guajalote
1yr ago
The idea that different teaching methods have zero impact strikes me as just as implausible as the blank slate position. Yes, a lot of it is selection effects, but not 100%.
guajalote
7mo ago
I mean that's kind of my point. In text form this exchange can be read many different ways by different people.
If you imagine it as a verbal conversation where both parties statements are dripping with playful sarcasm, then it's clear they're flirting. If you imagine it as a verbal conversation where both parties are being dead serious, then they're both being pieces of shit to each other. It's impossible to create a neutral set of rules to decide which is which, especially when it's happening via text.
guajalote
11mo ago
The problem with the nanobot argument isn't that it's impossible. I'm convinced a sufficiently smart AI could build and deploy nanobots in the manner Yud proposes. The problem with the argument is that there's no need to invoke nanobots to explain why super intelligent AI is dangerous. Some number of people will hear "nanobots" and think "sci-fi nonsense." Rather than try to change their minds, it's much easier to just talk about the many mundane and already-extant threats (like nukes, gain of function bioweapons, etc.) that a smart AI could make use of.
guajalote
1yr ago
it's true nonetheless that there must be a line somewhere that would make "cancel culture" type tactics acceptable; we're all just debating where that line is.
I'll bite the bullet and say I don't think there's any line where cancel culture type tactics are acceptable.
If person A wants to speak and person B wants to listen, then it's not acceptable for unrelated third party C to prevent this from occurring.
The only exception would be if person A or person B was breaching some duty they owed to person C. For example, if person A signed a non-disclosure agreement with person C.
guajalote
1yr ago
I've posted here before about how my wife is considered a "person of color" by employers and universities because she's from Mexico, even though her skin is pale white. Outside of the really clear-cut cases, American notions of race are pretty incoherent. It's not like sex where 99%+ of people can be reliably classified as male or female.
What is an interracial marriage? Serious question.
Am I in an interracial marriage? I genuinely don't know. According to 23 and me I'm 100% Northern European genetically. My wife was born in Mexico, where her family has lived for generations, and only moved to the states as a teenager. She attended the same law school as me, and received a "Hispanic" scholarship I would not have been eligible for. Her workplace counts her as a "woman of color" for diversity reporting purposes. According to 23 and me, she's at least 75% European. She has dark hair, but her skin tone is indistinguishable from mine (both pale white).
I'm friends with a married couple consisting of a Korean man and a Taiwanese woman. Are they in an interracial marriage? They're considered the same "race" in the US but if they lived in Taiwan or Korea their marriage would be viewed as something like "interracial." Their backgrounds are quite culturally, linguistically, and genetically different.
I'm friends with a married couple consisting of a Gujrati Indian man and a European white woman. Are they in an interracial marriage? Their skin colors are quite different, but they are both of Indo-European ancestry and not much farther apart genetically than two random Europeans would be.
If Barack Obama is 50% African and 50% European, and if his wife is 80% African and 20% European, are they in an interracial marriage? If Barack Obama was instead 20% African and 80% European would it be an interracial marriage?
Edit: Remembered another example from my own life. I'm friends with a married couple consisting of a white (Northern European) man and a white woman of Sami (aka Laplander) ancestry. Are they in an interracial marriage? Visually they just look like two white people. But Sami do not have Indo-European ancestry, so this couple is more genetically distant than a couple where one partner is Indian and the other European.
guajalote
1yr ago
If we're talking about racism, may-issue permitting laws have a long history of explicit racism, serving as ways of preventing black people from owning guns. Referring to may-issue laws, Frederick Douglass said "…while the Legislatures of the South can take from him (the black man) the right to keep and bear arms, as they can … the work of the Abolitionists is not finished.”
Stated another way, politicians are doing a great job at convincing us that society is safer, and it's tempting to believe them.
I don't really think the right to own guns is in any way contingent on the safety of society. Rather, as Douglass alluded to, the right is about freedom from bondage and tyrrany. It may well be that gun ownership makes society less safe, but more free, and that is a tradeoff I'm gladly willing to accept.
guajalote
1yr ago
My wife is Mexican and a big fan of GBBO. She isn't woke and wasn't offended by that episode per se, but we were both pretty disappointed at how phoned-in it seemed to be. Mexico has a huge variety of interesting baked goods, yet they chose a taco as the technical challenge? It's an extreme stretch to call that baking, and it felt like they were just too lazy to google "popular baked goods of Mexico."
guajalote
1mo ago
Varg
Likely a reference to this guy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varg_Vikernes
Blue Pill, Red Pill, Black Pill
I think you're defining these terms too narrowly by tying them to gender and dating discourse. They are broad concepts that can apply to many things.
Blue Pill is idealism; believing the world works the way it's "supposed to." A person who is blue pilled about US politics might say "Politicians make decisions based on what they believe is in the best interest of the nation. Therefore the best way to accomplish our political goals is to explain why those goals are in the nation's best interest."
Red Pill is realism; seeing the way things actually work and trying to exploit those realities to accomplish your goals. A person who is red pilled about US politics might say "Politicians are human beings who make decisions based on self-interest. Therefore the best way to accomplish our political goals is to make sure accomplishing those goals is personally beneficial to the right politicians."
Black Pill is pessimism or nihilism; seeing the way things actually work and realizing that you cannot achieve your goals as long as things continue working that way. A person who is black pilled about US politics might say "Politicians are human beings who make decisions based on self-interest. Many powerful interest groups realize this and accomplish their goals by dumping large amounts of money into politics. Our political project will never be able to match the level of resources that our opposition has, therefore we have no hope of persuading politicians to agree with us and we shouldn't even waste our time trying."
guajalote
1yr ago
Trump engenders hatred and revulsion unmatched by anyone in my lifetime, the source of that hatred is his 2016 election win, and that people like Bragg can't help themselves but act on it.
What's missing from your argument is an explanation of why Trump engenders unprecedented "hatred and revulsion." The explanation cannot be merely that he won the 2016 election, since many of the other people you mention (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden) also won presidential elections.
The standard pro-Trump explanation for why he's hated is something like "he's the only one who isn't corrupt and won't do what the deep state wants." The standard anti-Trump explanation is something like "Trump has shown a unique willingness to violate democratic norms, such as by calling on Russia to release hacked emails or stating that both the 2016 and 2020 election results were rigged."
It seems like the whole argument pivots around this "why is he hated" question. If Trump is in fact uniquely willing to violate democratic norms, it seems reasonable for his opponents to take issue with that and to argue he has forfeited the right to avail himself of those norms for protection. You and VDH raise good arguments for why the norm of "don't prosecute former presidents" exists, but many similar arguments could be made for why the norm of "presidents gracefully concede elections and don't challenge the results" exists. In game theory terms, if Trump consistently choses the "defect" option, it may be the optimal strategic choice for his opponents to do the same.
guajalote
1yr ago
There are two main reasons an organization like FIRE doesn't use arbitration: (1) it does not set any legal precedent and therefore the outcome is basically only relevant to the specific case at hand, and (2) arbitration is often more expensive than litigation because you must pay the arbitrator's fee, which is typically $1000-$2000 per day.
guajalote
4mo ago
Yes, many examples. And I think there's at least some degree of truth to these arguments:
-
There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US, so any large scale attempts at gun control cannot work.
-
The government cannot significantly tax or otherwise confiscate the wealth of the ultra-rich because they will just leave the jurisdiction.
-
Attempting to regulate carbon emissions at this point won't stop climate change, and many of the biggest carbon emitting countries won't get on board anyway.
-
It's not possible to introduce effective mass public transit in most US cities because they have already been designed around cars.
guajalote
4mo ago
So I am willing to bet that even today Catholics and protestants know that it was mostly political strife. As were the other major Christian schisms and fights. If you look it is very often some inter elite fight.
I think this is partly true, but to the extent it's true you can say the same about the current culture war.
If you asked a devout Catholic in the 1600s whether people should be burned at the stake for questioning the transubstantiation of the consecrated host, most of them are going to say "yes," and their reasoning isn't going to invoke political strife or other secular reasons. They are going to give a religious account of why it's important to burn heretics - e.g. if we suffer a heretic to live, they might lead my children into heresy, causing them to suffer in hell for eternity. It's certainly true that this underlying belief and reasoning was stoked and amplified by political actors who stood to benefit from the conflict, but the reasoning itself stands apart from the political strife going on in the background.
I think you can say the same about culture war issues today. Much of the culture war is being driven by inter-elite conflicts or by conflicts between elites and the common man. But the underlying reasoning stands apart from this conflict - e.g. if you ask someone their opinions on trans issues they are going to appeal to object-level arguments to support their views and they won't perceive their views as being the product of cynical elites stoking the conflict.
guajalote
1yr ago
There are (conservative) cultures where it's considered semi-acceptable for married men to have sex outside the marriage. For example, I have met multiple women from Mexico who have expressed sentiments along the lines of "wives should never cheat, but if husbands cheat once in a while that's unfortunate but understandable."
guajalote
2mo ago
"By your logic" isn't a claim about what the other person thinks or believes, it's a claim about what the structure of their argument logically implies. If polygamy is bound to die out because its practitioners fail to reproduce, then the same reasoning should generalize to other analogous situations. If it doesn't generalize, that implies the claim being made is either wrong or insufficiently precise.
guajalote
3mo ago
Maybe if there is another financial crisis or 911 there may be an amendment to ensure that there are minimal delays for stimulus or other action for exigent circumstances.
This is one of the most horrifying amendments I can imagine. If there's ever a constitutional clause that grants broad emergency powers to the executive, the president will find an excuse to declare a "state of emergency" from which we will never again emerge. We would still be in a "state of emergency" from Covid if such a clause existed.
guajalote
6mo ago
How you dress is never an invitation to be mugged, but that doesn't make it a good idea to wear a flashy diamond Rolex in a bad neighborhood. You have every right to do so, and if you're robbed the perpetrator is still 100% at fault, but that doesn't make it a smart idea.
guajalote
7mo ago
Same way I make peace with any other set of mutually exclusive choices I have to make. Say you choose to become a doctor instead of a professional musician. Certain doors are opened by that decision, and certain doors are closed. You gain certain experiences, you lose out on others. If those tradeoffs aren't ones you can live with then you need to make a different choice. Otherwise, you have to accept the tradeoffs. Nobody can have everything. You have to choose what you care about most and decide accordingly.
guajalote
8mo ago
I think this is the best way to keep politics out of gaming - just don't reference anything remotely political and let people do whatever they want.
Also, the game is based on 5th edition DnD, which is a fantasy setting where basically anything is possible. A high level wizard can easily change their gender or species if they so choose simply by casting a spell. A 20th level wizard can cast True Polymorph on himself and become a dragon (permanently if he so chooses). Or he can cast Magic Jar and inhabit someone else's body (permanently if he so chooses). Real-world concepts of gender identity barely even make sense in this sort of setting.
guajalote
2mo ago
Houston deals with them quite effectively, though not very ruthlessly. Housing is affordable so the homelessness rate is low to begin with. And every few months the police dismantle the homeless encampments and their residents are forced into free government housing.
guajalote
7mo ago
No, it makes it even less legible. Is this "pressure" or is it playful banter that both parties are enjoying:
Him: "Let's have our first date at XYZ Mini Golf."
Her: "No way, I hate Mini Golf. And if that's your idea of a good first date then you aren't getting a date at all."
Him: "You're just saying that cause you're scared you'll lose."
Her: "Ugh. Fine. But I'm only agreeing because you're being such an asshole about it."
guajalote
11mo ago
You focus on the gender dynamics, but I think phenomenon is not primarily about gender.
The two main drivers are, IMO:
-
When two people like each other and spend significant time together, they build trust. This means they will tend to be more charitable toward one another and less dismissive of one another's beliefs. This reduces confirmation bias by making it harder to dismiss the other partner's politics on flimsy grounds, e.g. "they only believe that because they're ignorant/evil."
-
When a person with orthodox politics spends significant time with a person with heterodox politics, on average the person with orthodox politics is more likely to change their views than the person with heterodox politics. This is because it is easy to hold orthodox politics without considering carefully (or even encountering) arguments against those politics, whereas it is impossible to hold heterodox politics without constantly encountering counterarguments. Thus, heterodox beliefs will tend to come into the relationship more "battle hardened" and "stress tested" than orthodox beliefs.
Where gender might play into the dynamic above:
-
Women tend to be more agreeable and thus more likely to hold orthodox beliefs.
-
Women tend to be more agreeable and thus less likely to have engaged in "stress testing" (e.g. vigorous debate) of their political beliefs.
First off, there were lots of attempts to "cancel" Hitler and the Nazis and those attempts didn't work. Criminal laws against hate speech were brought to bear, and if anything those attempts at shutting down the Nazis made them stronger and gave them better rhetorical tools. "What don't they want you to know?" was their argument.
Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters.
But even if I thought it would work, I'm against censorship on principle.
I wonder how Tibetans would respond on a survey if you showed them the video and asked them whether anything sexual is going on. I'm not sure what answer you would get, but it wouldn't surprise me if they overwhelmingly said "no."
I have been to Tibet, but I'm by no means any kind of expert on Tibetan culture. Still, it's extremely obvious to a casual observer that standards for platonic male behavior are way different over there. If you see two men or boys together they will almost certainly be holding hands or have their arms around each other. It was very unusual to see two males together not making physical contact with each other. It's clear that this is seen as completely normal and expected platonic behavior and not sexual or romantic at all.
Also the tongue thing, as you mention. Everybody sticks out their tongues at each other as a sign of greeting or (platonic) affection. I never saw any tongue sucking going on, but it wouldn't surprise me if the average Tibetan perceived this kind of thing as a form of "platonic goofing around" rather than the highly sexualized act we see it as in the west.
More options
Context Copy link