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
17d ago
I just felt it was worth pointing out (and noting the boundaries of) the big exception where those interest groups are straight-up "the enemy".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
18d ago
Sorry, but no amount of sophistry is going to get me to pretend that a girl turning tricks to earn enough money to stay at an internet cafe for the night is not, in fact, homeless.
I think a key point here is whether the room's rented on a semi-permanent basis.
I got stuck in motels for a month and a half back in 2022 (after getting summarily ejected from college), and it sucked, because motels tend to have specific dates booked out well in advance forcing you to move motels on a weekly basis or so. It still beats being under a bridge, of course, but it's a hell of a lot worse than having a home.
If the girl can actually hold a specific room for many months, that solves a lot of the problem and is closer to renting than to being homeless. If she has to move regularly, then that brings a lot of the issues with homelessness back into play.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
18d ago
· Edited 16d ago
Do they? Any substantiation of that?
I mean, there's an Issue with immigration from mainland China, which is that the CPC uses various means to weaponise the Chinese diaspora and the CPC is not our friend. There are legit reasons to want relatively few literal enemy agents in one's country.
This has nothing to do with racism; this issue doesn't apply to Taiwanese (many of whom are Han), (South) Koreans or Japanese, because Taiwan, South Korea and Japan don't have governments hostile to us and ruthless enough to pull this shit. It also mostly doesn't apply to ethnic Chinese whose ancestors immigrated way back, as they're culturally assimilated and don't typically have close family members in mainland China to be taken hostage.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
19d ago
· Edited 19d ago
Very lindy by niche internet fora standards.
I was a member (and for a while, the only active moderator) of Yandere^2 Forum, which lasted IIRC a bit over 9 years*, although it was much, much less active than here.
*Eventually our host found out that we'd been sodomising their terms of service with a rusty fork, and nuked the entire site from orbit. We'd probably not have lasted nearly as long had we been Motte-sized; there's a long list of sites in the same vein - many actually crossing less lines than we did - that got killed by enemy action (r/yandere has survived, but only by amputating absolutely anything to do with RL).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
20d ago
Zvi Mowshowitz had been spruiking it as a potential EA cause area.
I was rather surprised at the effectiveness, too, though.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
20d ago
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
21d ago
· Edited 21d ago
Two mutually-reinforcing effects.
-
SJ had control of all the major platforms, and an aura of inevitability, which meant the apparent level of SJ was considerably higher than the real one (due to anti-SJ being bannable, due to algorithmic fuckery, and due to people pretending to be more SJ-aligned than they actually were out of fear of cancellation).
-
Peer pressure is a thing (particularly for people who aren't habitual contrarians like, y'know, much of this site's membership), and it works off apparent peer group.
The Twitter sale (and SJ's failure to neutralise that sale via Bluesky) directly destroyed #1. That, in turn, rapidly cancelled out large chunks of #2. So some of it's real (see e.g. the Voice referendum in Australia, or Trump's re-election), but not all (or rather, some of it was never real to begin with).
Do note that sites like SpaceBattles and Wikipedia with stronger moderation and weaker network effects have not, TTBOMK, rebounded nearly as much.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
22d ago
Well, I mean, AIUI the mob was chanting "hang Mike Pence", they erected a gallows outside the building in which Mike Pence was, and then they entered said building. It seems pretty plausible that, had the mob captured Mike Pence, he might have been hanged. I don't think a VPOTUS has ever been assassinated, so I don't exactly have examples at hand, but it doesn't sound like that'd've been good for the culture war. At the very least, I imagine Mike Pence would have been rather unhappy with that result.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
23d ago
Who's the other one besides 347...? Jazzhands?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
23d ago
(and "complete subjugation of all ideological opponents" is not achievable)
No, there are paths there. They're just terrible paths that amount to Pyrrhic victory, and which we don't want to take. The obvious one is "nuclear war, half of SJers literally die in a fire, the other half get blamed for weakening the West and thus allowing Beijing/Moscow to challenge us".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
23d ago
His election denial changed that. The idea that the vote is generally fair and sacred was previously a universal of US politics. Sure, candidates would sometimes quibble over individual districts with irregularities and might need the SCOTUS to resolve their differences, but at least once a verdict was in, the losing side would accept the result and concede. Trump was the first candidate whose ego could not admit defeat, and his party mostly backed him in his lies. J6 showed that he was not committed to a peaceful transfer of power.
Well, I guess the question here is "is it really any worse to try to overturn an election, claiming it was fraudulent, than to agree an election was free/fair and then try to overturn it anyway?"
Because, well, after Trump won in 2016 there was a scheme to have the Electoral College throw out the results, and there were riots trying to prevent the inauguration.
It's especially ironic that you mention the phrase "peaceful transfer of power", because I found an interview with one of the organisers of the latter, in which he said:
There has been a lot of talk of peaceful transition of power as being a core element in a democracy and we want to reject that entirely and really undermine the peaceful transition.
Don't get me wrong; J6 was bad. But to claim it was unprecedented is... inaccurate.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
25d ago
· Edited 25d ago
I know the Zizians killed their landlord and some of their parents, and I think maybe even one of their own, plus I think they tried to kill some cops who were about to arrest them, but did they ever actually pull an outright ideology-only assassination where they didn't have a personal beef with the target? Because that's the reference class I'd think proper.
(To be clear, I'm not for a second claiming they didn't intend on doing this eventually - I've read enough of Sinceriously not to say that in a million years. I'm just asking if they ever got around to actually doing it before they got arrested.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
25d ago
· Edited 24d ago
You said, apparently seriously, "you apparently think all Indians are the same". That is an accusation of racism, and not the boring scientific kind most of us are, the actually-mindkilled kind. That's an accusation of moral turpitude and irrationality; levelling those without the best of grounding is literally against several rules of theMotte and extremely likely to incense people. And, well, I can't say I've read all his posts, but searching his posts for "India" only shows up a note that it has lower QoL than the West and thus its inhabitants have less to lose and more to gain from gambles like AI than he does as a Westerner. Your post there is the kind of post that people get modded for.
Now, it is true that theMotte does prohibit returning flaming in kind, so this doesn't mean @iprayiam3 is fully off the hook. But for you, Amadan, to flame someone and then personally ban him for responding less escalatorily than you did, while walking off scot-free? Yeah, that's not good modding. If I saw a mod I didn't trust pull that trick, I'd immediately categorise it as entrapment. I do trust you enough to take at face value that this wasn't a deliberate trap, but you've got to realise that a lot of people on this board don't, and acting with unclean hands like this is a really-good way to reinforce their suspicions.
NB: I'm not accusing @self_made_human of anything here. I don't think he did anything especially wrong and rated his response Neutral.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
26d ago
Australian, living in Bendigo (in Victoria, pop ~110k).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
27d ago
· Edited 27d ago
What bears repeating more is a 12 year old girl can do literally nothing to physically defend herself from a healthy man unless she has a gun.
The weapons are extra, they tell you she doesn't know what she's doing. The hatchet's a joke, she's not even getting through a t-shirt with that.
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).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
28d 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
28d ago
· Edited 28d 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
30d 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
30d 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
30d 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
1mo 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
1mo 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
1mo ago
Fair.
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
(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.)
In theory, there is an enforcement mechanism: D'Souza could sue them for defamation, on the basis that his brand was damaged by NYT quoting him as using their style guide (since his fanbase considers said style guide an enemy identifier). I'm not sure he'd succeed, but the threat of such suits is a good chunk of why quotes are/were sacrosanct.
More options
Context Copy link