domain:astralcodexten.substack.com
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
3hr ago
The US can clearly do fine with a modest number of West Africans dragging it down. But if you want first-world performance... If you want safe, efficient, orderly public transport... If you want a lower burden of progressive taxation and affirmative action... If you want crime at civilized, first world levels...
Then you need to address the problem at the root cause. If you let them have political power they'll cause all kinds of problems, they'll West Africanize the country to a lesser or greater extent based on their number, admixture and so on. Bloated and corrupt government is just one and not even the worst problem necessarily.
Consider a thought experiment - what if all the politicians and powerful officials in America had to be black? Give it 20 years for the effects to settle. What do you expect the outcome would be in terms of performance? Would it look more like a high performance country (Japan, Switzerland) or a low performance country like South Africa? Naturally the US has plenty of capable demographics to squander so the decline wouldn't be as severe as South Africa, whose murder rate is actually comparable to the death toll in the Russia-Ukraine war. Nevertheless, there are no white poor performance countries and no black high performance countries. Even on a city level one can observe that having politics dominated by blacks is not a recipe for good outcomes: Detroit.
Now consider the reverse. All the politicians and powerful officials in America have to be non-black. Give it 20 years. Would the outcome be better than the alternate? Is the US really losing much by banning them from office? All that would happen is some rioting, which can be quickly and easily put down with a little effort. West Africans are notoriously bad at fighting, disorganized and inaccurate marksmen. Of course it's a totally moot point since as bad as West Africans are at fighting, US whites are even less willing to force the issue.
Rosencrantz2
3hr ago
Okay so compare: 'Evolution gave us a brain that enjoys different flavours because it gives us the nutrients to survive." With: 'Anyone who claims they eat food 'just for the taste' is full of shit. They are really doing it to get a proper range of nutrients.'
Or: 'Evolution gave us a brain that feels good during orgasm because it leads to reproduction." With: 'Anyone who claims they seek orgasm just for its own sake is full of shit.'
We find ourselves with the brains and reward systems we have. The good thing about human autonomy is that (in theory) we can often co-opt these systems for other motivations. Is it a neat capability we are in full control of? Absolutely not. But we can still distinguish why we do x from the historical reasons and general reasons for our proclivity to x.
It sounds like you're just rephrasing @faceh's point in different words. I don't see how "evolution gave us a brain that feels good when a person looks attractive when they have an audience, but not when they don't have an audience" is a meaningfully different assertion from "any woman who claims she dresses up 'for herself' is full of shit". Surely if dressing up feels good if and only if you have an audience, that logically implies that no one is really dressing up "for themselves".
ControlsFreak
3hr ago
Please elaborate on what you mean by "decent alcohol" and "good weed". I think there are some shenanigans with quality/potency/etc.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
3hr ago
Pretending that this is a serious suggestion:
It's not the quantity of the beatings, but their accuracy. You need to
- correctly identify asocials, and catch them in the act and
- beat them appropriately and publicly.
And this is difficult because
- It takes a lot of attention and fine-toothed combing to separate social citizens from asocial ones who have learned to pretend to be social where necessary. They will obfuscate their asocial activities, limit them to settings in which they aren't observed closely, and always keep a plausible excuse handy. After a few months and years of beatings, only the stupidest will be asocial where they can be caught.
- If the beatings are too piddly, people will not take them seriously. If the beatings are excessive, people will hate the goons dishing them out rather than the poor asocial who just got his teeth knocked out for taking one minute too long on the loo, which weakens the entire institution. If the beatings happen in secret so that nobody can judge whether they were appropriate, you end up with some kafkaeske nightmare state like the soviet union or Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Either way, you raise up class of violent state-sanctioned thugs who beat people up for not loving the state enough. It's not a winning recipe in the long-term.
Botond173
4hr ago
A couple of things:
-
The “we pretend that we work, they pretend that they pay us” Soviet joke specifically originates from the post-Stalin era of thaw and stagnation and for a good reason, as the GULAG no longer existed
-
Marx was already convinced that revolutionary terror is necessary and described it as such
-
As you stated, the commies noticed that beating up selfish people for their acts of selfishness will successfully de-normalize selfishness socially; in a similar manner, beating people up for not caring about the common good will compel them to care about it or else – it’ll work just as much; however, this assumes that the goons and their commanders will never lose their stomachs for beating people up all the time
Rosencrantz2
4hr ago
That's not the crux though, one would expect evolution to give people a brain that feels good when a person looks attractive in public, rather than in private.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
4hr ago
That's...this is bait, right?
- The government is usually the biggest rent-seeking entity on the block, growing its body of sinecures with every year and funding it through value extracted from the productive classes at gunpoint.
- The government usually solves problems by implementing solutions that either don't work, or are hilariously cost-inefficient to the point where they could have done better by just distributing the money spent directly to the nominal beneficiaries. Which of course the government doesn't do, because the actually intended beneficiary is (some other part of) the government.
- Government is corrupt and wasteful; the private sector gets the blame.
I mean, epistemic gap, the rightist and the leftist see two different movies on one screen, yadda yadda. I'm perfectly willing to admit that private sector actors are also self-interested and will bend and exploit the rules as far as they can, but come on. The government is so much bigger, more powerful and further-reaching, it has every opportunity to prove how well it can solve problems. Pointing fingers at filthy corporats and kulaks, as if they were responsible for every government failure ever, regardless of which country and/or system we're talking about...
Rosencrantz2
5hr ago
But humans also have brains big enough to create elaborate, usually post-hoc justifications for actions they take, and so they can pretend that dressing and acting in a way that effectively short-circuits the other sex's thought processes (b/c horny) and claim its all solely motivated by self-empowerment.
Is that really hypocritical though? Suppose evolution makes it enjoyable to dress in a way that's sexy to men. Why can't women now take that system of enjoyment nature has given them, and use it to intentionally get enjoyment for themselves with attracting men becoming a side effect? It seems kinda similar to evolution making us like certain flavours to help us get the right range of nutrients. Modern foodies taking that capacity for enjoyment given to us by evolution, and employing it for their own non-survival ends. At least in theory, the original evolutionary cause of the impulse can be acknowledged, but then co-opted.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
5hr ago
The upswing in "socialism"* of late is largely a reaction to the perceived failure of political systems to address socio-economic problems. In particular, the GFC, the failure of the ACA to address the capriciousness of the American healthcare system, climate change, and a general inability to hold economic elites to account for anti-social-but-legal behavior. The price of housing hasn't helped either.
Unfortunately, when people get mad, they often vote for stupid and/or self-destructive policies.
*I use scare quotes because to a large degree modern American socialism is simply a middle class left-populist movement. There are genuine exceptions, but when you press for policy details you'll generally find something that is not in any meaningful sense a break from the past 70 years of left-liberalism. A backlash against decades of "socialism is when the government does stuff" has greatly attenuated the negative connotations of the label.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
6hr ago
Fantastic story, had me grinning from ear to ear as I read it. Thanks for sharing! I do think your link is mistaken, though.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
6hr ago
I honestly can't relate to people who complain about not-dark mode. I don't find it hard on the eyes at all, so it's difficult for me to understand how anyone could be so fervently bothered by it. To each their own I suppose.
urquan
Every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.
6hr ago
This was also my reaction.
I am disappointed that the tron theme doesn't look anything like the movie Tron.
self_made_human
C'est la vie
6hr ago
Substack has a feature where the creator can view the original sources of any traffic to a particular blog.
So far, it was mostly a curiosity, I was used to seeing Reddit, or "Email", those being places where I'd personally shared my writing. I'm not sure what links posted on The Motte show up as, but presumably "Direct" since I strip out the usual tracking IDs out of courtesy.
My latest post did numbers, at least by baby Substack standards. I'd seen a decent amount of traffic from X, and the site's abysmal search did find someone of decent repute shouting it out. A few large Substack authors reblogged it to boot. Someone big even wants to interview me, though my desire for online pseudonymity might make that a no-go.
But then, when I checked back later today, I was immensely surprised to see Gwern in the list. I mean, he's a big name, but surely he doesn't have an independent listing? I dug in, and to my immense pride, I saw that my post had been deemed worthy of ending up as a link he'd rounded up on his personal site.
I'm very chuffed, but I find myself chagrined by the fact that the number of people I know IRL I can boast about this to round up to zero. The only way I could be more pleased is if it caught Scott's eye, but I've managed to achieve that once before so it's off the bucket list.
Motherfucking Gwern-senpai noticed me. I knew that obsessively tracking down links and literature reviews as well as digging into neurophysiology would pay off. Now I feel awful about not adding a dozen footnotes and citations :(
Anyone else ever catch the eye of their heroes?
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
7hr ago
I remember there are themes every time I get logged out and my retinas are seared. Dark mode has spoiled the shit out of me.
Would you feel more comfortable with this process if we were able to produce date that illustrates that patients admitted with homicidal ideation are equally or more likely to kill someone as felons?
This seems to be a more specific group than previously discussed, so I'm not sure why data on them would matter to a discussion of involuntarily admitted patients as a whole. I also do not agree with rights being removed at a statistical level. Temporary violations of rights without due process are unfortunately necessary, but for a more permanent removal a just system requires an individual and adversarial process.
Fundamentally we need to establish what level of problematic behavior disqualifies from gun use.
I'm more concerned about the (lack of) process here, but given it's a right I'd accept taking guns away at the same level which would justify locking them up for an extended time. If you wouldn't feel comfortable tossing them in a jail cell for their behavior I don't think it's bad enough to take their guns either.
my co-workers [...] aren't going to abuse the commitment process for political reasons
Leading doctors in the US recently tried to distribute scarce health resources (covid-19 vaccines) by race. If that was non-political then non-political covers a lot I would consider political. I am concerned that some doctors will involuntarily admit a person for the purpose of getting them away from their guns long-term (i.e. past the immediate episode), and your word isn't sufficient to convince me that they aren't willing to do this.
Your usual crazy schizophrenic homeless person wandering around on the street was deemed safe to go home. How bad do you think the ones who get dragged in are?
I was under the impression these people do tend to get occasionally dragged in and involuntarily committed, then are eventually let go again.
Jim
7hr ago
Going by the charities his ex-wife keeps donating to, she must be either trying to get back at Bezos or is a liberal NPC. I'm not sure how happy one might be with
From everything I’ve heard, Jeff is fully onboard with all that stuff himself.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
7hr ago
There needs to be a documentary series on a major streaming service that, as fairly and calmly as possible, shows what progressive populists believe and what the problems with it are.
First time? Best case scenario is that this documentary series would be dismissed on sight as right-wing propaganda, worst case scenario is that people making it will have their lives ruined.
Politics is war by peaceful means, you don't win by "calmly explaining", and much more straightforward issues, that would cost a lot less to concede than this, have been a decade long slog of an uphill battle, you have no chance moving people on their fundamental beliefs.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
8hr ago
"Adopt local cultural norms"? What else is it supposed to mean?
Yeah. Seems obvious to me that if you don't have a lot of experiences in common b/c you came from different backgrounds or one is a lot younger and inexperienced.
Then... go out and share some experiences. Then talk about them. This is what I try to make the core mission of ANY relationships I form, but doubly so the romantic ones. Talking about one's background is for the early stages, its something you move past within the first few months.
Really this is just dependent on whether people are good at communicating at all, or not.
Democratic Socialists are the vehicle for socialism in America. They develop relations with leftists, organize them, use them for elections, and seek to implement socialist policy. Solidarity is praxis.
Differentiating is not a requirement, it's a method to clarify ones own position from another related position. You want Democratic Socialists to stand on their own two legs in America and be less open to smears for bad(?) socialism. I might call it socialism lite or entry-level socialism. Another idea might be for an organization like the DSA -- which Mamdani contributes to and has used to seek power -- to police and toss out the revolutionaries. Truly be a Democratic Socialist organization instead of the place for leftists. I suspect neither of these things will occur. Mamdani is more interested in winning office than standing up for Democratic Socialism. He likely appreciates the fact Fox News will lambast him as a Socialist.
It seems to be conservatives that omit the Democratic half of the moniker Democratic Socialist way more than progressives
It is not unique to conservatives. Parents that object to teacher-student confidentiality are far right. Canadian truckers are far right. J.K. Rowling is far right. Elon Musk is far right and an extremist. All those individuals are probably Islamophobic and racist, too. Many words are unfair. I wish people would be more noble and curious, but this is politics. Being far right is bad. Being a socialist is bad. Being a leftist is bad. There are no goal posts or purity. It is what it is. Don't watch Fox News.
Mamdani has a campaign platform that lists some policy ideas. Several I consider to be bad ideas regardless of how socialist they are. They do appear to be broadly popular among leftists. He also doesn't appear to have an issue using propaganda. Cable news networks are imprecise in their opposition to Bad Ideas from Bad People. That they're imprecise due to a definitional standard that doesn't meet yours or mine is not of consequence. In Bizarro world, Mamdani is a Democratic National Socialist and there's a whole lot of focus on the National Socialist part. Some of it is fair, some not so much.
would argue that "deregulation" that is often cited as "capitalist" is simply rent-seeking cronyism
I share the understanding that, as a general rule of thumb, a more laissez-faire policy is more capitalism. Nuance can be found in every crevice.
faceh
8hr ago
This hypothetical kinda goes out the window entirely when you account for the fact that one sex is VASTLY more likely to take a bunch of selfies from said event which they will then publish to social media accounts while being quite aware that lots of members of the opposite sex will be viewing those photos.
Because in the very abstract sense, your hypothetical basically describes a nunnery.
Sure but they're the best of the lot (still no STEM Nobels though). It's not that easy to get to the US from West Africa.
I don't deny that whites who voted for this guy are fools but there is at least potential for good things amongst a broad, non-cherrypicked white population. Build up a power base of elite West Africans at your peril, see what happens if they get you to open the floodgates.
More options
Context Copy link