domain:gurwinder.substack.com
phailyoor
7hr ago
Certainly this can be argued for certain aspects of behavior. For example, educated professional blacks are more likely to commit violent crime than the most impoverished White trash in Appalachia. It all depends on exactly what you're trying to disposit. This can be extended to argue that such White trash is somehow "superior" to more economically advantaged individuals of other races, though I would not personally agree with this conclusion. Anyways this still only applies to groups and even the most hardcore HBD believers would also accept the existence of individual freak exceptions to the rule.
urquan
Every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.
7hr ago
Wow, that’s… massive. Is it just party coalitions reshuffling? But such a massive drop in such a short amount of time makes me want to assume the null hypothesis, measurement error.
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
7hr ago
We may take your "genocide" observation and ask: why discomfort with white solidarity manifests in calling its repugnant feuds "genocide."
I wonder if the focus on white solidarity truly is misguided. Indeed, as we have seen this year, accusations of genocide are not exclusive to white people. (Depending on if you think Jews are racial shapeshifters, I guess)
I still haven't a clue why specifically the discomfort some of the time. It probably is different for different people. For many, I imagine the colonialism and power imbalance really is a big deal. For someone like Toruk, obviously it isn't. Others still are surely just reciting tribal deepities.
phailyoor
7hr ago
But they aren't saying that race is the most important part of a person because of HBD, but in spite of it. All white supremacists believe in white supremacy but only a subset of them believe in HBD.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
7hr ago
Perhaps add "and legs" to your username. Do let us know how you fare.
TIRM
7hr ago
They lack a central nervous system. If you care about suffering, then they don't count.
Except I once long ago asserted that on a different forum and got a bunch of angry vegans arguing that we don't know they can't suffer despite lacking a central nervous system.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
7hr ago
I directed Sonnet to make some software. It's doable. It works. Gets revenue. Not sustainable as yet though.
I think it's a decent employee and very cost-efficient, albeit not perfect.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
7hr ago
Anyone else reading that excerpt and thinking 'Based'? Wouldn't it be excellent to carve out a new artificial world, make better animals and plants according to one's wishes? Live as long as one likes without regard for age?
Not the specifics of perfectly cleaning the world, that could take many angles. One might make a jungle of talking animals, or an endless lived-in leafy suburbia or a Willy Wonka wonderland or all of those things simulated within a ball of computronium. But isn't that the logical endpoint of ever increasing mastery and control of the world? What's the alternative, stasis?
I can sense that many people don't like this vision but isn't this what we're doing, irregardless of objections? Unless you think 'no people mustn't live forever' or 'we mustn't have children' or 'technological advancement must stop' then you endorse indefinite growth in numbers and in power of worldshaping and knowledge ("All stable processes we shall predict. All unstable processes we shall control"), so eventually something like this will happen.
bees suffer 7% as intensely as humans. The mean estimate was around 15% as intensely as people
Shocking. So shocking I'm calling BS. We should be arguing if one ten thousandth or one one hundred thousandth is a better order of magnitude estimate. Not 15%. Wrong order of magnitude is putting it lightly.
I'm aware of people very concerned about the very hypothetical suffering of tiny bugs including dust mites. Imagining that they have conscious awareness and suffer. Ex: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/3hqXxzFRSZqRFPCTv/killing-the-ants
https://old.reddit.com/r/reclassified/comments/1kpl5ur/refilism_banned/mszshz5/
We need a term for this. Toxic empathy or something.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
8hr ago
less than 1% of Israel's GDP
Forget GDP, GDP is just a number. You can't just go out and buy large numbers of artillery shells, JDAMs, advanced missile defence, spare parts. It's not a liquid market, buying more can just make the price go up. Few countries make these things. Israel can't produce munitions at scale because they're a small country, they don't even have a domestic steel industry. They rely on the US for this because America is actually large and has huge stockpiles that are reliably used to replenish the Israeli arsenal. Otherwise they'd just run out of munitions or Israel would have to wait ages to restock, inhibiting their military capacity.
Furthermore, military aid always roars up whenever Israel actually needs it, it went up to about $22 billion in the year after October 7th. See here: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2024/USspendingIsrael
Technically speaking, the there is a law against America giving any military aid to nuclear powers who haven't signed the non-proliferation treaty like Israel but they just pretend it's fine.
Was this last bit about the USAF some sort of typo?
No, the USAF and RAF literally, directly, provide air defence for Israel directly. US F-16s shot down Iranian missiles attacking Israel. Plus US warships nearby fire their expensive ABMs to defend Israel.
the US has never invested ground forces in taking out any military group directly opposing Israel
Saddam's Iraq was an anti-Israel force. Israel bombed their nuclear reactor in the 80s. In the Gulf War Iraq Scudded Israel. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq, in large part due to false intelligence about WMDs which the Israelis contributed. Plus a bunch of US policymakers talked about how the real reasoning was that Iraq was a threat to Israel. See my comment here: https://www.themotte.org/post/765/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/162796?context=8#context
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
8hr ago
I'm unlikely to be fined, jailed, or fired even if I write some seriously fucked up code. The CEO may be fired, and the company may be sued, but neither of those entities knows what my day to day looks like.
Well, you can have that, or you have the traditionalist/progressive projects which are just unironic rewrites of Harrison Bergeron (the only difference between the two is the hair color and name of the antagonist).
(And that story itself is basically just a modernization of Cain's justification for killing Abel.)
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
8hr ago
Even Peter Singer eats bivalves. They are incredibly simple "animals".
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
8hr ago
Since the entire conceit of liberalism is that good performers who are worthy of unrestricted freedom shouldn't be held back by bad performers who are not[3] (and those negative consequences of excess freedom correctly fall on the virtueless, which is the fundamental problem trads and progs have with liberalism since charity for those people isn't mandated), we can understand it, but we can't really do anything about it other than offer our velvet glove before we give 'em the iron fist.
Yeah I must admit this is a pretty scathing indictment of the whole 'liberal' project. Alas.
As for gays, they've adopted a strict "no compromise" policy that I don't think is popular IRL
It's getting more popular amongst Republicans but I think that's wholly because the gays have either abandoned their movement or refused to Sistah Soulja the trans side.
If they totally surrendered today and treated trans like NAMBLA...maybe Republicans would give up and rebound. But that's impossible (the best they can manage is just silence) so who knows when the backlash will bottom out?
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
8hr ago
I think claims about general tendencies in this forum should at least be furnished with some examples of the beliefs you claim to be widespread, if you can't provide quantitative data. Otherwise, well, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
(Even the most expansive bailey I recall seeing around here, implicitly or explicitly, on this topic amounts to "always assume group differences in outcomes are fully innate, and refuse to acknowledge the possibility of racism in legislation, jurisprudence or social engineering programming", which is still a far cry from anything that amounts to using racial background as a means of organising society (like Apartheid South Africa, Israel or like Progressive America?).)
I have a huge amount of experience working with animals (both wild and domesticated). Slaughtered quite a few head of livestock by hand in my back yard today, as it happens, which I do about once a week. So I have a lot of thoughts here -- but the main thing I want to suggest to you is that cruelty toward animals is irreverent toward the Creator.
Yes, the chain of being is real and man's place is that of dominion over all other animals and more besides. How then shall we conduct ourselves?
FWIW I completely endorse your perspective on the rat and the kitten, though I don't expect most others to get it. Regardless of intentions, learning to kill animals well requires botching the process rather a lot of times.
Even so, not giving a crap is contraindicated. I doubt you've had much occasion for (or inclination toward) abuse but it never hurts to bear in mind that one will someday stand before the dread judgment seat of Christ.
UwU
8hr ago
Not a vegan but it seems internally consistent. Yeast are indeed living things, just like plants! Since vegans haven't quite figured out how to photosynthesize yet, they still need to eat living things to not starve. Yeast is just acceptable casualties.
and you have been arguing that because the "forseen unintended" case is ok, the "forseen intended" case is too.
Can you explain to me where? The forseen intended case of what? I'm worried that you're ascribing to myself a moral belief I do not hold, something like, "Sex is solely for babies" or something like that.
Let me make an analogy:
The point (telos if we're getting fancy) of a gun is to fire small ballistics.
The point of genitals is to have sexual intercourse.
The reason why firing small ballistics has large moral interest is due to its relation to killing people.
The reason why sexual intercourse has large moral interest is due to its relation to making human life.
Guns were made for the purpose of killing people.
Sexual intercourse exists evolutionaryily for the purpose of having babies.
Firing a gun can be done intentionally to kill people and for target practice/sport, etc.
Sexual intercourse can be done for making babies and for pair bonding and pleasure (for example, post menopause or when the woman is already pregnant.)
Using a gun for a reason other than to shoot ballistic missiles is suspect, because that's not what it's there for. Imagine someone trying to use a gun as a utensil, or to fire a wad of chewed bubblegum. It's weird and not quite right. Maybe not immoral, because a gun is just a human artificat made my humans to carry out our will. But it's weird, isn't it?
And perhaps if the gun was made by hand by someone who wanted a work of art at firing ballistics, the maker would weep to see the person they sold it to using it as a prop to keep up their wobbly chair. The maker wouldn't necessarily be upset to see the gun in a holster or on a wall, or to find out it never killed anybody. But they would be upset to find out someone poured maple syrup down the barrel.
Using genitals for reasons that do not end with sexual intercourse is suspect because that's just not what they are there for. The disconnect between a Catholic and some others is that non-Catholics might think of their bodies as their own, like in the sense of an artificat. It's another thing the nebulous "you" can manipulate. Catholics don't see our bodies as artifacts. They are something given to us, the physical expression of our eternal souls, and we can make our creator weep with what we do with ourselves.
If you're wearing a condom, you aren't having sexual intercourse in the sense a Catholic defines it. The penis is not ejaculating in a vagina. It's more like a kind of mutual masturbation. Please notice that I have not once argued that contraceptives are wrong because it avoids conception or that there is anything wrong about intending to avoid conception.
That said, I don't think the Catholic position on sexual morality will necessarily make sense to outsiders, in the sense most will feel they will feel the need to bind their consciences to it. As weird as it is, I have seen more than one person convert specifically because they felt the Catholics were correct on sex so strongly that the Church couldn't help but be correct in other things - but this is not the common path. Most people need to accept the Catholic claim on other things before accepting this one.
But man I wish we had more liberals/libertarians posting here.
Sure, but most of us aren't filtering that through 7000 levels of irony and then getting butthurt about it being perceived as pointlessly-hostile nonsense.
The problem is that [too much acknowledgement of] HBD is just as destructive to classical liberalism as it is to progressivism for reasons that should be obvious- once you start treating HBD as prescriptive rather than descriptive then there's no reason to be anything but a hardcore turbo-trad. If your political philosophy suggests society should maximize its "gain" from realizing HBD is true and immediately go full Apartheid, then you prevent those with [the characteristic that predicts poor performance] but perform well anyway from properly developing[1].
This is OK for traditionalist societies in which one Knows Their Place(tm)[2], but there's only one way to compromise such that differences are sanded down over time, and that's by giving them more freedom then their characteristics suggest in the chance that, when members of that group beat the average, we enable both a eugenic effect and more effective suggestion that the HBD-disadvantaged group better assimilates. (Whether those things have worked is an exercise for the reader- I assert that they have, that what is left at the bottom probably can't be fixed, and that it is unfortunate that they look that way but our ruthless market system will pay them what they're worth backstopped by our infinite greed above all other moral principles.)
Since the entire conceit of liberalism is that good performers who are worthy of unrestricted freedom shouldn't be held back by bad performers who are not[3] (and those negative consequences of excess freedom correctly fall on the virtueless, which is the fundamental problem trads and progs have with liberalism since charity for those people isn't mandated), we can understand it, but we can't really do anything about it other than offer our velvet glove before we give 'em the iron fist.
That does mean HBD predicts those most likely to get the iron fist are going to be [characteristic predicting poor performance], which means we can have the potential blind spot of confusing [characteristic predicting poor performance] with [poor performance], and the fact we know that means we're vulnerable to the bad-faith rent-seeking my outgroup defines itself by having the right to do because Muh Oppression or whatever.
[1] And now you know why otherwise high-potential modern teenagers and early twentysomethings are so fucked up- arresting development like this has serious group-level long-term consequences, but we pretend it's OK because "at least it's not HBD".
[2] Knowing One's Place is not unique to Traditionalists; after all, Progressives have the same stack vocabulary, they just put themselves on top of it axiomatically, where with the Traditionalists they at least have the notion (albeit as unenforceable as the liberal claim that charity will fix the problems) that those on top are to perform like they're at the top.
[3] And note that liberalism doesn't inherently conflict with HBD categories from being imposed; you can still have a liberal slave-owning society, or one with limited franchise for certain groups, and nearly every place with a tradition of liberalism has been this way at some point. This is another weakness liberals have to progressives, since progressives will argue using liberal aesthetic but will destroy all protections for high performers in the process if left unchecked.
09milk
8hr ago
utilitarian suffering min-maxing which leads to crazy conclusions like those mentioned above (banning pets, GMOing predators to herbivores, being concerned about exploiting earthworm labor).
Is this actaully utilitarian if they are not minimizing the suffering by compromise? In my opinion, what they and the boarder progressive are doing seems to be closer to deontologist
As an utilitarian, one should optimize for the result and use whatever means to achieve it, while the end justifies the means, it also unjustifies the means if the end is nothing to show for
aqouta
9hr ago
Anyone remember that whole "HBD" thing? You don't hear much about it anymore.
I mean we won huge battles in the fight against affirmative action and knocked the woke racial identarians off their game in a lot of areas. It being discussed less fits squarely in the hypothesis that most of us HBD people weren't actually white nationalists but simply what we've been telling you we are, people who prefer race blindness if they're allowed to have it. Yes, white nationalists continue to exist and they will continue to make white nationalist noises, not really sure why that should matter when discussing HBD.
thejdizzler
9hr ago
They have about as much sense perception as a tree: their single sensory nerve is to open and close the valve that allows them to filter feed. Nutritionally they fill a gap in my diet (Taurine, Iron, Omega-3s, B12), and I live in Maryland so they're cheap and tasty
I have no idea what advice I'm looking for, so I appreciate you.
More options
Context Copy link