fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Why do you put ‚scientific‘ in quotes if you (gun to the head) believe in HBD yourself? The idea that psychometry/HBD is ‚pseudo-science‘ is a giant gift to white supremacists. Center-left elites who reject HBD on ‚moral grounds‘ have aligned themselves with falsehood, and from then on the Truth shall be their enemy.
Entire discussion‘s bulverism. I shouldn‘t have to prove that I love everyone, my motives are pure, my ideological predecessors‘ moral status is beyond reproach, and my future policies will be beneficial to all, before society deigns to proclaim HBD true or false.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
I would say it recognizes revisionist questions and therefore gives revisionist answers. And it accepts the argument about the operational challenges and vastness of the task, because having to burn 5000 corpses or kill millions of russians etc, is so far out of the normal experience that it seems "highly unlikely" to it. Which it is. I can't remember a single day where I burned 5000 corpses or killed millions of russians.
fuckduck9000
10mo ago
What if they were as oppositional as in reality, but Russian forces were just more competent and swiftly crushed all resistance?
Then there would be less of a raw signal wrt the legitimacy of the ukrainian nationality and more of a signal regarding putin's(and the russian state's) competence (it would still reflect positively on his views on nationality).
The signal in defeat can have zilch to do with merit of ideology.
I mean, why? If a religious lunatic charges naked against a besieging army because he thought God would help him and gets eviscerated instead, has his claim to prophethood not been discredited?
All of science is deconstruction of earlier failed science: both procedure and facts finding new shared mechanical explanation. We know why Galileo failed to measure the speed of light with lanterns, because we know how all parts of the system work, and which of his assumptions were erroneous.
There is still a signal in what he did. You're switching between meanings of deconstruct. Truly deconstructed science would be throwing dice and reading the speed of light as 'five'.
How does postmodernism accrue popularity at all, in your theory?
First, mistakes happen (though even they are closer to the truth than random nonsense). Second, epistemic defense mechanism. "Shit, marxism fails all its predictions. Wait, how do we know what's true anyway? I'm boring myself already, let's just say it's all bullshit. Now I don't have to update."
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
What if Joe was a dangerous criminal who escaped from death row, before running into Bob and getting killed in the altercation (Bob knew nothing of Joe’s history)? There’s no real loss here, so punishment would be gratuitous.
And I do think the previously revealed moral character of Joe and Bob should factor in our interpretation of the altercation. If Joe has proven himself unworthy of charity (in the motte sense) , then Bob’s words and actions against Joe should get the benefit of charity in the eyes of the law.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
What's the difference with the other monotheistic religions? Thinking others are destined to hell is worse than believing them to be less than a fully formed person. In any case it doesn't matter what people believe, only their actions matter.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
Who's opinion I was do you think I'm asking you to ask for, if not Slavs'?
Slavs. I think slavs who prefered germans to russians were a bit blindsided by the neatly polished hugo boss boots and would have died in much greater numbers under Generalplan ost than under any 5 year plan.
Nazism seems to fit nicely into the "would not have happened were it not for people deeply convinced they're on the Right Side Of History" template.
Show me people who fought for any side, anywhere, who thought they were wrong. I implied my side is morally good, that must mean I’m a nazi. Please. You said ‘people like me’ turn good causes into evil causes, then use nazism as an example, but of course, there was nothing good about nazism from the start. It was always on its predetermined path towards genocide and war. This was apparent. Alas, germans by and large chose loyalty to their country over morality and obedience over conscience. Like lee, like you and hlynka argue, is only right and proper.
fuckduck9000
7mo ago
How do you distinguish between someone who got drunk partly in order to get laid and someone who did not?
I don't. If you consent to sex, whatever your motives, drunk or not, it's done. It's just sex. It's not like jumping off a bridge. No necks get broken. Nothing morally relevant is happening.
fuckduck9000
9mo ago
Obviously baseline intelligence in positions of power is necessary for the successful functioning of society. But how much? Must they be the most intelligent people from all the land, or can they merely be quite intelligent people who also have other things about them that should be valued in a ruling class?
Why would we grant an exception and compromise the efficiency of the system at all ? I don’t recognize the supposed higher value or altruism of your class. Even if some individuals in that group had those traits, we wouldn’t reward entire bloodlines. In theory, you’re making an argument about ‘personality’ versus ‘IQ’, but what you actually propose is blood versus everything else, because hereditary classes are not subject to any assessment of their worth to society, whether personality or IQ.
I can understand why most people would want their (high) status to be unalterable, but this being a zero-sum game, their interest diverges heavily from everyone else’s. This is little more than pining for the sweet life of the aristocrat who never has to justify himself.
They seek power and so ought, quite rationally, to be denied it or at least to be handed it very, very slowly.
I don’t think you can be absolved of this sin either.
These include mild sociopathy, lack of gratitude,
What gratitude? I thought you were here to serve the common folk. Hereditary ruling classes do not feel any obligation towards their lessers – like you, they expect adulation.
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
What’s wrong with cost-effective punishment? I think it’s clear we spend too much resources monitoring and judging crime, and not enough actually punishing (eg, people with a ludicrous amount of convictions still plying their trade in public). That sounds like something tough-on-crime politicians say constantly. The standard response would be that the certainty of punishment is more important than the amount of punishment. I think reality has disproven that notion.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Well, what if your wife starts stroking you, and you say ‘ No, I have a headache’, will she start beating you? Obviously not, beatings are a different matter. But if she feels your will is not her primary concern right now, she will keep stroking despite the clear lack of consent. So is it rape? Letting your spouse do his or her thing with your body seemed for the ancients to be part of the marriage deal. We’ve altered it, but the old one seems just as legitimate. No great wrong was rectified by ‘recognizing’ marital rape. In the future, they might require written, enthusiastic consent from spouses for every touch, and that too, will be legitimate. Just as long as people understand the contract.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
The russians haven’t made any progress either. When the soviet inheritance is entirely spent, the attritional industrial war will just be western handouts versus the russian economy, and I don’t think russia looks good in this contest. Whether the ukrainians want to keep fighting is their business, but as a western european I’m happy to foot the bill and keep russia busy indefinitely, especially since there is no long-lasting peace on the table, only a provisional ceasefire.
I could lean on zelensky if you offered pre-feb 24 borders, else let’s just keep playing ,who gets uncomfortable first.
Just because they’ve had two thousand years to hone a lie, doesn’t mean it isn’t one. He’s a capricious blood god in the mold of allah or odin. You know why people believe the ‘antitheist professors’? Because what they say is convincing. They don’t rely on the gullibility of the recently born and the soon-to-be deceased. And for the record, I did not have to wait for college to notice the discrepancy between the old god and the new. Besides, those most involved in selling the image of a nice new testament god aren’t guys like me but modern christians, who by embuing him entirely with enlightenment values, sanewash christianity. I guess even the common man knows which way the bread is buttered, and it sure as hell wasn’t the old god that buttered his.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Can you explain the rationale for the moral character being irrelevant?
Why double standard ? Don't you mean a different standard? Can you refer to, or imagine, a situation where I fall on the other side?
fuckduck9000
10mo ago
This is because postmodernism is a framework by which one could conclude, quite rationally, that the Marxist mission and the Marxist historical narrative (ie. dialectical materialism) were wrong or at least substantially irrelevant and/or not necessary.
Well of course , because it can criticize anything and its conclusions are arbitrary.
I would say Postmodernism is a revolt against enlightenment rationality, not a continuation of it, but the lineage of the idea doesn’t matter to me. Postmodernism is more than a criticism of grand narratives (bailey).
There are important questions that I deny and @FCfromSSC , @DaseindustriesLtd , @SecureSignals, the woke affirm (you probably too). Questions like:
[Do you agree] that available evidence pertaining to a given issue in some way is effectively infinite ?
That all beliefs we talk about here, ideological, political, religious, philosophical, are fundamentally not like our belief in Gravity?
That the Truth’s influence on people’s belief very rapidly tails off to nothing?
That belief in God is an axiom? [all FC, paraphrased]
That popular opinion is downstream of deliberate political forces molding it (I add the comment: as opposed to downstream from truth)? [Dase]
Dase’s bizarre “power worshipper” insult, as far as I can tell, comes from the foucauldian idea that truth is just a mask for power. So he hears power when I speak of Truth.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
You think asking a female classmate "Hey, wanna be my fuck buddy?" is a reasonable request?
Is it a reasonable request for gays and lesbians?
The only thing I can think of is pretty uncharitable - surely, you're not suggesting he should have just grabbed her?
No, I do not mean rape her over her screams, friend. Of course I mean officially approved infinitesimal physical escalation, like gradually maintaining eye contact for a femtosecond longer than usual, lightly blowing in her direction when she's not looking, sitting one hair closer to her, brushing against her clothed arm for a planck time, and so on, over the course of a lifetime. Or he could just try to kiss her.
Yes. Not literally, since it's not literally a crime. But yes, if you fuck up socially, you get punished socially.
Still too passive. We both know his judges will be women. Will you join them in shunning him (say, if you were both regulars at a sports club), or are you just passively accepting their judgment?
Do you think it should be socially acceptable for men to just straight up ask women for sex without fear of women finding that creepy?
Yeah, not worthy of punishment at all. I'd go further though. I think from a pro-social view it reflects well on his character, though not on his smarts and social skills (not that I think it's 'unbelievably stupid' either. What's with the hyperbole, jesus).
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
As a wife, she's allowed to touch me, without warning, and even over my protests in a way that would be illegal for a stranger. You could say the marriage contract has a sexual component, and that component was and is being eroded away, that's all. The spouse is treated in sexual matters now as a stranger.
When you say "No great wrong was rectified by ‘recognizing’ marital rape," do you believe that it should be legal to hold your wife down, over her screaming protests, and force your penis inside her?
No, of course it's illegal, it's doubly illegal. She's not allowed to refuse, and he's not allowed to use force over her screaming protests. For me, both sides violate their obligations, the marriage contract is dissolved. If the contract stipulates that consent will be given, by definition no rape is possible within its confines. You don't put a rape clause in the 'you're-allowed-to-have-sex-with-me-contract', it would be like a stealing clause in a trading contract.
In the past they were hardcore about marriage, no doubt about that. Heavy on the duties. But everyone has his own preferences. I don't care much for duties and binding eternal contracts myself. But who am I to say the lighter version of marriage is the morally superior version? I'm a liberal, if people want to enter slave contracts for a while, that's their business.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Watched Hotel Mumbai, 7/10. The most memorable part is where the head chef encourages the hotel employees to stay and be slaughtered with the guests when they could have left, out of some ridiculous sense of duty and loyalty (“the guest is God”) . They are praised for this decision at the end.
As a leader, he has no business giving them that option. As a guest, the thought of someone pointlessly sacrificing themselves for me is sickening. Forget godhood, I can offer brotherhood. And what kind of man lets his brother throw his life away?
This sacrifice is in stark contrast with the tepid intervention of the police (who to be fair, are portrayed as completely out-armed and out-trained). Here, I could use some self-sacrifice. This predilection for passive sacrifice is morally harmful. Fight or flee, but for the love of all that is holy, do not lie down and share my fate.
Do you think it was luck that german and japanese codes were broken? Just one of the myriad of easily predictable weaknesses the axis leaders had to ignore before embarking on their doomed adventure.
When the US makes a “heavy-handed” demand that Japan leave China, it is not merely a question of the morality, of whose right it is to occupy the country. The real question is whose will is backed by superior might. And clearly, the japanese miscalculated. They were as wrong as one can be, and even they knew it. Surprised Drmanhattan didn’t give that yamamoto quote: ‘“In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain, I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.”
One can talk of the memory tsushima, of the luck of the dive bombers (forgetting all the things that did go wrong), of the parallel operations, of the crippled aircraft carriers that didn’t get swapped, but really, the whole war was stupid and decided before it began. If it wasn’t midway, it would have been another, even more dominating one. I think nimitz was crazy to give battle at merely better than even odds. Why give them the ‘decisive battle’ they want for some useless bait like midway, literally the only way they could possibly eke out a limited win, when the alternative is far more punishing for them? Just sit back, strangle shipping with ironed out sub torpedoes, fight purely training & PR battles until every battle odds estimate reads north of 95%. The fabian strategy doesn’t require weakness.
fuckduck9000
10mo ago
Will climate change negatively affect crop yields? Has it already?
The wiki article on climate change seems to think so:
Climate change is affecting food security. It has caused reduction in global yields of maize, wheat, and soybeans between 1981 and 2010.
This links to IPCC 2019:
At the global scale, Iizumi et al. (2018) used a counterfactual analysis and found that climate change between 1981 and 2010 has decreased global mean yields of maize, wheat, and soybeans by 4.1, 1.8 and 4.5%, respectively, relative to preindustrial climate, even when CO2 fertilisation and agronomic adjustments are considered.
More on them later. But first, a little detour in the land of reality.
They obviously need all kinds of counterfactuals, because crop yields have greatly increased during that period. Plants generally love heat and CO2, and the earth is greening.
How then did lizumi et al get their results? Basically, they compared the simulations on a model on the yield of various crops under a no climate change (A) and with climate change (B) scenario, taking out the technological improvements. This would be fair enough (if you like models) , but the results show little to no difference (advantage B for rice and wheat, advantage A for maize and soybean).
So they added a third simulation out of nowhere, where they told the model to keep the CO2 to 1850 level (thus artificially lowering the yield the model predicts), but all the rest is like B (simulation C) . Then they averaged the bullshit C value with B and compared that to A, where A finally looked good.
Red mountain: The model‘s ‚unaided‘ answer B.
Blue mountain: random nonsense C.
Grey mountain: Unholy mixture they can now pass off to the IPCC as „considering CO2 fertilisation“ because hey, it‘s only half-garbage.
Because the amplitude of the observed CO2 fertilization varies with the field conditions and crop cultivars (Ainsworth et al., 2008; Hasegawa et al., 2013), the estimated impacts of the theoretical CO2 fertilization may be more optimistic than the actual outcome.
Or more pessimistic. Where‘s my all-else-equal 600 ppm simulation I can mix with B for a nice yield boost?
If you don‘t like the results of your model, don‘t mess with the „uncertain“ variables until it spits out the answer you’re looking for.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Yeah, explain that argument.
The problem I have with it is that the case becomes about thoughtcrime.
It is harder (perhaps impossible) to ascertain the contents of Bob's mind, than the contents of Joe's rap sheet. Common sense dictates we start looking for the keys under the lamppost, ie with Joe's rap sheet. If Joe's rap sheet (and Bob's ) is empty or light, then we can veer into mentalism and voo, ask him to cry convincingly for the jury etc.
fuckduck9000
4mo ago
At any rate, it would be a bit awkward if adding more mods didn't result in more moderation decisions
Hence my wondering why that multiplication of entities was necessary. If the previous state was decent, it’s now overpoliced. I’ve always preferred even less moderation, and I complained occasionnally, especially when those getting moderated were arguing against me at the time.
I find Kulak and BC entertaining, they even have a point at times, I am studiously mute on certain others, but Kulak didn't get banned (last time I checked), merely warned
But warnings go on the record, then when you ban them you implacably cite the warnings in some grand narrative of misbehaviour.
BC is an out-and-proud fan of drama who got away with a lot before a time out.
His opinions are merely a mirror of extreme pro-white viewpoints that are popular here. There is no realistic way to present his honest opinions in here without coming across as hostile, ‘baiting’, ‘trolling’, etc. Not that I endorse his opinions in the slightest: they are probably the furthest away from my own than anyone’s here (my last ban was for a blasphemous response to him).
I think you mean rdrama.net
There’s gotta be more. Are all the forums dead, do people just comment on substacks, or youtube?
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
The flood, sodom and gomorrah, the binding of isaac, being a dick to job, the killing of egyptian first-borns (was that some genocidal form of proto-identity politics, I wonder) are the most well-known and really define his personality, but the bible is full of examples:
Exodus 4 : 24 On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him (Moses) and tried to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, ‘Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!’ 26 So he let him alone. It was then she said, ‘A bridegroom of blood by circumcision.’
Kings 4 : 23 And he went up from thence to Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, little boys came out of the city and mocked him, saying: Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And looking back, he saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord: and there came forth two bears out of the forest, and tore of them two and forty boys.
Judges 11. 30 And Jephthah gmade a vow to the Lord and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31 then whatever1 comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” 32 So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them, and the Lord gave them into his hand. 33 And he struck them from Aroer to the neighborhood of Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim, with a great blow. So the Ammonites were subdued before the people of Israel. 34 Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And as soon as he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.” 36 And she said to him, “My father, you have opened your mouth to the Lord; do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the Lord has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.” 37 So she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: leave me alone two months, that I may go up and down on the mountains and weep for my virginity, I and my companions.” 38 So he said, “Go.” Then he sent her away for two months, and she departed, she and her companions, and wept for her virginity on the mountains. 39 And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made.
(ie, burnt his own daughter as a randomized trade/thank you note for crushing the ammonites. The morale of the story presumably being, you never know what’s gonna come through that door)
Freud was one of the most convincing antitheist professors that has ever lived. Do you believe that this was because his arguments were correct?
Again with Freud. Look, it’s not a binary. All else equal, an adult being convinced by arguments is more evidence of them being correct than a child believing something (eg, santa claus).
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
And the primary thing stopping that from happening here is folks on the right linking hatred and mockery of Islam with hatred and legal restrictions on Muslims. Elite thought-leaders, Hollywood content creators, and rabid social media teens are never going to get on board with the project as long as it's synonymous with right-wing shibboleths like that.
How does that work? “We can’t accept one true claim before you withdraw another claim that sounds low-status right-wing”? Why would I be bound by the confines of their self-imposed ideological prison? Like Harris, I think low-class christians, because they believe, have a much better understanding of why muslims do what they do than progressive elites.
They themselves hate, and support legal restrictions on, groups of people they dislike (“oppressors”, men, whites, right-wingers) . And unlike my dislike of muslims, which is rooted in a choice those believers made, some of the categories progressives dislike & want legally suppressed are biological.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Thanks for expanding.
I believe you need a guilty act too. And if the victim was clearly a bad person, and he deserved it, then society suffers no damage, and there's no guilty act. Is mens rea (thoughtcrime) alone, sufficient?
I did too, and playing @guesswho ? Is a waste of our time. This proxy accusation is ludicrous, if you want to criticize him, link him.
The real darwin was not charitable, but neither was he treated with appropriate charity by the sub. In the end he was confronted with every perceived wrong thing he ever said wherever he went, swarmed by a mob demanding he yield. He never gave an inch, but he was more than capable of making good arguments (although obviously he made some bad ones too) .
They were often arguments we could not make and had not seen before, at least a few notches above standard reddit dross. Sometimes he would chew up a careless right-winger who got ahead of himself, that’s why they hated him imo. Granted, he would not be particularly nice about it, like a ymeskout, SSCreader, Soriek or gdanning might be. But perhaps the greater abrasiveness was better for our epistemic hygiene. People should fear mild disembowelment for saying something stupid.
More options
Context Copy link