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
13hr ago
If you want to avoid a singleton, the best advice I can give you is to go full Butlerian Jihad. Singletons are a strong attractor state for competition between AI in a way they're not between humans.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
13hr ago
I actually had this decent-sized essay I was writing comparing neural-net AI to demon-summoning. Couldn't figure out how to start it, though, and when Yudkowsky published his Time article I felt like it wasn't necessary anymore (most of the motivation for doing it in the first place was that I perceived the main Rat leadership to not have the balls).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
13hr ago
Just in case somebody is dense and doesn't get the message
Some of us are not actually American, you know. I'm not dense, I just don't watch American news.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14hr ago
If the number of people pardoned gets to be so high that they can't remember them, then that's a sign that something is super broken with the way people are being convicted.
Well, not necessarily. Could also be something broken with the White House/President.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14hr ago
He said he did it without knowing who the guy is. He didn't say he never did it. So, not quite "this exact thing" (at least, not in this instance).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
17hr ago
baseful, adj. (antonym: baseless): (of claims) with sound evidentiary backings
Amusingly, "based" has recently started being used to mean something similar.
faultful, adj. (antonym: faultless): containing many imperfections
"Faulty" is used.
inotic, adj. (antonym: exotic): indigenous, native
My research into the etymology suggests you're misreading the prefix and the correct inversion would be "endotic".
interminate, v (antonym: exterminate): to commit mass suicide à la Jonestown
My research into the etymology suggests "ex" is not referring to "others".
spotful, adj. (antonym: spotless): dirty, disheveled
"Spotted" can be used that way, IIRC, though it rarely is.
underdraft, n. (antonym: overdraft): a positive bank balance
"Overdraft" IIRC refers to the act of drawing too much, not the state of a negative balance. An "underdraft" would hence be the act of drawing too little.
undersee, v. (antonym: oversee): to supervise ineffectually; to ignore or forget about
That's actually an old, obsolete meaning of "oversee", not an antonym. "Over" in "oversee" is more literal - it's someone on high looking over his minions.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
My point is that you do need either the ability to repeal those amendments, or a SCOTUS which will ignore them in dereliction of its duty (and packing the SCOTUS needs the legislature as well as the executive).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
I think you need more than the presidency to do some of those things. The 15th Amendment forbids disenfranchising people on account of race (and the 19th on account of sex), and the President doesn't have the power to abolish elections or control the legislature/judiciary.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
When I go to a userpage, a screen briefly pops up asking if I'm sure I want to shadowban this user.
@ZorbaTHut I don't want to accidentally shadowban myself.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
But I have read enough Tucholsky to reject the premise that murder dressed in uniform ceases to be murder.
Murder (in the normal sense) has to be illegal* or you don't get to have a society. State killing, in limited forms, doesn't. This is a very notable practical difference.
*Well, you can legalise killing slaves, if slaves are a thing. Much of Ancient Greece did and didn't implode. But legalising the murder of citizens basically always degenerates into bellum omnium contra omnes.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
And if everyone else feels that way, I think moderation guidelines will be a less than pressing concern during a civil war.
Yeah, I'll admit that a good chunk of why I'm not protesting too loudly is because the potential circumstances where I'd be willing to infohazard-dump are basically a strict subset of the potential circumstances wherein theMotte would be imminently doomed (along with, in many cases, the entire Internet) - and hence, wherein permabanning me would be nearly meaningless.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
Motte:
fedposting is bad, actually
Bailey:
it seems bad for the sites [...] vaunted neutrality to enable and encourage [fedposting].
The bailey is something I feel morally obligated to oppose wherever I see it, i.e. the redefinition of terms to legitimate a preferred policy without acknowledging real tradeoffs. This is catastrophically dangerous because it leads to important principles getting hollowed out and losing their actual meaning - see "free speech doesn't include hate speech".
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
So, defend your claim. Or retract it. Don't try to pull a fast one by retreating to a motte.
(The reason I said "arguably utility" is because it can be useful for people like me to talk people out of starting a Boogaloo, and that can't happen if the other side is deterred from speaking.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
"Viewpoint neutrality" does, in theory, include permitting the viewpoint "we should massacre my enemies" (from either side). Forbidding that viewpoint is a concession to legal reality and arguably utility, not upholding neutrality.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5d ago
"Boogaloo" is certainly the original such term, but, well, quoth Wikipedia:
Participants in the boogaloo movement also use other similar-sounding derivations of the word, including boog, boojahideen, big igloo, blue igloo, and big luau to avoid crackdowns and automated content flags imposed by social media sites to limit or ban boogaloo-related content. Intensified efforts by social media companies to restrict boogaloo content have caused adherents to use terms even further detached from the original word such as spicy fiesta to refer to the movement. The boogaloo movement has created logos and other imagery incorporating igloo snow huts and Hawaiian prints based on these derivations.
I can't say I know for sure that "boogooloo" has ever been used, but I wouldn't be surprised.
(And, of course, I'd argue "boogaloo" was itself a euphemism intended to slide under normies' radar; it's certainly more subtle than just calling it "Civil War II".)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5d ago
Talking about plans to do violence is not within bounds (and would be pretty fucking stupid if you're serious).
The parenthetical statement is not necessarily true unless the word "oneself" is added after "violence". See e.g. Al-Qaeda/Islamic State's "lone wolf" strategy, and the notion of stochastic terrorism.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
Hey @Amadan (and the other mods, if necessary), can we actually get a ruling on the "advice to, in the event of state failure, do things that are illegal under current law" genre? I can imagine some people saying that it's incitement to crime, but others saying that in the event of state failure, the present laws will have ceased to mean anything and thus the actions wouldn't really be crime anymore in the circumstance in which they're being recommended.
(The post I'm replying to probably doesn't qualify as being in that genre, as AIUI shooting bandits attempting to loot you is pretty legal in most of the 'States. But there are certainly adjacent positions which would qualify.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
· Edited 6d ago
indeed it makes a mockery of the entire conception of international law as vindicating universal and inalienable human rights.
That's because that conception is bogus. The only way, ever, to force a country to behave according to your principles has been "start a war".
And yes, kidnapping the leaders of a country is a pretty-good way of starting a war. If you want to start a war with Israel, by all means do so; you won't be the first or the fifth and I have no particular love for the place. I'd recommend investing in some really-good ballistic missile defence first, though.
The entire reason the UN Security Council is set up with vetoes is precisely to prevent the UN from trying to enforce "international law" on great powers and consequently triggering a nuclear exchange. You get to play nice with the genocidal arseholes with nukes, or you get to live through World War III; trying to use "international law" to get around that dichotomy will only wind up with the second horn and it is dangerously foolish to pretend otherwise.
EDIT: I think I might have misinterpreted you and as such misaddressed this; it's a relevant point to the discussion more generally, though.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
TBF, letters of marque have never really been tolerated by the countries being targetted, and I'm not sure about third-party tolerance (by which we mean, what, the French recognising British letters of marque against Spain? There aren't really that many other relevant cases for most of the period). They mostly just meant that you could claim prizes and avoid getting hanged in your own country.
Certainly, there's nothing saying a third-party country can't forbid foreign privateering in its own territorial waters.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
TheMotte has no rule against necromancy, especially not for less than a month.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
8d ago
I feel obliged to point out that there are Jew-inclusive white nationalists.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
I mean, I guess, but I'm still not sure that replacing all/most Christmas car travel with personal aeroplanes would end very well (still wouldn't be as hilariously doomed as trying to do it for commuting, though; Manhattan's skyline would look a bit different after a month of that even if you handwave the parking problem).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
How do you use the hexadecimal ones?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
13d ago
I said "travelling", not "commuting". I was thinking of going to visit family or going on a holiday, which (unlike commuting) often involves driving through long stretches of nothing (my general feeling is that the speed limits in built-up areas are generally about right, but those on highways are frequently far too low; many of the high-end divided roads and outback highways in Australia, for instance, could support far more than their speed limit of 110 km/h).
Also, here in Australia, there are certain highways where you're not just saving days, but potentially saving the need for a bloody caravan because the towns are over a day's drive (at the speed limit) apart.
I am sure it would be technically feasible to build an ambulance with a top speed of 300km/h, but nobody wants that, because the scenarios where the maximum expected utility would require an ambulance to go that fast are very rare indeed.
I mean, the Royal Flying Doctor Service here in Oz has 500 km/h and even 800 km/h ambulances, which are in fact very handy. That particular solution doesn't work so well for random people travelling, though, because lol piloting is hard.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
13d ago
(Comparison: in the OT, the heroes never mock the villains. I think the closest it comes is Han referring to the Imperials as slugs. But Tarkin, Vader, or the Emperor are always treated with deathly seriousness.)
No. Leia sassed Tarkin in the original film:
LEIA: Governor Tarkin. I should have expected to find you holding Vader's leash; I recognised your foul stench when I was brought on board.
TARKIN: Charming, to the last. You don't know how hard I found it, signing the order to terminate your life.
LEIA: I'm surprised you had the courage to take the responsibility yourself.
In ESB Luke sasses Vader at the beginning of their fight (though, of course, this is specifically him being a headstrong idiot):
VADER: You have learned much, young one.
LUKE: You'll find that I'm full of surprises.
And in RotJ Han sasses Jabba on a couple of occasions (though, of course, Jabba is not an Imperial):
THREEPIO: His High Exaltedness, the great Jabba the Hutt, has decreed that you are to be terminated immediately.
HAN: Good. I hate long waits.
[...]
THREEPIO: Victims of the almighty Sarlacc, His Excellency hopes that you will die honorably. But should any of you wish to beg for mercy, the great Jabba the Hutt will now listen to your pleas.
JABBA: Jedi!
HAN: Threepio! You tell that slimy piece of worm-ridden filth, he'll get no such pleasure from us!
There's not a lot of it, not remotely to the degree seen in your clip, and RotJ goes very hard on having Luke be courteous even to his foes. But there is a little.
Ah. Yeah, I thought "the message" meant your contention of "how extreme the Dems are", not the Dems' contention of "Trump's orders are illegal".
The funny thing is, it's far from certain that the current incarnation of the Democratic Party will ever get another President. There are a number of ways they could wind up out of the game and unable to carry out this threat, ranging from sticking their necks out too far with this silly brinkmanship and being beheaded, to voter base existence failure if WWIII happens.
More options
Context Copy link