89.5% of Islamist terrorist attacks worldwide and 91.7% of deaths

The culmination of this episode is Sam practically condemning belief in Islam entirely. Almost bordering on saying that every Palestinian is a mope in the Muslim Matrix who could become inhabited by a jihadi Agent Smith at any time. He argues that unlike Jesus, or Buddha, the central most beloved figure in Islam is Muhammed, and he was not anything like a saint:

The problem that we have to grapple with—and by “we” I mean Muslims and non-Muslims alike—is that the doctrines that directly support jihadist violence are very easy to find in the Quran, and the hadith, and in the biography of Muhammad. For Muslims, Muhammad is the greatest person who has ever lived. Unfortunately, he did not behave like Jesus or Buddha—at all. It sort of matters that he tortured people and cut their heads off and took sex slaves, because his example is meant to inspire his followers for all time.

There are many, many verses in the Quran that urge Muslims to wage jihad—jihad as holy war against apostates and unbelievers—and the most violent of these are thought to supersede any that seem more benign. But the truth is, there isn’t much that is benign in the Quran—there is certainly no Jesus as we find him in Matthew urging people to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. All the decapitation we see being practiced by jihadists isn’t an accident—it’s in the Quran and in the larger record of the life of the Prophet.

What I hear from this is that there are no "good" Muslims, or if they are good it's an aberration, or that they're Muslim in name only.

How does one operationalize such a belief? Is Sam arguing that accepting Muslim refugees is a mistake, full stop, and that the only way to deal with jihadis is the grant them their wish: death, because there's nothing else in the world we could offer them? Is that even enough to cure the problem?

There are two billion Muslims in the world. If bringing them capitalism and the pleasures of modernity (everyone gets Starlink, Steam deck, dirt cheap halal KFC and Chil Fil-A, etc as a poster recently suggested for pacifying the Palestinians) does not innoculate against jihadi mind viruses, what would?

It took Europe about 1000 years for their culture to develop antibodies to dogmatic below-the-sanity-waterline Christian crusader ideology, and Christianity's deck was not nearly as stacked against it (its central figure was still practically a hippie). Will we have to wait this long for Islam to do the same? Sam sounds like he's advocating a form of genocide by another name.

That seems like a pretty difficult thing to prove

I thought there are chat logs of him instructing Manning on what commands he should run to hack the US and exfiltrate secrets? That doesn't strike me as run-of-the-mill journalism at that point.

I can think of a lot of progressive musicians or artists who I admired but none of them seemed like they had a life I could ever achieve. Or necessarily ones I'd want to achieve. So, probably not fair to say they're role models. At least for me.

I do wonder if progressives think these role models are actually a lot more legitimate because they could imagine themselves getting great at guitar and being world famous musicians and touching people through beautiful music or whatever. Whereas those conservative role models are such conformist boring trad-squares.

EDIT: actually, Anthony Bourdain. I'm sure a lot of progressives consider him a role model, though in the wake of his suicide all of his romantic world-spanning zeal seems like a desperate cry for help slash running from his demons or whatever.

EDIT2: thinking further, I'm really amazed by what a perfect progressive role model Anthony Bourdain is. Holy shit.

And conservative communities have little difficulty producing positive role models for boys. Which seems like an obvious drawback- leftist communities need to astroturf someone into a role that is already filled elsewhere.

Asked with genuine and humble curiosity, what are some positive conservative role models for boys?

So.

Is there any good evidence that organic produce has health benefits or that conventional produce is health detrimental?

We've been doing thie for... 20+ years now?

The steelmanned case is "Trump 2024 The Return - Make Liberals Cry Again" (bumper sticker). Obviously Trump is a greedy unprincipled narcissistic hypocrite who hasn't delivered on anything really, but he sure does drive the sanctimonious liberal elites insane in a way that no other Republican can. Plus he's pretty entertaining, at times.

Much more exciting than a generic Republican. I don't know if there are more redeeming qualities than this.

I should make this a top-post. But for now: Anthony Bourdain. Humble beginnings doing "real" work as a cook and a chef at a string of New York City restaurants. Has a passion for French cuisine. Then struck out as a writer who published Kitchen Confidential, sharing this quaint but authentic view of a working class life with the world. All of these honorable professions go far among progressives. They are relatable, humble, involve zero obvious exploitation. True honest work.

I've seen this quote of his pop up at various art festivals:

“Your body is not a temple, it's an amusement park. Enjoy the ride.”

From humble beginnings, he was signed to do two travel shows, No Reservations and then Parts Unknown, glorfying open-minded exploration and celebration of other cultures: their food, their traditions, their people, etc. Super romantic while still keeping an edgy down-to-Earth quality. Alludes to having lived a life of mild depravity but in a cute way. Seems like he could come up with an amazing wine pairing with seared sea scallops but you can also have a beer with him and shoot the shit. The worst thing you could ever do is suggest going to McDonalds.

He cannot possibly be a better progressive role model. He even struggled from mental illness! Showing that even hard working, successful and productive people who seem happy on the outside can suffer from depression and bring themselves to suicide.

Mild tangent: I can't shake the feeling that his romanticism, attempts at authenticity, never losing his edgy side belied a somewhat destructive live fast die young ethos and may have all been a big cry for help but progressives I've discussed this with don't believe there's any connection between the two at all whatsoever. He just caught mental illness the way anyone can catch flu.

The first few Quakers who took a stand against slavery were pretty annoying too. In reading about their early forms of activism one can’t help but be struck by how PETA-like some of their tactics were.

Anyway, there really isn’t really a non-annoying way of telling someone a message equivalent to “Hey actually, to all animals you’re more evil than Hitler. Animal lives matter. Have you considered being not animal Uber-Hitler??”

They couldn't point to any of his content that was really harmful. Either they didn't do any research, or he really is that whistle-clean.

There was also the complaint that he demonized alcohol, like this advice is so absurd that it's prima facie wrong and requires no further discussion. Even still, this is unfair as Huberman says in that same podcast he continues to enjoy drinking.

Agreed. Sounds like we've settled on: a man of Huberman's status can't organize a harem for himself and have it consist of high-tier women. If you're of Huberman's grade, you have women eager to date you but you need to mislead them about your relationship status if you want your harem.

So... how much more status do you need to actually pull this off? Can Sergey Brin get away with it?

Instructions unclear. Started compassionately guillotining terminally ill cancer patients.

Surely the indignity of the guillotine is that it turns someone's execution into a humiliating blood spraying spectacle? You can almost look cool standing in front of a firing squad, blind folded (obligatory: smoking a cigarette). Nobody looks cool on their knees with their head in a guillotine stockade, even with a cigarette.

OTOH, with a firing squad, you probably look much less cool suffocating to death from all of the holes ripped through your lungs; not sure what I'd pick.