domain:cspicenter.com
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
3m ago
Was this meant to be a mean joke? Sorry man, you put in too much effort and snark, so the snark itself came off as in parody and the whole thing came off as decent satire. Well done, I did laugh, you stuck the landing.
There was some of "self-parody" in my characterization of "Goldblatt," particularly in the final paragraph. I get what I am, a Nietzschean fantasizing about coups that aren't going to happen.
iprayiam3
3m ago
A few walked out in disgust in favor of Hananianism, others embraced rightoid brainworms.
Stop trying to make fetch happen.
I think most people are missing it, but this whole shaggy dog is just to bury another love letter to Hannania.
TheFooder
7m ago
In the story the journalist wasn't a lib, just playing the role. The joke is that she was more conservative or based or w/e than the Bannon-ites. My read: the purported beliefs of most MAGA types, or typical young conservative, aren't anything beyond memes that make them feel good about themselves and the real ubermensch have no respect for them and will take them down too.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
12m ago
If you have a problem with the idea that some women think acting the part of a "girl boss" is stupid and exhausting, ideally you should talk about that idea, or charitably engage with the ideas of some specific person who said it.
Why would I have a problem with it? I am a pronatalist, eugenics-supporting, 4chan-brained guy with "Alt" in my flair. I am you, the difference is I can see Winters for what she is rather than what I want her to be.
The story featured a woman in a Right-wing space assumed by its denizens to be liberal, who by the end realized she wasn't. Almost as if there's an analogy there.
TheFooder
12m ago
That was my tactic with the Anthrax vaccine back in the 90's. It was double-plus hard because I was in the military, but I dodged it anyway. No regrets.
TheFooder
13m ago
I, for one, enjoyed it. But I don't think I'm in the same solar system as anyone you might be aiming this at.
FlyOnTheWall
14m ago
Do you believe that it's actually truly subjective? As in, it's okay for someone to kill someone else as long as they don't consider the victim to be a person?
If we accept that personhood is truly subjective, then asking if it's okay to kill someone is an ill-posed question. Because personhood is not an objective quality of a biological entity.
I (and you and @Owlify) all have separate judgements on the morality of any given killing, which depends on whether we morally see the thing being killed as a person (in the most extreme case - I doubt even you would view a fertilized egg as human)
There's absolutely nothing wrong with people slaughtering "non-persons" as long as the non-person is sincerely believed by the slaughterers, and if people go around doing that you will have no complaints?
Firstly there is a difference between understanding someone's actions and being okay with them. I also understand why John Wayne Gacy tortured all those young men (he was incapable of human empathy and felt an intense sexual pleasure from his actions)
In the case of genocide, the (honest) argument is that the victims are human - but they are somehow biologically inferior or otherwise harmful to the host society (on the group level - bell curves, etc, etc), so they must be liquidated for the sake of self-preservation. So we have the moral grey area of 2 groups with competing interests.
In the case of abortion - I'm making an even stronger claim. That there is literally no fetus (not even a +4 sigma one) that counts as human, or even comes close to it. I am fine with looking at your side's propaganda photos of an ultrasound of a 24-week-old and saying that that thing is just not human. It has the capacity to grow into a human (like a sperm cell) in the future, but in its current state - it is a mere animal that lacks any kind of thought or self-awareness.
Or do you perhaps have a more nuanced and less genocidal belief about personhood grounded by something beyond mere subjectivity?
I have a definition of personhood (just like you do), which is that you need some amount of intelligence (in a very weak sense - I'm not asking our prospective personhood-haver to integrate sec(x), I'm asking them to show they are capable of thought at all, are aware of their own existence, etc) - and I accept there is nuance about where we draw the line and how to measure these things. But based on everything I know about fetuses, including what I've heard from the pro-life side, they do not come close to what I've described. Not as a group, not even if we just ask for a single exceptional individual in the far right tail.
I think you agree, under my definition, that I'm right. But then that definition I gave was just based on my own personal moral "vibes". You have your own definition of personhood that makes fetuses people. Neither can prove the other wrong*, because we are looking at the same map. That is why, despite how distasteful it sounds, personhood is just "subjective" (as is genocide, dignity, freedom, etc) - otherwise we just play word games and make contrived analogies that "prove" our morality is objectively correct (this is a good tactic if actually waging the culture war, but it does not help to discuss it)
In case this sounds too glib / edgy, I want to say I do understand the gravity of this disagreement. From your perspective, I am a horrible person advocating for killing left-handed people ("How is this thing a person?"). But this is what I honestly believe, and if there is evidence, even anecdotal, that contradicts my understanding of the mental capacity of fetuses, I'm happy to hear about it.
[*] Unless it's a religious thing. In that case it is a disagreement over the nature of objective reality, and it could (at least in theory) be resolved by logical arguments.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
17m ago
I have worked long enough in the system that, while I wasn't 100% sure, I would've been comfortable betting a $20 on the race of the perpetrator just from the provided summary. I'm sure reading the opinion would've added details to make me even more confident.
The most unremarked-upon abuse (for people outside the system) among the black community is the "auntie" (perhaps a bio relation of the mother or father, but maybe an adult female friend of the family instead) who takes a male's virginity when he's 11-13. It is so common among black male clients that the uncommon scenario is where a client didn't have it happen to him. Really digging into some of these nested layers of dysfunction make some horror novels feel like light beach reading.
kky
19m ago
For what it’s worth, there is good historical (and contemporary) evidence that people have always learned cultural practices from one another, instead of it being purely transmitted by conquest or force. A fairly elementary example is the extremely rapid spread of crops in the Columbian Exchange, a slightly deeper cut is Japan’s conscious and discerning importation of Western norms post-Meiji Restoration, and a perhaps controversial take is that cargo cults were (are?) an ineffective attempt to learn Western practices.
This would roughly be your “virus” case of horizontal transmission. But what I think your model misses is how and why people transmit cultural knowledge, and how the selection effects work mechanically. I believe that this is through conscious recognition of tangible outcomes that can be hypothetically correlated with the practice for positive selection, and implicit comprehension of norms on their own terms for retention of behavior. In plain language, you pick a practice up either because it’s doing something good for someone else or because it’s just the way things are done. Let’s call the first case adaptation and the second retention.
Every practice has its price. There’s a cost for following it instead of doing something else, including doing nothing at all. It also has a certain legibility to it. Using a certain spice in one’s cooking obviously and visibly changes the flavor, but increasingly complex crop rotation schemes will only show their merit on the order of years. Superior military practice can only demonstrate its worth in the event of a war. Finally, there is a magnitude to what the practice will do for you. Diminishing returns are always an issue.
So for adaptation to occur, you need the perceived advantage of a new practice, inclusive of how confident you are that the practice causes the advantage, to significantly exceed the cost of adapting the new practice.
Meanwhile, retention just works like any old social pressure. If you don’t do this, you aren’t cool. The power of retention is in proportion to the power and influence of the normative group over you.
Back to the actual meat of the subject. Right now, I would argue that the following propositions obtain:
- Our economic system, bolstered by explicit and implicit welfare schemes, is so powerful that most immediate needs are filled without any real effort.
- The worst risks of sex and solitary lifestyles have been massively mitigated by birth control and welfare.
- There is an ascendant class of tastemakers with historically unparalleled reach, influence, and power. They have displaced most of the small local tastemakers that preceded them.
- Points 1-3 have only been in effect for a very short period of time.
Back to adaptation. What people these days see is not a minefield of viscerally bad outcomes with cultural guardrails, or obviously superior external groups to learn from if one is not to fall behind. Instead, they see a more-or-less flat floor of outcomes with a huge amount of outdated rules that are visibly being broken to the pleasure and advantage of the rulebreakers. Cultural norms around how to get the most visible pleasure spread like wildfire, and there are clear reasons given for why the old ways are outdated. Nothing immediately and unignorably bad happens to the people who adopt these practices, so the change keeps spreading. Debt, drugs, sexual liberation, obsessive hobbies, and so on.
Meanwhile, a massive proportion of cultural practices are exported as part of a social-political program by the cultured urban elite. These have some basis in people’s preferences, but their spread is almost totally disconnected from these preferences, and is instead based in political maneuvering within this class. It’s effectively fashionable beliefs.
And finally, and most critically, most of the bad outcomes from these practices only manifest on a multigenerational basis. The fertility crisis will only really come to a head as the older people keeping the lights on retire or lose the capacity to handle their work. A life of solitude or sexual misconduct only really comes calling when you get old with no younger family to take care of you. Unproductive behavior only starts incurring costs when it spreads so far that bare minimum upkeep becomes infeasible and the pre-existing infrastructure crumbles - like an ill-cared-for house.
So my analysis would be, at this very moment we are coming down the tail end of a very unrepresentative and culturally dysgenic era. The selective pressures were encouraging bad behavior for around sixty years, and have incurred some major costs. Some of those bills are already coming for repayment, and the younger generations are starting to flail around for superior cultural practices. Some will likely not come fully due for decades to come, and will cause their own crises. But there is some intelligence behind this, and it can be directed. People are already trying to direct it. The problem is just that the outcomes we need to see are another sixty years away. So until then, the best we can do is proceed with discernment, wisdom, and most of all, faith.
ControlsFreak
22m ago
Right, so the opposite is currently being pursued by the majority, as I was saying.
The argument, as I understand it, was originally some form of:
- Abstinence is currently being heavily pushed by society. (This assumption was hidden and turns out to be wrong.)
- This heavy push is failing for reasons. ("How's that going?")
- Therefore, the idea is conceptually flawed, for reasons.
You and I seem to agree that the first premise is false. I'm not really sure what other point you have. Perhaps it's this bit:
The first hurdle is convincing enough of the public to join you in lobbying for it.
Sure. Obviously, that's a challenge. But it's sort of irrelevant to the original discussion? Unless you view this as a fully-general argument against any sort of minority view? Like, sure, any minority view on any topic has a hurdle of convincing enough of the public to join you in lobbying for it. That's not particularly novel or useful to discuss. Communists and libertarians and trans activists and neoluddites and... and... are all aware that they have minority views that they would like to promote more widely.
Evangelical Christians have tried promoting abstinence since more or less forever, but over time they've largely lost relevance socially and politically. Their failure to gain support is some amount of evidence that that abstinence is truly the unfavored social position.
Various minority views have had upswings and downswings. The slavery abolitionists, the anti-alcohol folks, the pro-alcohol folks, the anti-smoking folks, the eugenics folks, the pro/anti-police/surveillance folks, the free marketers and the regulators, etc. Sometimes it's hard to tell whether it's an issue that will shift, won't shift, will stay perpetually divisive (e.g. abortion), or whatever. Duly noted and agreed that the predominant swing for several decades has been pro-premarital sex (and a variety of related issues). That was actually my point.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
39m ago
Besides nowadays, everyone has a VPN. You can talk to plenty of Iranians right now, even with the attempted internet lock down, even if this isn't real.
You're making the same error Thomas Dewey did, talking to a small, wealthy, and unrepresentative set of Iranians.
Rov_Scam
39m ago
The sentence imposed was pursuant to a plea deal, so one can't make any judgments about whether it's the same as if there were only two rapes.
WhiningCoil
41m ago
They were a protected species. I spent some time googling the name, all the news articles conspicuously avoided his picture, except a particularly spicy one with copious use of N-Bombs, and then this one that finally gave me a mugshot.
There was some random black podcast clip that went around a few months ago where one of the guys on there was talking about his community needing to clean up it's act. He said something along the lines of "We all know somebody that is fucking kids". Everyone went conspicuously silent and started sputtering denials. But if you've ever listened to any black comedy, the family/neighborhood pedophile in the ghetto is an oddly consistent bedrock of bits.
Shrike
42m ago
roughly 1 bomb per 3 square miles
I just want to highlight this here – 1 bomb per 3 square miles of a country larger than Alaska is a lot of bombs (and again recall that this is just JDAM kits!)
Now – what does "destroy Iran" mean? If it means "turn the country into literal molten lava" then no, the USAF does not have the firepower to do this.
If it means "knock out their power grid, obliterate their armed forces, wreck their transportation infrastructure, decapitate their leadership and generally render them incapable of performing the functions expected of a state" then yes, the US has the firepower to do this – the density of "Iranian military/government/dual use facilities/equipment" is not going to be denser than 1 every 3 square miles.
Perhaps the user you are replying to literally means "kill all Iranians" when he says "Let them all die to defend their ambitions." But if, in context of "Kill all their scientists, all their engineers" he's advocating for eliminating the Iranian leadership and personnel responsible for developing nuclear weapons, the US doesn't lack the firepower to do this. Since we've proven capable of building upwards of 100 JDAM kits per day, we might be able to kill upwards of 30,000 Iranian scientists, engineers, and assorted staff per year assuming each guided bomb only kills one (a silly assumption) without even denting our stockpile.
The main problem for the US would be getting the intelligence on where the personnel are (and clearing the Iranian defenses). But those are primarily problems of intelligence procurement, not problems from not having enough firepower.
While millions of high SES millenials put off having children because it’s “too early” or “things are too expensive,” hood bro just YOLOs it and knocks up a pair of preteen/teen sisters, one of them twice.
*sighs in modern-day natural selection*
More options
Context Copy link