domain:cspicenter.com
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12m ago
Well thats because most people are not hard consequentialists.
Neither am I. None of my reasoning is based on consequences. At most, they're a signal that should have told you that you're going too far.
And if you think about that makes sense. If i just want to honestly help Jews then there is some set of information that can persuade me I am not helping. If i mean to kill the Jews then that avenue is closed.
Neither of those things is true. Plenty of "well-intentioned" people axiomatically reject the possibility of being wrong. They view everything through the lens of their ideology, and nothing you say to them will make them reconsider. OTOH there are people motivated by hate, who are open to changing their mind (see: that dude befriending KKK members).
EvanTh
45m ago
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co.
8-0. (Yes, eight. Alito recused himself.)
Apparently it's unclear why, or at least I haven't been able to find out why in a little websearching. But the best guess from Twitter is that Alito owns stock in one of the litigating companies.
Tomato
52m ago
There are no victims
Whether or not they’re victims in a strict legal sense the girls are clearly victims here.
More generally I feel like men wildly underestimate how bad it can feel to be the object of unwanted, intrusive sexual desire/advances due to “men be horny” type attitudes. I spent most of my life rolling my eyes and thinking “how bad can it be to be DESIRED” but over the years I acquired a few stalkers and have had a few women make aggressive and clearly unwanted sexual advances. It actually feels pretty shitty and occupies a lot of your idle thinking. It makes you feel guilty! Like you did something wrong. And this was the mildest stuff imaginable. Having my peers make (even fake) nudes of me would be insanely, ridiculously disturbing and cause legitimate anguish.
aichanuwu
1hr ago
tldr: multiracial universal conscription and shameless racialization.
Singaporean integration is facilitated by brute-forcing an overculture onto disparate local cultures extant at time of independence.It was difficult enough to bend the Cantonese to the Hokkiens or Gujus to Tamil, much less Malays to Chinese. The solution was twofold: a nebulous banner of Singaporeaness with instrumental rewards as carrots and massive punishments as sticks to 'encourage' cooperation in the project. It helped that technocratic leadership successfully delivered economic growth and visually tangible projects at multiple stages within each generation, mollifying dissent that could from failure.
Carrots and sticks are fairly well understood, but what is this overculture and how does one participate in it? @Preformancepretension is correct in identifying housing and conscription as key ingredients in forcing mixing of races, but these would have been resisted if negative effects cropped up, since people could still malinger, buy private property or emigrate, but more importantly if the benefits were not available to all. Malays were initially excluded from conscription due to (extant) fears that Malay muslim solidarity would result in a fifth column should military conflict arise. Racial tensions started lowering slightly once Malays were conscripted as well, with all men basically understanding the suck is common regardless of skin. The advantage of Malay conscription is that it improved their economic prospects, for employers were worried about uneven Malay workforce participation due to the possibility of them being conscripted in future since the State had not actually forbidden malays from conscription, only not conscripted them. Once the fruits of economic progress were available to Malays as well, racial animus from Malays visibly diminished.
(Private property is a totally different ball game but minor compared to HDB flats so I'll ignore private for now) Housing in Singapore is also slightly unique in that it is not only the residences that are ethnically heterogenized, but also hawker centers and to a lesser extent shop lots, as kong as the two are administered by Town Councils. Hawker centers are ridiculously underpriced for their food quality, with each center having a mix of Chinese, Indian and Malay food. They are always full of all races eating in common spaces and eating each others food. It is impossible to maintain racial ignorance when seeing other races every day visibly in normal circumstances.
Nevertheless, the beast of disparate impact that plagues the West raises its ugly head, so how does Singapore solve it? Basically by making the Malays policemen. Most Malays are conscripted into police and civil defense, so they are the ones who respond to incidents the most, and they therefore have firsthand view of the problems within their community. You cannot have a racial firebrand complain about uneven policing when the family members themselves see for themselves what happens. When the Malays themselves acknowledge the extant issues their culture faces, the room for racialized dissent from leaders. Extremely aggressive laws help too, of course.
In the end, what does this mean for the west? Very little unfortunately. Public housing exists in Singapore because there is no plot of undeveloped land just beyond the city people can escape to even if they wanted to. Conscription exists and is supported because of technocratic leadership, existential extant threats just across the border and universal participation. Food works because all local palettes are fine with each others food. You can't have any of these in the West. Land is too available, conscription exclusions will be exploited to the hilt, low cost food in the west sucks and has no ethnic heterogeneity. If I were conscripted in the German military I would wonder why I'm learning to die in a ditch while migrants get to come in freely and will likely be a fifth column against me and my kin.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1hr ago
because Bubba was told that they will eject the bolt in your face
Translation: they will eject the bolt into your face if you're stupid like Bubba.
OliveTapenade
1hr ago
I'm certainly not trying to claim a special genius or anything - on the contrary, I think the implication that being Blue Tribe is desirable or preferable to being Red Tribe is probably just prejudice or tribal bigotry. I'm just trying to be honest about being firstly a believer and secondly from a stereotyically Blue Tribe background.
As for the other half, I'm not particularly inclined to debate theism with you in this moment. If you're an atheist, well, good for you, I suppose? I disagree, and would gently suggest that if you think that atheism is so obvious that any halfway intelligent person should immediately conclude it's true, you might benefit from a little bit more intellectual humility. I'm not going to argue that theism in general or Christianity specifically is definitely true, but I would suggest that a sufficient number of undeniably intelligent and introspective people have believed that you shouldn't be surprised. Again, theism might be untrue, but it is not so obviously untrue that any intelligent and reflective person would automatically realise that. There are too many intelligent theists out there for it to be so.
jkf
1hr ago
If you just extend your grasp to include 'straight pull battle rifles' you just need to add Swiss, Austrian + a Ross as I recall -- Rosses are really neat and go cheap because Bubba was told that they will eject the bolt in your face. (not particularly true)
jkf
1hr ago
What were you using for ammo? If it was anywhere near in the ballpark of the age of the Luger, I'd look there first -- especially if as you mention 'hangfire'.
Other than that maybe the firing pin is clogged with strudel or something? This could cause a misfire but not a hangfire -- not exactly sure how this runs on a Luger, but cleaning the century's worth of gunk out of the bolt would be DIYable. Quite unlikely that there's anything broke that would require a gunsmith unless there's a very unusual amount of miles on the thing.
Stellula
1hr ago
He was brilliant at reddit and twitter, but he looks like a clown on stream.
He literally covered himself in bandaids, put on a fake cast, and played a "flatline" sound effect in the background. If he looks like a clown, I think that was on purpose.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
1hr ago
Tradcath integralism? But I suppose Fuentism is a sub branch of that.
Stellula
1hr ago
I just watched a bunch of her instagram videos. Thank you! She is hilarious!
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
1hr ago
I think you're thinking in too blurry terms here. There is a documented heavy and ongoing debate among the Jewish diaspora as to how much they should integrate into their respective cultures.
Consider the case of modern French politician Eric Zemmour, a tribesman himself, who loves to quote Clermond-Tonnerre's phrase: "Everything must be refused of the Jews as a nation, everything must be tolerated of the Jews as individuals" as he exhorts typical assimilationist talking points.
One may make infinite criticisms of the man, but there is little reason to think he, as a person, despises ethnic French people, especially as he is one of their few defenders on specifically ethnic grounds. You don't write that many books about how shameful their purported demise is if you have a shred of antipathy for them.
Now sure, people like that were probably few and far between in American comic book writer rooms. But were they really insignificant to the degree that you can brush off the debate and put all Jews under a single banner altogether? Especially under the cold war? I think that's far from established.
And it seems especially facile to be this broad when we're talking about the far rights' own particular Jews.
Stellula
1hr ago
Friends I cannot stress this enough: have kids.
People talk about loss of meaning and loss of rigid rites of passage that take you from being a child to being a man.
It's kids. It's always been kids.
Having kids is really hard: your house will constantly be a filthy mess. They will keep you from sleeping, they will make it impossible to go out to dinner or to go to parties, and they make travel really difficult. Any of the dreams of adventure that you had before you had kids will be pushed back by 10 years.
And NONE of that will matter once you have them. You'll find the idea that you ever cared about any of this stuff laughable.
EverythingIsFine
1hr ago
More to the point, I personally think it's more possible female jurors are more likely to agree to be interviewed than men than any big disparity in selection, though I'm not quite certain why that would be.
EverythingIsFine
2hr ago
The thing that bugs me about Nixon is one of the things he often gets a ton of credit for, a rapprochement with China, we can see with retrospect totally screwed us over. Why didn't we actually resolve the Taiwan issue? Because Nixon wasn't actually negotiating from a position of strength. He wanted the electoral glory of a deal.
And now, like 50 years later, we are really, really regretting not figuring out the Taiwan issue back when we actually had leverage (a seat at the UN security council is a big deal)
It's actually pretty complicated and involved with the long fought jurisprudence over obscenity and prurient interest, because despite what the law says, the US has a bill of rights so you can't blanket ban speech categorically.
I think the question of AI art is wholly novel and while making porn of public figures is probably not illegal and up in the air, it very likely is illegal to use it to make CP, whether or not that bear the likeness of real minors.
Moreover, if Congress or the States passed a law to make deepfakes illegal, I think SCOTUS would very likely uphold it substantially, at least insofar as the work is obscene by the Miller test. And most deepfakes of a sexual nature are.
EverythingIsFine
2hr ago
The distinction is that of goal, not necessarily of the inherent properties of the nuke. A tactical nuke has the paradigm of being a normal battlefield bomb, just bigger and more effective. A strategic nuke has the paradigm of wiping out an entire city, base, or resource. They both can serve both purposes but yield often does differ significantly when explicitly designed as one particular category of nuke.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
2hr ago
I really want to like that podcast but holy hell does Stavy's laugh grate on my ears.
I actually do not think that the Middle East is a big danger because a lot of the countries there are actually at least somewhat rational and clear-eyed about fallout afterward (pardon the pun). Ukraine is unlikely because the kind of tactical nukes Russia has been talking about are most effective against massed battlefield formations, of which none really exist. Pakistan and India are unlikely because neither actually wants the other dead, they "merely" hate each other. There's no win condition.
Personally China and Taiwan seems the largest threat to me. The US does not have a no-first-strike policy and I could envision the US dropping a nuke on a Chinese fleet, coastal city, or military base if they first suffered significant battlefield losses. As an additional factor, plausible mass Chinese hacking of US communications might distort the information landscape and cause a premature and make a knee-jerk, low-information response by a trigger-happy president more likely. On the other end, but less likely, the Chinese are demonstrably irrational about bringing Taiwan into the flock (dropping the issue would very obviously be much more in their national interest) due to some ideological prison they've constructed for themselves. Taiwan I would argue is NOT a core Chinese interest, but they treat it like one, and so might be more likely to defend it as if it were their own sovereign territory, causing a massive miscalculation in escalation.
North Korea is an ongoing concern almost for the reverse of the above: NK is irrationally paranoid of being invaded or wiped out, and has low communication resiliency and transparency, making an overreaction to some unpredictable provocation more likely than you'd expect.
Basically, the ingredients for a nuke are simply: significant irrationality, massive disparity in understanding mutual goals, possibility of low availability of information in a crisis, possibility of incorrect information in a crisis, and chain of command issues.
My bet is never, but I place a 20% chance of a nuke within 30 years.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2hr ago
· Edited 35m ago
No, I meant when I get some (usually not as many as I get upvotes, but some). As I said, about half my posts do get at least some downvotes (and some of those don't have replies). Sorry for the confusion.
EverythingIsFine
2hr ago
I dunno, while you could certainly make an argument that simply creating the images is fine, I think distributing them is, though probably incorrectly categorized as CSAM, still something that should carry punishment. Regular teen horniness fundamentally sexualizes a lot of stuff, but stuff that looks realistic and is shown to others is pretty much a stronger version of classic bullying and should be in the same category, more or less (that is, maybe a misdemeanor).
For context, here is a list (at least in my state, Utah, so might vary) of possible misdemeanors a minor student could commit, what level each is, and whether the school would refer it to court or not. "Accessing pornographic material on school property" is a Misdemeanor B, referable. Public Urination/Defecation is an Infraction, default non-referable. Disorderly conduct or other disruption stuff ranges from Infraction through Misdemeanor B. So not a whole lot of directly comparable things, but a misdemeanor seems about on the level.
Though bullying IS classified as a crime, it does not seem to have a specific associated criminal penalty (not sure how that all works). FYI, they in the law define: "Bullying" means a school employee or student intentionally committing a written, verbal, or physical act against a school employee or student that a reasonable person under the circumstances should know or reasonably foresee will have the effect of: causing physical or emotional harm to the school employee or student... [or] placing the school employee or student in reasonable fear of: harm to the school employee's or student's physical or emotional well-being... [or] creating a hostile, threatening, humiliating, or abusive educational environment due to: the pervasiveness, persistence, or severity of the actions. (Irrelevant bits omitted). So clearly seems to fit.
Note that without the distribution component, bullying doesn't fit. Even 40 years ago if someone started passing around those magazine rips, they could probably be on the hook for harassment or something like that.
ace
3hr ago
Ok, I guess don't trust me about the law, either. I half-remembered some story that cartoon pornography was legal in the US, contrasted against its illegality in Australia. But this is just a bad law. What makes CSAM bad is the abuse of children, not the bits on a computer.
Quantumfreakonomics
3hr ago
There’s no crime here. There are no victims. There’s no CSAM, because the images are not of children (notably the AI models are trained on nude adults), nor did any sexual abuse occur in its production.
Let’s check 18 U.S. Code § 2256(8)
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where— (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
I think that definition is way too expansive, but that’s the definition that our elected representatives came up with. As written, it is definitely a federal crime to create deepfakes of Stacy from English class getting railed and texting them to your bros. Some of these provisions are oddly specific. I don’t have time do dig into the legislative history right now, but I suspect they were added recently in order to cover this exact thing.
EverythingIsFine
3hr ago
We accept marginal risk increases and marginal decreases in quantifiable outcomes for otherwise beneficial results or moral principles all the time. For children this is no different. To conclude otherwise about kids is emotional, not logical, reasoning.
These other beneficial results, which are not always easily quantifiable, are often still important. There are more values in play than simple material prosperity. For example, I'd trade a .1 decrease in GPA for my child any day of the week if it means they turn out to be a better-quality, more tolerant, open-minded person. Something I think your claim of "much better outcomes" fails to capture. While sending them to a school with significant minority presence isn't a perfect way of acquiring this mindset, there are some perspectives only lived experience can provide, no matter how good a parent or lecturer you are. That's partly why I illustrated the point about wealth and expected vacations -- she was living in a bubble that no amount of verbal expression could pop.
I also believe that some vague sense of diversity exposure (beyond simple racial categories too, as mentioned) is long-term beneficial. Researchers have found, for example, that increased corporate diversity probably leads to higher profits (this is debated) but much more certainly leads to better decision-making, job satisfaction, and higher quality work -- see here as an example from Harvard Business Review that talks about how diversity is no panacea but in the proper context definitely does help corporations.
Plus, though I don't buy into it to the extent some people do (the whole performative white guilt thing is bullshit), there IS certainly a moral evil in saying "oh my particular in-group is happy and prosperous" and thus let's not do anything to help other, suffering groups. Especially when, you know, broadly speaking your in-group was directly responsible for those poor outcomes of other groups. That's literally dystopian. When it comes to education, to some extent there's a zero-sum pot of resources available. To say "oh well it's working out for my group personally so it's fine" is not a holistic nor accurate way of viewing the situation. You want to talk evil? That's pretty close!
There are plenty of mechanisms for which Black kids can have better outcomes other than some vague notion of proximity or magic, you are correct. I haven't listed them explicitly, but I could if you doubt they exist. Put briefly, part of the problem with US primary and secondary education has to do with the funding and geographical schemes used.
Overall, though, it's still so bizarre to me that you outright accuse me of racism. You blocked out a quote of mine and I fail to see anything racist there.
If anything, this technology pretty much decreases victimization via two means:
If AI nudes become widespread and indistinguishable from real ones (and they're close), the danger of having real nudes leaked becomes basically zero. (Given how much many if not most women in my experience love sending out nudes cavalierly and are only stopped from doing so by concerns about exposure, I believe, if they could think one step ahead beyond inventing a new form of victimhood to decry in the NYT about this technology, they'd be tithing 10% to its developers.)
AI "CSAM" (reverse the first two letters and you have my opinion about this modern newspeak term and its relation to the perfectly fine term CP that didn't need any replacement) holds the potential to completely destroy any markets in or sharing of actual CP, again if it's indistinguishable from it. If it's indistinguishable, then even people who specifically only want the real thing will have to give up, because even they won't be able to tell the difference. It'd be like flooding a drug market with a 100x cheaper to produce version that's indistinguishable from the real thing. You would put the dealers of the original stuff straight out of business, even if there were still a demand for their product on authenticity grounds, because that demand for authenticity can't be satisfied if nobody can determine authenticity.
But this just further reveals the character of the modern woke system of American "law and order" (and those are definitely scare quotes). It's not about actually improving the world, protecting anyone, or anyone's safety; it's about punishing people for being morally impure as considered by the privileged classes.
Pursuant to my second point, with a modest government investment in AI models specifically for the purpose and agentic AIs to spread it around the usual chains of CP distribution, the US government could probably end or at least curtail by 97-98% or so (casual estimation) the genuinely criminal distribution of actual CP by drowning it in mostly if not entirely indistinguishable AI forgeries. No living, breathing, sentient child (or again at least 97-98% less) would ever have to be sex trafficked or exposed by the production of such material again. Those who have already would, much sooner than would occur naturally, have the memories of it buried under hundreds of pounds of dirt of digital disinformation. (It is worth noting that every time somebody is caught with CP featuring a person known to the US government, that person has an opportunity to get payout from the confiscated assets etc. of the convicted, with the most famous "CP stars" sometimes making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year off of this. So, perversely enough, they may not like this change. Presumably most would be relieved however.)
They can't/won't do this though. Why not? Why because the people who are inclined to like CP might still like the new, AI-generated stuff, or might even think some of it is real, and still masturbate to it. Their filthy little perverted minds will still be free to get off with impunity (if not better than before with a state-of-the-art government AI pumping out content catering to their every fantasy for them), and that's the real crime here, their corrupt pleasure and satisfaction, even if it harms none, not what happens to real flesh-and-blood children or anybody else.
And it's the same with kids generating nudes of their schoolmates. There's no actual analysis or consideration of the boundaries of freedom of expression, private fantasizing, the balance of rights between people, etc. involved. They're dirty little chuds, as proven by the fact that they've done something to offend a female, and that's it. (And of course the likely general unattractiveness of the nerdy guys who have adopted AI technology for fake nudification this early is a major factor. If it had been only attractive guys found with this technology, there would be no NYT article. As usual and again, it's not about principles, it's about the fact that, as the famous graph shows, women are statistically illiterate (at least in this particular area) and thus consider 80% of men to be below average and therefore unworthy of the baseline of respect and consideration. Thus the fact that these men have sexual urges at all is an abomination to women, something to be policed as forcibly as is necessary (unless money can be made from them on OF).)
More options
Context Copy link