wemptronics
No bio...
User ID: 95
Oh no. Viral dog piles are usually disproportionate and unfun. As someone who gleans some of her output, my impression is that she engages in a significant degree of bait, provocation, and an outrage schtick. She is part curious investigator of taboo, and I can be entertained by that part of her output, but she's also part persona of Taboo Teehee. She may be a kind, considerate individual, but she's also an advocate -- maybe even rebel -- and that's a big red target.
Aella is not an accidental microcelebrity. She built herself a brand, then propagated her brand and services in social networks saturated with nerds. I do want to issue a friendly reminder for the think of the children rat adjacent nerds: as young women have agency, so do nerds following the allure of smarty pants rationalist escort JAQ lady.
Most of us don't wield a social media platform to grow an audience for great profit. We don't have the same incentives to draw attention. She does not always carefully hedge her ideas with preventative measures and considerations, because that is less virality. That's not extraordinary behavior on Twitter, but it does make disagreeable outrage part of her brand. Scott Alexander may enter a half-dozen qualifications to demonstrate whole-minded fairness in order to avoid outrage-- all for a statement that carries a tenth of the controversy. Aella's long-form content might be best described as a salacious gonzo journalism.
I've seen her deploy Gee whiz, guys, what's wrong? I'm autistic, sorry. Just asking questions ;) enough times where I try to avoid her when internet surfing. That kind of defense implies she is blindsided by an unexpected response, but this conflicts with my impression. She has demonstrated above average intelligence and emotional competence on more than a few occasions. I can't dispute the autism claim, but she seems socially aware and capable, if a little vain-- women, amirite? For myself, the reputational cost for shitposting means I get tired of the schtick and pay less attention. Others have decided the cost will be extra mean comments. I think that's bad, but given the medium it's a normal, expected amount of bad.
A curious investigator of taboo who shows us a glimpse into the psyche of sex workers, or the systems of OnlyFans, might also be controversial. I really doubt they would generate as much seething contempt as a certified shitposter. There are plenty of traditional and internet sex workers on X, aren't there? I've seen her hedge some, go through the well it's not for everyone motions, but that carries less weight when bracketed by many other instances of designed engagement. If one enjoys playing with fire and pushing boundaries, then they better find satisfaction when boundaries push back.
Aella is maybe a victim of her own success, but probably not. Criticism of her positions, advocacy, and behavior was never going to come in the form of 2000 word LessWrong posts. Surely she learned this already. If people believe they're going to run her off I believe they are mistaken. Maybe she'll return baptized and born again. Now that would make for interesting gossip.
wemptronics
4d ago
Nah, my scrolls aren't that august.
Darn. A different piece from the same collection as the example image sold for a cool 75 million USD, so I felt compelled to ask. Love the scholarly, bureaucratic nature of the tradition. How very Chinese. I'd be impressed if you unrolled it in front of me. Very cool.
wemptronics
4d ago
Does your Chinese scroll also have an Emperor's signature and archival stamp? Can we see it or is that gauche?
Sitting here today, I couldn't tell you what it was about if you put a gun to my head, beyond the fact that some people who played video games made misogynistic comments or something.
Oh, oh, let me try. I don't know how you can't know after reading the CW threads.
My understanding is "gaming journalists" had corrupt, incestuous relationships with industry developers. Which makes sense, because gaming journalism is a fake sect of journalism and always has been. Both journalists and the industry developers went pretty hard in the Social Justice paint. Gamers got mad about the ethics and the foreign culture imposed on them. Then, during the uproar some mad people said means things to Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn who are either indie* developers or gaming journalists. Both names I impressively muscled from memory, though their profession I did not.
Once people said mean things to the individuals, then that's the only story anyone in the industry, in gaming journalism, or in mainstream journalism talked about. This side stepped any other concerns which only made people more angry. Now painted as villains, this justified categorical bans and censorship of identified GamerGaters on [platform]. The basic dynamics of -ism'ing your way out of criticism was then put on loop for the following 8+ years. It spread to other media, such as movies, TV, and literature. I understand why people consider it important for that reason.
"Anita Sarkeesian" was another big character, but I was only reminded of her after writing via Wikipedia. I also remember a funny fact that moot, previous owner of 4chan, was dating, or was friends with one of these three. My city paper has 7 hits for " GamerGate" from 2015-2016.
Many of the same strategy consultants who helped create the position are now in charge of climbing out of it. At least one quote from the end of that article seems closer to honest:
“The Democratic Party is missing that we’re not going to be able to message our way out of these deep problems men are facing, starting with the fact that they know the Democratic Party doesn’t really like or respect them,” said Ross Morales Rocketto, a Democratic strategist who’s also focused on researching men but isn’t involved in the project. “It’s really easy for Republicans to play off the politics of grievance.”
They will likely waste lots of money. The desire to build a network to reach men with a message is understandable. Although, the masculine thing to do is to man up and engage with the Rogan's if they'd like to reach or persuade his audience.
Reaching gamers might not be so strange. Don't political streamers like (Hasan and Destiny are names I know) stream on Twitch.tv-- a game streaming platform? They play video games, entertain, and talk politics. The problem with those guys and others, such as TikTok equivalents, is they are slaves to their fandoms. They can't turn on a dime.
A story I saw last month involved a case of progressive drama for something called the "Unf*ck America" tour. It was supposed to be a handful of trendy, TikTok Zoomer pundits following around Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA to different college campuses, playing spoiler to Kirk, owning the cons, and so on. The project ended after a meltdown due to the sensitivities and conflict of the progressive stack. I'd guess all the drama surrounding the failed project was positive for each individual TikTok streamer that attended. Drama means dollars. It's pretty terrible for recruitment though, assuming any disengaged young men were paying attention. Which you are probably right that they weren't.
One of those spaces in particlar- video gaming spaces- was the subject of a multi-year culture war in which Democratic party allies circled the wagons against a non-trivial part of the consumer base
Is GamerGate generally known to 18-25 year old gamers? It probably can be ignored, though that doesn't make such a campaign good or justified. If the video game industry is still as left coded as ever, then that's probably common knowledge even if GamerGate is not.
Sam Hyde hasn't been properly canceled or cast off of Youtube for a long time now. Checking now, his Dear Elon speech remains hosted on the site at over a million views. As I recall he shares some pretty controversial statements inside it, along with a surprising amount of reasoned perspective within the context of Sam Hyde. Canceling ain't gonna happen the way it did in the past.
I don't think TAFS can become Rogan-level big or anywhere close to it* and I consider the DNC mission a fool's errand, or a consultant's wet dream. Perhaps I should have represented that in the post.
To be honest I haven't seen a Bill Maher episode in a very long time, although I imagine it the same as you describe. I didn't want to overdo the Rogan bit and Maher is likely a more realistic goal audience-size wise. I don't think we'll see a Rogan-sized alternative messaging apparatus that the DNC can wield at will. That whole idea also overstates how much Rogan is of the right.
I've said elsewhere that the Dem's would see better returns if they rehabilitated Rogan's image for their own voters, then sent people to persuade Rogan on issues that are important to them. Rogan is not inclined to think of himself as partisan, so if you can teach your voters to stomach some of his disagreeable positions, then you can win space in his head and platform. Not being able to go on Rogan is a major own goal for future D campaigns.
It's working less and less well as time goes on. And every time he goes "I was wrong, here are some of the good points Republicans make" for a few months. But then another election comes up and the mask of reason falls and the pure partisan comes back out.
That's what punditry has been used for and yes we suffer for it. This show is light on punditry or commentary as that's secondary to it as an authentic comedy show. It's more a vibe of lefty, which makes it viable as a pathway to Reach Young Men in a different way than younger TikTok propagandists, or more offensive million-dollar-a-day streamers.
I bear potentially strange tidings for a lighter episode in the Culture War.
CumTown at the Rubicon: Is Adam Friedland unironically gunning for the "Joe Rogan of the Left" title?
CumTown was a successful comedy podcast hosted by three sardonic New York stand-up comedians. The show's trio included leader Nick Mullen, who fans will call the best impromptu comedy riffer of all time. The show's second was a funny fat man that is often described as the show's laugh track. Then, every comedy trio needs the butt of the joke: the doormat, slapstick target, or the straight man. In this case the role was filled by Adam Friedland (un?)ironically described by fans as an unfunny "bug" that eats dust on top of various Jew-flavored jokes.
I didn't listen to CumTown. Mostly because I don't listen to comedy podcasts. At the time, I had an inkling of association with CumTown and the dirt-bag left. The ChapoTrapHouse-RedScare orbit wasn't to my taste, even if I were to listen to unserious political podcasts. I recall a friend, a huge fan of the show, that tried to impress upon me that no, CumTown was just a comedy podcast, and a really funny one at that. I think we were both right. At least some of the show's comedy tickles a Millennial, dirt-bag left adjacent funny bone. But, it also seems like it was genuinely funny as well as genuinely irreverent and offensive at a time when scolds were out in force. Allegedly, the hosts never did any media to avoid the Eye of Sauron. The show was extremely successful with its patreon raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars a month at its height.
The trio broke up, which left Nick, the best comedy riffer of all time, and Adam, the butt of all jokes, to start a new project with The Adam Friedland Show. The not so subtle joke behind the show is that Mullen, considered the mastermind and favorite of fans, aimed to shoot Adam into the spotlight as the star. Adam was to be the expert celebrity interviewer of the "Center-left" (tongue-in-cheek, derogatory) talk show. The same CumTown fan friend shared the Neil DeGrasse Tyson episode and I remember it as pretty entertaining. Other episodes I've seen include Chris Cuomo and rapper and son of Tom Hanks.
The talk show portion fell apart and Mullen left the show for some reason. Now Friedland was left alone to create a Season 2. Season 2 launched a few weeks ago with a small media campaign that includes a GQ profile titled "Adam Friedland Could Be the Millennial Jon Stewart. But Does He Want That?" The article is chock full of fan service, in-jokes and ironic humor which means it can't be taken too seriously. But, there was also coverage and an interview from Ben Smith's Semafor. As far as a serious, center-left New York media outlet goes, Semafor is fairly credible. Even if Adam's exposure is limited to its media critics.
The first two episodes in the second season of the show are credibly center-left coded. The first episode was with Anthony Weiner. Yes, that Anthony Weiner is apparently attempting to re-enter municipal politics in NYC again. The last one I haven't seen is an interview with sitting California representative Ro Khanna who, in addition to being a Bernie fan, has explicitly stated he is on board with the growing Abundance project and renewal of the Democratic party.
This is all occurring while the Democrats have loudly signaled, and been mocked relentlessly for, plans to find inroads into the minds of young men. On one hand, it's hard to fathom that Adam Friedland can be leveraged for political gain. From what I could gather fans seem to disbelieve, but also sense greatness in the irony. On the other hand, this is an established show that appeals to a nearly all-male audience with lefty coding and edgy street cred. It is pretty perfect for a Democratic messaging device. I don't know if Adam Friedland will seize the day to become the ironic Bill Maher for under-40s, or if this will conclude as a typical haha half joke, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it swung either way.
What happened with your post?
Gas, and the fact the writing and ideas are underdeveloped.
I wrote until I ran out of time. I pressed send. If I had hated it, then I would have deleted it. If I liked it more I may have dumped it on you today in improved form, or worked on it further for a future a top-level. Is there any part you consider interesting or worth reading besides the stroke?
I sense there is something in that mass of mush, but I've been wrong before.
The interpersonal exit veto (I won't be dissuaded) has a lower barrier to execute than Move to Canada. Lana's collection of ideas, beliefs, ailments, and suffering in were normalized, grown, and reinforced in she spaces sought out.
I don't think Sentence 1 is stroke-y? It's missing a the. Sorry. Sentence 2 is repulsive, I agree. A form of Sentence 2 was written first, then I added more words, words, words in another pass. That's bad. We don't need those sentences at all. Try now.
I demand a full accounting of the stage!*
- Aimless inspiration warning.
It might be helpful to break down different angles to attack symptoms of the rift.
Interpersonal Exit Veto (aka flight or fight, aka sorting, aka freedom of association)
I. Exit as Meme
"If Bush wins, I'm moving to Canada." We can trace the heritage of our modern Culture War to 1968. Young, progressive people really did flee to Canada to dodge the draft and exercise an exit. This exit was practical, so as to avoid the draft, but also a valuable tribal signal.
The new nationalism has, focused inhospitably on only one group of Americans—university teachers. Several thousand have arrived in recent years, either for ordinary reasons of job opportunities (Canada's universities are expanding rapidly and pay scales are rising), or for political reasons (which usually have to do with the war), or for both.
This meme, and the war that made it possible, cleaved open generational and tribal faults. Moving to Canada was a way for the professorate to escape imperialism, but it was also perceived as a giant middle finger to any remaining post-war American unity.
Move to Canada, as I experienced it, was not interpreted as a rebellious taboo. It was a light weapon in the culture war. A voice of snark that returned to national distribution for Bush 2, Election 1. One would find the meme in light hearted barbs on late night talk shows, the punch line in SNL skits, and among the sneer class in earlier internet forums. German publications even misquoted famous people's wives, because meme. The meme could be taken neither literally, nor seriously.
A bump in usage was captured by Google Trends during Bush 2, Election 2. Shown in the graphs are all the following elections where a Republican won, but notably absent in those where they did not. Its value to tabloids was double. When Famous Person didn't leave, writers got to generate a second, even snarkier article on how silly it was for Famous Person to say they were going to do a thing they didn't do. An unserious, performative part of a virus.
II. Exit as Illness
A virus which mutates and adapts as the individuals within a culture degrades. Anxious people loathe confrontation. Anxious people like the internet. The spaces a person congregates and the ideas and beliefs they soak. allow them to generate profits in the form of moral gains based valued at the spectacle.
One might protest to a Racist Uncle at Thanksgiving, "Racist Uncle, if you don't stop racism'ing at Thanksgiving I'm not coming." This escalates, and somewhere along the unforgivable takes hold. I have to imagine this, so I imagine this this is a or rationalized as a moral act of self-preservation. Once it's done once, doing so again is easier. Until you're giving the Racist Uncle treatment to your former acquaintance or your friend from high school. I wonder if Lana thought about this as a sacrifice, a necessity, or thought about it much at all.
It is easy to sneer at redditors who appear to want to give advice for the Lana's to cut off relationships. Alienation, isolation, and fatalism are all symptoms and expressions of depression. In addition, our perceived enemies can easily surround us -- even threaten us -- at all times through a small, 6" screen. The interpersonal exit veto is a product of our time, more normalized by some types than others.
I don't consider the practice of isolation, alienation, or intentionally destroying relations as a genetic inheritance for the progressive psyche to pass down. Lana experienced a life-sized collapse. To us readers, the psychological immune system she found comfort in consumed her. There's a lot of coherence and stability in ideas, even if those ideas are a false sort of immune system. As written, they consumed her. There is comfort is in praxis.
III. Exit as Veto
The choice to reciprocate a withdrawal and accept a detente is a natural resolution. There's no parity in this anecdote until the end where there is a parity of no-contact. The parity must be maintained by culture with status backing the position. Being personally caring, considerate, and reaching out can positively help in that respect, but it's a medicine. It also requires reciprocity. The model of a decent person, as I was raised, included the idea to extend if not care, then at least consideration and decency beyond the walls of our own beliefs. That's powerful, and I believe that's why I was inspired to write a response with a strange focus on an old meme. Prognosis is not positive, but I don't believe a moderately comfortable standard of living is all that supports the structure.
In my experience, most people are not so principled or ideological. They are persuadable. They are responsive. Memes like Move to Canada have influence on their behavior. This could be more worrying if it weren't such an old observation. The is fear that we sort until we will share nothing in common, and we become so comfortable that we have no interesting in commonality.
The resigned don't see a way to sustainably apply triage to strained relationships. I don't see it either. The fully resigned don't see a way to even share a government. What if all the associated sorting and vetoes protects us from a point of no return? The sides of the horseshoe that drive the poles get heavy and bends, but it doesn't break. We sort as much as is needed, as much as is convenient, and it works.
I'd like to believe Kavanaugh that this is an additional temporary set back, because it's nicer than being mad or catastrophizing.
Regarding "percolation", if a new standard is deployed, then allowing lower courts to hash out the details appeals to my common sense. Highlight the contentious, egregious violations and we get more pointed judgments. This requires the lower courts to respect precedent set by SCOTUS and enforce rights faithfully. Maybe percolation can be relied upon for 1A cases, because there remains broad consensus there. For the 2A, this is akin to a general handing orders over to his officers, having them mutiny over the orders, then going to bed with the expectation they will eventually carry out the orders they are actively mutinying over. "Second-class' right indeed. I'm not sure what the play is, or if the soft degradation of legitimacy is preferable to a sudden decapitation, but delegitimizing it remains for the individuals that consider the court employing something other than politics.
Another thing that loses me is the stated desire for circuit splits as an indicator to act. It's perverse. Should I vote in politicians that will enact unconstitutional laws that limit my rights-- in the hope that SCOTUS will then take the case to the restore the rights of myself and my fellow countrymen? I resent the fact I wasn't taught about this civic duty, nor the fact that a right cannot be vindicated until it is unequally trampled upon in different parts of the country. Delay turns into vetoes and dissent, not less.
A joy to see another grendel-khan California housing update. As an excuse to reply, I present another Noah Smith blog anti-anti-Abundance post. Located via Hanania dunk. At the end, Smith presents some polling results:
But a recent poll suggests that although there’s lots of interest in the abundance idea, the message is still less appealing than populist red meat. Although you might think a poll by some pressure group calling itself “Demand Progress” might be biased toward populist causes, I found the wording in the questions the wording in the questions to be reasonably fair
If we take Demand Progress at face value (probably shouldn't), then the results suggest the largest plurality of Dems make the policy as presented a net negative for electoral reasons. I don't think this justifies Hanania dunk farming but the second result via Smith's blog might. If lefty progressives can successfully frame a false dichotomy that presents Dems a choice between Abundance and the moral clarity of anti-corporate sentiment, then the winner should be clear. There's a whole lot of equity in anti-greed memes even among moderate Dems.
The worse stuff gets the less sensitive people are going to be to this kind of framing. Which already seems to be the growing reality. However, Republican coding the policies is not an empty threat to the movement. I'm not sure what it's like in the local politics, but* does seem that's why so much of the discourse online remains focused on meta questions about the discourse. Popularity and electoral risk will determine how diluted the agenda gets before making it into policy and how much of the dysfunctional machine can be protected. An unthinkable, unlikely, but most entertaining outcome of this conflict would be Abundance Dems giving up on the party. Instead, we'll get the more likely, boring outcome of progressive pouting.
I don't think the essay is out of place in the NYT. At least I can understand why the paper wouldn't think so. The Atlantic also might have published it to reach the Quarterly Heterodox quota. If you judge how much the reader engages from the Reader Picks comment section, then the answer is no one read it.
One commenter opens with a claim they "often appreciated Prof Pinker's heterodox views" and "no ideas or philosophies either on the left or the right should be above challenge and criticism." They immediately follow that introduction with "the attacks are largely coming from conservative Christians (see Heritage Foundation) that simply don't believe in a plural democracy. There's a fundamental flaw when you take the Bible to be infallible as your primary tenet..."
Comments ignore most of the things in the article and focus on the things they already wanted to shitpost about. They might not have read it or understood it. They might not be American at all. Comment sections are universally bad. The reader base the NYT imagines justify its status and dominance aren't shitposting under articles and op-eds. If these people are real (they are) and they still read the NYT (they do), then the piece is understood as some uncomfortable nuance from an insider with a comfortable conclusion. That's not out of place in the NYT.
Harvard Related piggyback: Steven Pinker published a mostly defense of Harvard in an NYT opinion piece titled "Harvard Derangement Syndrome". I call it a mostly defense, because I don't think the title is appropriate. While the purpose and conclusion of the article is to defend Harvard against Federal interference the meat is more rational examination.
Some pulled paragraphs:
Finally, our students are not blank slates which we can inscribe at will. Young people are shaped by peers more than most people realize. Students are shaped by the peer cultures in their high schools, at Harvard and (especially with social media) in the world. In many cases, students’ politics are no more attributable to indoctrination by professors than are their green hair and pierced septums.
A poll of my colleagues on the academic freedom council turned up many examples in which they felt political narrowness had skewed research.... In climate policy, it led to a focus on demonizing fossil fuel companies rather than acknowledging the universal desire for abundant energy; in pediatrics, taking all adolescents’ reported gender dysphoria at face value; in public health, advocating maximalist government interventions rather than cost-benefit analyses; in history, emphasizing the harms of colonialism but not of communism or Islamism; in social science, attributing all group disparities to racism but never to culture; and in women’s studies, permitting the study of sexism and stereotypes but not sexual selection, sexology or hormones (not coincidentally, Hooven’s specialty)...
Universities should set the expectation that faculty members leave their politics at the classroom door, and affirm the rationalist virtues of epistemic humility and active open-mindedness...
If the federal government doesn’t force Harvard to reform, what will? ... Universities could give a stronger mandate to the external “visiting committees” that ostensibly audit departments and programs but in practice are subject to regulatory capture. University leaders constantly get an earful from disgruntled alumni, donors and journalists, and they should use it, judiciously, as a sanity check. The governing boards should be more tuned in to university affairs and take more responsibility for its health. The Harvard Corporation is so reclusive that when two of its members dined with members of the academic freedom council in 2023, The Times deemed it worthy of a news story.
Pinker concedes much. Too much for the NYT commenters who might lambast him more in other contexts. He likely doesn't concede enough for those that want to see Harvard suffer. His position negates neutrality, though he attempts to refute this conflict of interest with with his own demonstrated principles.
I find the antisemitism weapons repugnant. I would consider it a good thing for student-activists and campus administrations alike to learn the value of viewpoint diversity, limitations of protest, boundaries of conduct at university, what an education is meant for, and so on. That's not going to happen regardless. Pick your poison.
wemptronics
21d ago
No I had not. "A brain with four legs explodes on a beach" is definitely the surrealist domain of AI, but even the less absurd scenes are impressive. A full production with continuity, it's impressive.
Yup. Seems at least B movies with live actors are finished soon. Unless it's cheaper to film which I doubt except in the most minimalist arthouse cinema. The hope for the Screen Actor's Guild is many people miraculously form strong, lasting opinions to only pay to watch live action media. It hadn't occurred to me that this will cause the death of many entertainment celebrities. I didn't categorize them much of artists I suppose.
I heard steady washed out "wobbles" in audio which I found distracting. It could have been my cheapo wireless earbuds. I agree it's visually stunning. and a great expo for the fluid bits. Pass the soma, Mom, we're getting super HD vision in the singularity.
I did take a gander at a couple of Google's Veo 3 demos for a look into one future of filmmaking.
The sailor and "Irish coast" clips were better than rally car. I did take the time to read the prompts, posted below in the description, and noted the first two were short and simple, while the rally car prompt (which had bad audio via headphones) one was insanely dense. Behold, the future of screenwriting:
Prompt: The scene explodes with the raw, visceral, and unpredictable energy of a hardcore off-road rally, captured with a dynamic, almost found-footage or embedded sports documentary aesthetic. The camera is often shaky, seemingly mounted inside one of the vehicles or held by a daring spectator very close to the action, frequently splattered with mud or water, catching unintentional lens flares from the natural, often harsh, sunlight filtering through trees or reflecting off wet surfaces. We are immersed in a challenging, untamed natural environment – perhaps a dense, muddy forest trail, a treacherous rocky incline littered with loose scree, or a series_of shallow, fast-flowing river crossings. Several heavily modified, entirely unidentifiable, and unbranded off-road vehicles are engaged in a frenetic, no-holds-barred race. These are not showroom models; they are custom-built, rugged machines – open-wheeled buggies with exposed engines and prominent roll cages, heavily armored pickup trucks with oversized, knobby tires and snorkel exhausts......... [and on and on and on. About twice more text to follow.]
Probably written by an LLM? To be fair, the other two video prompts are only a few sentences long:
Prompt: In rural Ireland, circa 1860s, two women, their long, modest dresses of homespun fabric whipping gently in the strong coastal wind, walk with determined strides across a windswept cliff top. The ground is carpeted with hardy wildflowers in muted hues. They move steadily towards the precipitous edge, where the vast, turbulent grey-green ocean roars and crashes against the sheer rock face far below, sending plumes of white spray into the air. Transcript
Seems good enough to change a chunk of TV commercial filmmaking and advertising at the least.
I don't know if they are anti-natalist on principle, I guess not, but they are/were anarchists with a deep, moral revulsion to animal suffering. Which doesn't demand senseless violence against people on its own, though they were apparently quite willing to commit senseless violence anyway. Did any of them have children or were planning to? Not damning evidence regardless, but is food for thought. Maybe they are more anti-natalist than they even know. Were they less familiar cult and more isolated, instanced movement, then they might have landed on bombing instead of interpersonal conflict.
There's not much transhumanist about exterminating life, but the acts and rationalization are second cousins. The ideological overlap is more distant. However, if the guy identifies Abolitionist Veganism as an adjacent ideology I'd say there's cause to question.
I'll also accept a charge that I consider radicals to be too similar in general. I'd protest we do seem to be making a few too many lefty radical doers for there to be no overlap.
It makes it difficult for me to take it seriously. The demonstrated violence helps a little, but still difficult.
Humanity of all types at all times, creed, race, culture, and ideological persuasion has faced and examined suffering. We have thousand year investigations into what the condition of suffering is, what it means if anything, what we can or should do with it. Yet only now a culture of fat, bored consumers lands on a decadent despair. As we all know, there is nothing sacred, there is no meaning, but we are definitely not related to stupid nihilists. We, good people, are compassionate. We care. We've also done the math. Every discomfort, every ounce of pain, can be refunded by merely removing all sentience.
Don't worry, you don't need to commit suicide or harm anyone else, as one redditor explains:
As for the second bit, it is in each individual's rational SELF interests to die as early as possible. But one's own self interests aren't the only factor which comes into the equation. If those other sentient beings are going to be alive, and you can help them to suffer less by staying alive, then you can alleviate more suffering in the world than you experience and cause. The best possible outcome is that there aren't any sentient organisms to stay around to rescue. But if that isn't on the table as a possibility then one might rationally decide to live for the purpose of preventing the suffering of others.
Yes, it is a moral imperative to stop existing as soon as possible to reduce suffering, but don't forget about your compassion for others in the calculation. You might have other considerations on your utilitarian spreadsheet. We can't just round up all the dolphins to exterminate them. Despite their silly clicking noises and hijinks they suffer quite a lot, but we can't drive them extinct. We definitely don't endorse someone taking our beliefs to their logical ends in the extreme. No, that's very naughty. Bad, very bad indeed.
Sorry for not answering your question. I vote a combination of time to think, access to ideas to think about, and personal mental state. We create a lot of depressed people for various reasons. Give them all girlfriends/boyfriends, compensate them decently for picking and packing oranges 8 hours a day, have them live by the beach or somewhere with lots of sun, and force them to share drinks at the end of the day. Voila! Only the most serious of believers are left.
Ow. Lost my comment. Brief, broad strokes repeat. Gotta get in before the blackpill from FCfromSSC.
A plug for Katherine Dee's substack article from yesterday which reported on "Efilism" as a branch of pro-mortalism. It appears more like like a collection emotional intuitions of disaffected radicals than principled philosophy. Although that could just be because I don't like it. He looked to Adam Lanza for inspiration.
An archived link to promortalism.com which is part of Bartkus' manifesto that the FBI references. I think?
No, understand your death is already a guarantee, and you can thank your parents for that one. All a promortalist is saying is let's make it happen sooner rather than later (and preferably peaceful rather than some disease or accident), to prevent your future suffering, and, more importantly, the suffering your existence will cause to all the other sentient beings.
What group of philisophies does this all relate to? Negative Utilitarianism, Efilism, Abolitionist Veganism, basically, philosophies that have realized religion is retarded, but that there is objective value in the universe, and it lies in the harm being experienced by sentient beings. So, although it all may seem "dark", it's the polar opposite of nonsense like nihilism.
Eco-fascists might want to rid humanity to save Earth, but Efilists want to rid the Earth of all sentient beings to tackle suffering. Overlap with the Zizians, for sure. Conveniently, the position justifies limitless violence near as I can tell. "Polar opposite of nonsense like nihilism..." ehh.
Regarding leftism and its role. If you polled anti-natalists the majority would consider themselves leftists. That does make anti-natalism left coded. They are revolutionary, they are making trade offs in the name of the collective, they dislike hierarchy and standard order of things. Leftist, but it's not anchored in traditional leftist doctrine or theory as far as I know. Are anti-natalists citing Marx or the Frankfurt School? I picture them as more lefty than leftist, but I'm not sure how useful that distinction is. It's obviously a useful distinction for the leftists, even radical ones, so they can get far away from this mess.
Certain lefty impulses, preferences, and perception of circumstance (including ailments), and manners of thinking are facilitated by the internet that facilitates any cult. Death ones, too. Mangione was acting alone from a well known position to the public, people understood his position, and yes he had a grey tribe tinge. This guy acted for an entirely unknown, foreign cause.
An age of boutique terrorism. It does all have 70's-esque feel, eh. These people should look to Buddhism if they can't stomach Christianity, or wood chopping, instead of lusting after wicked martyrs.
I like Caplan, but I also detest him. For Caplan, all the soft glue that holds a polity together are mostly irrational, tribal instincts. I strongly disagree with this.
"I don’t love you, Nationalism. I don’t even like you. I don’t want 'patriotic solidarity' with you. I want you to leave me alone." - Caplan, 2014
What would be the fair wage to risk your life for Billion Man USA Inc. in a time of mobilization? War is a contingency, not a state of being, but it's a major contingency that blobs of organized territory filled with people need to plan for. It'd be one thing if this was just a blind spot, but from what I gather Caplan sees limited value in most things that make a blob of territory a nation with civilization to be called home. He is mostly happy he doesn't have to be around the people that fill the nation he shares his ideas in.
I'm not in love with nationalism either, but one doesn't need to be in love with it to understand its place. It's not only being wrong disagreeing about open borders that makes me write that I detest him a little. I get the sense that if shit hit the fan, for whatever reason, then Caplan would plainly buy the first ticket out. Why stay in a place on a downturn? Why not be selfish?
Even, or especially, Billion Man USA Inc. would require more from its populous than productivity. That's not something Caplan is prepared to share despite advocating for it. Noblesse oblige is not optional, Dr. Caplan!
Am I wrong in reading there seems to be reasonable wiggle room built into the EO?
Sec. 6. Default Mens Rea for Criminal Regulatory Offenses. (a) The head of each agency, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall examine the agency’s statutory authorities and determine whether there is authority to adopt a background mens rea standard for criminal regulatory offenses that applies unless a specific regulation states an alternative mens rea.
There's built in discretion to maaaybe adopt a different mens rea standard for criminal regulatory offenses. One hopes that the AG only accepts reasonable defenses of different standards of criminal enforcement, but there are probably many reasonable, wiggly exceptions.
"Excuse me, AG Bondi, in 98% of cases the US Forest Service targets Big Criminal Forestry-- these jerks are always finding ways to wiggle out of their illegal logging. If we lose strict liability standards for this enforcement they will claim ignorance every time, in every forest, and likely get away with their illegal logging. By the way, Mrs. Bondi, I have it on record we protested this. We aren't going to eat this story when the time comes."
Apply that to less reasonable, but similarly wiggly enforcement. Requiring a defense of different standards is good, but there's got to be thousands(?*) of these, and a safe political decision would be to defer to the agency if they request a different standard. This EO wasn't blasted out with political vigor. It was dumped on a Friday with barely a peep, so there may not be a big Trump backing to hide behind any unpopular decisions.
I may just be negative. This seems good, generally. If done intelligently, better. There are likely real trade offs in losing flexibility with higher burdens for enforcement, but still seems amenable.
** Many, many thousands. Hundreds of thousands. I forgot we don't actually know-- which is why step one makes agencies plainly list them. Yuge!
Yeah, that's around where I land. A soft impression. The linked essay isn't even the basis for that impression, which is older than that, but it was the last piece of hers I read. I have no will to dig for evidence on this topic.
She can't write "I like confident men," because that defeats large portions of the essay. There's nothing autistic about that. Most women judge confidence and, intentionally or not, use it as one gauge of attractiveness. In this case to explain a lack of attraction.
She chooses to push the envelope with "awkward" or inappropriate behavior in the context of a date. As she relays to us, it's not a failure to consider or model the emotive state of others. On the contrary, she knows it is uncomfortable. Plenty of non-autistic women enjoy their little tests. Maybe autistic women do this as well. I'm no an expert in autism, autistic women, or Aella.
Autists may act cruelly or too directly in their quest to make sense of the world, but it's little things like that I picked up that suggest different explanations. She doesn't cite any of this as a reason for autism which might be unfair. Even if that is the case, logic bot behavior is probably more common among her audience.
More options
Context Copy link