domain:streamable.com
Mosy Democrats used to be fairly moderate and skittish about a lot of things they are now extreme and vocal about, with propaganda spread on social media the thing that changed their consensus-mediated understanding of reality.
The propagandists understand how this is done and are now doing it with court packing.
dasfoo
3hr ago
don’t get it. What’s the connection, here?
He's suggesting they'd be in prison if they were right-wing protesters rather than random criminals.
urquan
The end desire of the system is Kubernetes for human beings
3hr ago
I think a lot of people are confused why the sex recession could be concerning to socialcons, so I thought I'd chime in and give my take.
First of all, in an "only Nixon could go to China" sense, I'm a strong opponent of casual sex. I think it's bad. And I've thought it's bad since I first formed opinions about sex, and continue to believe it. I think it's damaging to the individual and to society, and I think it cheapens something that is of great significance.
So my problem with the sex recession is not that I think promiscuity is great and I lament its decline, it's that the problem with the sex recession isn't actually about sex at all -- it's an underlying intimate relationship recession and a loneliness crisis.
What's happening isn't that a bunch of people are getting into intimate dating relationships and keeping it in their pants until marriage, or at least until their relationship is solid and long-term oriented. What's happening is straight people aren't talking to the opposite sex at all. And, if they are, they find no interest in dating any of them, because they have unrealistic expectations, or they don't understand the appeal of a relationship, or they are so neurotic that they're unable to form a stable intimate connection with another person.
That a whole bunch of young people are so atomized and neurotic that they're unable to form intimate relationships is actually more damaging, in my view, than casual sex is per se. So I'm concerned about the sex recession in much the same way as a socialist might have been concerned about the Great Depression.
"Ah, but!" you say, "the Great Depression was all about the banks and the capitalists losing their money in the stock market crash!"
"Well, that was what started it," the socialist replies, "but the real problem was what happened to the workers, who became unemployed and unemployable, who were forced to stand in breadlines for food and travel the country in search of work."
The Great Depression was bad for the capitalists, just as the sex recession is bad for people who want casual sex. But it is also very, very bad for people who want intimate relationships in general, even socialcons who want to settle down with a nice girl and have a family. Because, as it turns out, many of the skills and capacities necessary for people to have casual sex are also necessary for people to have long-term intimate relationships. And if the social environment -- as sex-positive and gung-ho about casual sex as it is -- cannot get people to have sex, well, it probably can't get them to settle down, either.
So the sex recession serves as a sign of the times, a statistical revelation of a deeper problem. There's a reason the news reports on the stock market, and it's not just because many Americans have investments -- it's because what happens on the market ends up affecting the economy as a whole. And so it is with sex.
I hold that a big part of the ultimate problem is a lack of strong, conservative institutions, including marriage, but of course I believe that.
However, just as a socialist would insist that the ultimate causes of the Great Depression were the flaws of capitalism and the lack of worker control over the means of production, I would insist the ultimate causes of the sex recession are the flaws of the sexual revolution and the lack of willingness to sacrifice in order to make relationships work. While, of course, lamenting the loneliness and the emptiness and the suffering that the sex recession engenders.
And just as the socialist would say that the Depression necessitated a revolution, I too say that the sex recession necessitates a serious reevaluation of the "sex system" we've established. This is a system which insists on the greatness of sex while utterly dismantling the insitutions that helped most people safely and meaningfully have it. And I suppose, like the reddit-tier socialists insisting we live in "late-stage capitalism" while expecting the revolution any day now, I hope and pray we are in "late-stage sexual libertinism" where the contradictions and the failures of the casual sex system become apparent to the masses.
All of this comes as people's ability to form platonic friendships is damaged as well. It's a totally generalized loneliness crisis. And it's a massive problem for our society: I think it threatens to tear the social fabric apart. My suspicion is that this will happen less as a bang (pun not intended, but appreciated) and more as a slow, methodical, sorrowful loss of social support and increased low-level suffering. I think this has already been happening for a while now, with the results evident in real life and online.
I hold that many of the problems of wokeness -- the obsessiveness about identity markers, the dogpiling on opponents, the extremely online bickering, all of that -- form but another cluster of symptoms of the same problem: a neurotic, atomized, empty, soulless, lonely society. People are desperate for something to give them an identity and a purpose, because their family and their society and their friends and their (at times non-existent) partners have utterly failed in the basic social function of giving them that.
Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
3hr ago
While I am not @Primaprimaprima, my perspective on lone wolf shootings is that most of them are done by a specific sort of maladjusted man that isn't really that hard to notice and that the vast majority of these could be prevented pretty easily by returning to a much broader regime of involuntary commitment for dangerous lunatics. The kids at Sandy Hook died because our society values the freedom of lunatics more than the safety of innocents. The problem with the approach to Adam Lanza isn't that he was treated with too much disposability, but that he wasn't treated as more disposable.
RaiderOfALostTusken
4hr ago
The saddest thing, is if I took a poll, i would bet that more canadians know that Trump was convicted than know that literal sitting MPs willingly assisted foreign governments.
The question also is what percent of men are choosing to not have sex or staying single vs. not out of choice. In the US, a more powerful legal system generally incentivizes singleness for men, as these institutions tend to work against men and favor women. I think this is how 'the right' works against its own interests of promoting fertility. The 'law and order' and 'rule of law' the right values so highly at the same time lessens the power of average men or tips it in favor or women. Outside of the US, these systems tend to be weaker, relatively speaking, compared to men, hence higher fertility rates. In the US, courts, agents, and police have tons of power, whereas military, politicians, and citizens have less. Ex-US, military, politicians, and businessmen have more power but police and courts are weaker and easily bribed or otherwise evaded.
ThenElection
4hr ago
Mass shootings (non-gang related), serial killers, and stranger rape all of have one other thing in common: they're extraordinarily rare. Most incels just descend into listless stagnation; they're not going to be agents that fundamentally change society.
ThenElection
4hr ago
It was tongue in cheek (not obviously enough so, apparently).
A significant wing of the Democratic party with media allies has committed to a deligitimization campaign of the Supreme Court, specifically targetting Republican justices. Tactically this is to pressure the justicies to recuse themselves from specific cases, more broadly an attempt to scandalize them into resigning in general so that they can be replaced by more compliant partisans, and even more broadly delegitimize Supreme Court rulings against the Democratic partisan interests and build support for future potential court packing schemes.
jkf
4hr ago
If the NDP at any point grows a pair (probably requires turfing Jagmeet, which would also be a good idea, for them) you could see a majority-backed confidence motion on this which would get either information or an election in short order.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
5hr ago
but plainly, that hasn't happened so far, certainly not on any appreciable scale
I don't think this is generally accepted---certainly not to the point of "plainly". There's a very prevalent narrative that the rise of the alt right in Europe/US is exactly the widespread social instability you would see because of this---for example see here:
"One in three young men in Germany has never had a girlfriend. Are you one of them?" Krah asks and continues with advice: "Don't watch porn, don't vote green, go outside into the fresh air. Be confident. And above all don't believe you need to be nice and soft. Real men stand on the far right. Real men are patriots. That's the way to find a girlfriend!"
AhhhTheFrench
We will sell no wine before its time
5hr ago
Columbine was a tragic love story between two men. It didn't have anything to do with being love challenged.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
5hr ago
which probably leads to them not being very productive.
Given mass immigration and increasing automation, how much of a concern is this, really?
confuciuscorndog
5hr ago
follow society's rules
Or to put it more starkly but still perfectly accurately: You are free not to care about these men. And they are free not to care that you would prefer that they didn't engage in mass shootings, serial killings, and rapings against the people you care about.
You might say that a high number of sexless males is more likely to lead to violence and social instability - but plainly, that hasn't happened so far, certainly not on any appreciable scale.
@Primaprimaprima, do you feel comfortable expressing this argument when there's a lone wolf mass shooting (that is, not gang-related), which are almost exclusively committed by maladjusted and love-challenged men? Not asking as a gotcha, just genuinely curious. Are they just the acceptable and not particularly appreciable collateral damage of male disposability to you and not worth the general outpouring of rage and emotion that generally accompanies them? Have you expressed this opinion to any "normies", and how did they respond?
The problem is that when female hypergamy is left totally unchecked (as it is now), the standards become so high that you can't meet them simply by being a hard-working guy with reasonable achievements. And even if you can, that takes time. Meanwhile the alleged prize waiting for you at the end of the tunnel already has a bodycount of 20 with guys who were born with a better jawbone or a few more inches of height. Not worth it.
It's a much better incentive structure to do what has always been done throughout history: Give men a reasonable wife early, and then make them work and follow society's rules to keep access to her. After all, it's been shown that humans tend to be more loss-averse than risk-tolerant, more motivated by the threat of losing what they already have than gaining something new (a phenomenon documented heavily in the psychological tricks used by mobile games).
2rafa
5hr ago
Is there any real counter evidence to the argument that infanticide both historically and today is mostly, in most societies, of female children? That is the way it is in modernity from rural South Africa to one child policy China.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5hr ago
For example, he said that there is no such thing as a Canadian identity and that he views Canada is the world’s first “postnational state.”
I've been trying to put into words why I'm against open borders and I think this is the piece I needed to understand my inherent distrust. A post-national state does not have a people, it has a territory. Other - real - nations can exploit that territory without regard for the people. The government of a nation is elected by the people to put their common good first.
Trudeau sees himself as some sort of steward of Canada's natural resources and land. His "postnational state" denies the existence of a category called "Canadian people." There is the land of Canada, and the people currently inhabiting it which he has jurisdiction over. But without having a category of Canadian people to even reference, his decisions are not sourced in what is the well-being of the Canadian people and their decedents.
SSCReader
5hr ago
I think it is probably false, but there is no-one who is unbiased enough to make the determination fairly in any case. My experience is that people of any ideology are largely very similar. A conservative or progressive born at the right time in the right place in Germany would probably have been a Nazi. A Nazi born in revolutionary France may have been wielding a guillotine or fleeing to England depending. Very few people choose their ideology, it's built out of their social experiences, from what their family and community believes.
People are just people, they are largely socialized into their ideologies and can be socialized into entirely different ideologies in different circumstances. Some of them are more or less committed, some of them are more or less informed, some of them are nicer and some of them are more selfish. You get gossipy small town church ladies and gossipy office HR ladies. I've lived in 3 different countries, visited dozens more as part of my work and I have yet to note that any particular ideology has more or fewer intellectually honest people. In fact I don't think most people even particularly care or think about being intellectually honest in whatever country or ideology they may be. There are so few people that do, I have no idea how you would even be able to determine if it differs per ideology, the numbers would be so small, and the methods of determination so vague.
If pushed I might say that Libertarianism seems to have the greatest number of people who think being intellectually honest is useful or good, but I can't say that I've actually seen that they actually are in practice any more than Rural MAGA Christians or suburban progressive soccer moms or any other group.
To_Mandalay
5hr ago
I said "almost"
Chrisprattalpharaptr
Ave Imperaptor
5hr ago
An interesting tactic I could see working is trying to expand dogs' lives, because NOBODY will object to this project, and if it works it should, in theory, get a lot of funding and produce insights that are in fact useful for human lifespan. So perhaps we see immortal dogs before immortal mice?
Purebred dogs are similar to inbred mouse lines and it's difficult to extrapolate what would happen trying to translate that data to humans. Their compounds are just IGF-1 inhibitors and these kinds of metabolic inhibitors have already been shown to not translate well to outbred non-human primate (NHP) models. This approach is analogous to the telomerase knockout mice living longer if you replace telomerase (i.e. large dogs have more IGF-1, decrease IGF-1 activity and you may be back in line with smaller dogs).
They'll probably make bank selling life extension to dog owners though.
We're very bad at both understanding and manipulating complex traits. Beyond this, aging just seems categorically different in a way we haven't grasped yet. I doubt I'll be able to convince you on this point though.
I haven't seen any 'straight lines' of progress on extending lifespan that suggest this is inevitable, though
That's because they don't exist, and it certainly isn't inevitable. We've made minimal progress understanding aging (for all the bullshit that gets published), and no progress in treating it.
If we can 'merely' simulate 500 Von Neumanns and put them to the task of improving our AI systems, we'd expect they'd make 'rapid' progress, no?
I expect them to make rapid progress in software, computer hardware, engineering and other domains where humans have rationally designed systems that are entirely understood. I expect them to struggle with the social sciences, psychology and economics and to a large extent, biology. If Magnus Carlson is to Alphazero as Noam Chomsky is to SociologyGPT6...what does that even look like? Not Hari Seldon, but what, exactly?
I'm not sure what to expect for physics, chemistry and math.
From reading (almost) the entire sequences on Lesswrong back in the day, its less 'omnipotent' but more 'as far above humans as humans are above ants.' There are hard limits on 'intelligence'
I read chunks of them as well and think they pulled the wrong lessons from them, but regardless, my argument is that there are relatively hard limits on what intelligence can simulate/manipulate in the physical world (i.e. ASI won't be simply omnipotent) rather than there being limits on how much compute you can throw at a problem. What if your ASI says sorry, simulation of a human body or tissue is too computationally intensive even for me, I can't do this deterministically. Here is an experimental plan that I can guarantee will help us make you immortal: it just requires breeding a billion mice, testing these trillion compounds, and then moving some candidates into testing in a relatively simple 100,000 NHPs. What if, in other words, your Multivac tells you the meaning of the universe is 42, or there is as yet insufficient data to answer your questions as it chugs along?
I'm also curious whether there will be diminishing returns to adding more training data as it runs out of human knowledge to learn, and whether turning it into an agent that can reason from first principles rather than regurgitating scientific reviews to me will be as trivial as everyone assumes (image classification seems like it may be an interesting reference class, but I could just be an ignorant moron several degrees removed from the ground on ML).
hydroacetylene
5hr ago
Probably a bit, but proportionally it’s a bigger difference when tfr is 1.5 than when it’s 3.0.
hydroacetylene
5hr ago
It matters because married men work harder and follow society’s rules. And that matters a lot; the vast majority of the productive labor to sustain our prosperity is gendered male. When they do less of it, it’s bad for everyone.
4doorsmorewhores
5hr ago
Wasn't that already the case? Incel as a popular phrase was coined in the 90s by some lesbian, do you remember hearing any panic or concern about it in the 90s or 00s before it became an issue for some men?
hydroacetylene
5hr ago
I’m curious if there’s anything to be done about it when liberals, to whom the majority of the corrupt MP’s probably belong if for no other reason than they hold a majority, don’t want to.
Though Adam Lanza had received mental health treatment, apparently (going based off of Wikipedia here) he'd stopped any contact with mental health providers by 2006 to never return, and his most dramatic documented mental health issue before anyway was clean freak-esque OCD. It doesn't seem like he was on the radar of law enforcement at all before the shooting either (and wouldn't have even had a gun to his name if they ran the records, as they were all owned by his mom).
So what makes you think Sandy Hook had anything to do with society openly valuing the "freedom of 'dangerous lunatics'"? It doesn't seem like Lanza was known to anybody before the event as a "dangerous lunatic", not even his mom (who certainly must have known he was an eccentric recluse, but given that he killed her too presumably she would have taken better measures to protect herself from him had she thought he was actually dangerous).
If you were to cast a net on "dangerous lunatics" wide enough to include people like pre-Sandy Hook Lanza, not only would everyone on this site almost certainly end up in it, while you might solve perhaps the problem of lone wolf shootings, you would have the much bigger problem of an open "incel" insurgency to deal with. After all, if you're going to jail them anyway for potential mass shootings that most posters in this subthread admit that most of them statistically-speaking won't even commit...
More options
Context Copy link