faceh
18m ago
But your hunting club has norms, not to mention careers and families that they would potentially sacrifice if they had to go hot.
I think the demonstrated WILLINGNESS to start killing is the factor we're seeing here.
Not clear that your hunting club would actually start killing unless REALLY pushed.
faceh
20m ago
The democrats lost the popular vote for president and pretty clearly don't have the general support of the populace.
faceh
4hr ago
So what's the deep, unresolved tension surrounding keeping noncitizens in the country?
Is there any reason other than "it helps us win elections?"
faceh
5hr ago
And I'm suggesting that it wouldn't really matter.
The riots in 2020 were triggered by one guy dying under sketchy circumstances.
If Trump didn't give them am impetus, I think they'd find one.
It's not particularly surprising for Trump to run on a mass deportation platform... then make a big deal about fulfilling that promise.
faceh
6hr ago
Yes, black bag the illegals in the dead of night and try to suppress news coverage of the "dissappearances."
Quiet, stealthy operation.
Do you believe the left would sit quietly by for such tactics?
I'll just link to the comment I made on @Dirty_DemSoc 's "WHY BOTHER" post. Since its relevant to the protests AND the assassinations.
Quote:
And yet we know that democratic elections don't completely avert violence, or else Mexico's most recent election wouldn't have been so damn bloody. Turns out that violence is also a way to influence outcomes in a democracy, when you don't expect the votes to go your way 'organically.' So there's a bit of a feedback loop.
Right now we're in a phase where a minority faction is fomenting chaos for want of being able to achieve their goals via electoral process.
In a sense, this is ALSO one faction that is demonstrating that it has motivated, competent shooters on its side, so if something real DID pop off they are at least capable of carrying out deadly violence. The capacity for this violence is no longer just theoretical.
Of course the basic motives will be more complex than that, but the goal of having mass protests is ALSO to demonstrate "we are numerous, we are organized, and we could turn violent if things don't change in our favor!"
But we had a spate of lefty-coded assassination/killing attempts going back at least to Trump's earshot, and THAT trend is a bit scarier because the people of his tribe either ignore it (tacitly approving, I'd say), line up in support like with Luigi, or actually denounce it and try to lower the temperature and root out the radicals among them who are willing to get froggy.
Anything other than the last option will mean MORE attempts going forward. I'm waiting with a TON of consternation for the first FPV drone-based assassination that succeeds.
PLEASE try lowering the temperature, Dems.
faceh
11hr ago
Egregores: The Occult Entities That Watch Over Human Destiny.
Can't speak to that one.
In keeping with the traditions of this forum, its probably worth starting with some of Scott Alexander's writings.
Have you read Meditations on Moloch?
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
faceh
12hr ago
It's the perfect shorthand for describing what at first seems like a whole variety of disparate effects and behaviors but that really has a lot of nonvisible connections and correlations.
So I ask again- why bother? Is the time for talking over?
Its a good question, although it appears I've come about to it from the opposite direction you have.
The factor that has gotten me to just about throw in the towel on the entire concept of political discourse is watching for four years while one side kept pointing out that Joe Biden was very probably demented in the most medically literal sense of the term, and the other side, the full weight of every mainstream/respectable media and academic outlet claimed this was a nutty conspiracy.
Then the presidential debate happened.
And now, having the exact same parties who maintained that he was just fine and dandy are doing the rounds on book tours and media interviews claiming "SOME (completely unidentifiable) PARTICULAR PERSONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE MISLED EVERYBODY ABOUT BIDEN'S MENTAL ACUITY." No way, really? Somehow they seemed quite eager to be misled in this way.
And now that we've admitted to being misled, are we casting blame anywhere? Why... no. Its all just a completely amorphous conspiracy comprised of nobody in particular. Oh well. What a weird chapter in history that we can now close while suffering no consequences whatsoever.
Just a perfect encapsulation of the problem: an enforced narrative that nobody is permitted to question, a breaking point where the narrative CANNOT be maintained in the face of unavoidable reality. A brief period of panicked denial... then distraction... and finally a very carefully constructed withdrawal that absolves anyone of blame and pretends the whole issue was just an honest mistake with little or no malicious motivation whatsoever.
How does one fight such a keenly evolved, utterly remorseless memetic entity, where its self-preservation is dependent solely on how many skulls it can lodge itself in as deeply as possible.
I admire its purity. Such a perfectly enclosed epistemic environment, policed by the most advanced egregore wranglers that history has ever produced.
Regardless of how logically sound and carefully researched my arguments are (and I really DO spend a lot of time researching my arguments) it cannot compete with an endless stream of repeated thought terminating cliches and carefully curated facts and stats that grant the pretense of knowledge but deny someone any real understanding of cause and effect.
And now we can add sycophantic LLMs to the mix, which can be curated to at least try to maintain a given narrative and write pleasingly-worded missives that either dodge the real question of what is 'true' or can lead you just far enough along the path towards truth to make you feel informed... then pull you off in a different direction, forgetting to take the last few steps and actually change your mind.
As the kids say, "We're fuckin' cooked."
Of course, I'm so rabidly averse to violent conflict as a first, or second, or even third resort that I am (perhaps irrationally so) very willing to seek peaceful, cooperative resolution options right up until the very moment somebody flicks a fist in my direction.
And my current solution has been to insulate myself from the attack vectors of that memetic entity. Adblock on. No cable tv. No influencers. Don't read the articles, don't listen to the podcast, don't watch the movie written by the hollywood leftist. Maybe read the books but definitely don't try to discuss the book on reddit. Do not give the hostile egregore full write access to your brain.
I live in one of the reddest areas of a red (formerly purple) state, and have manipulated enough about my immediate environment that the chances of the culture war frontlines ever reaching me are virtually nil. This comes at some level of personal cost, but I've placed such a high value on maintaining my sanity that I GLADLY pay it.
And so I sit here wondering WHY I still pop onto themotte to do a little bit of sparring, keeping my debate skills honed, when even around here the odds of any given argument or set of arguments moving the needle on someone's personal beliefs seem slim.
One of the arguments in favor of democratic modes of government is that it allows peaceful transition of power because elections are viable proxies for battles/military force.
Quoth Federalist No. 10:
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.
That is, the side that manages to pull 51% or more of the population that is engaged enough to vote can reasonably claim "if there was to be a physical war our side, being more numerous, is more likely to win it. In lieu of fighting that would be ruinous to both sides, you will accept our rule for a few years, we will rule with a certain amount of respect/deference, and then we can run another simulation to see if anythings changed."
Of course, it seems like the Dems/lefties haven't managed to process how they got trounced in the last election, even with some thumbs on the scale, and what this implies about their popularity in the country. So they "convulse the society" and "clog the administration" (how many national injunctions are we at?), but are 'unable to execute and mask its violence under... the Constitution.'
And yet we know that democratic elections don't completely avert violence, or else Mexico's most recent election wouldn't have been so damn bloody. Turns out that violence is also a way to influence outcomes in a democracy, when you don't expect the votes to go your way 'organically.' So there's a bit of a feedback loop.
So in a sense, the current upwelling of conflict doesn't read to me as a real instigation to war, but more just a disadvantaged minority faction pressing the 'foment chaos' button as a means of gumming up the works for the majority and maybe influencing outcomes, at least locally, towards their favor.
No, I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between drug cartels and ICE protestors, or even rioters. Just pointing out how these actions are closer to the "open violent conflict" end of the spectrum than the "free discourse and exchange of ideas as means of persuasion" that was idealized by, e.g., the Federalist Papers and that we try to maintain on this forum.
So what are we doing here? What's the point? Why bother?
I'd posit that everyone is in the continual stage of trying to size up the field and gauge the relative power of each tribe so as to determine if it is possible to make any decisive attacks or maneuvers that will lead to one group's victory and ascension to unquestioned rule over the cultural landscape. And the literal landscape, too.
Which faction has the best tacticians? The most guns? The most tightly organized units? The most efficient logistics? The most loyal/zealous footsoldiers? Which is favored by God? (love that scene, perfect illustration of this point about sizing up the force your opponent can bring to bear), which side has their Oppenheimer, their Feynman, their Von Neumann who can build superweapons, memetic or otherwise?
And as long as we're mostly convinced that the aggregate combat strength of each side is approximately at enough parity that the conflict would lead to uncapped casualties, including complete obliteration (which, in the age of nuclear MAD is a real possibility!), then even a conflict that you win is just not worth entering in the first place.
I'd argue that the more kinetic version of this is what led to the openly aggressive conflict with Israel and Palestine... and Israel and Iran, more recently. Israel knows it can pound Palestine into a fine powder if left to do it... but they can't ignore the various potential interlopers who might enter the fray. And so occasionally swatting Iran across the nose is a nice reminder to the rest to keep the claws sheathed.
Its why the Pakistan India thing didn't truly spiral out of control, neither side had a path to victory that wouldn't OBVIOUSLY leave both sides in ruins.
This little site is just one facet of a glittering jewel that is human social network, whose topology is beyond the comprehension of any individual human, but maybe if enough of us enlightened apes discuss our various perspectives and unique insights (we have those, right?) then the collective hivemind can manage to ascertain enough of the rough shape to determine if any particular faction has an egregious edge in power.
Because let me admit, about two years or so ago I would have told you that the Blue Tribe was close to locking insurmountable advantages which it could leverage to maintain complete control, and I was mentally gearing up to have to shoot at [redacted] agents in a last ditch effort to not be assimilated.
And now, though, now it looks like the ballgame is way closer than I anticipated, and I am now more uncertain than before about the current trajectory of U.S. political power. I guess Red Tribe is currently at bat, and they're trying to load up the bases, but really, really counting on some kind of grand slam to put them far ahead before, presumably, blue tribe grabs the levers of power again.
So I keep coming back here, hoping someone will hit on the observation or connect some dots that will help me foresee the unforeseeable and align myself with the right people (or, failing that, align myself AGAINST the right people) to ensure my longer term success and survival.
Some might actually be intending to get froggy if the tide is shown to turn in their favor, and are quietly trying to sense who might fight back, who might ally with them, who might look the other way. Maybe they want moral justification for doing some really nasty thing to the hated opposition. I don't know. But I think we're all at least idly, casually interested in figuring out the shape of the conflict and the ebb and flow of the battle and then making whatever use of that information we can.
And where else can we go for an actual clearheaded view of things?
Rejection is rejection. No two ways about it.
But "unfair" rejection, when you can look over and see the guy next to you got accepted though he appears equally or maybe less qualified, is what triggers the envy and resentment.
Its not nearly limited to romantic pursuits either. Job interviews, team sports, elections.
I dunno, I think men find it more tolerable to compete for the hand of the 'fair maiden' who is making everyone play the game to win her affections, than to have to face the reality that the maiden isn't so fair after all and they were burning efforts trying to get her to pay heed, meanwhile she's banging Sir Lancelot on the side and was never actually considering his proposal.
faceh
2d ago
Yeah. I was going to say, negative feelings are less likely to arise when an attractive woman won't sleep with you because she is flat out waiting for marriage.
It's when she is clearly having sex with other dudes but for some reason rejecting it with you when the feelings of inadequacy and the male sexual competition drive speak the loudest.
A woman who opts partially out of the sexual marketplace, and dresses and behaves accordingly, is still going to stir feelings in men, but easier to rein those feelings in when its just known that NOBODY is getting the prize, so rejection isn't specific to you.
faceh
2d ago
Yeah, you'd assume that she's smart enough to have thought of that. She'll age out of the profession (at least, the high-paid tiers) eventually, so just make sure you're socking enough away to live off when that happens.
But if she's being honest that she didn't foresee the massive 'backlash' from the positions she openly supports it doesn't speak well of her foresight.
Like, her best-case scenario is she can buy some land in a rural part of the country with really nice views, raise some animals, and maybe find a guy willing to retire out there FAR from the public eye and thus well-insulated from all the cruelty, so she can live out a peaceful life with her accumulated wealth.
It is really unclear to me what impact she intends to have on the world, otherwise.
faceh
2d ago
I would rephrase my position as "Active and former prostitutes are locked out of high-status permanently and indelibly."
I can imagine a known prostitute 'correcting course' and making real contrition for her past and receiving real forgiveness and being accepted into a community and given a position of some respect if she makes significant contributions from there.
But I have a hard time imagining someone saying "Oh yeah, I live in [town], the one that just elected a reformed streetwalker as mayor, and I'm proud of it!"
She outright claims to be the highest paid escort in the world or similar. Allegedly $4k an hour, and was a top .1% or whatever Onlyfans performer, allegedly pulling six figs per month (which tracks with other top ranking accounts on that site).
There's probably at least one year where she net 1 million or more on her tax return.
And she's surrounded by high IQ techy/rationalist people. She can get plenty of advice and guidance on wise use of funds.
And, if I may add, if she's not leveraging her San Francisco connections to do some wanton insider trading on tech stocks and startups, she's an abject idiot, which I do not think she is.
That said, she's also claimed she thinks AGI is going to kill us all in the next 10 years, and thus she's not doing as much 'retirement' saving or other long-term planning, so burning piles of money on the altar of hedonism is possible.
faceh
2d ago
I mean, can you name any former porn stars who have gone on to become high-status, influential people?
Generally once you've got that reputation indelibly tied to your identity, it becomes impossible for a certain 'higher class' of person to take you seriously.
faceh
2d ago
That's my primary reason for mostly ignoring the whole thing, I don't want people to be cruel, but I don't feel any need to step in to defend the 'victim.'
She's got plenty of support and resources, I won't go around yelling at people to be nicer, on her behalf.
On top of that, some of the cruelty is not for its own sake, but from people who genuinely think she is a negative impact on the world. I haven't seen much honest discussion of that side of things, although @Southkraut has opened the question in this thread in a way that I find insightful.
After observing for years, its my conclusion that literally everything she does, from the weird polls to the bemoaning her inability to find a husband (who would tolerate her onlyfans), to the gangbangs is just her way of selling her services, targeting a very particular niche: grown up tech nerds who find themselves suddenly very wealthy.
If you engage with her in ANY way, you are entering her sales funnel.
This wouldn't be so bad except she likewise bends all attention around any issue or event to be about her. Even this action has made it so people aren't discussing whether her critics are right, now its all about her disappearance from the public eye.
My prediction is she makes a very ostentatious return to social media inside a month, probably setting up some big event she will promote, and then continues on as usual.
faceh
2d ago
Yeah.
Remember we're talking about a multi-millionaire who runs in extremely wealthy tech circles, and has hundreds of people who would run to her defense and aid at a moment's notice.
Unnecessary cruelty for cruelty's sake is bad, but my sympathy is limited in the same way it is for any wealthy celebrity who seeks the limelight.
faceh
3d ago
More critically, serious enforcement is dependent on self-reporting.
Yep. And this will increasingly be the case.
Generate a few dozen plausibly human-drawn images, release them on a plausible timeline that a human artist could achieve, and there's little anyone could do but speculate.
Maybe there's some solution that involves uploading the raw files from the WIP to a blockchain or something.
faceh
4d ago
Nah, there's PR firms and Publicists and brand consultants and such that can leap into action to help a budding microceleb try to extend the limelight with a preset path for leveraging their one claim to fame into public appearances, social media, and maybe some acting or singing gigs.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/hawk-tuah-girl-hailey-welch-1235937553/
Organic celebrity just isn't a thing these days (if it ever was). Used to be you could be a viral meme and ride that horse for a bit until the anxiety got to you.
And of course, she got in trouble for her memecoin because she trusted a entity that specializes in memecoin rugpulls (note, they sell a physical rug product on their website).
There's a whole ecosystem that will try to latch onto any potential niche in the attention economy to monetize the moment.
faceh
4d ago
I wouldn't use most sites, period, if Ublock Origin stopped working.
Here's a hot tip too, I've been using ChatGPT to help create custom filters to block out other types of content I find annoying. You can use it, for instance, to block a particular youtube channel from ever showing up in your feed or recommendations.
faceh
4d ago
I mean, I was happy to allow those perceptions to continue. "Facea," "Faceb," "Facec," etc. all seem like they could be valid words, so they work quite well as pseudonyms. It just made it easier to keep straight in my head.
This was before password/account managers became standard, so it was helpful to have an organizational system for identities.
And since I stuck with FaceH for so long, I myself pronounce it approximately "Face-ah" in my head.
faceh
4d ago
There's no technical reason renewing a prescription requires you to do anything more than log into your pharmacy somehow and click a "renew" button. Any further complexity is because the pharmacy decided to waste your time.
Yes.
YES.
YOU'D THINK THAT.
But you click the 'renew' button and the Pharmacy reports that you have to get a new scrip from your physician. Well okay. You call the physicians office and they say you need to submit proof of your identity sufficient to make sure they're writing it for the right person. E-mail won't do, they need it faxed or you can stop by in person. Then once that's done, they will forward the scrip to the pharmacy. But it turns out the only way to check if the pharmacy got the scrip is to actually call, which means waiting on hold, and once you've done all the intermediate steps, THEN the 'renew' button works. And then add in a layer of fun if you want to get insurance involved.
Maybe other pharmacies do it differently, but I assume a nontrivial part of the process is regulatory compliance and antifraud measures.
Its one of those tasks where it could be a 2-5 minute diversion, or 90 minutes of running around, navigating phone trees and getting various ducks in a row to get the particular outcome you want/need, b/c the parties involved are not motivated to help much, are concerned about fraud/deception, and are not in good communication with each other.
So as the one person properly motivated to complete the task, who isn't worried about fraud, and can act as the intermediary between the parties, I'm now shouldering the organization burden. It is what it is, but I'd sure love to throw AI at the task.
faceh
4d ago
And the spot that has bugged me for a while now: how much AI/digital assistance is really crossing the arbitrary line you've drawn?
Can you use AI to generate the original concept and then spend a couple hours touching up from there, so the final result is just as much your effort as anything?
Can you sketch out the basic details and then feed it to the AI and basically have it 'paint by numbers' to complete the project?
Can you have the AI spit out 50 separate images, and YOU spend the time cropping, superimposing, rotating, adjusting and compositing them all together for the end result?
Make the rule on what is 'unacceptable' AI art and the tech can run RIGHT up to that line precisely to the pixel... then stick a single tiny digital toe over it, daring your to complain.
That is what makes the tech amazing/dangerous: whatever rules you make for it, the AI itself can be used to circumvent said rules.
At a bare minimum, they can use it as a wedge issue, as with abortion or gun control.
Like they're doing now.
If there was minimal illegal immigration to spend of, what would be their case for increasing it.
More options
Context Copy link