@netstack's banner p

netstack

Texas is freedom land

9 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

				

User ID: 647

netstack

Texas is freedom land

9 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 647

Man, I’d be way more worried about “computer expert, self taught, whose task with the government was going to be digitally erasing people.” But at least he’s “beyond reproach” as a government subcontractor, lol.

How do you find these things?

And how are you just gonna glide over the part where Juror 1 apparently threatened Juror 10 hard enough that the defense insisted it was a mistrial?

Isn’t “baiting a response” the important bit? It’s the main reason I was ignoring Steve.

War (sigh) has changed.

Motorization. Improvised explosives. Handheld automatic weapons. Radio. A small number of motivated individuals can deal a lot more damage today than they could during the March to the Sea.

Personally, I think a hypothetical U.S. balkanization would look more like the Troubles than the American Civil War. It’d be high-variance: some regions would see a bombing every week, and others would be left untouched up until the point a militia rolled into town. Even the best-off, though, would suffer compared to the globalist, interconnected society we have today.

Not everyone would see the outcomes FC described. But enough of them would, and then they’d take up arms and gouge back. And your children would never expect to have it as good as we did.

Dallas/Fort Worth is doing alright. Unlike certain cities, it’s had enough room to keep adding more suburbs. My rent is like 20% of my pay and I have an easily sub-half-hour commute. That would change if I were getting into a house, mind you. I’d have to live a lot further out to avoid competing with the tiger parents fighting over the best schools.

We’re not as much a hub as Austin, but on the other hand, we aren’t Austin.

Isn’t “heretic” literally a catchall term for holding the wrong beliefs? I don’t think it really entered the lexicon until Christianity, though.

Wikipedia suggests that the Old Testament used “αἵρεσις” as something more like “partisanship” or “factionalism.” Ironically, that’s probably closer to what you were looking for.

The Romans labeled a number of practices superstitio if they seemed too incompatible with Rome’s weird flavor of religious tolerance.

Oh, great.

I just gave Capital a slap on the wrist for his near-identical response. For consistency’s sake, you can have one, too.

  • -10

Do you remember the last time you were warned for toeing this particular line?

Yeah, you’re crossing it.

Unlike your extensive history of high-effort, high-quality comments on political polarization, there’s nothing here. Nothing to engage with, nothing to discuss. It’s snarling at best and a call to action at worst.

I’m going to go with a one-day ban pending discussion with the team.

Oh, it’s not an accusation. I just wanted Robert to know he had some things right.

Please review our rules. See also the top of this thread:

Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

This is not a place to rant about how much you hate some group. It’s not a place for framing them in the worst possible light and stoking up outrage. Be polite. Be clinical. Describe people in ways they might reasonably describe themselves.

He did elide quite a bit.

First, even though Psycho-Pass always uses the term “crime,” I believe we only see it predicting violence. I don’t actually know whether this is an in-universe distinction or a directorial one. Either way, the scanners don’t seem to predict things like harassment or conspiracy or covering for a criminal. It’s more like they measure how close one is to snapping and killing their neighbors.

Second, shooting isn’t the only recourse. We just see a lot of it because this is an action show about a SWAT team staffed by thoughtcriminals. Most of the pre-crime is handled by of Friend Computer telling people to take a week off work while the Prozac ramps up. I would expect anyone who got too worked up about shunning latent criminals to get their own scan

Third, the system absolutely does not work as described. There are a variety of exploits, usually technological. I think the factory thing was only possible because the workers were usually out of sensor coverage?But there’s one big exception which drives a lot of the plot. It’s revealed fairly early that some people are outright immune to the system and will show near-0 threat to all scanners. Including the ones that disengage police weapon safeties.

Fourth, seriously, it doesn’t work as described. It’s blatantly agentic because it’s made up of the aforementioned immune people, only transplanted into brain-jars. This is unapologetically treated as the lesser of two evils. I kind of hate it but it’s also kind of unique? At least it avoids the laziest sort of “greater good”.

Broke: only a purely rational panopticon can fix society
Woke: any sufficiently firm hand would decimate all the actual movers and shakers
Bespoke: only a council of disembodied psychopaths can fix society

I don’t think this is strictly true. Especially not for somebody as motivated as Scott. His “Bay Area House Party” series is parody, but San Francisco is ridiculously high-variance. It attracts all sorts of weirdos, especially if they’re making a lot of money.

After seeing Scott’s suggestion, I was thinking along similar lines.

Consider the bill of attainder. The English occasionally used these to strip rebel lords of their lands and legal protections. When we rebelled, we specifically banned Congress from doing anything of the sort. Clearly, the Constitution didn’t want a few dozen (or, today, a few hundred) people to hold such a power.

How would a smaller group be any better?

I don’t think the outlaw status is compatible with a system founded on “certain unalienable rights.” At least not our particular set. We haven’t drifted so far from the founding ethos that we’d throw that away for one edge case.

When Scott was taking Moldbug that seriously, I don’t think he was living next door. The whole point of the Internet is that discourse happens at turbo-speed regardless of distance.

Sure, I guess I’ll take over for @Dean’s Zakalwe.

What’s the timeline? Next week? Next month?

Thanks. This is definitely a disastrous position. I see what you mean.

ferberizing

Looking up this term has convinced me that any research related to child rearing is absolutely insane. This should be the easiest thing to test. Instead, every article I saw was either unabashedly pro- or anti-Ferber, and bent over backwards to explain why the lack of clinical evidence supports their position. Then they go back to evo-psych.

(For what it’s worth, it probably works, so the pro-side actually has studies to cite.)

This is like reverse Gell-Mann amnesia. Maybe every field looks like this.

I agree that cartels and international terrorists are bad comparisons. I’m trying to say that the Elks are also a terrible comparison.

The gap between “zero” and “200” is huge! There is a categorical difference between a club that refuses minorities and one that occasionally goes out and kills them pour encourageur les autres. Not incidental protests turned violent, not even organized patrols spoiling for a fight, but actual, premeditated murder. Putting them in the same category as some xenophobic philanthropists is doing the latter a disservice.

Can you name any other organizations that get close to 200 murders a year?

By your standard, most organizations mostly do nothing. They prefer legally and socially defensible activities like fundraising and complaining on Twitter. The big exceptions are outright criminal gangs where violence is instrumental.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=PobQzVsj7GE

I didn't find the context, but yeah, on the campaign trail.

More effort than this, please.

I’m…not sure there’s enough here for a top-level. What did you take away from this? Do you think this guy is right? Is that a good or a bad thing?

No, it’s not?

One guy is speaking for himself, maybe for his friends and family. The other is speaking for his outgroup. Even though they’re both claiming to explain leftists, their approaches are completely different.

Please don’t antagonize other users. If you’ve got to block them, go for it, but skip the flouncing.

For what it’s worth, I thought your original response was very well-put, and I hope you stick around.

You’ve really got to bring something to the table other than a rambling complaint about your outgroup. I guess it’s more restrained than the last time, so I’m going to go with a three day ban.