BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 46d 10h 16m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
https://voxday.net/2013/06/25/mailvox-on-scalzi-author/
Something along these lines I'm assuming?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't think it has to be an either or. I think AI can solve a lot of problems that currently exist in human spaces with the result being that humans are more drawn in to those spaces.
Take an ELO matchmaking algorithm as an example. In a 'pure' setting there is a pool of players looking for a match and the algorithm matches the players to their closest ELO available. But what happens if you are having a bad day? Or the players around your ELO happen to just be better than you? If the algorithm is 'pure' it wont care, because technically the ELO will balance itself out, so it wont account for the fact that you just lost 3 matches in a row and are probably tilted to the point where you will stop playing if you lose again. But if the algorithm isn't 'pure' and is instead designed with the goal of keeping players playing as long as possible, it can pick up on the fact you are losing to much and send you to play a lower ELO player so you don't burn out. The problem there being that a lower ELO player has to take a loss.
Now the algorithm has a lot of 'power'. It essentially dictates for 80% of players whether they win or lose. The only way to make the field 'fair' is to segment the playing population until the vast majority of players trend towards a 50% winrate. Having a good day? Face higher ELO players, lose, go back to your own ELO. Got tilted? Playing bad? We happen to have a player that's significantly lower ELO, who still has one loss to go before we have to give him a 'win' game, cheer up.
The problem with a 50% winrate is that it isn't satisfying. The problem with ELO is that you can see it go up and down and it might demoralize you. The problem with hidden ELO is that you start feeling the algorithm working behind the scenes. A 50% winrate feels like a slog. It burns people out and they stop playing.
So what happens if we inject the player population with bots? Bots that just lose. Or if need be, bots that win. We can use the bots to break up the predictability of the algorithm. Just throw in random bot games. Give players an extra win because winning feels good. Don't worry about feeling lonely, the vast majority of players are human. We can even make the bots emulate a bad player. Have it make obvious rookie mistakes so that instead of suspecting it of being a bot, you just feel sorry for it. No one is worse off here. Matchmaker has happier players playing for longer.
As an example for the motte, I am sure the AI can figure out what kind of a post will garner the most replies. Why would it be bad for the motte to have an AI that constantly fuels discussions that keep people glued to their screen? If we are completely honest, what else is this place good for?
AI isn't bad for humans from a hedonistic perspective. If we have some higher goals for humanity than wasting time playing chess and arguing online then, sure, AI is probably bad. But for the internet? So long as you know that there are real people watching, like twitter recently started showing, the interaction is real. It doesn't even have to be typed by human hands. A new age of Robot Wars. Watch an AI expertly rattle off all the arguments of 'your side' against the 'opposition'. And if we are being honest, how different is that from the type of representative politics we already settle for? Be it in parliament or in media or online.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
This has been the establishment right dream for a long time, not just in the US but in the UK and EU as well. The end result is an ever more 'left' leaning right wing. A secondary result is a more classical 'class' based political landscape.
The problem with that for the establishment right is that through the process of becoming more 'left' they alienate a part of their base. Which opens the door for, as we have seen: Nigel Farage and Brexit, Trump, and to a lesser extent the 'rise of populism' in Europe. Notably Le Pen, Swedish Democrats, AfD and so on. Some of these became a lot more notable than others. But regardless of anything else, giving these things space to operate poses a threat. In the case of Brexit and Trump, the entire right wing establishment had to reorganize itself. They still 'rule'. But it's a pitiable sight to see all of the Republican establishment career politicians mouth off about how much they love Trump when they very sincerely don't.
A more general question is what the point of the establishment right is in the first place. If it just exists for its own sake to maintain power, sure, make alliances, build bridges, co-opt the popular rhetoric of your opposition and steal their supporters. But what does that functionally entail? Becoming left wing? Does the right honestly have any power as a 'right wing' element in that form?
You can attribute the degeneration of right wing political ideals to a host of things. But at its core it is the same as when the left wing sees a degeneration in its political ideals. When reality meets ideals, reality wins and the political parties have to bend and contort their ideals so they can save face and continue to exist. The reality that faces the Republican party of the future is a white minority voter base. No more dog whistles about 'the boarder'. All you have left is class. And there's the final nail in the 'Republican' coffin.
America isn't going to be a majority 'middle/upper class' society anymore. It's instead moving towards ever greater stratification. With an ever growing underclass and an ever richer and diverse upper class. The 'jobs, not welfare' mantra is a middle/upper class ideal. The 'I'll give you money if you vote for me' mantra works much better on the underclass. This isn't a prophesy or anything. As I understand it, looking across the Atlantic, It's just California.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Not a complete theory on class by any means but I think there is a distinction to be made between the 'working' class and the 'sitting' class, for lack of better terms.
Listening to talk radio and hearing some of the 'sitting class' people blabber about how 'fifty is the new thirty' made me think that there is a sort of quality of life difference between those who do any form of manual labour and those who primarily just sit inside doing wrist work. I've worked with guys whose bodies are done and they were just in their mid thirties.
I don't know if there is some clean break or boundary there but if you are 'sacrificing' your body, be it your back through lifting things or lungs through breathing in dust, or skin and comfort by working outside in all conditions, and you are not making significantly more than some guy answering the phone and transferring numbers into a spreadsheet... I think most people intuitively understand that one person is better off than the other.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I am making the argument in earnest. I don't need you to simplify the argument, there is no 'gist'. It exists in its totality. It can be read as presented. I don't make any claims about what progressives believe. I don't pretend to be one. I don't care what you think my underlying point is. I found the discussion engaging and worthwhile as it was and would have liked to continue it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It is a genuine position regardless of everything else.
And no, just stating the argument in the abstract is not the same as actually having the argument in earnest. When you cut the argument from context you remove all necessity and connection to reality. It just becomes a meaningless game of words where someone can, with no reservation, say that they will be having their cake and eating it to.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It's more a steelman than a troll, I would argue. But for clarification, I'm rather confused watching people get dragged from one IP to another bemoaning 'just what the woke are doing' when these very same people buy into every single prior that the woke base their arguments on. Slavery, Jim Crow, Civil Rights. The virtuous nature of blacks implied by the mainstream historical narrative on those events. The proposition that race in America is a social problem with social causes and social solutions. (Not saying everyone I replied to fits that bill, but it's certainly very rare to find people who reject those things outside of 'extremist' circles.)
So how does one draw the line at race swapping Aragorn when one also wants to change society? It seems like an advanced form of having ones cake and eating it to. Or to be less charitable, a sort of NIMBY-ism. Where we look at the airbrushed history of black racial struggle, say it was good and just, and say it's consequences were more good than bad but then can't bring ourselves to let go of our fantasy books and popcorn flicks. Considering the sacrifices and conditions imposed on the white people of the past in the name of racial equality, the position seems absurd.
It's not that white people are innately bad. It's that they, currently, perpetuate a bad society. A bad civilization. The racial transformation of Aragorn is a step in dismantling that. Like I mention in another comment to you, the history of America demonstrates the moral inferiority of white people compared to blacks. That doesn't mean we can't change that. We can better white people. But that's a societal change that needs to be fought for like every other change leading up to this point. White people need to learn that they are not in charge by default. In order to do that they need to learn to see other people as leaders. What better way to do that than through the fictional worlds they hold so dear?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
This is a great elucidation.
To tie it to the contention I brought up:
Should we sacrifice our preferred racial representation of Aragorn in the name of racial justice in America?
Considering that Aragorn is not real and considering the high stakes for real marginalized people in America, I'd argue you need a very good reason to maintain the preference for approach 2. And I'd argue that if you would elevate your racial preference in fantasy over the realities of the marginalized minorities in America, you are, at the very least, implicitly racist.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Recognizing the moral superiority of the slave and his fight for freedom versus the moral inferiority of the slaveowner who fights to own human beings as livestock is not repugnant to any neutral observer.
Recognizing the moral superiority of the civil rights activist that protests against a violent racist police state versus the inferiority of the racist segregationist that wants black people ostracized from society is not repugnant for any neutral observer.
The one who suffers rubber bullets, batons and fire hoses in the fight towards racial harmony is not the moral equal of the one who employes them in the fight for racial hatred.
This is not an opinion or an ordained prophesy. It's a fact. People who learn about the history of righteous racial struggle fought by black people against the evil racist empire of white America come away believing the obvious. That blacks acted, consistently, superior to whites. It's impossible to look at over a century of struggle and come away believing both sides were equally virtuous. I think you can very easily say and/or believe, as most people in the west do, that blacks in America are morally superior to whites. You can't swipe history under the rug when it makes you look bad.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
In context I see it more as a bunch of white people proclaiming race neutrality whilst living in and perpetuating a profoundly racist society that marginalizes people who aren't white. With that in mind I'd say that these proclamations of neutrality are at best a cheap PR trick for the people that maintain and reap the benefits of said racist society whilst not wanting to own any culpability for doing so.
I'm not talking about 'black supremacy' as some ideology that says black people ought to be X because black people think so. I am saying that as a matter of historical fact black people have acted in a morally superior way to white people. None of the advances in civil rights and liberties would have come about if it had not been for the black struggle against white supremacy. The bedrock of moral progress in America has always been its black soul.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I'm not dismissing them for nothing. I'm asking you to make a value judgement. What matters more, fiction or reality? Aragorn must be black because we are in the throes of transforming a living breathing hateful society that exists all around us into something loving and caring that is open for everyone, not just white people. It's a real battle between good and evil. Not a fictional representation of it where somehow all the good guys happen to have white skin and the bad guys don't, discounting the 'traitors'.
If every single character in LoTR was made black, so the ethnic makeup makes sense, you would not take issue with it? Pardon my prejudice but I feel like you would be more than able to reason why that's not an acceptable circumstance either.
I am sure you can entertain the novelty of white fantasy with fictional races that represent white peculiarity. Be that green skinned orcs or blue skinned elves. I am not sure you can enjoy a fantasy that is no longer white. With real races that represent the reality of a hateful world that white people have lorded over for centuries.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't see what is creatively bankrupt about race swapping a character. And I don't see how or why doing so would indicate that they are out of ideas.
Aragorn, especially after the movies, is an icon and he is white. People who ingroup blacks as morally superior see positions of power and feel an emotional need to elevate blacks to those positions. People who outgroup whites as morally inferior feel an emotional need to lower whites from those positions.
Amazon, WotC and all the 'woke' engaging companies are not creatively bankrupt. They are not 'out of ideas'. They are simply exploring a vision, chasing a dream, following ideology, walking certain priors to their logical conclusion. It's not about writing an original story that no one cares about. It's about representing truth and justice. Black people are better than white people. They are morally superior. They have been standing up against the racist injustices of America and the Western world for centuries. They have been oppressed throughout that time yet have persevered through all of it. There is no good reason for the iconography of the modern era being white. There is no reason why it shouldn't be black.
If you don't care about race there is no reason to care about Aragorn being black any more than that there is reason for you to care that the hero is destined to become king. If you do care about race, whether you consciously recognize it or not, there are two extremely predictable emotional responses to this sort of thing. You either like it or you don't. You feel an emotional resonance with the fact that something of value was changed to elevate one over the other. You feel an emotional resonance with someone expressing group allegiance to one over the other.
All in all, this isn't a problem of creativity. It's a problem of people wanting to hold on to the whiteness of the world without any institutional power to back it up. Sorry, you can't.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That doesn't help me understand how they do it, nor does it help me, as a 'non-religious' person, understand why I should elevate their brand of Christianity over the other.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That's not what I'm 'basically just' asking. I am actually asking the people who stand by the rhetoric made in the OP how they justify their stance in contrast with progressive Christianity. I am being asked as a person who is not involved with religion to respect the stance of traditionalist Christians as expressed here. To see them as the true expression of Christianity, not the progressive ones. So I see no reason to accept my question being minimalized and then handwaved away because I am not religious enough.
Not only that, If it turns out that the true teachings of Jesus Christ happen to comfortably conform to ingrouping football teams, consuming corn syrup and watching Tucker Carlson then I don't see the proposition as being serious. There are profoundly negative aspects of modern American culture that ruin a lot more kids than transgenders and gays. Yet this is where Jesus wants you to circle the wagons? The whole story, from a rationalist perspective, is absurd. I see no reason to accept it at face value.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Father Coughlin. An anti-capitalist, anti-communist, anti-war Catholic preacher who utilized the radio to reach an unprecedented amount of listeners. He was eventually shut down by the government for his rhetoric in the lead up to WW2 and especially after the Pearl Harbor attack.
I don't see how that's in disagreement with anything I said. The symbolism survives, but in what way is that meaningful? What was the "genuine belief" carried forward? Taking a look at modern Christianity even the biggest denominations don't agree on some of the most fundamental aspects of alleged Christian belief. And as has been mentioned in the thread, many self described Christians can't even recognize their own denominations expressed doctrine and are just as likely to dip into heresy about the nature of this allegedly historically passed down belief.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I see this type of rhetoric a lot in my internet bubble. What I don't understand is how any 'true Brother in Christ' Christian can look at themselves and go 'yep, we're the true ones, unlike those fake progressive ones'.
Christians in the past would do things to protect their religion. Like, kill people. Heresy was an actual thing, not just a word. Comparing that with contemporary 'true Brothers in Christ' characters you are no more a true Christian than the progressive ones. At best you are a progressive inbetweener.
There is nothing special or amazing about the 'survival' of Christendom in that regard. It's been 'fake' for over a thousand years. What kind of a Chrsitianity lets Constantinople fall? Was that real Christianity? Compare that with the 'real' Christianity on display in France today where churches either go up in flames or get used as public urinals so much that they become a construction hazard from the damage. There are no drums of war, no public demands for retribution. 'True Brothers in Christ' Christians just gather up and cry together before going back home to functionally support the system that enables it all.
Progressives are not wearing Christianity as a costume any more than the traditionalists are. Both have their own wants and needs and they contort the image of Christ to suit themselves. Modernity is comfortable. Going to jail for life is hard. So 'true Brothers in Christ' won't actually do anything truly Christian in the face of satanic tyranny. We know this because the last time a Christian man of action tried to rally the troops our 'true Brothers in Christ' of the 1930's stopped bothering with him when the powers that be made it inconvenient to catch him on the radio.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Is it still a shitty thing to do or no?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
And why shouldn’t the woman he asked discuss the incident with her friends? She might have been a poor friend for doing so, but there is no grand female obligation to avoid embarrassing awkward men.
You answer your own question. She shouldn't do it because it makes her a shitty friend. What do alleged 'female obligations' have to do with it? Is it OK for women to be shit friends to men if they don't violate the 'female obligations'?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think 'the Squeeze' is a great term for that. Women are gaining power in all aspects and are now putting the 'squeeze' on men. But I also see some problems with that.
The environment I grew up in always held up a very critical lens towards society. Being an active and earnest participant in the rat race of social status and wealth was looked down upon. 'What matters is what's on the inside, not the outside' and other similar tropes. You shouldn't chase personal aspirations that are guided by shallow and vain markers of status and wealth. Instead, aim towards the greater good of how to make the world a better place. That, ultimately, was the true 'high status'.
I feel that the core of that sentiment is inherently humanistic and altruistic. Maybe it's because I grew up with it but I automatically assumed that a lot of the aspirations of any well meaning do-gooder person, especially here, came from a similar place.
So coming from that kind of thinking I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can in any way shape or form look at 'the squeeze' and go 'this is fine'.
From a sort of ingroup/outgroup pathology perspective I understand why there exists a lot of 'you deserve it' rhetoric, like you espouse here. But then what? Because it was bad for women we can now do it to men because... what, we hate them? Two wrongs will make a right? I had sort of assumed, particularly because of my environments rhetoric, that pushing people, men and women, to focus on looks was... bad? I certainly got the feeling that it was the case after being inundated with news stories about the dangers of women being too thin because that's what fashion show runway models looked like. Though those stories are now a distant memory.
Aside from that I find your assumptions about equality harmful to your argument as a whole. Men won't turn to makeup to charm women. We already know what men turn to. Steroids, MMA and drugs. I've already seen drastic societal changes where I live because of this very distinct change in social dynamics. A drastic escalation of violence at all ages, drug use at all ages and status symbols like cars and clothes.
I mean, from an EA perspective, is it useful for everyone to have to spend more time on status, wealth and looks in an eternal 'arms race'? Maybe it's my anti-equality priors shining through, but I don't think 'equality' is doing anyone any good here.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Do you ever get upset when progressives refuse to tolerate somebody because they expressed right-of-center views that aren't central to what that person is primarily known for?
Not anymore, no. When I actually believed in the concepts that have now been expressly refuted by lib/left/progressives I assumed that there was a broad recognition and understanding of the value of free speech and all the rest. I, through experience with exactly the kind of people Karl enables, learned that I was wrong.
Do you ever feel like, you know, it's kind of unfair for somebody who's really good at something like acting or writing or programming or making cool YouTube videos to suddenly have no platform to do those things because they said something completely unrelated to any of those things that progressives happened to disagree with?
Not anymore, no. Everyone is already playing by the rules of the lib/left/progressives. You can't say X on 99% of platforms. Most of the internet I liked, the youtube channels, twitter accounts, podcasts, subreddits like this used to be and everything else, has been relegated to obscurity or simply scrubbed from existence. Users lost, essays, exchanges, information and friends, all gone. All of this happened years ago and continues to happen. Because of the kind of people Karl is rubbing shoulders with.
If so, then why would you think it's okay to do that when the shoe is on the other foot?
Because controlling 99% of the internet vs. controlling 1% isn't comparable. Regardless of everything else, no one lives by the libertarian ruleset Karl pretends to support. Everyone has to, in 99% of cases, contort themselves to the ruleset of lib/left/progressivism. In 1% of cases some people, who are not on board with the lib/left/progressive ruleset, can tell the 99% to fuck off and act and speak more freely. That's where Karl comes in and decides to take a principled stand on free speech and call everyone out for their hypocrisy? Give me a break. How about he make that stand anywhere else and see how long he is tolerated. Maybe he'd recognize just how good he has had it with the people he so indignantly accuses of hate.
FWIW, I have enjoyed owning, shooting and maintaining guns for years, but I find it increasingly hard to enjoy the hobby as somebody who's culturally blue tribe because of exactly the attitude you just expressed, and the fear that in order to be a "gun guy" you also have to hate non-whites and LGBTQ people or you won't fit in.
And just what kind of attitude is that? The kind that every single blue triber mandates for everyone else, everywhere else? Take a good hard look at yourself and read what you are saying. Imagine how it feels like for someone red to have to live with what you are pretending is pushing you away from guns, but in night every aspect of their lives. They can't use the internet without blue signaling people prodding their fingers around, looking for an excuse to take everything they can away from them. They can't turn on the TV without being bombarded with blue propaganda.
And when they manage, by chance and luck, to carve out a space where they can exist, a wolf in sheep's clothing starts knocking on their door. Asking to be let in. After they let it in the wolf demands that the space conform to the practices of the 99%. And when they tell it 'no', the wool comes off and it goes for the jugular: 'Why do you HATE me so? The minorities, the gays, the oppressed? Why are you so evil? Why do you HATE?'.
The only thing you need to be a gun guy is a gun and an interest. You are not just a gun guy, you are intolerant. The existence of people who you perceive to be not like you is so insufferable that you are willing to drop your own interest for the sake of it. Contrast that with anyone not drinking the lib/left/progressive koolaid and how they have to contort and stifle themselves just to be allowed to have a job, and maybe have some empathy before baring your fangs.
From Karl's reddit post:
http://Ar15.com is a site owned by people at least complicit, if not aligned with, hate speech.
AR15.com is owned by... Brownell's.
Maybe it wasn't the best idea Karl ever had to enter that forum swinging hist fists around.
I liked Karl a lot when the first InRange videos were gaining steam. The spirit of intended use, practical application and halfway 'scientific' testing of things other than 'when does it blow up' was something that seemed missing in a lot of channels. And thinking back, it definitely had a sort of 'blue' approach to guns as opposed to 'red'. For better or worse, at least it was different. Karl was also kind of a 'sperg'. But it seemed appropriate for the subject matter and company.
Fast forward through satanism, open findom relationships, antifa friends, trans rights and racist jokes, if you care about 'ethical consumerism' like is clearly done by Karl and friends, why should any right of center person support or tolerate someone like Karl?
Hopefully Ian will be doing a video on 'his own' rifle, recounting how he and his partner, after a lot of time, effort and research, advertised a product they weren't selling, before realizing there was money to be made by selling it. Hastily trying to figure out how to procure the parts they had already told everyone about, that had become very scarce as a result, so they could sell them themselves. Going through a lot of work and hassle trying to get the ball rolling before helplessly watching the project crash and burn since his partner was too autistic to handle social media and keep his extreme politics in his pocket.
A humbling moment of becoming a part of history, if nothing else.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
If this is the same author:
https://antelopehillpublishing.com/product/the-foreigner-group-by-carolus-lofroos/
@Gdanning
These wordgames are completely meaningless. Politically active Jews, and I would argue 90% are, are very aware that they are not gentiles. Calling themselves white on a census doesn't change the fact that jews recognize eachother as jews and non-jews as non-jews.
At risk of bringing to much heat into the conversation: Everyone with a brain knows this.
I mean, are there 'white' student groups filled with jews because they see themselves as white? Or are there simply jewish student groups and organizations that exist as jewish for the jews? Unlike that one white student union that got immediately called out as a hategroup, jews have a huge number of organizations and groups that specifically and explicitly work to the interest of jews.
None of those are in any way shape or form confused about what they are. This also bleeds over into why so many Ivy league colleges are filled to the brim with jews. Jews in the past certainly recognized that the 'WASP' controlled colleges had quotas for how many jews were allowed in. They did not recognize any ethnic comradery with the white gentiles that got into Ivy's. Are we to pretend that they now see themselves as kith and kin just as some Ivy's are more jewish than white?
On top of all of that jews purposefully pretend to be white to maliciously express their ethnocentrism and hatred for white people. And when someone leverages this alleged whiteness against them they are very quick to defend themselves saying: 'I'm not white, I'm jewish.' There are thousands of examples.
It's not that jews are an iffy maybe on white or not. They explcitly know they are not white. They explicitly recognize themselves as jewish. And they explicitly utilize the fact that they can pass as white to their own ethnocentric advantage at the cost of the white people that house them. This practice has a history that goes back for more than a century, as documented by Kevin MacDonald.
More options
Context Copy link