sun_the_second
No bio...
User ID: 2725
Highways are more chaotic than train tracks - they have to make 100 000s of units play nice together instead of maybe 100 trains. No road rage on train drivers that I've heard of, either. Trains are uniform, a parking lot is a mishmash of (rather boring, can't even be called a rainbow) colors.
Do you want to cram a low-IQ population into mass transit?
I was under the impression that mass transit is absolute shit in USA and that's why you have to "cram" people in it. Also, where exactly would you rather the "low IQ population" go? I sure wouldn't like to share the road with their cars if they're as bad as you're putting it...
sun_the_second
9mo ago
Then Heinlein has defined morality wrong. Indeed, if morality was the same as survival then there is no need for the separate word, and yet we incessantly find the need to define it separately.
The men from his example who tried and failed to save the woman from the train certainly acted in a noble way. "We will remember them", he writes, yet the act would have been no lesser if they were forgotten in an instant. Morality does not belong to a breed, it is individual, and as momentous as consciousness is. A civilization does not exist if there is no one to see it; clearly the value of civilization is in the people. A civilization, or a breed more generally, that keeps its constitutients in the negatives (inasfar as they are conscious and are able to perceive negatives), is nothing more than an egregoric parasite.
Any individual can see in an instant the difference between value and survival when he is struck by locked-in syndrome; so it is for civilizations.
sun_the_second
9mo ago
function randint(n) {
return Math.floor(Math.random()*n);
}
function draw_twice() {
let boxes = [[0,0],[0,1],[1,1]];
let box = boxes[randint(3)];
let first_coin = randint(2);
let second_coin = 1 - first_coin;
if (box[first_coin] == 1) {
return box[second_coin];
} else return -1;
}
cases = [0,0,0];
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
cases[draw_twice()+1]++;
}
console.log('Silver picked first: '+cases[0]+' times, gold->silver: '+cases[1]+' times, gold->gold: '+cases[2]+' times');
Console output:
"Silver picked first: 4893 times, gold->silver: 1731 times, gold->gold: 3376 times"
Note that if I drew the coin with box.pop(), I'd get 50% because I'd only be drawing the gold coin from [0,1] every time.
sun_the_second
9mo ago
I agree, Rov_Scam seems to have forgotten to include any tradeoffs that would make such a situation as undesirable as the reverse seems to be for many women. Consider the following:
-
in this scenario the man is implicitly offered a stable long-term relationship when many (younger) men don't have one, and a significant number don't have any relationship but would want one
-
having many children means having lots of sex, and men appear to value sex more than women and have lower bars for attractiveness
-
men are physically stronger and have accordingly less to fear from domestic violence
-
men are more valued on the job market and would accordingly have an easier time returning to supporting themselves if the deal doesn't work out
-
the cost of bearing the children is still on the woman
1/2, because
sun_the_second
9mo ago
Are men expected to "internalize the costs" for not picking such a job? Excepting military service in countries where conscription is in effect, of course.
sun_the_second
9mo ago
Where can actual men engage in unrestricted intellectual discussion in a truly properly masculine fashion without effeminate finger-wagging jannies from California all too frequently interfering to whine about "antagonism" (the very essence of the competition of ideas, and therefore impossible to ban from it) or whatever as they do here (again, not as bad as in the past, but still too much)?
To answer that question, first consider how to keep the discussion intellectual without either "finger-wagging jannies" or being flooded by sub-intellectual people whose valuable contribution amounts to figuring out new ways to rephrase "I HATE NIGGERS", in the best case.
In any competition, including that of ideas, someone has to make the loser go home eventually.
The fact that you have bypassed these to argue for common knowledge that Communism is bad because even elites weren't as rich as westerners rather underlines the point.
As others have noted, there were rape, torture, hideous murder, rampant slavery and starvation in many states across history, generally eased back on as such atrocities started to be less economically efficient and contributing to state security than not doing those things. So the notable thing about Communism is that they decided to do those things, up to eleven, and got nothing good in return. Elsewhere you say that those things would be immoral even if they resulted in great economic efficiency, and I agree, but I could find quite a few people even here on this forum who seem to be ready to return to premodern atrocity levels in return for some societal gains.
Communism is in fact a conflict theory. It is in fact predicated on making things good for Communists, and is explicit that this should come at the expense of non-communists, who are to be exterminated without mercy. It cannot even be argued that "non-communist" was a category one chose for themselves; communists routinely assigned the label on the basis of who your family was, and even on ethnicity when convinient.
I think it's obvious the way Nazis determined their outgroup was quite a lot more rigid and, dare I say, final, than the way Communists did it. I'd guess there were more Communists of noble or otherwise undesirable descent than there were Jewish Nazis.
When there's no basis of injecting yourself into the power structure other than power, it doesn't look as bleak as having to be a blonde blue-eyed white man.
Also, I don't mean to say that Communism is a mistake theory, but that normies view "current society vs communism" as a mistake theory fight, as opposed to "current society vs nazism".
I firmly believe that the left is evil, and am baffled that others are confused on this point.
When you call an entire half of the political axis evil without even stating where you believe the center it, it does get confusing, yes.
sun_the_second
9mo ago
The conflict with Nazism is a conflict theory conflict. Nazis have it good under Nazism, so they cannot be reasoned out of trying to do a Nazism, only suppressed.
The conflict with Communism is much more of a mistake theory conflict. Even the Communist elites had it worse than Capitalist elites under Communism, and it's more of a common knowledge that Communism was bad for everyone in general. That's why it doesn't need as much suppression.
It's the same "the right thinks the left is stupid, the left thinks the right is evil" thing, which rings true in the first place because the right-wing ideologies are usually the pragmatically selfish ones.
sun_the_second
9mo ago
I suppose the core of our disagreement is that I do not expect you to act symmetrically. I expect you to act in the worst faith, because you do not actually like symmetrical restrictions on free speech, you just dislike when yours is restricted in any way. This makes moot any discussion of fairness.
For example, in response to "don't call people nigger on the public square" I would expect you to invent "offense" for the most milquetoast word describing you that was never considered a grave offense. Musk reportedly banned the word "cis" on twitter despite his aura of a free speech warrior. I'd expect you to behave in bad faith similarly. You're welcome to deny that.
sun_the_second
9mo ago
Perhaps the Iron Dome has insulated them from the consequences of living in rocket range of Hamas all too well?
sun_the_second
9mo ago
The rich, not even the uber wealthy, "horde wealth" in any way that actually matters.
Those CEOs don't really make all that much money
I don't think those arguments work because the objection is that "those people are fucking up too much and do too little Tangible Work for the compensation they get, it's just Viscerally Unfair". Naked apes are wired for perceiving relative status, not absolute status. They don't want the CEO eaten because the other workers would get more. They want the CEO eaten so that there's no more CEO (and maybe some few sympathetic cancer patients can get treatment).
Your job doesn't suck to make fat cats rich. The reason your job sucks is because it was optimized to suck the life out of you in order to deliver maximum value to the customer
I don't think that's even true. What about raising the value of shares? Certainly, all of us as customers of various companies have observed the phenomenon of enshittification. If companies exist to deliver maximum value to the customer, they've really been fucking up.
sun_the_second
9mo ago
Which Russian soil? The soil that was Russian in Jan 2022, or the soil that was always historic Russian territories yesterday?
sun_the_second
9mo ago
prohibiting thier use against russian military targets in russian held territory
Last time I checked the prohibitions were on striking pre-2022 Russian territory. Were they updated since then?
sun_the_second
9mo ago
It is clear that they are motivated by the absolutely abhorrent policies that american impoerialists have imposed on them.
I'd be more concerned by what they'll do, not what they're motivated by. Generally, fighting a country's military-industrial complex in any meaningful manner is not good for that country. Unless, of course, you're losing badly and are just feeding your soldiers to the enemy's weapon industry.
I think you're displaying the same naivete here that the Russian progressives do when they assume that the West, if it crushes Russia, will only kill Putin and let the planet heal.
Of course, if you're determined to be charitable you will interpret any "death to [country]" chant as a desire to merely rid it of the bad elites in a manner surgical enough to not kill the entire country, or at least large amounts of countrymen. However, it does not appear to work out that way often.
For the record, I think that when someone says "death to America", they are not aiming to be very discriminate about it if given the chance.
I'm also curious if you'd extend the same charity to the domestic extremists who say "death to AmeriKKKa".
sun_the_second
9mo ago
I now recall that we've disagreed before on the meaning of the word "fairness". Yet again, you seem to have your own definition for "symmetry" as well.
It is not "symmetrical" to kill in the process of robbery and to kill in self-defense. The latter is a more "fair" act, even in a situation that is not evenly matched. I doubt even your training would provide you with the means to quickly and accurately evaluate any attacker in order to make your self-defense perfectly, rationally "symmetrical" (the classic home invasion scenario - few on this forum would say they'd hold themselves back from shooting the invader, even if he's not obviously armed and threatening). This does not matter in a sane legal code because as one who has not initiated the aggression, you are in the right.
Similarly, if you claim that you want to suppress the speech of others, I would HAPPILY support restricting your speech because you can't really complain about being treated the way you already agreed its fair to treat others.
Am I correct to assume that if I want to suppress others expressing a certain set of ideas A, you would support restricting my speech entirely? That's hardly symmetrical, and not very fair either. What would be symmetrical and fair is to support restricting my speech around the set of ideas A. You'll find that many people readily agree to such proposals. In my view, that supports my interpretation of fairness. People tend to agree to fair counterproposals and reject unfair ones.
Or you could just use twitter's own tools to mute the words you don't want to hear/read and block the people you don't want to interact with.
I don't think this can be done before encountering the random person who'd say the words to me. Similarly, you can't shoot a robber before they appear and try to rob you. Instead, you rely on implicit intimidation to deter robbers. Instead of putting the onus on every possible robbery victim to "block" them, many would-be robbers decide not to rob in the first place.
sun_the_second
9mo ago
But of course, any domestic political speech you don't like can always be easily painted as influence of a (semi-)hostile foreign government. What's more, any hostile foreign government worth their chops will try to influence your domestic political speech.
sun_the_second
9mo ago
Muscovy didn't spawn from the ether as an ethnic atom, either. The rules are made up and the points do not matter. What matters is that some countries take a bloody war to convince being/remaining a part of another country and some don't. Out of pure personal pragmatism, I consider only the latter arrangements legitimate.
sun_the_second
9mo ago
Is it to give me some useful information that I desire to hear or that I requested to hear?
You would probably welcome an opportunity to hand over your valuables without a fight, rather than get shot/stabbed wordlessly and have no choice in the matter.
You wouldn't utter those words for fear of being shot.
I'm sure you're very badass, but I do believe the advantage is on the robber's side here. I specified that the gun is holstered because I expected a gotcha about brandishing, but really, brandishing is a fake crime as well.
More generally, I do support shooting people who called you a slur on Twitter. Perhaps if more progressives did that, people wouldn't give them such information that they didn't desire to hear.
I'm sure you could find a listener who's interested in hearing the nuclear codes, or, as another user put it more saliently, the coordinates of a military unit at the frontline that you're entrusted with. The listener's right and interest to hear things is not exactly under question.
What's under question is why any society would want to have free season on coordinating violence/malfeasance. Classify all communication as "speech" and thus "free", and you get bizarre anarchy where no opsec can be enforced and no threat can be reacted to until it is made true on. Make exceptions, and you get to argue over the extent of the exceptions.
I approach you in a dark alley from behind and tell you to empty your pockets with my hand half a second away from retrieving my open carry gun and shooting at you. That should be legal, shouldn't it? All I did was speak to you. If you felt threatened, that's entirely on you. And besides, don't you have the right to hear what I have to say?
sun_the_second
9mo ago
Why are you surprised? It seems obvious to me that "unrestricted free speech should be legal" is no different from "you can't defend yourself from my swing until and unless it connects".
sun_the_second
9mo ago
Neither is the Chechen Republic Russia, yet if you say that in public in Russia you'll be charged with advocating for secession. Borders are even more fake than ethnicities. And certainly, the only reason the Russian government has started to trump up the "historical Russian cities" bullshit in the past few years is the geopolitical convenience.
sun_the_second
9mo ago
And?
You're regurgutating Russian justifications for their very mundane geopolitical ambitions, not any real obstacles that would prevent ethnogenesis. Humans are evolved to break themselves apart into groups much smaller than a modern nation-state.
Something like this?
More options
Context Copy link