magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
No bio...
User ID: 1103
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
Come on, you've completely changed the meaning of the game at this point.
By "total utility" I meant "the total utility you score for yourself across all opponents". I will note that the object of PD is explicitly to score the most utility for yourself, not to outscore your opponent, so adding up the scores rather than counting "who scored more" matchups is more sensible.
I also think you might be misconstruing my intentions; what drove me to post was that @magicalkittycat misrepresented the game theory (there are a lot of people pushing that same line, so I'm not claiming malice) and I wanted to clarify it. I responded to you rather than to him because you asked a question about it which meant I wanted to alert you, the clarification and answer to the question didn't directly involve MKC so I wasn't required by honour to alert him (I am now), and MKC's kinda been on an angry rampage in this thread, including when replying to me, so I wasn't really feeling very enthused about the prospect of likely just getting a third earful for my trouble.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
· Edited 2d ago
The specific case in which TfTwF outperforms TfT is a round-robin iterated prisoner's dilemma (scoring on total utility over all players/iterations) with many other players being TfT and a small amount of random noise added to people's decisions (i.e. "my hand slipped"). This is because, in this specific scenario, the random noise causes the TfT players to feud with each other quite extensively, whereas the feuds get cut short when there's a TfTwF involved and thus, while the TfT-vs.-TfTwF head-to-head is slightly in favour of TfT, TfTwF's self-play massively outperforms TfT's self-play.
If most players are not TfT (or very similar), TfT does better than TfTwF (as there either aren't any extensive feuds anyway, or the feuds - with e.g. Grim - can't be ended by forgiveness). If there is no noise, TfT does better than TfTwF.
TfT outperforms TfT-with-occasional-defection against TfTwF, unless the forgiveness time is too short*, as the feud, while relatively short, still outweighs the value of the defection.
*Obviously, the limit of TfTwF as forgiveness time goes to zero is just Co-operate-Bot, and we all know the optimal response to that is to spam defection.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
your edgelord position
Okay, yeah, I'll cop to "wait for my domestic opponents to literally die in a fire" being edge-flavoured. It's not like I'm the one causing the fire, though, and I have tried my best to pull some of them out of the fire with my advocacy for civil defence, so I don't think there's a less edgy position for someone who predicts a high chance of WWIII and has Noticed that SJ is very urban.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
It's not clear that Harris would have done better had she taken a more pro-Palestinian line. Certainly, a lot of Muslims stayed home (which is still only half as bad from the Dem perspective as actually flipping), but AIUI this wasn't true of non-Muslim SJers, and had she taken such a line she'd have been up against AIPAC and gotten called a baby-beheader.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
You seem to be under the impression that accusing your interlocutor of being a socialist is some kind of I-win button and super-embarrassing.
I feel you should be aware that outside the 'States - and your interlocutor just said he is - this isn't really all that true. Australia's and the UK's Labour Parties are both former members of Socialist International and still take red - as in, Communist red - as their party colour. Die Linke is a significant party in German politics, and it's literally the East German Communist party with a new name. France's National Assembly is over a quarter declared socialists.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
The Venn diagram between “thinks SJ is existentially dangerous” and “has given up on liberalism” is damn close to a circle.
Much of SJ is in the latter but not the former.
Killing some percentage of the population is not in the liberal Overton window.
I will cop to being a serial breaker of Overton windows. It's really quite hilarious the things people say when one does so; "are you Darkseid" and "what's next, revealing your family's secret rape dungeon" are some of the more memorable (though I've gotten really, really sick of "you're a child molestor").
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
Did you perhaps miss the disclaimer right at the start that none of those are my true feelings? My no-bullshit personal strategy is "lay low, turtle up, wait for Armageddon - most forms of which will mortally wound SJ due to urban/rural demographic divides - and then, with the room to breathe thus granted, dismantle SJ's levers of power (most notably, its ability to gatekeep careers via tertiary education and HR; Scott's solution here and Hanania's here are some of the more obvious), but leave the adherents alive and mostly unmolested". A Leninist purge to strip people of power, not a Stalinist one to strip them of life. In point of fact, I would expect a great deal of my advocacy in the aftermath to be expended on begging people not to enact another White Terror.
(To address the elephant in the room: I will grudgingly grant that KillAllMen is not something most SJers currently believe nor, for various reasons, something they're likely to be able to implement. I wasn't especially happy at the whole "it's just a joke, find me a single person who takes it seriously" thing, though; while this was slightly before SJ's heyday, I did have a single mother who told me the Y chromosome's a genetic defect and literally starved me as a teen after I started registering to her as a "man" rather than a "child".)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
Fair.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
· Edited 4d ago
(None of these are exactly my own views. This is an ironman post.)
Okay, so, you've probably heard of rabies. It's an incurable disease (at the very least it used to be, and it still is once symptoms appear) spread by biting that makes people bite others and be violent and semi-mindless in general. In real life it's also invariably fatal, which drastically cuts down on humans' ability to spread it to >1 other humans. But imagine a rabies that didn't do this - rabid people didn't die of rabies (or of thirst), they just stayed violently insane for the term of their natural lives. Imagine further that we didn't have a vaccine against it (this was even true until recently). Call it super-rabies. Or peeps. Or the Zombie Virus.
So, let's say that with the incubation period and everything, 5% of your population caught super-rabies before your government got around to noticing and acting. Now, what are you going to do about it?
- You can't just let super-rabid people walk around until they bite someone. Proof: since such a bite transmits super-rabies and you're letting the bitten person walk around in turn, this doesn't deplete the supply of super-rabid people walking around free to bite people (and indeed it will increase unless your response to a bite is instant, as some will bite a second person). Everyone will get infected, no more civilisation.
- You can't imprison them. You're talking about 5% of the population, and you can't either stick them with each other (well, you could, but they'd likely kill each other) or put them individually in less than the most secure facilities (because they'd bite the guards/staff, which will gradually increase the amount of people you need to imprison, not to mention the question of who'd volunteer to take that risk). The expense would bankrupt society, and then they'd escape and civilisation falls again.
You have to kill them. The lunatics already gone bitey? Mow them down with machine guns. The ones potentially bitten? Imprisonment for the incubation period, kill them if they go bitey or if they offer the least resistance. People protecting the super-rabid? We don't have time for this shit.
Yes, they're still human. Yes, they're innocents, insofar as they didn't choose their damnation. But you don't get to have a society that cares about respecting innocent life if you don't have a society. This is a state of exception; you mop up the existential threat as quickly as you can by whatever means are necessary, and then you go back to enjoying the sweet fruits of your bitter, bitter labours.
In case you haven't worked it out by now, some people think of SJ as an existentially-dangerous meme via undermining law and order. The analogy's not perfect - social justice warriors are far better at scheming than the rabid, and believing SJ is not always permanent - but you get the point.
That's one viewpoint. Another is that SJ is not itself an exceptional threat, but is an obstacle to solving other exceptional threats such as WWIII or AI by forcing every single discussion onto simulacra levels 2 and 3 (e.g., the initial SJ reaction to Covid of "the real issue is people using worries about infection as excuses for hating Asians!") or just by it directly focusing excessively on internal, day-to-day political squabbles and missing things that haven't come by in a while. (One thing that I will note about this viewpoint is that it's quite time-dependent. Mounting a massive anti-SJ crusade weakens you in the short-term in exchange for strengthening you in the medium-term; if you think crunch time's imminent, as I do, it's too late.)
Yet another is those that actually, seriously, have given up on liberalism. SJ's excesses have convinced them that liberalism was a mistake. They actually have come around to believe those SJ tracts about how you can't have a free society without banning a bunch of ideas; they just think SJ itself's the weed that needs to be removed. And, well, it's not like there's nothing to the claim that SJ is the same sort of thing as the Nazis (by which I mean the literal NSDAP). Try reading the Wikipedia article on Gleichschaltung, for instance. You couldn't just have a youth club in Nazi Germany; it had to be a Nazi youth club. You couldn't just have a bowling club; it had to be a Nazi bowling club. Now, go SJ-spotting around the Internet, or real life, particularly in June. You can't have a nerd forum in the SJ internet; it has to be an SJ nerd forum. You can't just have a medical establishment; it has to be an SJ health establishment. Those subscribing to this viewpoint think that liberalism is just letting these kinds of totalitarians get started. (NB: while I use a popular SJ infographic for demonstrative purposes that claims to talk about Popper, I am compelled to note for educational purposes that this is not what Popper actually said. But the people of this viewpoint believe the faux-Popperian argument for real.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5d ago
I'm getting at the philosophy-of-law question, not current custom. Lots of non-Anglo countries reject precedent. The philosophical question is mostly reliability vs. justice (after all, a bad precedent is literally judges getting a decision wrong; following that precedent is getting it wrong again).
Precedent also potentially worsens the "rogue judiciary" problem, since it allows a few rogue justices to control their inferiors more easily and their successors at all.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
Oh. I never heard about that (whereas I vaguely recall watching the first anime, probably while I was preschool-aged).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
· Edited 6d ago
Unpleasant and offputting to some extent = "picked no suitor, which is by definition not the correct suitor".
I think my limit on "significantly loses attractiveness due to weight" is about BMI 35 or so (100kg/220lb at 168cm/5'6''), which is significantly into the "obese" range.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
Sailor Moon is too old for that anyway. It finished in '97.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
So the case with the 15yo sex worker sting was not an activist judge, but simply a judge applying the law as it is.
There's actually an interesting question there: if something is not legislated, but a judge sets a precedent (particularly without apparent basis), is that "the law"?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
Because I'm not familiar with any of the Baltic states having "dissolved."
They got invaded and conquered by the USSR, and then the USSR-including-them dissolved.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
I mean, there's that point up in the thread OP:
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
There are cases where one can actually pull the "yes, ALL OF THEM" card and make it stick, and those are all right AFAIK assuming the logic's either laid out or obvious. Like, for instance, "all serial killers are hostis humani generis"; a serial killer is someone who kills people for no reason other than liking killing people, and that really does create a fundamental conflict between a serial killer and any society he belongs to. It's just, most sweeping generalisations that get said are exaggerations, and exaggerations about people are high-heat-low-light because their translation matrices are not the identity matrix (causing confusion) and because people really hate false negative claims about themselves (causing flared tempers).
Or in less words, it's to avoid dishonest debating and the usual result of such i.e. degeneration into a poo-flinging contest.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
Normie liberals don't tend to talk a lot about politics, especially not in public. Most of them are hanging out under real names, and their social circles include social justice warriors willing to cut them off for heresy. They're afraid to get thrown out into the Wilderness if they speak their minds.
(I'm legitimately unsure if @WandererintheWilderness's username references that article, because yeah, theMotte as a community has been cast out into the Wilderness even if doesn't fully have the "Wilderness nature".)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
Well, the actual sentence was:
There’s nothing worth saving in there that just won’t slow you down and get your people killed.
It's a bit broken, but I interpreted that as roughly
"There might be friendlies in there, but the time and (expected-value) expense in lives of going in there outweighs the value of saving them."
There's a saying that "the exception proves the rule", i.e. if you note that no X are not Y (contrapositive: all X are Y), then this implies the existence of X that are Y. This is not how formal logic defines things, but most people consider it implicit in common parlance (indeed, one of the most common exact-words tricks is to violate this convention). And certainly, even in formal logic, saying that all X are Y does not imply that there aren't X that are Y. Hence, it's not saying there's nothing... saveable? Good? ...in there, just nothing worth the cost of saving.
Nobody wants to waste hand grenades in this economy.
Well, I mean, not quite nobody.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
· Edited 9d ago
Huh. I rated that one Neutral, because I read it as an obvious metaphor for "raze the institution quickly, ignore the regrettable collateral damage, move on to the next head of the hydra", which is a solid - if bitter - policy prescription and doesn't go the "YOU WERE ALL GUILTY AND YOU WERE ALL LEGITIMATE TARGETS!" route of indiscriminately demonising whole groups.
On reflection, I can see that if one read it literally, or even as ambiguous, that puts a very different spin on things.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
While JT may well be opposed to everyone that went through college, I'm guessing the percentage that works for universities is much, much lower than 1/3.
That is fair, somewhat; I would anticipate the split among professors being somewhat more tilted (though not as much as you'd expect, at least among the STEM faculty).
However, I didn't say "college degree". I said "postgrad degree". As in, basic tertiary degree and then another degree on top (e.g. PhD, Masters, MD, and whatever law is).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
But people browsing would only need to read your post once instead of 6 times.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
10d ago
There is an "@" function to send alerts to people you're not replying to. For instance, you can summon me by saying "@magic9mushroom" (quotes not required).
Then they could all respond to the single post.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
10d ago
People understand it's political.
I mean, not all of them. There are definitely SJWs who believe that SJ doesn't count as politics but indeed "just common fucking decency"*, although there are certainly others who'll yell at anyone who thinks it's possible to be apolitical.
And, of course, it's practically a defining attribute of the social justice movement that it considers basically all its positions not just mere political issues.
*You've got to remember - until Musk broke the dam by buying Twitter, SJ's massive gaslighting operation to manufacture apparent consensus by banning everyone who disagreed from the virtual public square was actually working pretty well on a lot of people. Something that "everyone" agrees on doesn't look very political.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
10d ago
@OliveTapenade said "hard", not "impossible", and even then I'm not sure that that was published as a physics paper even if it seems to have been (arguably fraudulently) funded as one.
You're overstating the case.
It's true that a 12-year-old girl dual-wielding a hatchet and a knife is someone I or most men could easily overcome unarmed without a high chance of wounds, but this isn't because the weapons can't break skin (it's not that hard to break skin; I once accidentally stabbed myself with a table fork and hit bone). It's because in both cases I could catch the swing; a hatchet has a haft that's safe to grab and a knife isn't long enough to counteract my reach and speed advantage (so I could grab her arm before the knife reached my torso). If you gave her a sword (and I weren't wearing hand protection) it'd be quite a bit dicier, because they're much, much harder to catch bare-handed; I'm not saying she'd win but the potential for wounds is high enough to still be a massive deterrent (particularly when taking into account that in this hypothetical I'm a criminal who instigated the fight, which means that if I go to hospital and they ask "why was this guy in a swordfight?" there's a chance of winding up in jail).
And let's not even get into bows. Yes, I've met Anthony Kelly, but I'm not Anthony Kelly, and even he isn't 100% reliable at that trick (note that his world records were against somebody only half-drawing a simple bow, so that's basically tween-girl levels, and even then he didn't catch all of them).
More options
Context Copy link