coffee_enjoyer
☕️
No bio...
User ID: 541
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1d ago
Channel 12 and two separate journalists reporting what the IDF told them makes it more probable that the IDF told them something than that these three journalists are lying
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1d ago
It does not appear to be truthful reporting. American officials took the unusual step of announcing on several occasions that America is not on board with the attack. The IDF is telling reporters that they are coordinating with America. Unless the journalist is lying about what the IDF stated to them: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-expects-operation-against-iran-to-last-for-several-days/
Please consider the possibility that not every Jew everywhere is following the master plan of the Elders of Zion all day long
The “you’ve said something about Israel? — how dare you criticize every Jew in the world, I can’t believe you just quoted the elders of Zion!” that you see by the Israel crowd hasn’t been persuasive to normal people for many years, and has been used for decades. At this point it just signals your support for Israel. It is more dignified to just post the 🇮🇱 emoji.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1d ago
It’s reported that the IDF is claiming they are coordinating its actions with America
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2d ago
Our greatest ally is now putting American lives in danger by publishing that America was complicit in the attack
From my limited experience with her online presence, she effectively promotes her lifestyle with sex and buzzwords. If she were 50 years old, no one would latch onto her ideology. She is using the inherent weakness of men to manipulate them into a poor way of life, when influencing women to her life with the attention she receives. The reason she should be shamed (ie pointedly negatively evaluated) is that the end result of her lifestyle is a worse world. It’s bad for the people who fall for it and society at large. We don’t want a society where %s of high IQ tech guys have a TFR of 0.25. We don’t want online discourse increasingly sex-obsessed. We want pair-bonds and commitment and emotional stability which children absorb at a young age.
These cucks are self-selecting out of the gene pool
An optimal society is one where the high IQ protects the midwit with his intellect and the midwit protects the high IQ with his intuition. Everyone deserves greater wellbeing, even Aella when she deletes her account. Yet this is a case where even the high IQ can forecast the bad second-order consequences of her lifestyle. Just trivial familiarization with the hedonic treadmill will explain why “get everyone increasingly sensitive to sexual pleasure and talking about sex and seeking more of its pleasure” is bad. It would be better to run a pro-smoking account. Giving up polyamory isn’t even giving up pleasure but just stopping a downward spiral of increased sexualization. (And she can do whatever she wants in private, right; it’s the promotion that’s bad, it’s not about policing her own private failings which everyone has — it’s about not increasing it in the future generations)
This is just spiritualizing Slick’s antisociality. (Surely we can deadname an influential rationalist court prostitute when her name has so much metaphorical import?). Traditionally, there are two kinds of women that men have nothing but respect and reverence toward: committed virgins and faithful mothers. No normal man feels resentment to these women. There’s a reason Koreans worship K-Pop idols only when they know they aren’t having sex, and then lash out when they do have sex. Virgins and mothers are entirely outside the sociosexual competition. A women having sex but not with you is usually the thing that breeds resentment in men. But Slick’s lifestyle of having sex with everyone is inviolable to any resentment based on envy. No same man envies the man paying for a prostitute. She is just gross.
I think people should try and cool their emotions about her. - just chill? Live and let live.
Well, who gets to let their impulses run wild? I enjoy the story of Saint Joan of Arc beating the prostitutes out of her military camp. This fills me with a pleasure that is both more abiding and more prosocial than Slick’s. Why not let the righteous “live and let live”? Who gets to live without stress and vexation, the righteous or the degenerate? Okay, “it’s illegal to do that”, we can imagine a world where it’s not, but in any case we can at least rebuke her. And rebuking her is to chill, because it satisfies the righteous person’s sense of morality.
She has honest to god genuine curiosity
Generally people stop being praised for curiosity by their teen years. This is an example of the perverse hijacking of attention that Slick is able to accomplish. She is treated online like someone who is not actually an adult with moral reasoning, but someone who deserves constant coddling.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2d ago
I think there is still value to this sort of “illogical prayer”. Imagine you want to run a marathon. If you’re constrained to logic, then you can pray for the spirit (mood / feeling / aim) to practice every day; the praying would help to increase salience and craving for the activity. But you can also enter into the post-logical realm: you can believe that God guarantees that you will complete a marathon, and actually changes reality provided that you practice. And now you have no wavering or double-mindedness about your practice and pursuit. There’s now no room for doubt about whether you obtain it, it’s just a matter of when. It’s hard to convey this beneficial goal certainty without eschewing logic, but you see it in a lot of high-level performers across domains, eg Magnus Carlsen saying that the optimal mindset for chess is “between delusional and confident”. It seems essential for the instrumentalization of cognition toward a goal.
Humans need to be certain that they will accomplish a goal and “God will make it so” is no less delusional than “I simply believe it” or “if you believe you will achieve” (at the very least, religious language is more poetic). But the utility of prayer is more clear when you factor in more variables: someone is more likely to take the time to pray when they believe (when they know) that they will be heard, answered, and gifted something materially. It’s easier on the mind and increases interest. “My act of praying gives myself a spirit” turns a person into an actor playing a part. “My loving Father is eager to give me my request and only asks for prayer and practice, that I prove my interest and allegiance” turns someone into a social animal, a human. It’s simpler, there’s no pretending. And it activates much more cognition and interest, because every time you pray you are speaking to the maker of all things and the ruler of time. That dogma itself will make the content of your prayer more striking in your mind, increasing the chance of it occurring.
As for the problem of evil, my view is firmly in the minority but I believe in a sovereign force of evil which evades the problem completely. From the Wisdom of Solomon:
God did not make death. For he fashioned all things that they might have being, and the creatures of the world are wholesome […] It was the wicked who with hands and words invited death, considered it a friend, and pined for it, and made a covenant with it […] God formed us to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made us. But by the envy* of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are allied with him experience it.
I read this as a sovereign force of evil always existing, later in the form of the devil, who unleashed death when our archetypal ancestors disobeyed the Good in paradise. The evil in the world is both due to evil as a force and mankind’s own alliance with it (Adam isn’t just “first human”, but we all existed in Adam and we inherit his temperament etc). This is very satisfying. God has ultimate control over everything in the end, and ultimate control over the Good, but there currently and forever was a sovereign evil force. Every attempt to make God all-powerful including over evil is ultimately making Him less moral and less loving.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2d ago
In my opinion, the attacks on her are warranted and she deserves even harsher social ostracization. Any pressure that a person can legally apply against her is justified. She is a force for evil in the world. The harm she causes the country is worse than the harm of a murderer.
-
She promotes a lifestyle that is highly anti-natal, and she pushes it against a high-iq people population (rationalists) who should be having more children. These high-iq people almost always have a cognitive vulnerability of poor intuition regarding social consequences.
-
She promotes a lifestyle that damages wellbeing. Polyamory is not conducive to longterm wellbeing.
-
She pollutes discourse by turning everything into sex and fetishes. All e-whores really need to be excluded from online discourse.
-
Her public ideas are intuitively disgusting to normal people, and disgust is an objectively painful sensation, meaning every day she issues forth more and more pain in the world.
I do not like the idea that someone can push a horrific way of life and we have to accept this because they are “nice”. It doesn’t matter how nice you are if you’re telling people to eat lead paint chips. She is evil because the consequences of what she promotes is evil. And loudly calling that out is the whole point of shame. Shame is just the feeling of being negatively evaluated by peers. Aella needs to be continually negatively-evaluated until she stops promoting an ugly lifestyle to our economically valuable cognitively-vulnerable population.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3d ago
From a non-Mormon perspective, the sophisticated argument for prayer is that it changes a person’s disposition or spirit, and that this is what it means to receive something from God. This would have especially strong results where the desired object is itself a change of disposition, eg the addiction OP mentions. How could prayer help or cure addiction? Addiction entails the pursuit of pleasure where pleasure goes against one’s own social, prosocial, identity-determined goals. God solidifies a person’s social identity in ways impossible to accomplish with secular language or materialist understanding alone, for a variety of psychological reasons. Prayer works to recollect and elaborate upon social identity. It makes prosocial decisions salient and forefront, and even existentially significant. It involves an omnipresent social superior, social confident, and social lover. Many more things can be said about this. But there’s a reason even Huberman the neuroscientist prays every day.
The statistical evidence that prayer works is that religious people, especially those who pray to a loving God, have greater wellbeing and are protected against addiction. Really, all that we want at the end of the day is greater wellbeing. So it works in toto. If establishing prayer in your life is more conducive to your happiness than otherwise, then it is established that prayer works and ought to be done, as any reasonable organism seeks greater wellbeing.
Regarding disasters —
There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
Unsophisticated shepherds dealing with unsophisticated dangerous feral sheep have often claimed that natural disasters are allowed by God or are the punishment of God. This is to promote society-wide prosocial behavior in an efficient way. But it is not the case.
How many people are mired in addiction that try everything, including prayer, and never make it out
Many, but they die in hope and conversation with their perfect Love One. The alternative is less prayer is unlikely to be more conducive to success and wellbeing. But the advice should never be “only pray” — of course you do everything else, but you also pray.
tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks ford a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4d ago
I know about the DNA research but the average Hasidic Jew still looks more pale than the average Italian (Hasidim being a good example of “pure Ashkenazim”)
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4d ago
It’s said that the reason Northern European Ashkenazim often have light eyes and light skin is because these genes were selected for over ~1000 years. Doesn’t this mean that the health consequences of inadequate vitamin D are more serious than commonly considered? Given that the predominant darker skin tones must have been significantly selected against. And doesn’t this poke a hole in the theory that pale skin was sexually selected, given that Ashkenazim marriage patterns were mostly predicated on business ties and rabbinical performance, rather than an individual’s own tastes?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5d ago
Just speculating, but provided that you already appreciate drawings and can distinguish between better and worse drawings, it should simply be a matter of
-
imitate technique 1
-
recreate technique 1 in varied contexts and applications
-
recreate technique 1 in novel scenarios once general applications have been mastered
-
be able to assess your ability to perform technique 1 by imagining it as someone else’s work
-
do the same for techniques 2-9999
I don’t actually think there is a relationship between “visual reality” and drawing, because the most prized drawings in different cultures do not depict reality but instead “signal” what the mind considers significant information according to the culture. Even the “realistic” renaissance drawings are only emphasizing particular aspects
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
13d ago
Suppose you were the de facto “leader” of a large progressive social network in real life. You have heard frightening accounts from other social networks, where members have damaged the health of the network through antisocial behavior. Sometimes this leads to its destruction. Maybe they redirected all the attention in the group toward their own plight or pet cause; maybe they mistook an occasional unkind word for deep prejudice and tried to alienate members; maybe they become a roommate and stop paying the rent; maybe they make unreasonable demands, ruining the dynamic of the network; maybe they constantly guilt and catastrophize, ruining the enjoyment and fluidity required to motivate social activity. What norms would you put in place to exclude these antisocial individuals from social events and social spaces?
Hard Difficulty:
-
Can’t use any ideological test
-
Can’t judge by appearance
Legendary Difficulty:
-
Can’t judge by speech pattern
-
Can’t use any explicit social hierarchy, but can only filter or weed out antisocial members through group habits and group norms
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
13d ago
Speaking of which, I find Bernard Kerik’s recent death suspicious. It comes out that he lobbies for Qatar and within a week he is hospitalized for heart issues, dying a month later, with no prior history of heart issues.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
19d ago
We have polling done on actual American soldiers in the middle of the war. Only 25% hated German soldiers. [I may have written “Nazis” above but the prompt says German soldiers.] Only 29% wanted to restrict aid, mid-war. I don’t know why this wouldn’t constitute a disproof. Would everyone say the same as Israelis? American soldiers fighting actual Nazis did not say the same things about German soldiers, let alone civilians.
The normals were given the questionnaires during the first 2 weeks of April, just as the major offensive was beginning which was to knock the Germans out of the war in Italy. All the men knew about the approaching offensive, and it is believed that the general expectation was that a tough fight was ahead
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
19d ago
What the influential Smotrich had to say just a few days ago
The minimum [aid] required will reach the population, simply so the world doesn’t stop us
pressure must also be managed carefully so it doesn’t blow up in our faces. When the IDF returned in recent days to maneuver with full force to conquer the Gaza Strip, moving the population from areas where there was some food, our greatest allies in the world—those who support us, who understand we cannot stop short of total victory and the destruction of Hamas—asked us to help them help us and refute the lies about starvation. We need to do this. Without it, we simply won’t be able to stop and win
What will come in the coming days is minimal. A few bakeries distributing pita bread to people at public kitchens providing a daily cooked meal. Civilians will receive a pita and a plate of food, and that’s it. That’s exactly what we see in the videos—people standing in line, waiting for a plate of soup to be poured. This doesn’t reach Hamas, and it allows civilians to eat and our allies in the world to continue providing us with an international shield against the Security Council and The Hague
https://youtube.com/watch?v=STymrqvry2k
You can plug this into a program that converts subtitles into text and then translate it
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
19d ago
From the survey —
To the question "Do you support the claim that the IDF, when conquering an enemy city, should act in a manner similar to the way the Israelites acted when they conquered Jericho under the leadership of Joshua, that is, kill all its inhabitants?" 47% of all respondents responded in the affirmative
This isn't just asking, "do you affirm stories from sacred scripture", it's specifying that it would involve "killing all inhabitants" of a conquered city. Israelis, being familiar with the story of Jericho, would know that this involve killing everyone:
At the edge of the sword they devoted to destruction everything in the city-man and woman, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys.
Israeli politicians have brought up the Book of Joshua before in their treatment of Gazans. And this shift precedes the war by many years. From 2017: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2017-05-16/ty-article/.premium/why-religious-zionism-is-growing-darker/0000017f-e13a-d804-ad7f-f1faf5f90000
Under the plan, the Palestinians will be given three choices to leave the country; to live in Israel with the status of "resident alien," because, as Smotrich made sure to note, "according to Jewish law there must always be some inferiority," or to resist, "and then the Israel Defense Forces will know what to do." When the deputy Knesset speaker was asked if he intended to wipe out whole families, including women and children, Smotrich replied, "In war, as in war."
Smotrich presented the Book of Joshua as the source for his remarks. According to the Midrash, Joshua sent the residents of the land of Canaan three letters in which he set out the three aforementioned conditions. Maimonides explains that if the non-Jews do not flee, they must have limitations imposed on them "so they should be despised and lowly, and not raise their heads in Israel." If they resist, he says, "not a soul must be left among them" - in other words, kill them all. How many of those who sat and listened to these horrible things - learned men and women, Torah scholars and community leaders - agreed with him? It's impossible to know.
The polling may suggest upon the public a religious connection to the act of genocide, but so have influential Israeli ministers.
—
Americans are generally concerned that drone strikes could inadvertently harm civilians. In the polling I posted in a comment above, WWII soldiers who fought the Nazis largely didn’t hate them, despite many of the soldiers polled losing half their company or more. Americans have been greatly concerned about civilian casualties since Vietnam.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
19d ago
A population-wide survey, statements from national politicians, and some members of the judiciary have advocated for genocide according to mainstream definitions. The population-wide survey I posted in my OP shows that many Israelis desire genocide even in the most extreme conceptualization of killing every Gazan. Israel’s inability to carry this out because of near-unanimous disapproval does not indicate a lack of genocidal or intent, only a basic level of foresight in securing self-interest. Does this clarify things?
whereas they could be true about Israel if you squinted hard enough and ignored the people doing the saying.
It’s literally posted in my OP, but for other claims I’m happy to provide a source; you can look at the testimony of British doctors, or watch the recently published video of a team of medical workers being killed. The judiciary and public opinion are literally quoted in my OP, so I don’t know why squinting would be required unless these facts are seen as so brightly illuminating that they burn your eyes. From a leading Israeli politician and minister,
https://www.newsweek.com/worst-man-israel-makes-moral-argument-genocide-opinion-1936211
Smotrich's exact words: "Nobody will let us cause two million civilians to die of hunger, even though it might be justified and moral, until our hostages are returned."
Do you want more examples?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
21d ago
I’m arguing against the notion that “Israel doesn’t want to kill all Gazans because they haven’t done that”. They appear to be doing what they can to accomplish this goal within the constraints placed on them externally. The reason that I think they show disregard for human life is because various international bodies, doctors on the ground, and the little available videographic evidence on the ground supports this. The reason I think they are genocidal is because the statements of their politicians suggest this. The Israel apologist is forced to deny the legitimacy of the statements which the politicians (and public) have made indicating their genocidal intent. But the apologies can’t argue, “if they wanted to they would”, because they risk becoming an actual pariah state if they did so, and may even see the deportation of Israelis abroad etc.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
21d ago
If Israel were to do everything they could to kill as many Gazans as possible without losing what remains of international support, what would they do differently than what they are currently doing? They know they can’t actually bomb everyone immediately, all at once. But they can bomb as many as they can get away with, keeping everyone in semi-starvation, causing maximum trauma, destroying every dwelling, and so on. They can kill them all slowly in this way, to reduce international outrage.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
21d ago
The aerial campaign over Japan was because 100k died in the Pacific Theater and a ground invasion would have resulted in up to 1 million casualties.
unconditional surrender is an option
Actually it’s not, because Israel would prop up their own proxy government who would immediately cede the land to Israel, dispelling the Palestinians to another country. This is the problem with fighting a genuinely genocidal country like Israel: you can never surrender because they admit they want to replace you on your land. Hamas is making the only decision available to them. But peace was possible through a mediation that allows continued self governance of Palestinians.
in Israel, that instead applies to the entire country, something that might be the case in the US if an attack lead to the deaths of ~40,000 people
Is there a number that you would for pin for “maximum amount of casualties” permitted in response? What informs this number and how can we compare it to any previous conflict in Western history? For instance, when Zionists killed 100 British during the King David bombing, how many random civilians was Britain permitted to target in the 1940s as a punitive measure? Infinite?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
21d ago
I see, per capita deaths. You don’t see anything wrong with Israel killing, at minimum, 36,400,000 “Chinese civilians” worth of Gazans? I mean, as a per capita equivalent to Gaza. I think that if you’re continuing to kill so many innocent people when they pose zero continuing threat to you, that you are a sociopath. Especially when you were the ones whose oppression led to the attack. How many “Chinese citizen” per capita equivalents should Israel kill? All 1.4 billion?
chose not to surrender
They are willing to surrender, but Israel refused to accept conditions.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
21d ago
there’s a video
”However, the actual transcript clearly says that Hamas was digging up pipes that were used to take Gaza's groundwater and siphon it into Israeli settlements that had been abandoned since 2005. Apparently these pipelines were EU-funded, so it caused a big stink as the media accused the EU of unintentionally providing Hamas with weaponizable materials.”
—
It’s not unhinged to know, as a fact, the facts of the day: that many houses were destroyed by tanks, that a survivor testified to tanks firing at their house and killing their family, that many cars were destroyed which were on their way into Gaza, that there were instances of friendly fire. It’s unhinged to have any opinion on the conflict without knowing this, unhinged to hide from it because you find it uncomfortable to acknowledge. And while it’s not unhinged to distrust “footage” that came out weeks after the attack, I find it inadvisable, because every developed nation has the ability to fabricate footage. Of course, the footage that was published in the first 48 or 72 hours should be trusted without doubt, because no nation would be so hasty in publishing fabricated footage in such a short span.
If you know they fired upon cars on their way to Gaza, and you know Hamas was taking as many hostages as possible and cramming them into cars, then it’s reasonable to believe that some hundreds of civilians were killed by the aerial attack on the cars returning to Gaza. I mean, that was the whole Hamas mission.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
21d ago
I think the Gazans and the IDF soldiers have agency, but I only want to see one of these groups punished severely
Given that Israel hides their military command center under the heart of Tel Aviv, their most densely-populated city, how many Israeli civilians is Iran justified to bomb in their attempt to destroy this sprawling system?
https://archive.ph/QqNHz
Obviously, it is not Iran’s fault that Israel hides their command center among civilians; neither is it Iran’s fault that Israel does not publish the exact coordinates of each room of the base. It would appear that Iran is justified to inflict somewhere between 5,000 to 10,000 civilian casualties in Israel in their pursuit to reach the Israeli leadership. At least, going by the normative Hamas:civilian casualty ratio which Israel has defended since the Gaza war began.
More options
Context Copy link