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
1mo ago
· Edited 1mo ago
I think jeroboam's claim is that high-profile cases of leftists being jailed for hate speech would cause SJers to realise what a bad idea the laws are and undo them - the lesson of "I never thought the leopards would eat MY face".
I think that this claim is false because my read is that most SJers would react not with "oh shit this sucks, guess this gun's a bit dangerous to have available" but with "how dare they defile our gun and use it on us, we must destroy them so utterly that they can never use it again"*. But still, it seems to be coming from an assumption of Free Speech Good.
*To ironman this argument: a lot of the more-wingnut SJers believe that they have already essentially bet their lives on winning the culture war; that failure already means they literally get executed. This means that there is actual zero capability to deter them from escalation; if they win, then you can't punish them, and if they lose, (they think) they'll be killed either way, so the only thing that matters is P(win). And to be fair to them, in the main situation where I see them losing (voter base existence failure due to nuclear war) I would fully expect my prime political activity to be yelling "please no White Terror" for the next few years. But that's something of a special case due to the suddenness and the lopsidedness of power in the aftermath.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
16d ago
But you can't get out of a love hotel unless you've paid, at least in the modern iteration. That means both parties are shut-ins until the bill has been settled at the little machine on the wall.
Doesn't that run into issues with the trilemma of a) not have an emergency exit, and get arrested for manslaughter when there's a fire vs. b) have an emergency exit that can be opened all the time, and now you can get out without paying vs. c) have an emergency exit that only opens if there's a fire, and incentivise arson?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
28d ago
I mean, the key attribute here is the monotony of it. As he notes, n=1 isn't really enough to say much because the pairing is not exactly unknown. It takes a good memory, a reasonable amount of exposure to modern Western media, and some level of political awareness to, as you put it, "notice". Most people don't have that. TheMotte concentrates those who do, but it's still not everyone here.
As it happens, @George_E_Hale has just admitted that he's not exposed to all that much of this.
Some charity would be nice. Even a reasonable amount of SJers haven't noticed this sort of thing; I didn't until somewhat after I left.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14d ago
The transsexual issue is the ultimate expression of pure power dragging the party by the hair behind it, down to the fleshing table in the basement.
Paging @Capital_Room; I know you have an alternate explanation for this sort of behaviour, and SteveKirkland wasn't around back then (plus the situation has evolved somewhat), so I figure I might learn something from a discussion between you two.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
· Edited 1mo ago
Discussion prompts- is this a falsification of the narrative, so popular on the motte, that it doesn't matter how conservative a government is, it can't stop the cathedral from doing whatever it damn well pleases?
The narrative on theMotte (and DSL) is mostly one of covert defiance, not overt defiance. That is to say, people "grudgingly agree" and then either don't actually do what they said they would do, or contrive to achieve the same results a different way.
This is a case of a lack of overt defiance - they have said they will comply. Okay. Mostly in accord with that narrative. There remain the questions of whether they will actually comply, and also whether if they do comply, they will come up with some excuse to produce the same outcomes.
If a student spends a day in the local activism space holding a sign saying, for instance, "I think black people are genetically predisposed to crime; ask me why"* and is still a student 6 months later, that would definitely be a falsification - that's real change in outcomes, proof by pudding.
*I am not personally claiming this sentence to be true, merely using it as an example of a sentence which gets one in trouble on purely DIE grounds - it's not threatening or harassing anyone, but is blasphemy against SJ.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
Well, it's not painful anymore, and it does work for at least a while.
The problem is, 1) it causes temporary cognitive deficits (that aren't so temporary if you're doing it repeatedly), 2) it is one of the few things to cause permanent retrograde amnesia (i.e. it wipes a bit of your memories every time, and they're never coming back). Permanent and scary side effects are bad, because a certain percentage of people kill themselves out of revulsion (Ernest Hemingway, for instance, killed himself after a course of electroshock therapy). Once you take that term into account, you wind up with a cost-benefit profile that's not so pleasant.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
23d ago
· Edited 23d ago
I used to argue with white nationalists a lot many years ago on /r/anarcho_capitalism and what I found very frustrating is they refused to properly defend their point of view, particularly on the point of who counted as white.
Not sure I count as white nationalist, but my definition would be basically "supermajority ethnically descended from the Ecumene", with the cutoffs of the Ecumene being the Sahara in the south, the Urals in the northeast, and somewhere around Persia in the southeast. This seems like the most sensical definition in terms of genetics (Persia, of course, was the most porous boundary there, hence the lack of clarity).
I completely agree that it makes more sense to select immigrants by the traits that whites are claimed to possess. Selecting them based on race is extremely crude.
The usual argument here is regression to the mean. Genes and environment both have effects on phenotype, and it's tricky to separate them. If one accepts arguendo that white people are genetically predisposed to WEIRDness, then when filtering for phenotypic WEIRDness you're filtering more strongly on nonwhites, which means they will on average have greater environmental contribution, which means compared to similarly-WEIRD-phenotyped whites they would have less genetic tendency toward WEIRDness. Thus, their children would be predictably less WEIRD; they would regress toward the mean.
(NB: I am actually agnostic about the main object-level claim here; HBD is not my forte, and particularly among humans who aren't either sub-Saharan African or *nesian - i.e. Eurasians, North Africans and Native Americans - I'm sceptical of claims of large differences given the short timescales involved and similar subspecies heritage. I'm merely pointing out the logical consequences of that claim if one does accept it.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
16d ago
I don't know about Peterson's case specifically, but benzos are on the list of medications that reasonably-often get administered without consent or with dubious consent (e.g. I was offered them immediately following a suicide attempt, before they even got around to transferring me to the psych ward, and my understanding is that the more-hostile psych patients get given them by force).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
19d ago
Okay, I've looked up pillarisation in the historical sense, but would you mind defining exactly what you mean by it in this context? I'm not 100% on exactly what is being connoted and not connoted.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
13d ago
I wouldn't call the 3-foundationers SJers; I'd call them "90s liberals" or something (and there were 6-foundationers earlier than the 90s, just not in large numbers). But yes, that's my working bulverism of SJ as well.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
Technically, there are cases where rape could be justified; it's just that most of the ones that are actually physically possible* are also so bizarre that one can assume they're negligible. The most plausible one is probably "fuckhead kidnaps man and woman, fuckhead tells man that unless man rapes woman - and no explaining to get her consent - fuckhead will shoot both man and woman".
And of course, all of the above deals with dictionary rape, not statutory rape, which is a huge mess and can be totally free of moral turpitude (the case I know off the top of my head went "girl seduces boy, boy asks for ID, girl provides fake ID, boy has consensual sex with girl, boy arrested for raping girl over girl's protests"; I think some nations' laws even have the insane edge case where if a minor forcibly rapes an adult, the adult is guilty of rape because strict liability).
*I'm thinking cases like the myth in Africa that having sex with a virgin cures HIV. If this were true, which it is not, there would be some hard moral questions in the case of HIV-positive individuals whom no virgin wanted to have sex with.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
27d ago
Sorry, this one's more complicated than it looks.
Basically, one of the more core conceits of hardcore SJ is that debate is useless because people are too stupid to tell truth from lies, and so the correct policy (as they see it) is not to debate their opponents but to shut said opponents out of the debate hall.
Due to this conceit, SJers refusing to debate is not actually much evidence of fraud, because they do this even when they believe what they're saying.
(I'm not defending this conceit; you need debate in order to orient your understanding to the truth, and without it society falls into ideological rabbit-holes. I think this conceit of SJ is highly destructive. I'm merely explaining it.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14d ago
TBQH, the username refers to my interest in fantasy novels and (at the time, nearly 20 years ago) fungi.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14d ago
· Edited 14d ago
Protesters at elite universities will be tomorrow's leaders. They will be on the "right" side of the history not because they are morally right, but because they will be able to shape history to their whims.
I'm not sure protestors at Harvard, MIT or Columbia will be tomorrow's leaders. Yale's got better chances.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
If you don't intend Mottizens to be able to understand a post, I'd suggest sending it as a PM instead.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12d ago
As the others said, moral foundations - care/harm, liberty/oppression, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation.
Everyone cares about the first three, but WEIRD (white/educated/industrialised/rich/democratic, and especially autistic) people care much less about the last three (while caring more about care/harm), which generates liberalism (and is why liberals frequently fail ideological Turing tests for conservatism, because it's harder to hypothetically add things to a moral compass than to remove them).
As @fishtwanger said, Haidt's book laying these out is dated because it predates SJ. My best working theory of SJ is that it's what happens if you try to cram 90s liberalism down the throats of people who are six-foundation-inclined; they will take superficial features of it, connect them to the missing foundations, and produce a bizarro-world morality that has all six foundations but lacks coherence and is divisive rather than unifying.
As I said above, this is a bulverism; it's an explanation for "why would people believe this crazy thing despite its craziness" rather than "what is the thesis of this thing and is it true". I don't like bulverism, and I don't like thinking of people as, well, morons susceptible to memetic effects. But it's the most sense I've managed to make of SJ.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12d ago
For the most part, it's where the US is coming from, not necessarily where it's headed.
None of this matters if the Chinese roll the dice too early. There is a real problem with hypernationalism that saying "hold on, if you go for Taiwan now we wind up with our cities burning" tends to close doors and as such people avoid saying it even when it's true. I suspect they're actively planning a contingency for if the 2024 US election is enough of a shitshow, despite how terrible an idea this would be.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
That's only one of the cases where it's claimed they've interfered. There are others. Hong Kong. Uyghurs. Taiwan. Tiananmen. Tibet.
Granting arguendo that this one is nonsense and/or not a concern (and you might be right), TikTok as controlled by ByteDance still has to go. Don't overfocus on this detail to the point that you miss the big picture; sort-by-controversial is a thing that happens, but it's not correct in how much it prioritises things.
Also, we could be going to war with the PRC in the next couple of years. Do you really think that ByteDance wouldn't go along if the CPC told them to fill their site and app with malware in order to break the Western Internet? Hint: ByteDance is a mainland Chinese company, and in mainland China if you defy the CPC they chop you up for your organs like that scene out of Repo.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
16d ago
Do you think they'll mellow out as they get older and become libertarians?
Dunno about libertarians, but most of the young mellow out at some point. I wasn't only talking about Gen Z/Alpha, after all; this goes back at least to WWII (note that the actual Nazis had Angry Young Men willing to take to the streets and beat people up, something which you haven't really seen from "rightist" movements since until very recently).
Or will they just be consumed by nanobots along with the rest of the human race?
Well, I sure hope not.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
16d ago
So you have borderline Borderline Personality Disorder?
Yes, I figured that pun out several years back. Didn't seem like the best time to make it.
I will admit that I'm significantly more inclined to Drama than average, but while I flounce off forums often enough and occasionally get mad enough to post revolutionary screeds the way some of theMotte does (though not on theMotte itself; after 6/1/2021 I realised that doing this was reckless and have made an effort to stop), to push me into the dreaded escalation spiral IRL takes something major enough that it's typically illegal itself (in the last ten years, I count two: one from being stuck around someone threatening to go spree killer, and one from being blackmailed; I was worse in my teens but I'm only in my early thirties now).
Part of the reason I think it was a misdiagnosis is because I actually have done a course of DBT (which as @Throwaway05 said is the standard treatment), and found it misaimed/counterproductive while the others taking it seemed to find it helpful.
Look, backing off your #1 is probably the right call*, and I've seen borderlines that are that bad or worse myself. Just saying: while it's obviously Bayesian evidence of "run away screaming", the diagnosis isn't a guarantee of such.
*Since she mentioned she's potentially autistic, from what you've said I can't rule out the possibility that her "murder random people with HIV" thing is just low-level intrusive thoughts that she easily ignores and also talks about (when most people wouldn't) because autistic hyperhonesty. If it's not, yeah, absolutely run away screaming. And obviously there's the other issue as well.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
To be fair, Victoria (the reddest state in Australia, and around here that still means "leftist" as a holdover from the Cold War) did actually try to get in on that sweet Chinese cash until the federal government said "WTF are you doing, you don't get to negotiate agreements with hostile foreign powers".
I'll say that I don't actually think Labour's in Beijing's pocket. Yeah, they've had a Senator get outed as being bought and paid for, and yeah they're notably soft on China because military's a RW issue, but I don't think it's a full-blown party of traitors, just a bit naïve and/or pandering to their naïve base.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
Yes. I saw such guides in that time period.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
20d ago
I honestly don't know what's going on or will be going on. I pay very little attention to the Israel/Palestine situation because I already know what I want to do with it (nothing) and because there's not much chance of it blowing up into Global Thermonuclear War (if Iran gets nukes and nukes Israel, I imagine that would suck for anyone in the region, but it's not clear how that turns into great-power arsenals flying).
Just saying, if I were Bibi I'd assume that mostly either the funding will be pulled or it won't and my war conduct wasn't super-relevant. It's not impossible that war crimes could affect the money tap, but it's hardly a clear deciding factor.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2mo ago
I'm not going to go through all his posts to find them, but he's made some good ones and that's enough for me to say "the good solution was Hlynka making good posts and not making bad ones". But he refused. So the lesser evil was taking him out of the picture.
I mean, I did forget about the ADL, and that's my bad, but as you say they aren't in play either and so I think the overall issue of "remarkably little of the USA is actually movable by any potential Israeli warcrimes, because most of the populace either is already dead-set against Israel, is shielded from the information, or is so pro-Israel it'd still support it" still exists.
More options
Context Copy link