@magic9mushroom's banner p

magic9mushroom

If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 10 11:26:14 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 1103

magic9mushroom

If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 10 11:26:14 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1103

Verified Email

Were you aware that before he became NASA administrator Jared Issacman was best known in gunnie circles for registering a fully armed and operational Mig-29 with the ATF as a Destructive Device?

I've managed to confirm the Mig-29 (assuming that was a typo in his name), but not "fully armed". Could you provide a source for this?

It's not that hard to build a nuke if you don't have to worry about law enforcement (including "international law enforcement" in the sense of other countries firing missiles at your house). You'd need millions of dollars (though not billions), a year or three, and maybe a degree of recklessness regarding whether you get cancer, but it's doable.

What's nearly impossible is hiding that you are building a nuke. If Omega gave me Satoshi's bitcoin codes, took me off the various watchlists I'm probably on, and told me I had to build a working nuke without anybody knowing or the world would end, I might be able to pull it off, but I'd still bet against it.

The general understanding is that "not under the jurisdiction" covers invading armies

There is a rather-trollish argument, which I don't think the dissents mentioned (though holy shit, those things are long, so I've only skimmed them), that by definition an illegal immigrant who is still actually present in the USA is someone against whom the USA is failing to exercise jurisdiction, in much the same way as it is failing to exercise jurisdiction over an invading army.

I don't think I'd considered this before today (though I did when still reading the opinions, not from your post), and I'm not sure I agree with it, but it does seem colourable.

I'm certainly open to believing the framers were so intellectually rigorous as to consider it necessary to incorporate language for the situation where an occupying army brought along their own women

I will note that the idea of "camp followers" should have been accessible to them; camp followers are so old that the Romans talk about them, and they persisted all the way into the 20th century*.

*The obvious example is the Imperial Japanese Army. Obviously, most of the "comfort women" were actually Korean and Chinese sex slaves and that was a crime against humanity. But one thing that's often forgotten is that some were actual Japanese prostitutes who volunteered and were paid; those were not a war crime, and very much were in the ancient tradition of camp followers - and could indeed be considered part of the occupying Japanese army rather than the Chinese populace or some third category.

I'm not sure why nuclear bombs should affect your ability to sit down and peacefully let someone else rape you to death.

If we have to point at a recent development which would undercut my claim, it'd be brainwashing camps, not nukes.

Much as "those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf",

This isn't true. The early Christians, famously, did not abandon pacifism against the Romans.

It's more correct to say that pacifism (absent a non-pacifist protector) tends to get you killed or enslaved. But you can do it.

What's an example, meeting your criteria of (a) the target countries don't take the people in voluntary and (b) no military force is involved?

I mean, I think some of the various places that expelled their Jews in the Middle Ages would fit those criteria, at least if you interpret a) as including "the target country doesn't really want them but is unwilling to just kill them all when they show up anyway".

Comparing anything right-wing to Nazism is an overused cliche, but it fits here: AFAIK Nazis initially planned to just deport the Jews somewhere (Madagascar), but ended up brutally overworking and exterminating them, because their end goal was to get rid of them and that was easiest.

Per Scott's post, the First Solution was convincing the Jews to emigrate (to Palestine and elsewhere, and by normal peacetime means like commercial passenger ships) by making life in Germany shitty for them (and seizing money from rich Jews to pay for the tickets of poor Jews). This failed because everybody else refused to take the German Jews (note that this was before decolonisation, so this mostly means the Western governments - they, after all, set the immigration policies of their colonies).

The supposed Second Solution was deporting all the Jews to Madagascar (forcibly, and by extraordinary means). This made no sense, because by then Germany was at war with Britain (which controlled the Suez, Gibraltar and the North Atlantic), and thus couldn't possibly get the Jews to Madagascar. Most people think this was just a fake plan as a cover story for the Final Solution (there was at least one other - the Wannsee Conference mentions "evacuation to the East" i.e. Poland/Russia).

I'd say more "charismatic" than "intelligent", and the amount of people on Hitler's level is very low so if you can resist anything less you're mostly fine.

But honestly, I don't believe what you are saying right now since the videos don't sound like AI to me. It just sounds like you're erecting an arbitrary hurdle to shield yourself from earnest engagement. I don't know why and it feels like a shame.

No, I'm not lying; that is my true objection. Leaving aside that I've never lied on theMotte (though I've occasionally accidentally said false things, and I've often refrained from telling the whole truth), what motive would I have to lie here? Like, I mentioned this in my first post of our interaction; if I didn't want to engage with you, I simply wouldn't have engaged with you.

If you look around some of my other posts, you'll see that I'm a full-blown Yudkowskian Jihadi, and my objection is the AI-box one, which indeed I've explicitly mentioned on here over a year ago.

I know it's 25 minutes and I know the guy has a depressing delivery.

That's not the problem. The problem is that I suspect the narrator to be AI, and I have a policy of avoiding AI output for mental-hygiene reasons, especially when in an audiovisual format. If you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that the videos are not in fact AI-narrated (e.g. by providing pre-2022 videos from that channel that sound similar), I'll watch them; otherwise, your pleading is pointless, as I consider that policy far more important than this debate.

I don't believe the directors, screenwriters or anyone else were necessarily intentionally making an explicit commentary on how much they hate white people and think they are all one move away from dooming everything through racism and are otherwise beyond saving outside of a baptism through fornicating with brown people. But I am telling you that it's nevertheless the subtextual end result of their work.

Ah, that clarifies things quite a bit.

TBH, I'd at least vaguely entertained the possibility of you thinking that way. But I'm not sure why this is especially relevant to the point you were originally making.

I don't need to see a video to notice that there's racial subtext in Gattaca. The film's message can be summed up as "even when scientific racism is 100% obviously true and a master race demonstrably exists, it's still false and the master race aren't actually any better than the rest of us, fuck logic". The Wikipedia article cites at least one review pointing out the racial angle.

But I can't even construct a particularly-consistent explanation for 28 Days Later being secretly about white rage. If it's meant to be about racial hatred being good, why are those with it portrayed as literal zombies? If it's meant to be about racial hatred being evil, why didn't anyone involved cash in on belatedly noting it the way the Wachowski Brothers Sisters did?

Voters and candidates need certainty quickly after polling is concluded about who has won and where we all go from here as a result, the process shouldn't be held hostage by the possibility of some votes turning up 5 days later.

A few days delay knowing who won isn't ideal, but here in Oz we seem to mostly have put up with it in a lot of elections the past couple of decades; it doesn't seem to be a non-negotiable that blows up everything if not observed.

Considering all of that, I'd say it's clear whites are not being protected from their own racist tendencies, a concept explored in the movie 28 Days Later

I haven't watched the whole video (that narrator sounds like AI), but what I have appears to be straight-up schizophrenic delusion on par with A Beautiful Mind. The rest of your post is pretty solid, but, uh, are you okay?

Could you elaborate a little? I can hypothesise some issues, but I have no direct exposure.

Takaoka Yuka got quite a lot of fandom - not a serial killer, but we started out discussing murderers in general (okay, sure, she didn't manage to kill him, so she's an attempted murderer, but it's the thought that counts).

I used to moderate a board for stalkers/fans of stalkers, and there was a lot of love for her there. I remember saying on said board that she probably didn't deserve as much sympathy as lots of them were extending - because while yeah, sure, host bars are designed to hook people into whaling away vast sums of money on parasocial fake romance, and as such getting murdered by angry customers is absolutely an occupational hazard that's baked in, Yuka was a hostess herself and thus couldn't really claim ignorance or innocence of that game.

Well, I was more addressing the "murderer" part than the specific "black widower" part.

I knew about Nanjing, but not about the others. Good catch.

Why on earth would you think this is a good idea?

Having someone willing to kill for you is sometimes fairly useful, particularly if you are bad at killing people. It was considerably more useful in the EEA, as @IGI-111 notes.

Someone has probably made this argument on The Motte before. We aren't missing any communists from roll call, are we?

I'm not sure there have been full-blown revolutionary communists here since the site move. I'm a socialist, but obviously I'm not missing (never been to Canada, actually).

It's not illegal for the kid to go wandering around the neighbourhood either (the kid won't be charged with a crime); the problem is that the laws/policies punish the parents for physically allowing him/her to so wander. Likewise, there are a zillion ways in which things are set up to prevent kids from killing themselves, and it would (AFAIK, though IDK about Canada) be illegal for a euthanasia clinic to assist a child suicide.

I don't think anyone's arguing for kids to be considered criminals for trying to transition; the anti-trans side want teachers and doctors (and maybe parents) to be liable for facilitating that transition, and for parents to not be punished for preventing that transition.

I was giving regions in terms of pre-modern hegemons (and hedged "known world") because of the whole issue where transcontinental wars were basically not a thing you could do back then, so Rome and Beijing didn't really have to concern themselves with what the other thought. These days the concept of a "regional hegemon" has been severely undermined (though it's still not quite nothing).

If "diagnose people with gender dysphoria if they say they're trans" is an effective diagnosis method, why is it getting so many apparent false-positives?

I rated your post Good, but I'll have to pull you up on this one. Gender dysphoria is the syndrome, where people start feeling terrible about their sex and sometimes get phantom-limb. It obviously exists; I've had it. The debate is about the appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, which in my case appears to have been "ignore it and it'll go away".

I think we're all negotiating on price. Like, to give the obvious example, do you think kids should be allowed to kill themselves? Hell, do you think they should be allowed to apply for euthanasia if they get depression? I'd say no, and I'd say that on the grounds that most kids disallowed from killing themselves will, on reflection (and usually not that long a reflection!) be glad that they were stopped; their coherent extrapolated volition is to be disallowed from something that stupid. Hell, I've attempted suicide three times and am glad I was stopped the latter two (the first one I wasn't actually stopped; I just failed by myself).

Medical transition is not as serious as literal suicide. It's also far more serious than essentially everything else on the list of things the fun police don't want to let kids do with maybe the exception of some drugs. Kids playing by themselves without supervision are very unlikely to be maimed for life. Kids medically transitioning will with near-certainty. So one can consistently support free range kids and still oppose transitioning kids, at least as long as one doesn't take "free range kids" to the psychotic extreme of "deliberately let the kids jump off cliffs!".

There is a difference between "is the pre-eminent power in the known world" and "has over 50% of the power in the known world, such that balancing fails and hegemony ensues because it can defeat every other nation put together". Tanista's claim is that #1 is true of the USA but #2 is false, which means the USA does in fact still need to do normal diplomacy (because while it could defeat any one nation, there is more than one non-US nation and it could not defeat them all at once).

The obvious historical parallel is Britain moving from "splendid isolation" and the "rule of two"* in the nineteenth century to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, Entente Cordiale and Special Relationship in the early twentieth (in which Britain was still the pre-eminent power, just not by such an impressive margin).

*The "rule of two" was that the British navy was larger than the second-largest and third-largest navies put together. This enabled "splendid isolation", in which Britain refused to form long-term alliances because it was invincible anyway. Indeed, one thing that stands out during the Napoleonic Wars was that Britain was the only country in the anti-Napoleon coalitions to never make peace with Napoleon; they didn't have to, because even with Napoleon and his puppet states across Europe - and for the last few years, the USA - against them simultaneously, the Royal Navy still made Britain and most of its dominions completely safe. That is the power that lets you say "fuck you" to diplomacy. It's the power the Romans had in Europe and the Med. It's the power the Persians sometimes had in West Asia (though not all that often). It's the power the Chinese had in the Far East for so long they forgot it could end (which is why they got bitchslapped in the Opium Wars; they said "fuck you" to Britain without the capability to back it up). You can maybe find some more examples, but there aren't many.