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
15hr ago
"Viewpoint neutrality" does, in theory, include permitting the viewpoint "we should massacre my enemies" (from either side). Forbidding that viewpoint is a concession to legal reality and arguably utility, not upholding neutrality.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
"Boogaloo" is certainly the original such term, but, well, quoth Wikipedia:
Participants in the boogaloo movement also use other similar-sounding derivations of the word, including boog, boojahideen, big igloo, blue igloo, and big luau to avoid crackdowns and automated content flags imposed by social media sites to limit or ban boogaloo-related content. Intensified efforts by social media companies to restrict boogaloo content have caused adherents to use terms even further detached from the original word such as spicy fiesta to refer to the movement. The boogaloo movement has created logos and other imagery incorporating igloo snow huts and Hawaiian prints based on these derivations.
I can't say I know for sure that "boogooloo" has ever been used, but I wouldn't be surprised.
(And, of course, I'd argue "boogaloo" was itself a euphemism intended to slide under normies' radar; it's certainly more subtle than just calling it "Civil War II".)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
Talking about plans to do violence is not within bounds (and would be pretty fucking stupid if you're serious).
The parenthetical statement is not necessarily true unless the word "oneself" is added after "violence". See e.g. Al-Qaeda/Islamic State's "lone wolf" strategy, and the notion of stochastic terrorism.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
Hey @Amadan (and the other mods, if necessary), can we actually get a ruling on the "advice to, in the event of state failure, do things that are illegal under current law" genre? I can imagine some people saying that it's incitement to crime, but others saying that in the event of state failure, the present laws will have ceased to mean anything and thus the actions wouldn't really be crime anymore in the circumstance in which they're being recommended.
(The post I'm replying to probably doesn't qualify as being in that genre, as AIUI shooting bandits attempting to loot you is pretty legal in most of the 'States. But there are certainly adjacent positions which would qualify.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
· Edited 2d ago
indeed it makes a mockery of the entire conception of international law as vindicating universal and inalienable human rights.
That's because that conception is bogus. The only way, ever, to force a country to behave according to your principles has been "start a war".
And yes, kidnapping the leaders of a country is a pretty-good way of starting a war. If you want to start a war with Israel, by all means do so; you won't be the first or the fifth and I have no particular love for the place. I'd recommend investing in some really-good ballistic missile defence first, though.
The entire reason the UN Security Council is set up with vetoes is precisely to prevent the UN from trying to enforce "international law" on great powers and consequently triggering a nuclear exchange. You get to play nice with the genocidal arseholes with nukes, or you get to live through World War III; trying to use "international law" to get around that dichotomy will only wind up with the second horn and it is dangerously foolish to pretend otherwise.
EDIT: I think I might have misinterpreted you and as such misaddressed this; it's a relevant point to the discussion more generally, though.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
TBF, letters of marque have never really been tolerated by the countries being targetted, and I'm not sure about third-party tolerance (by which we mean, what, the French recognising British letters of marque against Spain? There aren't really that many other relevant cases for most of the period). They mostly just meant that you could claim prizes and avoid getting hanged in your own country.
Certainly, there's nothing saying a third-party country can't forbid foreign privateering in its own territorial waters.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
TheMotte has no rule against necromancy, especially not for less than a month.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
I feel obliged to point out that there are Jew-inclusive white nationalists.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
I mean, I guess, but I'm still not sure that replacing all/most Christmas car travel with personal aeroplanes would end very well (still wouldn't be as hilariously doomed as trying to do it for commuting, though; Manhattan's skyline would look a bit different after a month of that even if you handwave the parking problem).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
How do you use the hexadecimal ones?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
I said "travelling", not "commuting". I was thinking of going to visit family or going on a holiday, which (unlike commuting) often involves driving through long stretches of nothing (my general feeling is that the speed limits in built-up areas are generally about right, but those on highways are frequently far too low; many of the high-end divided roads and outback highways in Australia, for instance, could support far more than their speed limit of 110 km/h).
Also, here in Australia, there are certain highways where you're not just saving days, but potentially saving the need for a bloody caravan because the towns are over a day's drive (at the speed limit) apart.
I am sure it would be technically feasible to build an ambulance with a top speed of 300km/h, but nobody wants that, because the scenarios where the maximum expected utility would require an ambulance to go that fast are very rare indeed.
I mean, the Royal Flying Doctor Service here in Oz has 500 km/h and even 800 km/h ambulances, which are in fact very handy. That particular solution doesn't work so well for random people travelling, though, because lol piloting is hard.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
(Comparison: in the OT, the heroes never mock the villains. I think the closest it comes is Han referring to the Imperials as slugs. But Tarkin, Vader, or the Emperor are always treated with deathly seriousness.)
No. Leia sassed Tarkin in the original film:
LEIA: Governor Tarkin. I should have expected to find you holding Vader's leash; I recognised your foul stench when I was brought on board.
TARKIN: Charming, to the last. You don't know how hard I found it, signing the order to terminate your life.
LEIA: I'm surprised you had the courage to take the responsibility yourself.
In ESB Luke sasses Vader at the beginning of their fight (though, of course, this is specifically him being a headstrong idiot):
VADER: You have learned much, young one.
LUKE: You'll find that I'm full of surprises.
And in RotJ Han sasses Jabba on a couple of occasions (though, of course, Jabba is not an Imperial):
THREEPIO: His High Exaltedness, the great Jabba the Hutt, has decreed that you are to be terminated immediately.
HAN: Good. I hate long waits.
[...]
THREEPIO: Victims of the almighty Sarlacc, His Excellency hopes that you will die honorably. But should any of you wish to beg for mercy, the great Jabba the Hutt will now listen to your pleas.
JABBA: Jedi!
HAN: Threepio! You tell that slimy piece of worm-ridden filth, he'll get no such pleasure from us!
There's not a lot of it, not remotely to the degree seen in your clip, and RotJ goes very hard on having Luke be courteous even to his foes. But there is a little.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
Speeding has substantial benefits alongside the risks - you waste significantly less of your life travelling and thus get more done.
What are the benefits of not wearing a seatbelt while you're sitting in a car anyway? I might disagree with punishing people for failing to wear a seatbelt since the risk is almost entirely to themselves, but seriously, this one is a good cost-benefit. Having agency for yourself does not mean doing the opposite of everything They tell you to do - that is still refusing to make decisions for yourself, insofar as your actions are still 100% predictable from Their edicts. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence; the goal is not to invert the system, but to ignore it.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
"All shall love me and despair" sounds much more like the findom end than the GFD end, and sensibly given how much of a rat bastard the One Ring actually is. I didn't bring up OnlyFans - practically a Tartarean pit of suffering - on a whim.
Arguably, "elf dommy mommy" is what Galadriel already is without the One.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
10d ago
The only thing they did not have were the launch codes
Not launch codes; PAL codes.
Permissive Action Links (and their Russian equivalents) are designed for paranoia against literally this scenario - someone with physical control of the weapon activating it. The weapon is designed in such a way that it is impossible to remove or bypass the PAL without rendering the weapon useless (basically, other stuff breaks first).
To turn a PAL-protected nuke into a working nuke (without the code), you have to disassemble it and remanufacture the physics package. This is easier than somebody acquiring nukes ex nihilo, because you can at least recover the weapons-grade plutonium* and as such you can skip the actinide acquisition, nuclear reactor and reprocessing plant. But it's not trivial; you still need the actual bomb-manufacturing plant.
*This is somewhat more complicated if the PAL fired one of the lenses, because then the core will have been pulverised by the (conventional) explosion. My limited understanding, though, is that they aren't generally rigged to do that on tamper; it's more a deliberately-triggered self-destruct.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
10d ago
@erwgv3g34 @FistfullOfCrows @sarker
Guy A used guillemets. Guy B said Guy A sounded like a Nazi. Guy C said:
Nazis do (((this)))
But « thiis » [sic] is just a different type of quotation mark used in French, German, Russian and so on.
Guy C got whacked; other two did not. Hence, it's SoulFire that was correct to begin with.
Probably a Third World sweatshop worker or bot solely working on "does post contain naughty thing".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
Why do they continue to do it?
Because most of them are based in the San Francisco Bay Area and most of their relevant employees live there. That means they have to worry about Californian regulations and jawboning, and it means their employees are potentially the sort to desert them for being too far right (this seems to be a big chunk of what's wrong with xAI).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
People who like AI, in my experience, are a small, extremely non-representative sample of tech-obsessed weirdos
I'd describe them more as "midwit highly-online alt-rightists" (in the broad sense of alt-right, not the racial sense - highly-non-traditional rightists). The main points pushing them into that camp are 1) inceldom -> wanting AI waifus and 2) schadenfreude over various kinds of artists (whom they despise due to the whole "tainting all their franchises with SJ" thing) becoming technologically unemployed, with a side of reversed stupidity over the various SJ whines about the latter.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12d ago
· Edited 12d ago
the subtly named Tarquin, no relation to that one [Tarkin],
The name "Tarquin" as a metonym for tyrants is literally thousands of years older than Star Wars. I won't say the name's entirely separate from Tarkin given the extreme number of Star Wars references in that arc of Order of the Stick, but they're at least to a fair degree just referencing the same thing - and certainly it's "Tarkin" that's the variant spelling.
Obviously, this only emphasises how unsubtle the name is.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
13d ago
We know what happens then. It's in LotR itself, because Frodo offers it to her.
‘And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!’
She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful.
I feel compelled to note that OnlyFans is practically an ongoing mass LARP of this.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
13d ago
but I also remain confused as to why this whole weird part of the discourse cropped up, mushroom-like, seemingly overnight.
Wasn't it 2021-22? A.k.a. when Substack and then MuskTwitter broke SJ's lock on the public square? Doesn't seem surprising that things would show up "out of nowhere" if they were being suppressed prior, and SJ generally considers birth rate worries a dogwhistle for racism.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
16d ago
I’m sorry to hear your early life was so awful.
Honestly, for most of my childhood, she wasn't really awful; she always had a violent temper, but there were only about 3 years of my home life being truly hell (from when I hit puberty and her misandry started applying to me personally, to when I ran away from her).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
16d ago
· Edited 16d ago
You guys surely have mothers. Are you really going to say to them "Mom, you shouldn't have gone past high school and you should be glad Dad isn't fucking a 20 year old on the side because you need to appreciate that a man is willing to lead and rule you, you useless eater"?
I mean, I suspect my life might have gone a bit better had Mum not been able to divorce Dad, get full custody, and then beat me with a metal spoon, pour hot potatoes on me, and starve me without oversight*. Admittedly, Dad didn't use all the leverage he did have (on like twenty occasions she called him up saying "come and pick up [m9m], I don't want him anymore", and if he'd called her bluff my understanding is that she'd have had no recourse), and that's on him, but I don't think he understood exactly how bad things were (I, after all, didn't exactly have context for exactly how far out of line she was, and she'd mostly-convinced me I deserved it with her various misandrist rants**); had he been in the house, I think some more alarm bells would have gone off.
Now, I certainly wouldn't call Mum a "useless eater" - she met Dad through their jobs, and her job wasn't negative-sum activism - and Not All Women Are Like That, but I'm not sure she's the example you want to be using here. (More generally, you will find that bringing up the personal lives of X-ists is often going to blow up in your face; X-ists are X-ist for a reason and that reason frequently is "their personal lives legitimately behave as X-ism predicts".)
*The one time the police showed up, I was the one who got an hour-long lecture about how I was going to grow up into a wife-beater, although it's hard for me to blame them given that she wouldn't have shown a single sign of guilt - she was and is utterly convinced she was in the right - and due to how far she'd managed to twist me around I did.
**I specifically remember her teaching me that the Y chromosome was a genetic defect.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
17d ago
America is imbalanced, there are no major power bases outside the central government.
There's a rather-large "unless" attached to that, which is "unless there is serious doubt about who the government is". A constitutional crisis in which multiple people claim with significant validity to be the President (e.g. if Kamala Harris had refused to count electoral votes for Donald Trump on the grounds that he was barred by the Fourteenth Amendment, and declared herself the new President), or in which there's a "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" could cause both sides to think they had the bulk of the military behind them.
Motte:
Bailey:
The bailey is something I feel morally obligated to oppose wherever I see it, i.e. the redefinition of terms to legitimate a preferred policy without acknowledging real tradeoffs. This is catastrophically dangerous because it leads to important principles getting hollowed out and losing their actual meaning - see "free speech doesn't include hate speech".
So, defend your claim. Or retract it. Don't try to pull a fast one by retreating to a motte.
(The reason I said "arguably utility" is because it can be useful for people like me to talk people out of starting a Boogaloo, and that can't happen if the other side is deterred from speaking.)
More options
Context Copy link