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
5hr 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
6hr 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
7hr 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
10hr 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
Why wouldn't the ecumene include Ethiopia and India?
My understanding is that they weren't quite as well-mixed with Europe/Mediterranean. Certainly, on a superficial level, it's much easier to distinguish Indians and Ethiopians from Italians than it is Arabs. There's definitely a line-drawing problem in Persia, as I said, because indeed there was a lot more geneflow between the Ecumene and India than there was between e.g. India and China.
Regression to the mean is an argument for having higher or lower trait thresholds for certain races, but not for excluding those races altogether.
Agreed.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
Maybe it does, but if so I don't know it.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
Go into the .xlsx file of public results, search by the most identifiable answers you gave (I used diagnoses) to work out which row is you, read off that row.
I don't know another way, or how to get the private answers (other than straight-up asking Scott to email you the row that includes your email address).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
· Edited 3d 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
3d ago
I think it'd be easier to answer if you elaborated.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5d ago
You heat it up by a degree, you cool it down by a degree. I don't see the problem here.
As I've said, I agree with this logic when restricted to longwave. Removing greenhouse gas from the atmosphere with air-capture is indeed fine.
The problem is that reducing shortwave - i.e. blocking sunlight - doesn't just cool the planet. Sunlight is also needed for photosynthesis, which has massive indirect effects through the carbon cycle and, more directly, is how we grow food.
We can bound the harms of global warming pretty well. The harms of global dimming are much harder to bound, particularly at the unprecedented levels needed to do multiple degrees of cooling via dimming. You fuck with sunlight at your peril.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
The amount they're talking about doing, to cool Earth by over a degree, is more than any volcano in recorded history, and the eruptions that even came close caused worldwide famines (most notoriously, the Year Without a Summer). As such, I am not assuaged.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d 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
6d 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
7d ago
· Edited 7d ago
The paper's authors seem to be making the same mistake and/or a slightly-different one. The slightly-different mistake is to prove that the atmosphere can't warm the ground on net (true enough on a global scale, though there are local exceptions) and then assume that this means the ground can't warm because of atmospheric effects (AGW is strictly-speaking a case of the atmosphere and radiation-to-space cooling the ground less, and while 2LoT does indeed forbid the atmosphere or space net warming the ground it says nothing about the rate at which the cooling occurs; the ultimate source of the energy that warms the planet is of course the Sun).
The obvious analogy here is that a blanket can't warm you up - it does not generate or actively transfer heat - but you get warmer when you are covered in one because it reduces the rate at which the environment cools you and thus you get net-warmed by your metabolic activity.
Yes, I know the authors go around claiming that lots of people are wrong, some of whom say things similar to this. These claims are a mixture of straight nonsense and cherry-picking people who did indeed fuck up in either their understanding or their exact wording. It's not like thinking AGW is real is an infallible defence against being a moron or messing up a description, after all.
As for their supposed training: well, they're making script-kiddie mistakes. I legitimately don't know whether the reason they're making script-kiddie mistakes is that they're script-kiddies themselves or that they're deliberately lying to fool script-kiddies like you (to be clear, I'm a script-kiddie about a lot of things; no offence intended). I'm not sure it especially matters.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d 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
7d 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
7d ago
It takes years for it to come down, and some of the possible failure modes can't wait years (e.g. crop failure).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
8d 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
10d ago
The fact of the matter is, in ten years humans will only be necessary for maintaining tech infrastructure in that they will be the most efficient meatspace API for plugging things in for a while longer.
Don't neglect P(WWIII). "May" is correct; "will" is overconfident in BAU.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
13d ago
Lumping Canada, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia, Afghanistan, and Columbia the category "Abrahamic" and contrasting it with China and India (with much of the rest of SE Asia and Africa missing) is not how I see the world.
There's a difference between "the world" and "civilisations".
I'm not sure I'd put India in the list, though; definitely there is "civilisation that traces back to the Ecumene" and "civilisation that traces back to China", but India doesn't seem especially separate from the Ecumene (in particular Persia acted as something of a bridge, and Sanskrit is Indo-European).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
13d ago
Does the impetus of not having to atleast follow Rule 2 to ensure the continuation of your bloodline trickle down?
What is this rule?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
13d ago
I made the count and Kulak's essay is around 4000 words, while the natural selection post is about 1600 words, so I don't find the argument about length convincing.
I think the point is that @KulakRevolt just linked it; he didn't crosspost.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14d ago
Fair point.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14d ago
The reply rates are strong evidence, yes. And that does show the effect I expected where Indian women don't get the same effect as sub-Saharan African women.
Conceded.
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.
More options
Context Copy link