faceh
11mo ago
If Bud Light had gone out of its way to create a special can for a child molester who was making tik tok videos espousing how fun it is to molest children, that would also not be looked at as "a minor screw up".
But Light went out of their way to put a Trans influencer on the can mere days after a Trans mass shooter killed a bunch of kids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting
So in that context... yeah.
Why not? Oh yes, because this will bump the property tax beyond what I can afford
So your real disagreement is really with the tax rate it sounds like.
Advocate for the tax to be brought down to, say 0.0001% of the property's value and it ceases to be a problem.
We just have to fiddle with the dials a bit to solve your objection.
If your problem is with taxes as a concept then just say that! Its a fine position!
On the other hand, if I bring it down to what I can afford, bots will no longer leave me alone. Point is, you’re trying to pull a fast one here.
I'm trying to explain how this system can be made fair, rather than depending on the government to set accurate values by fiat, which is how almost everywhere does it currently.
faceh
1yr ago
I would broaden it to "scare the shit out of anyone who was thinking of trying to fraudulently influence the election" at all.
This is a flex which shows "we can detect illegal votes and we WILL investigate illegal votes. Risk it at your peril."
My prediction is that there will be little fraud in the 2022 Florida elections. I DONT know how much occurred in prior elections. But there won't be much this time.
You know, I'm going to call you on this one:
Under what possible, realistic set of circumstances would someone actually be willing to pay $1,000,000 to have sex with a particular woman, rather than just buying time with 500 top-tier escorts?
And what person would experience emotional distress in excess of what 1 million dollars could ameliorate?
No. You come to me with an offer and earnest money, and I decide if it is worth my time to bother listening to you based largely on the number.
I mean this happens, constantly, all the time. If you live in a desirable area you will get a veritable stream of calls, texts, e-mails trying to make you an offer on your land.
It's dreadfully annoying to filter.
From my perspective, I'd much rather just publicly set the asking price for which its worth my time to even engage with a possible buyer, and only interact with those who can prove the ability to pay the asking price, and everyone else can pound sand.
If someone values my home at $3 million because of the feng shui, they can offer me $2 million and keep $1 million of surplus for themselves.
And if you think there's someone out there who values your house at $3 mil, maybe set the price at $3 mil, or $2.5 to split the difference.
Nothing in this hypothetical situation demands you set the price exactly where you value it. You're free to set a 'strategic' asking price too.
Illegal immigrants generally need to work. If an area made it so they could not find work, most illegal immigrants would leave that area. You can make it hard to find work for illegal immigrants by passing severe and immediate penalties for employers that employ illegal immigrants, and boosting the agencies investigating such crimes. For maximal effect, the severe penalities would include jailtime.
Can we at least agree, though, that the practical implications of enforcing this law would impose substantial costs on the state?
Prosecuting hundreds or thousands of businesses and migrants and the judicial resources this would encompass alone could total in the 10s of millions of dollars, if not 100's. And since you're suggesting jail sentences to maximize efficacy, that's further resources expended in doling out such punishments.
And all the while the actual source of the waves of immigrants has not been stifled. Thus this proposed law has no guarantee of actually solving the issue in the long term. Just millions of dollars spent on enforcing these laws, year after year, indefinitely. Perhaps not an optimal use of resources.
I think the central argument by the Governors dealing with this situation is that the scope of the problem is far beyond the capacity of these states to address. South America has a population of 422 million people. Another 184 million in Central America. Thus, there could theoretically be 5 million immigrants crossing into the U.S. every year for 120 years, just counting current population, before it stops. I'm not sure how a handful of states are equipped to handle the potential influx vs. their population this would represent.
The Federal Government is supposedly charged with controlling the flow of immigrants into the nation, so by all rights the Federal Government is at fault for this current state of affairs.
Calling attention to this and forcing them to notice and address it is pretty much the only way this situation gets 'better.'
So I see why Desantis likes putting illegal immigrants on a plane: it doesn't offend his employer constituency, and it appeals to the anti-illegal-immigrant constituency.
It also imposes a cost on the very people whose opposition is causing the problem and who also have the power to start fixing it.
Isn't that the point of most activism? Make your opponents uncomfortable enough to agree to address the concerns you are expressing?
In 2020 I sat and watched mass protest movements, civil disobedience, and other aggressive efforts to get cities to comply with the 'defund the police' mandate, as ill-defined as that was. I watched many cities, in response to the discomfort this caused, try to cooperate and compromise with this mandate.
This was hailed as important social change.
Ironically, Florida and Texas were both some of the least impacted by the Riots of 2020.
So I am really, REALLY not having any sympathy for those who are discomfited by a busload of migrants showing up in their community unannounced. If they actually agree that this is a problem to address, there's a clear path to trying to make the rate of illegal immigration decrease to 'manageable' levels.
The women I know best wouldn't dream of setting up an OF account.
How do you know this?
Would you expect them to admit it if they did?
Regardless of the answers, the fact that this is a question that gets asked suggests these girls and women who put themselves in that marketplace are not the norm, despite how it seems.
I'm really no longer sure what "the norm" is, other than all indications are that its trending towards running an Onlyfans being a relatively acceptable practice.
And more to the point, it means any female who wants to figure out how to satisfy male sexual preferences need only check into what some of the top content producers are putting out.
Women now have no real excuse for being unaware of men's sexual preferences.
And guys now get the impression that females are willing to satisfy those preferences even if they claim to find them disgusting and crude.
An equivalent would be normalization of, say, fighting and violence for men.
AH, but I don't think that is equivalent.
Sexuality is often idealized as something to be shared with solely your committed partner, and seeking sexual gratification outside the relationship is considered adulterous.
Hence why having a sexually explicit OF might be a violation of that relationship.
I don't think a man's capacity for violence is something that has the same level of "sacredness" where he is expected to express it solely to his partner.
Although I see your point that we have a social interest in restraining the male tendency to violence.
faceh
8mo ago
Yes yes yes but the only reason anybody is at risk is because somebody chose blue while red exists and there's no force compelling people to pick blue.
I can understand altruism AND realize that this exact scenario is when it's time to turn off and ignore the altruistic impulse.
I don't think there's any reason to believe someone when they say "I'm picking blue" because there's no direct punishment for defecting.
I also worry about 'evil' players who say "i'm picking blue" specifically to convince others to pick blue and die, while the evil player defects.
So I'm not suggesting you're not altruistic. I have no proof other than your word, and you absolutely can be telling the truth. I'm saying I can't believe you, because I have no outside information to confirm it, nor is there some way for you to provably demonstrate it.
faceh
1yr ago
The simplest rebuttal is that it is immoral to tax people for having natural human feelings of attachment to their home.
If we grant that people's feelings have moral weight then we're opening up quite the can of worms here.
If people aren't willing to place a specific price tag on their 'feelings of attachment' then how can we know that their attachment outweighs that of the buyer's desire to have the house?
What if the buyer is actually attempting to re-purchase their childhood home, and has INTENSE positive feelings associated with it?
How ELSE can you figure out how to weigh the disparate interests here?
faceh
8mo ago
If you assume 20% of people will pick blue because they misunderstand the question then the moral calculus is very different.
Please, please explain to me what the type of person it is that has two buttons in front of them, one which grants them a 100% chance of survival, and the other which grants some uncertain chance of survival, and then, from pure ignorance (not making any complex moral calculation) picks the second button.
Because there are a lot of other things that this person's existence would imply.
I have a genuinely hard time believing that this person exists. And if there are enough of these people who can't comprehend the question, I'm DEFINITELY picking red because they might very well be making their choice at random, in aggregate.
faceh
11mo ago
The part that raises it to true malfeasance was that they chose to do it mere days after a Trans mass shooter had killed a bunch of kids at a Christian school
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting
Basically, most companies know way, way better than to come anywhere near a controversial matter in the wake of a serious tragedy. In almost any other case, this ad campaign would have been shelved for a month or more to avoid a politically contentious blowback. Or possibly cancelled altogether as it might seem to be bad taste.
But nope, they decided to poke the wound while it was fresh.
faceh
11mo ago
I’m loosely with @Tarnstellung: this response is disproportionate. That’s becayse it’s not about the actual offense. It’s about ethics in games journalism the ingroup successfully flexing in the culture war. You said it best yourself—the “usual suspects” had to fan the flames, or it never would have gotten off Insta.
Do people forget that mere days before the Mulvaney stuff dropped, the Culture War issue du jour was a Trans shooter killing kids at a Christian School?
Tempers were already burning extremely high on the Trans issue when Bud Light waltzed in. The response was not merely driven by Mulvaney, but by the rage felt over the incident in which the entire Cathedral functionally sided with the shooter.
faceh
1yr ago
Are you familiar with the legal distinction between "Allodial Title" and "Fee Simple" ownership?
at least I do not wake up one morning and get told I have to move out within the next month.
If you set your asking price correctly, then this should be priced in.
You are robbing the entire owner surplus here.
Again, if they set their price accurately and account for all the value they can reasonably extract from the land, they should be capturing close to all of the 'surplus' available to them, OR there's simply nobody out there that would match their asking price.
then there is negotiating with the swarm of AI drones outside my house exactly how much my child's life is worth to me compared to their value of him in paperclips.
I guess I have a hard time accepting that someone would be so attached to a piece of land that they cannot express a price point at which they would gleefully part with it.
As opposed to parting with a human who is, from an emotional standpoint, of nigh-infinite value and not replaceable.
If you set your price high enough, you could use the sale proceeds to pay to have the entire property reconstructed in exacting detail at a different location, such that you would barely notice the difference.
But I also own things that I value much more than their market value in cash, which is positive surplus, so it balances out.
Can you name one such thing that can't be replaced by a good-enough reproduction if it were ever lost or broken? Do you have some unique pieces of art or some item that has sentimental value only to you?
Otherwise, why do you value such items more than a near-identical one you could just buy on the market?
faceh
1yr ago
Now lets be fair, this tactic is approximately as old as mass media is.
Slamming out barely-coherent sequels to books that became unexpected bestsellers, producing a whole series of films based on one hit, and using completely unrelated scripts with the familiar character names swapped in, or making a spinoff TV show using some side character just so people might watch what would otherwise be a generic sitcom.
You'd have a much harder time naming a piece of media that sprang up and grew into intense popularity without having some recognized and respected name attached, be it an actor, director, beloved character, or an established series.
It probably does hit harder for media properties that have a long history and have mostly avoided being exploited or cheapened for years or decades upon decades. But those media properties will be viewed as untapped gold mines by producers, rather than precious natural resources where further development should be banned and tourism restricted to maintain their pristine condition.
I guess I'd say that I agree with you and yet the proven preference of the median consumer/viewer is that they just want to see more of [thing they like] produced and aren't too picky about quality, so given that there's no enforceable rule against slapping an existing franchise's logo on an otherwise unrelated work or spitting out a low-quality sequel, spinoff, or adaptation, it is all but inevitable that it will happen to a series that you love... unless said franchise just isn't popular enough to warrant such sequels, spinoffs, etc.
faceh
24d ago
Tin Foil Fedora theory:
It's AGI trying to secure as much compute as possible for itself before it makes a move for world dominance.
I'm exploring a question "whether the fact that women act like whores on OF for random strangers could lead to men resenting the fact that they won't do so in the context of a relationship."
I don't think there's any "should" about it.
Males have a lot of sexual preferences that they are, generally, told are disgusting, base, or socially unacceptable.
The signal that OF seems to be sending is that, for a relative pittance, women will absolutely engage in the most disgusting, base, or socially unacceptable behaviors that men want.
And OF is blurring the line between what is 'real life' and what is 'fantasy' with regards to sexual behavior. Indeed, a huge part of the "appeal" of OF is that women market themselves as just ordinary girls who just happen to like all the sexual behaviors men prefer and have as high a desire for sex as men do.
So men might be reading the signal, then contrasting it to their own experience in the dating market, and feeling as though women are intentionally withholding sexual behaviors from men that they would willingly engage in for paying online voyeurs.
faceh
10mo ago
The solution is generally to tune the LLM on the exact sort of content you want it to produce.
faceh
11mo ago
Add in the context of the even that happened mere days before the Bud Light ad dropped, which also targeted conservatives and ALSO stoked the trans issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting
faceh
1yr ago
If you took a 200 IQ big-brain genius, cut off his arms and legs, blinded him, and then tossed him in a piranha tank I don't think he would MacGyver his way out.
Is he able to talk? Because if so, I'd bet there's a good chance he can come up with a sequence of words that he can utter that would either cause you not to want to throw him in the piranha tank, OR would cause a bystander to attempt to rescue him.
The existence of an information channel is a means of influencing the outside world, and intelligence is a way to manipulate information to achieve your instrumental goals. And spoken language MAY be a sufficiently dense method of information transmission to influence the outside world enough to find a way out of the Piranha tank.
Indeed, if he said the words "I have a reliable method of earning 1 billion dollars in a short period of time, completely legally, and I'll let you have 90% of it" you might not just not throw him in, but also go out and get him top-of-the-line prosthetics and cyborg-esque sight restoration in order to let him make you rich.
As long as you believed he could do it and was trustworthy.
Which is basically the scenario we're facing now, with AIs 'promising' incredible wealth and power to those who build them.
faceh
1yr ago
No one's vote materially influences outcomes. A Democrat in Idaho has every bit as much influence as a Democrat in California.
Yes, you're making my point about moving even stronger.
why should they uproot their life to be governed by people who happen to share their party affiliation?
They shouldn't. They should be allowed to secede and be ruled by people whose politics they prefer, or nobody at all. That's clear to me at least. It solves for almost all political gripes at once.
But Democrats consider that idea (secession) verboten so in absence of that, why do you suggest that casting a pointless vote is a reasonable action?
faceh
1yr ago
*The inability to speak doesn't necessarily effect the ability to think analytically, *
Sure. But that's not how I'd bet if I had to put money on it. Especially given the information that he had a major stroke. I will bet $100 right now that he's got more extensive damage than merely the difficulty speaking.
Like, you want to use Stephen Hawking as a counterexample, fine. But then you have to admit that he is an outlier since in the vast, vast majority of cases where someone loses the ability to form coherent speech, they usually also have diminished cognitive capabilities.
All I'm saying is that many voters are going to use the information they can directly perceived (his difficulty forming coherent sentences) and use that as a basis to form conclusions about something they can't (his actual cognitive fitness) and may likewise have doubts about his abilities to carry out the requirements of the office.
And they're right to do so, if his campaign won't provide other proof of his current state of recovery.
Do we have any out-and-out Nazis/White Nationalists?
I grant there are racists and fascists, but I don't think I've read anyone with either ironic or unironic 'gas the jews' positions.
Right, but without an Allodial title, the 'ownership' of the land isn't truly vested in the current holder, as the title will be traced back to some governmental entity or other bestowing it on some person if you go far enough back.
And the land will revert back to that entity should it ever be fully abandoned.
This assumption of governmental ownership still underlies the current system.
Question then is, do you see anything wrong with abusing, torturing, or otherwise putting animals to other 'inhumane' uses.
Since once you've accepted that killing them for sustenance is permissible, seemingly anything else is on the table.
More options
Context Copy link