@zPvQINBQvfFR's banner p

zPvQINBQvfFR


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:43:37 UTC

				

User ID: 277

zPvQINBQvfFR


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:43:37 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 277

But if someones recognizes that what you're saying there is 'fuck everyone not like me' and responds with 'hey, fuck you too', that person is not being polite and must be eliminated.

One man's recognition that his interlocutor is secretly saying 'fuck everyone not like me' is another man's uncharitable mind reading.

too much time looking at their smartphones

I see, seeker, that you are yet to learn the ancient art of taking your phone out of your pocket to check the time and then putting it back in again.

What would you try to use, to show how important the issue was in 2022?

The first step would be to figure out what happened and what's the status of the issue right now. What happens in 2122 when a dude wants to be a dudette or vice versa? What if a dude wants to bang other dudes while remaining a dude? Is everybody ok with this? Do they get arrested by the cyberpunk inquisition? Perhaps this never happens because those tendencies have been genetically engineered out of the population.

Your hypothetical doesn't explain this, but I think it would be important to know when planning out a culture war history lesson. (Or maybe deciding to shut up about the subject altogether, if it turns out that the cyberpunk inquisition is real.)

This post kind of comes off as a self-indulgent power fantasy. You'd need God-empress level of political power to enact those policies, so the whole thing is basically implicitly assuming that you're infinitely stronk, and then writing a long detailed list of all the ways you'd use your unlimited power to put the screws on people whose life choices are (in your view) incompatible with the greater good of society.

And if we hypothesize some alternative society in which those policies would be popular, then would you even need them in the first place? Hm, maybe they would still be useful to fix the pro-natal attitudes and fight against any potential value drift.

Anyway, while I don't expect you to explain how you're planning on becoming God-empress, I'm still curious how would you roll out those policies? Would there be some transition period so for example people who were already old and infertile when the policies came into effect wouldn't get screwed up without any chance to avoid it, or would their unavoidable impoverishment be a sacrifice you'd be willing to make to keep things simple and on track?

This ham-handed effort to impose a leftist belief onto Title IX exceeds your authority as President. impose a leftist belief onto Title IX

I wonder if this is an example of the common criticism of conservatism in that yesterday's radicalism becomes today's normalcy and eventually becomes a new cherished tradition to be defended.

I think I remember seeing a lot of discourse a couple of years ago about how Title IX is this awful leftist thing that's the justification of universities' kangaroo court administrative proceedings against male students accused of sexual assault.

So being a virtuous Calvinist is like one-boxing in the Newcomb's problem?

A bit of a difference between "mind that has been paused and will resume in X hours" and "no mind at all".

and every single slav I've talked with and seen in thread

Is this one of those board-dweller endonyms like fa/tg/uy or /k/ommando? What's the etymology?

Which is why we have so many people eager to plug themselves into the experience machine.

Name three examples.

Ah yes, people with different preferences that aren't aligned with your politics are all malfunctioning mutants. Of course.

no gene for “wanting to ejaculate inside a woman and wait nine months to create a child”

Sure but there are genes for personality traits that, in the current social and cultural environment, make you more inclined to make babies. And who knows, maybe they are the basis for future adaptations that will eventually evolve into direct utilitarian urge to maximize one's inclusive genetic fitness.

Have you ever described, in more detail, your horrified vision of the future under an ascendant US-led singleton with AGI? Because I'm curious.

Animals don't turn sunlight and rain into meat. You need to feed them plants. Which you have to grow first. Possibly on vertical farms run by hippy vegans.

Some animals can graze but I think this could sustain only than a small fraction of current meat production (after a quick googling, I saw the figures of 10% of beef production and 30% of sheep and goat meat production being sustained by grazing).

Newcomb's problem is a thought experiment where a mysterious entity, who's known to be very good at predicting people's behavior, presents to you two boxes: one is transparent and contains a 1000$ and the other is opaque and might contain either nothing or one million dollars. You're given the choice of either taking only the opaque box (which is what I call one-boxing) or of taking both boxes. The entity tells you that it decided whether to put the money in the opaque box by predicting which option you will choose. If it predicted that you'll take both boxes, the opaque box is empty. If it predicted that you'll only take the opaque box, it put the million inside. What do?

If that was too muddled of an explanation, then have a Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox

Or alternatively, have a link to the explanation by everybody's favorite bombastic rationality guru: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ddcsdA2c2XpNpE5x/newcomb-s-problem-and-regret-of-rationality

Does it matter? Isn't a big part of the reason men care about status is that it's a pathway to many abilities some may find unnatural getting laid? "You can have a convincing waifu that loves you unconditionally, but some people will think you're even more of a loser than they do now" doesn't seem that horrible.

More negatively, on the internet I've noticed an increasing tendency, here as well, to hate when anyone else is having fun or enjoying themselves.

No, it's when people are "having fun" or "enjoying themselves" by being dicks to other people. Civilized people don't like that and never did. It's not a new tendency.

Well, Cocaine Bear is just from last year.

It's not that small. If South Korea got teleported to Europe, it would be the 7th largest country by population. It is small by area and has a very high population density, though I'm not sure if urban population wouldn't be a bigger factor in ease of fashion spreading. And South Korea is surprisingly far from the top on that metric.

Not really. I wasn't aware that Title IX was that old and thought it was something created shortly before the whole college sexual assault drama started.

It's possible that it still illustrates the principle, though not as sharply as it would if Title IX was a more newfangled thing, but I don't know how the American political discourse in the 70s looked like.

Is all of mathematics shallow and trivial?

On Ozempic I am rather bearish. There are very few buttons in the body which can be pushed for gain without many side effects. It sort of violates a no-free-lunch theorem (which I do believe in) regarding pharmacology.

That seems too strong. A no-free-lunch theorem for pharmacology might make sense for things that we expect to have been already optimized by evolution. Maintaining a good weight in an environment of caloric abundance and whatever else is causing the obesity crisis (corn syrup? microplastics? the chemicals they put in the water to turn the frogs gay?) is probably not one of those things.

I knew I hadn’t had too much to drink - but had absolutely no idea what happened between that spiked drink and ending up in jail. To even list some possibilities is to discount the galactic extent of possibilities.

... You are going to tell us. Right?

vorelated

Kinky.

I'm pretty sure he knows that's not how Christian marriage is supposed to work, but also that formal rules are often ignored in practice for various reasons. Is his father's failure in that he didn't raise him to be a turbo-autist who can't distinguish between rules-as-written and rules-as-practiced?

Should we?

As a form of enforcement of a culture's values is a target approach relative to the person's individual failure to meet it not efficient. I know experiencing the opposite where everyone in a group is punished for the actions of one person is brutal.

I think "don't shit on the weak for fun and self-aggrandizement" is a cultural value of the Western civilization, so people violating it should be counter-bullied by Society.