domain:inv.nadeko.net
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
8m ago
I think the word you’re looking for is not freedom but “agency”!
Walz was quick off the mark with "this is a politically motivated assassination", presumably on the basis that if Democrat politicians were attacked, it must be those dastardly Republicans to blame. Well, turns out that (it's looking like) the guy is one of your own, Tim. So now what is the political motivation, and how is your party to be held accountable?
The connections to Walz are incredibly tenuous, that he was reappointed six years ago to a large bipartisan workforce advisory board (one of 130 total state boards, advisory councils, task forces, etc) with this including volunteer small business owner representatives from around the state where most of the nominations came from basically just rubber stamping local council choices.
It's a ridiculously weak connection, but that's not really the point now is it? The bigger point is the implications people try to make like you put here
So now what is the political motivation, and how is your party to be held accountable?
The bigger logic employed here is "bad guy tenuously connected to your side did something wrong? That's proof you're evil!" and this logic means a person using this logic simply can't accept that anyone bad ever exists on their end of the political spectrum or they'd have to contend with the same implications.
And it reminds me of this point from SSC about the Ashley Todd case https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/04/ethnic-tension-and-meaningless-arguments/
I think insofar as this affected the election – and everyone seems to have agreed that it might have – it hit President Obama with a burst of bad karma. Obama something something psychopath with a knife. Regardless of the exact content of those something somethings, is that the kind of guy you want to vote for?
Then when it was discovered to be a hoax, it was McCain something something race-baiting hoaxer. Now he’s got the bad karma!
This sort of conflation between a cause and its supporters really only makes sense in the emotivist model of arguing. I mean, this shouldn’t even get dignified with the name ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem fallacy is “McCain had sex with a goat, therefore whatever he says about taxes is invalid.” At least it’s still the same guy. This is something the philosophy textbooks can’t bring themselves to believe really exists, even as a fallacy.
But if there’s a General Factor Of McCain, then anything bad remotely connected to the guy – goat sex, lying campaigners, whatever – reflects on everything else about him.
And let's be honest, the large majority of the time this logic gets used it's as an isolated demand for rigor.
The other side is accountable for all their bad actions, whereas my side just has a few bad apples. I'm going to assume you're Republican aligned based off previous comments and context so let's ask that question.
Should we be holding Republicans responsible for the recent stories of people trying to kill protestors yesterday?
I think no and I've been consistent with my beliefs. I said it about Charlottesville, Gamergate, BLM, the "stochastic terrorism" accusations against LibsofTiktok, Palestine activists, Israeli activists, January 6th protestors, protestors in France during the pension strikes, etc etc that blaming groups for the actions of a few individuals is just poor reasoning.
So will you be consistent with your argument and agree Republicans should be held accountable for cases like these car attacks or the attempted assassination of Pelosi, the attempted kidnapping of Whitmer, the murder of a cop during Jan 6th, etc?
Now I'm not going to assume bad faith of you, but I will say that I find most people, right and left wingers alike tend to agree with my position that they aren't responsible for a few crazies once they're asked about their side.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
11m ago
I think it always makes more sense to describe freedom in specific contexts rather than try to define some kind of net, global, non-associated “freedom”. Freedom to breathe clean air without payment or restriction is a different freedom to, say, pollute the skies. These freedoms are often in conflict and it’s not clear that you can describe a ‘net freedom’ as if it were something numerical.
To choose a more grounded example, burning trash is a classic local conflict with no clear ‘more free’ option. One neighbor says it’s freedom to choose how to dispose of their own property on their own property. Another neighbor says it’s freedom to have clean air. Another says freedom is being able to throw loud parties whenever, but yet another says excessive noise infringes on their own freedom to do certain activities that might require quiet.
The solution is practical compromise, not arguing over which appeal to freedom is stronger.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
22m ago
I think this is bad advice. First, because that is not generally agreed upon (the fourth book is excellent in my view), but second because if you read three doorstopper fantasy novels you're not going to stop there. Pretty much anyone who enjoys them enough to get that far is going to keep going to see how they like the books they were advised against. Third, it would be extremely frustrating to get only 30% of a story. Better to not read the books at all if they really do go downhill to such an extent.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
24m ago
Who is “they”? Best I can tell it was mostly the parents and school trying legal tricks (presumably to protect their reputation or something)? And the stated purpose feels at least facially plausible even if made in bad faith (that releasing shooter thoughts only makes them more famous and validates their approach as their writings are guaranteed notoriety) even if you disagree (as I do) and think there’s more to lose by a perception of secrecy. I mean, despite thinking this, it’s also true that media attention spawns copycats. I’ve never seen the copyright angle used but it also seems legally plausible.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
25m ago
Who are you to claim everyone's equally slaved to such passions?
edmund-nelson
Filthy Anime Memester
28m ago
How do you best verify Large language model output?
I hear lots of people say they use LLM's to search through documents or to get ideas for how something works, but my question is how do people verify the output? Is it as simple as copy-pasting keywords onto google to get the actual science textbooks? Or is there some better set of steps to take that I miss. I also wonder how you do that for looking through a document, is there some sort of method for getting the LLM to output page citations so you check those (maybe it's in settings or something)
Just finished reading the first Volume of The chemical Formulary, a book which is best described as "What if the Necronomicon were real"
It's got all sorts of recipes from adhesives to cosmetics to explosives to (insanely sketchy) medicine. It also presents everything in a mater of fact way without telling you of all the demons you are possibly creating.
Here's the recipie for cleaning coins for example
Sodium Cyanide 8 ounces
Water 1 Gallon
Apply the above solution with a tampico brush and when tarnish is removed wash with cold clean water then hot water and dry.
Note: this material is Poisonous and care must be taken in handling.
When this book says something is dangerous what they mean is this has a level 4 safety risk in the data sheet cleaning coins just requires enough cyanide to kill 2000 people
In volume 6 they have a Defense against war gasses section on page 535.
The describe Titanium Tetracloride smoke as "harmless", and Zinc Chloride smoke gets the same treatment
Yeah that's right this book is that unhinged.
It's also got great recipes for making Hydrogen Sulfide gas, a chemical that if it reaches 1000 parts per million and you take 1 breathful you die instantly.
This book is both a gold mine and a walking disaster. The funny thing is most of the chemicals used in the recipes are super easy to purchase at your local hardware store or wal-mart. Then you can light your house on fire, give your neighborhood cancer, die of Cyanide poisoning (ok that one is harder), die of hydrogen sulfide poisoning. Some of the stuff is harder to make thankfully but the danger levels of this book rival removing a microwave transformer.
wayfarer
34m ago
But people (non-prostitute people) break all of these conditions all the time.
that does not make prostitution "normal, healthy, average relationship"
in the same way as someone being a thief does not mean that murder is normal, healthy and average
whether things you mention are bad or not is a separate topic
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
40m ago
For help with the setting, Sanderson was inspired by rock pools at a beach he visited, which is why almost everywhere is rocky or sandy, most creatures have crustacean features, and 'grass' and other plants act weird.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
41m ago
That's just ad hominem. Who gives a shit if it's a tyrant's excuse?
Is it true? Whatever the answer it, it certainly doesn't seem "objective".
wayfarer
41m ago
tend to have deeply conflicted world views that they never examine
well, examining your world view and deciding that you have room for "actually, I will go out in maybe pointless last stand if someone will leave me no other option that is acceptable" is also possible outcome.
And "would you prefer to rape children or murder grandmas" surely fits into category where this kind of response is OK.
And probably far earlier. (For example some chunk of millions murdered by Germans and Russians and Japanese regimes surely wished they did something a bit earlier, even if it would be doomed and only had a tiny effect)
I am fine not only with winning. I am also fine with "fuck you" type of hopeless stand.
Even if it only mildly inconveniences enemy.
Yes, I prefer cheating to win or seriously inconveniencing them, but at some point I prefer doomed last stand than playing. Not bothered to predefine what is the end stop for me but it is definitely far before engaging with "'An elderly woman will be tortured to death unless you have sex with a six year old. So, what are you going to do?" as invented by Aella.
hydroacetylene
51m ago
Abolitionists absolutely saw it as part of their identity, at least.
EdenicFaithful
Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw
59m ago
Adding Political Ponerology to my list.
I genuinely think the source for this strife is that people are self sorting too much. People naturally tend to moderate when exposed to other perspectives. It’s just the exposure is too skewed towards social media and online/TV personalities and too little towards everyday fellow humans. Also why travel as a source for eliminating prejudice has reversed - too little actual genuine interpersonal contact. People will never learn how to talk about politics without rage unless they attempt it (and occasionally fail). It’s not much different than other social skills in that way.
More options
Context Copy link