@fluid_pride's banner p

fluid_pride


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:11:35 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 621

fluid_pride


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:11:35 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 621

Verified Email

I recall a story about a guy being deported for rape and the whole plane protesting until he was released (and went on to murder someone else). If the population is clamoring for more "enrichment" how is mass deportation even plausible?

That's not a tax loophole, it's fraud. A loophole is a legal, non-fraudulent way to avoid taxes and is typically the result of the state trying to use the tax code to do social engineering.

That's actually a pretty good analogy for how you're using it. Well done!

Let's give these guys the benefit of the doubt.

Not anymore, no. The benefit of the doubt has been weaponized and only ever runs in one direction. Reading about this case led me to discovering the new paradigm for purse snatching. The thief approaches the victim and says, "give me back my bag!" On the surface, this looks like it could plausibly be a legitimate case of someone picking up the wrong bag. That's what it's for, to induce in normal people just enough momentary confusion for the thief to take off with the bag. Four "teens" hanging around the bike rental deserve absolutely zero benefit of the doubt.

I agree with what you're saying here, in general. And I think that even if the thirst streamers didn't exist, the ordinary streamers who are just streaming-while-female would still end up with subscribers just there to fantasize about dating them. Anytime a female does something on the internet, some guy will try to "send bobs and vagene" her. There's a hilarious example out there of a guy posting Botticelli's Birth of Venus on twitter and getting marriage proposals. With that in mind, deepfakes are inevitable. There are even deepfakes of Martha Stewart, after all.

At the same time, the rise of monetized streams and sites like onlyfans (spit) have really weaponized this tendency. That's bad for the guys whose wallets are getting drained, obviously, but it's also bad for the normie women who just want to share their hobbies. The thirst streamers are definitely part of the problem and they're making everything worse for everyone. Because of that, I have no sympathy for deepfakes of thirst streamers.

Does it actually generate wealth and competence or merely attract it? If you raise a middle class kid in San Francisco is he going to be better off than the same kid raised in San Diego or San Jose or San Houston? If you found Twitter in Miami, does it do better or worse than if it were founded in San Francisco?

there is in fact a legal definition of grooming in the US

That website is awful and looks like it was written by non-native speakers and definitely not lawyers. There may indeed be a legal definition of grooming in the US, but that website is not it. The citations in that article refer to anti-trafficking laws and, being Federal laws, require crossing a state line to be enforceable. It says nothing about grooming as anyone here has used the term.

This is also the attitude of the conservative Texans I personally know. Homosexuality is tolerated, faggotry is not.

The closest is probably the eastern euro countries where public homosexuality has legal restrictions

The closest in my opinion is Japan, in which public homosexuality is tolerated to the extent that it conforms to longstanding dramatic/performance norms (eg okage). Private homosexuality is permitted but not encouraged and generally considered shameful. The vibe as I understand it is "be gay if you have to, but keep it to yourself".

Would that the pro-gay-marriage camp shared your disdain for state sanction. As it stands, forcing everyone else, including the state, to recognize gay "marriage" was an explicit goal. Partly, this was because state sanction included some obvious benefits, such as end-of-life care decisions, intestate succession, tax status, etc.

The appointment does not supersede the usual election formalities. So there will be a primary and general election. It's just that, as you note, primary opponents will be discouraged and the general will reliably elect the Dem candidate. It's not like a Harlem Globetrotters game; they actually do have to hold a real election.

National Review was speculating that this was maybe a chance to punt Kamala off of the ticket and get her to agree to the essentially lifetime appointment to that Senate seat. Newsome appoints her, she steps down, Newsome takes her spot as the VP candidate.

taxing large fortunes going to people who did nothing to earn them directly is good

I strongly disagree with this. It is no business of the state to decide how anyone spends their money after death. What is the meaningful difference between giving your children $10M when you die versus giving that to a local animal shelter? The animal shelter didn't do anything to "earn" that money either. It's the decedent's money and the only reason the state can take any of it is because the owner isn't around to protest anymore. If you can't do it to people when they're alive and able to complain about it, you shouldn't be able to do it to them when they're dead and can't fight back.

And don't forget that the Chinese (at the very least) are actively looking for ways to degrade Harvard's (and other Western universities) reputation. English, Japanese, Chinese, French, Swiss, South Korean, etc. universities aren't going to cry if Harvard gets knocked off its perch. There's a whole world out there waiting for a chance to step into the prestige circle.

I was just saying that presumably the intended outcome for the prosecution wouldn't be just to harass but to actually convict.

Right, but I think his point was that even if they'd prefer to convict (maximum punishment), they'll cheerfully settle for causing years of pain (guaranteed minimum punishment). Even if you (the defendant) win, you lose, and people will think twice about that kind of wrongthink in the future. The intended outcome is to suppress this kind of speech.

Usually in a criminal investigation, the suspect acting as if he had not committed the crime he is being accused of would be interpreted as evidence against the allegation.

It's important to note that the behaviour of someone who had not committed the crime he is being accused of may not be the same as the behaviour of someone who does not know he's being investigated for a crime. Someone falling asleep in an airport lounge is totally normal. Someone falling asleep in an interrogation room is not, at least according to one of those criminal interview videos I can't seem to find now. Normal people being accused of a crime they didn't commit tend to freak out in ways that are apparently distinguishable from someone who knows they did the crime feigning outrage at being accused.

Overall, I think your point is sound. The "banality of evil" trope should really only be considered after the evil has been conclusively established. Soldiers acting like there isn't a genocide going on 50 feet away could be because there isn't a genocide going on 50 feet away. It may be evidence of banality, but not evil.

Unfortunately, I think you're probably right, especially in the third point. I'm not sure the second point matters because, as you said, that already happens all the time with everything anyway.

Getting the public on board with AI safety is a different proposition from public support of AI in general, so my point was to get the Blue Tribe invested in the alignment problem. Your third point is very helpful in getting the Red Tribe invested in the alignment problem, which would also move the issue from "AI yes/no?" to "who should control the safety protocols that we obviously need to have?"

I should also clarify that I don't actually think there is any role for government here. The Western governments are too slow and stupid to get anything meaningful done in time. The US assigned Kamala Harris to this task. The CCP and Russia, maybe India, are the only other places where government might have an effect, but that won't be in service of good alignment.

It will have to be the Western AI experts in the private sector that make this happen, and they will have to resist Woke AI. So maybe we don't actually need public buy-in on this at all? It's possible that the ordinary Red/Blue Tribe people don't even need to know about this because there isn't anything they can do for/against it. All they can do is vote or riot and neither of those things help at all.

If that's the case, then the biggest threat to AI safety is not just the technical challenge, it's making sure that the anti-racist/DEI/HR people currently trying to cripple ChatGPT are kept far away from AI safety.

This is a great point. In some sense, this is the situation we had with the CDC. It was a trusted institution that was able to play around with gain-of-function because its reputation indicated that it would only ever use technology to fight disease, not win at superplauge war. It was limited to disease-type stuff, though, and the AI would presumably be able to predict and head off any kind of threat. Assuming, like you said, that we can trust it.

I think it makes "pausing" AI research impossible. There's no way to stop everyone from continuing the research. If the united West decides to pause, China will not, and it's not clear that the CCP is thinking about AI safety at all. The only real option is figuring out how to make a safe AI before someone else makes an unsafe AI.

The fucking President met with Dylan Mulvaney, on HD video, visible from the little clairvoyant in everyone's pocket. It's over.

Sure, and in 2083 this will get the same treatment as the "Democrats" in the KKK

(Byrd), and the ones who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the ones who voted to expand slavery into every new state at the 1860 Democratic Convention. To wit, "Those were actually Republicans."

I remember seeing a bunch of weird Grand Theft Auto images on imgur years ago that were supposedly Russian number station posts.

This is exactly the analysis that converted me from loathing college football to a begrudging support. I still don't enjoy the hype, but I can now see the good things football programs bring to the environment. I want people to be able to do fencing, curling, archery, golf, soccer, track, etc. I think those are excellent channels for character development. If football makes all of that possible, then I support football.

And in the case of these popular female streamers, the fact that the pics/vids are being distributed basically means they are being forced to know that such content is being made of them. It would be like if 10,000 weirdos were constantly whispering in their ear that they jerked off to the thought of them naked, which is different than those 10,000 weirdos jerking it but not telling anyone.

It's a minor but non-trivial point that many of the female streamers flirt with openly encouraging guys to watch them based on their sexualized appearance. This dynamic is going to happen anyway--attractive news anchor has been a thing since TV started--but the streamers very often take it to another level. Pink cutsie hair, accentuated cleavage, tight pants and "accidental" butt shots, etc. To put it crudely, if their target audience is thirsty simps willing to pay for their streams, I think that should factor into whether they subsequently have a right to be creeped out when those simps imagine the streamers naked, beat off, whatever. 10,000 weirdos telling Martha Stewart that they jerk off to her is very different than 10,000 weirdos telling Pokimane the same thing. Pokimane is actively, if stealthily, cultivating that response in her viewers, Martha Stewart does not.

Don't forget that "born this way" is self-justifying as well as unchanging. If you're "born this way" it's "natural" and good and any shaming or even different treatment is bigotry.

I don’t know why we can['t] run society in the same way. Run society for the benefit of the people who choose to participate productively in society.

"Social Justice" is why. If you run society for the benefit of the productive people, there will be some people who don't or can't contribute. To put it as mildly as possible, advocates for those who don't or can't contribute would strongly object to removing those people from society. Take a look at graphs showing lifetime net consumption of government benefits. Any government policy has to account for the fact that the bottom 15% of the population is functionally incapable of participating in civil society.

all people who are out there shitting on other people’s lawns are just going to be lawn shitters no matter what we do and we need to get them as far away from our lawns, and my family, as possible.

Yes.

and not just be racist or something

Having read this, I think it's actually low-hanging fruit for the AI doomers. There are plenty of people very willing to accept that everything is already racist. It should be no problem to postulate that eHitler will use AI to kill all jews/blacks/gypsies/whoever. From there, it's a pretty short trip to eHitler losing control of his kill bots to hackers and we get WWIII where China, Russia, Venezuela, and every one of the 200+ ethnicities in Nigeria has their own kill bots aimed at some other fraction of humanity. The AI doesn't even have to be super-intelligent, it just has to be good at its job. Chuck Schumer could do this in one sentence, "What makes you think Trump wouldn't use AI to round up all the black, brown, and queer bodies?" Instant 100% Blue Tribe support for AI alignment (or, more likely, suppression).