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
9hr 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
5hr ago
Mild symptoms complicate both diagnosis and treatment - much of what DBT is designed to help is for moderate functioning people (can be great) and low functioning people (where it isn't likely to).
Your diagnosis could be wrong, but I'd guess what's happening is that you are well enough, and the underlying biological reality of a borderline brain gets in the way sometimes.
To give the most obvious example, there was an emphasis on meditation, but all that accomplished for me was sending me catatonic.
However also possible you are what you are and don't meet criteria for anything.
Oh, I absolutely meet criteria for HFA/Asperger's and (currently) for depression. And I absolutely do have tendencies in the direction of borderline; I hit two or so of the nine with no question and there are quite a few with at least some question marks. The most obvious thing I categorically don't do is that I've never been a "splitter" (quite the opposite, to be honest), which means I avoid the most severe and characteristic borderline failure mode of "has both the tendency to incorrectly conclude that people are cardboard villains and the temperament for vigilante justice, causing repeated and unwarranted murder attempts and other hostile actions".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12hr 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
1d ago
I would agree that the kind of "right" that appeals to the young is definitely the hardline, bordering-on-fascist sort, not dry conservatism. The young want a Great Cause and an Enemy, not milquetoast or cautious policy and definitely not "listen to your parents".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
10hr ago
That isn't my impression at all, I feel like she was very serious about it.
Yeah, I figured that was a real possibility; it was just that from what you initially said I wasn't clear on that and as such I couldn't give a definite "aieee".
If you're doing okay, that's great, I'm genuinely happy for you.
I'm actually still dealing with the social fallout of the blackmail Drama two years back (I miraculously avoided legal trouble, but my uni is mad at me), so I wouldn't say I'm doing okay. But I'm safe enough to be around for people who don't think holding me over the volcano's edge sounds like a great idea (even during Drama I'm pretty good about avoiding harm to bystanders).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d 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
1d 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
4d ago
Israel is dependent on the US, and US voters care about genocides which make the news, and anything involving Israel will make the news.
I kind of wonder about that. The institutions that launder that sort of information into public awareness are to a large extent captured by people who are anti-Israel, so it's actually kind of questionable how many people they'd lose vs. the counterfactual by actually doing massive war crimes. A lot of the populace already thinks Israel's guilty of ethnic cleansing, and a reasonable amount have heard "Wolf!" cried enough times that they've tuned out and won't believe reports of massacres; there's just not all that much of the US meaningfully in play here.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
She then goes on to reveal to me that she's been formally diagnosed with BPD. I'm screaming and reacting with a 💀 emoji. Proceeds to tell me it's not that bad, to which I earnestly disagree.
I resent this remark. I've been formally diagnosed with BPD too. To be fair, in my case it's probably a misdiagnosis (I definitely have tendencies in that direction, but you have to stretch to get to 5/9), but it's not like that's unheard-of.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
My point is: suppose Israel commits an atrocity. People who consume pro-Palestinian media will hear about it and be outraged, but they mostly already hate Israel so nothing's changed. People who consume pro-Israel media will just hear Israel's side of the story, as implausible as it may be, and therefore won't be outraged because they don't know it happened, so nothing's changed.
Sure, there are people who care about the truth, have a variety of sources, but are not either already pro-Palestinian or rabidly pro-Israel and thus can be flipped - those people are in play. But there aren't actually all that many of them.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
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.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d 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
4d 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
7d ago
· Edited 7d 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
12d 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
19d ago
Buying the grease through an exchange program just seems way too expensive. Having the grease is pretty important though. They should probably just pay some popular youtubers or ticktockers to do lifestyle viewpoint videos on rural/urban people. Idk, I'm not smart enough to figure out an alternative.
Sometimes there isn't a cheap substitute. And, well, I sure think this is a better value-add than the various ideological projects already in schools (it's not negative, for one thing), and in the limit it costs less than a civil war would, so "expensive" is relative.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d 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
26d ago
· Edited 26d 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
19d 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
24d ago
· Edited 24d 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
10d ago
GHG has nothing to do with incoming shortwave; the only crop-relevant effect is temperature. I don't object to longwave geoengineering such as, y'know, air capture or olivine beaches; that's bounded to stuff we're fucking with anyway, as you say.
I object to shortwave geoengineering via aerosols and such, because there are other effects than temperature and some of those could have dire consequences. Almost everything in the Earth system comes back to sunlight in one way or another; you fuck with it at your peril.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
@dale_cloudman thinks that 2LoT means "heat flow from cold to hot is zero" rather than the correct "heat flow from cold to hot is less than heat flow from hot to cold such that net local flow is from hot to cold". It's a reasonably-easy misunderstanding to make (at least, for someone trying to make sense of a topic without the proper grounding), since when you're dealing with conduction or convection there's no separation between forward flow and back flow, and non-scientists don't deal with radiative heat transfer often.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
10d ago
"Corpse" is quite defensible in regard to the "white" skin tone; it absolutely does look like "has been found dead, completely drained of blood!". Not sure about "bloated", although I know my taste runs fatter than most men's so I'm maybe not the best judge of that.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
19d ago
Yes. I saw such guides in that time period.
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.
More options
Context Copy link