justmotteingaround
No bio...
User ID: 2002
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
I think the way you use the word "science" conflates the method and the process with scientific institutions.
To be clear, I mean the institutions, because of the method. The institutions are more error prone than the method, but I'm arguing the institutions, on average, approximate reality better than legislators.
It's not like the avenue of legalizing it is completely sealed off
I never said it was. My argument is that it takes inordinately longer.
medical procedures (surrogacy, euthanasia)... how does banning this particular field of medicine set some dangerous new precedent?
It is necessarily a precedent because thats how case law (but not science) works. Again, Skrmetti would more permanently and more broadly allow legislators, not doctors, to determine if any procedure is safe, beneficial, etc.
I mean, that's a staple argument of all sorts of human-nature-denying idealists since forever.
This is a non sequitur. Its still a false dichotomy because you can have a regulatory state, informed by or deferential to some degree of scientific consensus, and imo this is the lesser of two evils. One need not deny human nature to argue this. The argument anti-ideological. It inveighs against scienceism - which is anti-science exactly to the degree it exists.
The question here is why did it need to be comissioned politically
The answer is irrelevant to the arguments I'm making because they commissioned science to be done, which is exactly what I'm arguing for. Science should not be conducted in the court room. I concede that science is imperfect. I'm arguing that its superior to the precedent set by Skrmetti because case law and consensus have different mechanisms.
I don't understand why you're so torn over this.
I think its because there is an inherent tension between rationality/technocracy/utilitarianism/ whatever the fuck I'm arguing for, and freedom of thought, which I also argue for. I'd argue that the limiting principles on peoples beliefs are less bound by reality than expert belief. Exceptions prove the rule because you'd make money betting they're less frequent. Experts could recommend putting lead in the water, but my argument is that their epistemic processes will get the lead out of the water faster, on average, than public opinion/legislators which enshrine a leaded water program. However, expert consensus should not trump the will of the people. The reductio that people should be able to vote to put lead in the water, or reintroduce chattel slavery, or trans all the kids, strikes me as a potential problem.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
How is this not already the case?
It functions as balancing act of political and scientific consensus, and I'm much more of a political doomer than a science doomer. MDMA is exactly the kind of situation I want to avoid. They held hearings on the scheduling in the 1980's, and sought scientific input. Neurotoxicity studies where central. They've since been critiqued. Recent interest has dubbed it a "breakthrough" therapy for PTSD. Like weed, MDMA remains a schedule 1 making it extremely difficult to even study. Like weed, it'll likely stay a schedule 1 drug for decades and decades and decades and decades after therapeutic uses has been discovered. GHB has a similar history, but a therapeutic formulation was granted strict control under schedule 3. So while its possible to penetrate regulatory caprice, it usually takes longer. Case law is slower. Numerous examples. Stem cells being particularly egregious imo.
abolishing the regulatory state
Strikes me as a false dichotomy. Science has varying degrees of confidence. In this case, WPATH etc are peddling what I believe to be bullshit science with bullshit confidence.
The Cass Review...
Commissioned, but real science was done. Sounds good to me. NHS is a governmental body anyhow. I do think it will lead to a reversal in the anglosphere. Srmketti will be permeant.
Good! This is the part that I wanted you to explain how there's anything bad about!
Easily the most challenging critique for me to contend with, but perhaps I'm just limited. On what principle should I argue against people voting for representatives that promise to put lead in the water? On one hand, I do think people have that right. On the other hand, I'm just sitting here with my dick in my hand wondering how I can escape this principle.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Unless I'm missing something Skrimetti is just about banning / age limits on gender medicine. I don't see how it's qualitatively different from banning heroin or other recreational drugs.
I think I've been pretty clear that entire reason I'm against Skrmetti prevailing has noting - whatsoever - to do with banning flawed gender medicine. The precedent it sets can be argued in favor of the next Bad Thing(tm). Just sue the current bad thing for torts.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
TSD has always cut both ways. People literally think Trump was sent by god to stop pedophiles and prevent the obvious communist takeover of America or something. Of course he has all the normal age related cognitive decline for a 78 year old. Honestly, I think he's beating the median.
justmotteingaround
11mo ago
Indeed there are multiple things to track: the technology (precrime by ML) and the demographics which, according to you, "cannot be said". I commented exclusively on the latter - pointing out that it's a common enough topic of discourse to be memeified and reliably the subject of entire books.
justmotteingaround
11mo ago
Its wild that an algorithm can predict crime before it happens.
justmotteingaround
1yr ago
depend on either their outcomes being race-neutral
I may be wrong but I think this is explicitly untrue legally. AFAIK, if you can demonstrate a necessity of hiring in a way that causes a disparate impact, and your methods were not arbitrary (standardized tests are usually used as a defense), then it's perfectly legal.
Are there people making ignorant or bad faith cases about the arbitrariness of the standardized tests? Of course. But as far as I can tell, they lose in court.
justmotteingaround
1yr ago
The Church has changed traditions over time in order to maintain itself, increase its robustness, promote antifragility, etc. As an institution, the Catholic Church probably isn't amenable to rapid, radical change. (hence the slow move away from a Latin mass, the gradual lack of condemnation for charging interest on loans (Islam has created a bizarre, less efficient workaround which probably cost them economically), and the explicit condemnation of slavery being late to the party). Dozens more I think, but I know very little about the history of religion.
At some point, it may be optimal for the continuance of the Church to bless gay unions. In a few decades to a few hundred years. But also maybe it will never be optimal. However, imagine a contemporary Church that continued to argue, as I think Acquanias did (and I'm not sure if he was Catholic, but just as an example), that owning people as slaves was fine so long as you treated them well. That would be bad for the institution today. I'm not chiding the Church for being "late to the party". It's the kind of institution that should change slowly, cautiously, and with much debate.
Why its relevant: As I said, I'm pretty ignorant of the history of religion (its by far my worst Jeopardy! category). Therefore, I don't know how democratic religious have fared compared to more top-down structures, and I can't analyze the causal factors in a religions outcomes as institutions (for example, Buddhism and Hinduism are about twice as old as Christianity, but I don't know their institutional structures).
"we must make a fundamental change to [institution] to appeal to more progressive audiences, and grow our membership" scenarios play out in a non-destructive way,
My view is that this debate is the long arc of history: how much progress, and how fast? A balance must be stuck according the function of the institution. The US got rid of slavery, let women vote, allowed for constitutional review by SCOTUS, etc. Perhaps its not as robust as everyone would like, but it has worked out pretty well by historical standards. Companies can change faster than governmental bodies, which can change faster than spiritual institutions. Change too fast, you blow it up. Change too slowly, society moves on.
justmotteingaround
1yr ago
Counterpoint: history is largely a one-way conversation of destroying traditions in favor of such progress. Preserving tradition is a balancing act for the more necessary goal of maintaining the the systems and institutions which beget the traditions. Its 60% compromise.
I don't think the Catholic Church is at a point where blessing gay unions is necessary to optimize the institution, but it's clearly now in their Overton window.
justmotteingaround
1yr ago
As an aside, I still think chess fits. I don't even think we know how many games of chess are possible. Humans recently approximated a Go engine - something people long claimed was too complex to ever be done, much like chess. Models + compute can beat humans at games of unimaginable complexity.
Regardless, even if chess is a bad analogy, admitting that doesn't gets me out special pleading that climate science is not only special in its complexity, but also special in that thousands of people with PhD's, from Montana to Mongolia, overwhelmingly agree that its possible to model climate usefully.
What reason do I have to disbelieve climate science that doesn't also apply to designing bleeding edge microchips, or medicine, or applied physics, or the improvements seen in weather forecasting? I'm trying to argue myself into climate science skepticism inductively and/or by way of inferences. A strong quantitative scientific consensus about cause and effect is usually a good bet. What makes climate science different?
The only thing I can come up with is that climate science is more akin to a year-long weather forecast (ie cannot be computed in P time because well understood chaotic conditions). But then why do such a large amount knowledgeable keep spending money on the practical applicability of climate models? I'm back at special pleading that science is a liar in this case in particular.
justmotteingaround
2yr ago
with total police abolition, lighter sentences, less bail, decriminalising hard drugs, violent criminals out on the streets by lunchtime, rioting, arson, looting, violent takeover of city streets and public areas and anti-white ideology
Good news: Most of these positions have effectively zero public support, with the possible exception of bail reform.
This poll was done at the height of the Floyd riots.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/reuters-ipsos-civil-unrest-george-floyd-2020-06-02
Four in five Americans (82%) report that peaceful protests are an appropriate response to the killing of an unarmed man by police, while 22% say that violence and unrest is an appropriate response.
A similar number of Americans (79%) say that the property damage caused by some demonstrators undermines the original intent of the protest’s call for justice in George Floyd’s death.
Republicans (83%) and Democrats (77%) agree that property damage ultimately undermines the cause of the demonstrators.
justmotteingaround
3mo ago
Populism is related in that I think it inherently contains a lack of skepticism. Everybody is just following the narrative with this admin, whereas the prior media trajectory was skepticism often to the point of conspiracy. Its early, but I promote skepticism always. Given that there was comparatively no interest in USAID prior, an about face inside of a few days speaks to mob mentality and blind allegiance to the party line. The media narrative is so far ahead of the details that $50M for condoms in Gaza hallucination was repeated ad nauseum by the admin itself. Of course the vast majority of Americans don't want 50 grand wasted on some trans Irish play, but that's $1 in every $100,000 of an agency that people are acting like needs to obviously be shuttered overnight. I'm not opposed to shutting it down, but relevant and true details matter. The oddities I want to question are manifold. The worlds richest man is personally auditing the entire government with apparent carte balance. Perhaps its for the best, but its worth questioning. The Epstein list was heavily redacted. Whats that about. Why are top lawyers at the DOJ from the Federalist Society resigning en masse claiming they're being asked to do illegal things. Why are Trumps personal lawyers, got appointed to government position, saying they're going to "protect Trump leadership" - which is not their job - vowing to "chase DOGE's critics to the end of the Earth". Seems odds.
justmotteingaround
4mo ago
Thanks, deleted and reposted!
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
focused on preserving the viability of Hamas tactics.
That's a very confusing way to phrase things. Are you're claiming that the US military was intent on helping Hamas? Or that, in practice, that was the effect of misplaced concern? If its the latter, then you would be agreeing with:
Lloyd Austin, December 2023. Whatever you think of him, that's pretty much what happened.
... which you claim you don't agree with. Maybe I'm missing something.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Atheism itself is not a system of beliefs. It cannot, in itself, be a moral parasite for the same reason not collecting stamps cannot be a hobby. Atheism in itself is devoid of moral content in the same way not collecting stamps is devoid of being a hobby. People often confuse atheism itself as having attributes it doesn't (usually nihilism or hatred of religion). Atheism is the mere belief that there is no god or gods. An atheist could take up the moral code of any religion, save a belief in a gods.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
That's kind of how I interpret it, but as written its nonsensical as is it misunderstands or misuses the term 'atheism' at a very basic level. Atheism doesn't necessitate any specific moral stance. Moreover, some religious are atheistic.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
My guess is the relevance is here:
2019 Background: PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) has used millions of tax dollars in a campaign to circumcise Africa under the guise of reducing HIV risks, based on some very controversial studies.
Links to a blog of an activists who writes books and makes documentaries to end circumcision. IME the intactivist bunch make radical claims well beyond anything the evidence supports, and bring up circumcision whenever possible in hope of ending what just might be the most barbaric practice mankind has ever conceived.
Do I support unnecessary circumcision of children? No, not really. But every time I look at the evidence, I can't see any reason to get worked up about the topic. I hope the bizarre practice dies out.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
It's certainly laughed at less than any proposals to lower the age of adulthood, which suggests the average person believes it should be higher.
Yeah you're prob right as the evidence for increasing the age it has one direction, but I reject the argument it nevertheless.
At the core, the argument of the linked substack by Kat Rosenfield, my argument, and classical liberalism reject the framework of OP and Pavlovich. Yes, men an women are different because of biology, but the individual reigns supreme. Society should consider Pavlovich and her defenders adults, with all consequent responsibility. I reject that they can retroactively change consent. They can cry about it, but it Rosenfeld articulates why it needs to fall on deaf ears. I reject man bad woman good and vice versa. Any deviation from this neutrality should be argued against, especially in the legal system.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Of course the sexes are unequal. This is undeniable. But I have yet to hear any argument why basic rights should differ. What is being proposed here is an anathema to classical liberalism. Sure, people are free to debate the cultural inequality of agency or roles between men an women, so long as they're treated equally under the law. If it wants to fit into classically liberalism, the individual takes precedent over group based rights.
Women demonstrate more agency than men when it comes to getting romance or finance scammed, abusing drugs and alcohol, or murdering people. Of course, it doesn't follow that we should take the vote away form men, or consider them children. Men are full adults, and are responsible for their choices. So is Pavlovich.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Any chance you take take all this info to a doctor? What was the cause of your stunted growth and approx how old are you now?
There is lots of low to no risk stuff you can do with training to increase tendon CSA. You can modify your current routine to keep volume/ stimulus the same while avoiding pain (ie more isometrics, plyometrics, different movements, less weight but slower reps, etc). But growing bones systemically sounds quite hazardous.
I had tendinosis in both wrists from an RSI while living in Mexico for a few months. I bought pharma HGH otc and gave myself 2IU per day for 3 months (I would/should have gone longer but I moved). I trained quite a bit. My wrists only hurt form typing. Outside of fantastic sleep, I didn't notice much. N of 1 and no control. My tendinosis did not resolve for several months after my last HGH shot.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Does anyone know if there are models that take into account sentiment analysis (ie ingest lots of data from TV viewership, FB,YT, comment sections, clean it, weight it, etc)? This is how I'd solve the game for betting purposes.
Just by eyeballing it, Trump seems to have a massive advantage. Trump-positive yt vids are more viewed and have a better like/dislike ratio than any vaguely Dem positive video. The top comments are often mostly pro Trump. A large percentage of MSM TV coverage is pro Trump, FB used to lean more pro Trump, Twitter is operated by a Trump fanatic. Polling leans old, this leans younger. The comment section of NYT, WaPo are obviously anti Trump, but these are comparatively microscopic players. What does themotte think, and what might I not be seeing?
justmotteingaround
11mo ago
Absolutely. Assuming you are not a citizen, you can be deported. Not germane to the point I'm trying to make.
I'm responding to OP's claim that its "obvious" deportations can be done much more rapidly and cheaply, making an analogy to the death penalty.
Im pointing to the system we have, the tradeoffs made, the reasons behind them, and the traditions created. I'm arguing that the costs are inherently high because of our Constitution, laws, and history. The USG is free to pursue mass deportations, but rarely has, and I find that telling. Oddly enough, the last few administrations to campaign on it don't do it, and those that campaign against it end up deporting even more people. Strange
justmotteingaround
11mo ago
Because it a SciFi concept come to life
justmotteingaround
11mo ago
No. If it helps clarify things, I'm under the impression that looking at race might be the most important factor, perhaps tied with zip code.
If 1.5ppm causes 2-5 points of IQ loss, how much does 1000ppm in toothpaste cause?
You're claiming this is a huge scandal on the level of leaded gasoline. Given what the report found, that seems hysterical.
2-5 IQ points are very important. Getting fluoride via toothpaste is superior solution.
More options
Context Copy link