wemptronics
No bio...
User ID: 95
wemptronics
26d ago
Does your Chinese scroll also have an Emperor's signature and archival stamp? Can we see it or is that gauche?
wemptronics
26d 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.
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. Most of us don't wield a social media platform to grow an audience for great profit. 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? Just asking questions ;) enough times where I try to avoid her when internet surfing. 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. 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.
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.
This kind of asocial behavior is either performative edgelordism (edgeladysm?)
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.
"At social events, I keep lowkey evaluating lots of men I have faint brushes with. I notice signs of coolness - competence or bravery or something - and any time a whiff of it floats by I follow it to chat with them at parties. But my body does not like them. One man talks about his failures in a tone that implies he's uncomfortable with himself, like somewhere deep down a part of him believes he's a bad person, and it seems that many of his bids for social approval are attempts to be reassured that he is in fact okay."
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.
"I would have felt safer if he seemed at home among awkward questions."
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.
Don't. I mean don't argue. Are arguments with angry drivers worthwhile? They are unproductive at best. At worst, they end with a bullet in your gut. Unless arguments are with someone I trust to reconcile, then I consider arguments as unproductive affairs. Cathartic release at best. Don't argue.
From what I've observed, minority (or majority) opinion havers that come here primarily to defend the honor of their tribe burn out quickly. They crumble from their own hatred, or they generate too much heat to follow the rules. More interested in locking horns or drive-by shooting than discussion.
The few (bless them) minority opinion havers the forum retains seem to manage their engagement. They set limitations for themselves. They understand they aren't compelled to reply to every disagreement or grievance. They probably find a way to enjoy themselves or glean other value while they provide a minority opinion. This is a recreational activity. You should enjoy contributing. I know I appreciate the minorities who are willing to contribute honestly.
If it is impossible to enjoy or find value here because you are committed to conflict, then there's not a good reason to spend time here arguing or not. Not even if you're committed to pyramids due to other fading principles. If you're committed to conflict, then it'd be more productive to prepare. If you're interested in an exchange of ideas -- with all that comes with it -- this isn't the worst place to practice.
wemptronics
21d ago
I suppose I'm just a high enough decoupler that the fact that in some future conflict I may need to take up arms against the majority of my fellow posters here doesn't bother me too much.
A shame. Positive Mottezen identification should confer basic gentlemanly prisoner of war treatment. Ideally it would include a parole d'honneur standard of defeat that allows Mottezans to go home and post about it. We should make patches.
-
Blinkers: Yes, for habit. Nearly every time. There is almost no effort involved in using blinkers.
-
Stopping: Yes, for habit with qualifications. Stop signs I may slow California roll. Traffic lights, hard yes.
-
Speed limit: No, don't be silly. If you're in The Neighborhood you shouldn't speed. If you're on the highway and 90% of traffic is going 70mph in a 55mph zone, no.
-
Left lane passing only (highway): Yes. Passing lane riding: No, that should be a reminder to move out of the lane at your next opportunity. We live in a society, people!
-
Merging jerk: I'm sure I have done this before, but it's not a major issue. Since you correctly anticipated the turn you'll find someone else who will allow you to merge, wave at them, and go about your day. If one jerk successfully prevents your merge, then you likely did not correctly anticipate the turn. Lesson learned for next time. I've yet to drive in an American city where aggressive merging that could be described as cutting off (rather than assertive/clear) is a regular requirement to merge, so if no one wants to let you in you've probably messed up.
-
Breaking rules: No. There seems to be something close to consensus on what qualifies as extra bad behavior with some local variation. For example, almost everyone considers cheating a highway's exit traffic by riding the shoulder as bad behavior.
Highway packs in general are bad, and drivers should do more to avoid/deconstruct them. 12+ cars densely packed at 75mph with two cars in the front driving to some degree and the rest merely following. If we we had better enforcement of slow left laners it'd make high speed driving more enjoyable. Left lane hogs go first against the wall.
It's real. In the sense that this looks like a tit-for-tat draw down preceded by a mad smash and grab. It is not real in the sense that "ceasefire" means ceasefire. The two nations haven't conducted open diplomacy for 40+ years. I don't think anyone believes a "ceasefire" looks anything like peace. Iran will mostly get its airspace back after the launch missile quota, the US gets to leave for a moment, and Israel must be satisfied with the operation. None of these things prevent future actions or new phases. If you require a "ceasefire" be a ceasefire, then it's not real. It's still a meaningful change in posture.
I can also get annoyed at the politics and the (especially online) culture.
A recent example: there was a shooting at Salt Lake City's No Kings protest a couple weeks ago. There is a brief video that shows what went down. It sounds like the SLCPD was aware that event volunteers were carrying pistols which resulted in reported "peacekeepers" (volunteer event staff) shooting a man armed with a rifle.
A pair of volunteers, easily identified by high visibility vests, observed this individual dressed in black "seclude" himself, don a mask, take out his AR, and approach the crowd with his rifle at what looks like low ready. The volunteers draw their pistols, aim at him as seen in the video, and allegedly shout at him to stop. The 24 year old panics, runs towards the crowd, and a volunteer fires 3 times. He hits the the suspect once, but then also kills a bystander beyond him. Turns out charges are not yet filed against anyone, although the 24 year old was initially arrested for reckless endangerment or some such thing.
The demonstrator -- reportedly a lefty anarchist John Brown Club adjacent type -- dressed in all black with a mask approaches the crowd by his lonesome. Apparently he was not prepared to be challenged. Despite the politics of the guy, the open carry fetishists guys, or people pretending to be them online were in absolute uproar about the violation of his rights. Of course it's unreasonable to intervene. How dare they! He didn't even fire a shot. These volunteers had no right to stop this guy from demonstrating if that's what he meant to do. They wrongly believed a different intent. They were probably so concerned about a shooting they created one. They fucked up so bad one of them killed an innocent man.
To me, a basic expectation for carrying in a public demonstration, especially doing so alone while obscuring one's identity, requires all sorts of technique, safety, and etiquette. Sling your weapon, signal your intent, and prepare to be challenged. Be a prosocial advocate. The freedom to demonstrate is limited in trivial ways with my expectations, but we get to have mass gatherings with firearms.
There's that absolutist SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ideology floating around, where any violation of 2A rights is perceived as abhorrent, and thus worthy of maximum outrage.
I find it easy to believe takes like Rov_Scam's below. A trashy individual who can't manage to present himself as a decent, responsible person doesn't get what rights he is entitled to. Pretext for a judge to judge an individual as too irresponsible or dangerous.
Capital A-bsolutists are real, though they are less common among advocates. The absolutist rhetoric is some part cultural signal, part true belief (what is a right?), and part tactical. For the last bit, what benefit is there to giving an inch? 2A groups fight alone for a right, at best, most don't care too much about. The public is fickle and of limited value to the advocate's position. The world and many American jurisdictions set an example that incentivizes and justifies obstinance.
The 2A lobby is arguably more alive than ever, so that also contributes to being annoying. Where and when the lobby fails -- which happens -- many people scream with glee. A great many more shrug.
It's the duty of gun rights advocates to show that any given restriction is unreasonable
Unfortunately, yes. A government reinterprets, ignores, or dismantles a right, and the onus is on the citizenry to challenge it. This should carry additional explanatory power for any stubbornness. It would be nice to not require advocacy at all in a high-trust, high-functioning society. Lots of things would be nice!
Are you going to send a donation to a 2A advocacy group because, upon reflection of the details in this case or another, you perceive them as acting reasonably? As @gattsuru studiously documents for us, every little niggle, every small "in", each precedent and alternative interpretation that can be exploited gets explored fully.
when did our definition of socialism become so drowned-down?
The second half of the 20th century. Expansion of the welfare state and government programs are attacked as socialist. The meaning gets diluted through the 90's after the Cold War. In the 2000s-2010s the meaning continues to change rapidly as progressives claim much of socialism for themselves.
Is FoxNews blocking the term DemSoc from taking off in the US?
I doubt it. Mamdani has not, as far as I know, gone to any great lengths to explain what a democratic socialist is or why he is not a socialist. Did Bernie even bother with this in his 2016 bid? That kind of distinction does nothing for Mamdani's campaign. The public does not have that demand for accuracy or nuance if it actually matters or is real. Plus, I suspect the well off progressive base of NYC quite likes voting for a socialist more than they do not-really-a-socialist. A diffuse contempt for capitalism is a popular meme that can be harnessed. No reason to put a damper on that for the sake of centuries old ideological accuracy.
I think if you're going to demand consistency here, then you should do so consistently. Are these capitalist policies he is proposing?
Yes. Anything that can be spun as controversial means no revelation. Even something like bankruptcy can be spun as a cumulative problem that [current mayor] merely had set on their plate. Lag time also plays a role. Costs may only become become apparent after a term is over and he's off to Congress or wherever. Barring an Escape from New York level of catastrophe, then one should expect to fight free stuff in the immediate future forever regardless of results.
As an alternative to the expectation voters learn -- which voters are bad at -- they are pretty good at forgetting. They'll forget the last time it didn't work out, they'll forget why, but if a party wins enough times they might forget about bad ideas. Win so hard, so often, that the bad ideas become foreign. Then there is less voter recognition which creates an additional hurdle for advocates. NYC can still partly do this by embarrassing Mamdani in the general.
wemptronics
5d ago
Tony Blair, Nicolas Maduro, Pol Pot, and Castro walk into a bar...
Democratic Socialists are the vehicle for socialism in America. They develop relations with leftists, organize them, use them for elections, and seek to implement socialist policy. Solidarity is praxis.
Differentiating is not a requirement, it's a method to clarify ones own position from another related position. You want Democratic Socialists to stand on their own two legs in America and be less open to smears for bad(?) socialism. I might call it socialism lite or entry-level socialism. Another idea might be for an organization like the DSA -- which Mamdani contributes to and has used to seek power -- to police and toss out the revolutionaries. Truly be a Democratic Socialist organization instead of the place for leftists. I suspect neither of these things will occur. Mamdani is more interested in winning office than standing up for Democratic Socialism. He likely appreciates the fact Fox News will lambast him as a Socialist.
It seems to be conservatives that omit the Democratic half of the moniker Democratic Socialist way more than progressives
It is not unique to conservatives. Parents that object to teacher-student confidentiality are far right. Canadian truckers are far right. J.K. Rowling is far right. Elon Musk is far right and an extremist. All those individuals are probably Islamophobic and racist, too. Many words are unfair. I wish people would be more noble and curious, but this is politics. Being far right is bad. Being a socialist is bad. Being a leftist is bad. There are no goal posts or purity. It is what it is. Don't watch Fox News.
Mamdani has a campaign platform that lists some policy ideas. Several I consider to be bad ideas regardless of how socialist they are. They do appear to be broadly popular among leftists. He also doesn't appear to have an issue using propaganda. Cable news networks are imprecise in their opposition to Bad Ideas from Bad People. That they're imprecise due to a definitional standard that doesn't meet yours or mine is not of consequence. In Bizarro world, Mamdani is a Democratic National Socialist and there's a whole lot of focus on the National Socialist part. Some of it is fair, some not so much.
would argue that "deregulation" that is often cited as "capitalist" is simply rent-seeking cronyism
I share the understanding that, as a general rule of thumb, a more laissez-faire policy is more capitalism. Nuance can be found in every crevice.
After Zizians and the efilist bombing I have tried to pay more attention to the cross section of ethical veganism, rationalists, and nerdy utilitarian blogs.
A Substack titled "Don't Eat Honey" was published. Inside, the argument is made that to buy or consume honey is an unethical act for insect suffering-at-scale reasons. According to the essay, bees, like livestock, suffer quite a lot at the hands of beekeepers. That's a lot of bees. Thus the title: don't eat honey.
The median estimate, from the most detailed report ever done on the intensity of pleasure and pain in animals, was that bees suffer 7% as intensely as humans. The mean estimate was around 15% as intensely as people. Bees were guessed to be more intensely conscious than salmon!
If we assume conservatively that a bee’s life is 10% as unpleasant as chicken life, and then downweight it by the relative intensity of their suffering, then consuming a kg of honey is over 500 times worse than consuming a kg of chicken! And these estimates were fairly conservative. I think it’s more plausible that eating honey is thousands of times worse than eating comparable amounts of chicken
This particular post is high on assumption and light on rigor. It received outrage. Another post on Bentham's blog on insect suffering I recall as higher quality material for understanding. Did you know that composting is an unethical abomination? I'd never considered it!
'Suffering' presents an incommensurable problem. Suffering is a social construct. Suffering is the number and intensity of firing pain receptors over time. Suffering is how many days in a row I experienced boredom as a teenager. Still, science attempts to define and quantify suffering. An equation works out the math: how conscious a cricket is in relation to man, a cricket's assumed capacity to feel pain, the length of time it spends feeling pain, and so on. My prediction is we will figure out the consciousness part of the equation with stable meaning before we ever do so for suffering.
We will manage to rethink, remeasure, and find additional ways of suffering. People always have. Today, plants do not feel "pain", but tomorrow, pain may not a prerequisite for suffering. Maybe starvation becomes a moral imperative. If the slope sounds too slippery, please consider people have already built a (relatively unpopular) scaffolding to accept and impose costs at the expense of human comfort, life, and survival. Admittedly, that suffering may present an incommensurable problem doesn't negate any imperative to reduce it. Find more suffering? Reduce that, too. It does give me reason to question the limitations and guard rails of the social technology.
According to Wikipedia, negative utilitarians (NU) are sometimes categorized as strong NUs and weak NUs. This differentiates what I'd call fundamentalists --- who follow suffering minimizer logic to whatever ends -- to the milder "weak" utilitarians. The fundamentalist may advocate for suffering reduction at a cost that includes death, your neighbor's dog, or the continued existence of Slovenia-- the honey bee capitol of the world. Our anti-honey, anti-suffering advocate has previously demonstrated he values some positive utility when it comes to natalism, but much of his commenting audience appears more in the fundamentalist category.
One vibe I pick up from the modern vegans is that the anti-suffering ethics are the ethics of the future. That our great-grandchildren will look backwards and wonder how we ever stooped so low as to tolerate farming practice A or B. I don't doubt we'll find cost effective, technological solutions that will be accepted as moral improvements in the future. I am not opposed to those changes on principle. Increase shrimp welfare if you want, fine.
My vague concern is that this social technology doesn't appear limited to spawning technological or charitable solutions. With things like lab meat showing up more frequently in the culture war I'd expect the social technology to spread. So far, however, vegans remain a stable population in the US. Nerdy utilitarian bloggers are yet to impose their will on me. They just don't think I should eat honey.
I felt what I consider an appropriate level of bad one particular time I found a rat in a traditional trap. It was gravely maimed, and as I went to put it out of its misery I saw, as it had lain incapacitated, its friends or children had taken the opportunity to feast on its guts. If I had chosen to not put it out of its misery, then I would have thought less of myself. The experience did not make me think more highly of rats, but it's not as if I am above considering the suffering of other animals.
Targeting an animal one already hopes to exterminate for pest control is not outlandishly cruel. To argue against that one needs to argue against effective rodent control more generally.
If I told you I trapped rats to torture them because it felt good and made me laugh you'd probably remember my face and tell people to avoid me. Except, in this case, instead of one weird kid you make sure your child stays away from, it's all of society that is going out of their way to torture rats. That what I imagine and have been told the emotional prism is like for dedicated vegans. As a personal choice it is common and well enough. The personal choice I don't have much objection to. The more foreign value impositions, especially done in a way that where they only logically hint at the most moral ends, are where I find objection.
If you told me that you enjoy a video game where the goal is to torture fictional characters, I'd also probably remember your face and tell people to avoid you.
Listen, I did not intentionally trap those Sims in their living room. The placement of the stove was an innocent mistake. That fire could have happened anywhere! A terrible tragedy.
as an instrumental goal in the process of doing something else
One man's instrument is another man's cross to bear, or something like that. They demonstrate that it's not as instrumental as you (or I) claim, or not instrumental at all, by existing and being more righteous. People in Africa or Indonesia get a necessity pass for now, but you, neighbor, have a choice. That is if they cast judgment. I've met more vegans who are simply tired of the same old jokes, jabs, and want to be left alone than I have met the stereotype, or vegans cognizant of utilitarianism for that matter.
wemptronics
2d ago
At one point I knew his name and his position as a grad student. Thanks.
But Adelstein's take on veganism strikes me as aggressively, surely willfully obtuse
They appear to becoming more like performance art with time, which is likely the product of a growing audience.
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.
More options
Context Copy link