domain:mattlakeman.org
HereAndGone
2hr ago
My view was that con artists prey on greed and stupidity, and in a low-trust society there's plenty of people who are greedy and willing to bend the rules, so a shady proposition isn't an immediate turn-off so long as you set it up right: let's you and me profit off this dumb government initiative to give free money to people with curly hair; here's a secret deal that only a few insiders know which will make them hugely rich and you can get in on the ground floor; shoplifting isn't theft, insurance covers it, the big stores expect it and price it in, and besides we're striking back against the big fatcats of capitalism. It's a lot easier to sell "I got this hot tip from my inside contact in the government department" when everyone knows bribery and corruption are what makes the world go round and it's expected that you have to grease palms and give presents to the right people to get anything done.
Then the sucker ends up losing the shirt on his back, because he might have been venal enough to be willing to do something dishonest but he wasn't smart enough to work out some things are too good to be true.
HereAndGone
3hr ago
because most people in the community were trustworthy, this gamble paid off most of the time
That's the point I'm trying to make. If you tolerate fraud, or even promulgate "well the chance of fraud is better than a world with no fraud" (which is different from "there will always be a risk of fraud"), then what is tolerated becomes commonplace. Once the water changes, the fish change too. Once the bedrock assumptions of "be honest not criminal" are weakened by lack of social reinforcement and no longer passed down, you'll get more and more people willing to be scammers, which in turns mean fewer people opting to put their trust in others, and the costs of protecting yourself against fraud rise because now you have to either spend time and effort on not being scammed, or risk being scammed and losing very badly what you can't afford to lose.
"There's always going to be fraud out there, just be careful and be aware" is not the same as "we need a certain amount of fraud to happen, otherwise it's the Panopticon and economic stagnation". That second message is an encouragement to be fraudulent - after all, everyone else would do it too if they could, and you are just filling your role in the ecosystem!
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
3hr ago
Be quick about it; I think the gratis period expires today or tomorrow.
HereAndGone
3hr ago
I'm going to assume that alongside whatever native honesty you have in your nature, you were raised not to do something like that: that stealing is wrong, that you pay for the goods, and the rest of it.
That's how we get high-trust societies.
Some people, though, weren't raised like that and/or aren't basically honest. We've all seen the videos, and that's how you get toothpaste has to be locked away and retailers close down because the professional shoplifters aren't afraid of the law since the law won't go after them.
SSCReader
3hr ago
Right, but those politicians are white themselves overwhelmingly right? 75% of Congress is white. Its not black people or Asians or whatever making those choices. They don't have the numbers or power. If you want to say elite whites are making different choices than non elite whites want then perhaps you have a point. But its still white people making those choices.
And even there i'll point again to the discrepancy that haunted the Tories, people say they want less immigration, but they also punish any party that oversees an economic downturn.
If you want politicians to really drop immigration you have to show you will vote for them when the economy tanks. And mostly people don't. That was our finding when I worked for the Tories. All our modelling showed that doing what people said they wanted, would lose us votes. Same with Brexit, as soon as the economic winds started to bite, voters turned on the Tories. What lesson does that teach your politicians?
We get the politicians we deserve. People may say they want lower immigration, but they are not prepared to pay the costs that involves. I'll bet dollars to donuts that in 2028, if Trump really has made a dent in numbers of illegal immigrants and the economy has suffered that Republicans lose, even if they did what most people wanted. And politicians learn that lesson.
More people rate the economy as their most important political issue than immigration. Therefore spending billions on immigration enforcement, driving up costs of food, cutting other programs for Americans to pay for it, is a losing proposition. Thats why even Trump was going back and forth on enforcement for illegal farm workers.
Its not that the call is coming from inside the building. Its that there are 300 million calls all saying contradictory things, reduce immigration, make my food cheaper, make American goods, make me able to buy a truck and a TV, and so on and so forth. Trump to his credit, is trying to stick to some of these, but even he admits it will make things worse in the short term.
That means you need to persuade people in 2028 to vote Republican even if, especially if! the economy sucks. If they do, then you are creating a new signal. If they don't then they are telling politicians what their revealed preferences really are.
HereAndGone
3hr ago
That's one way, and the less desirable way, of doing it.
HereAndGone
3hr ago
Oh, were I Dictator of Earth, I'd happily go "ban 'em all, the stupidity level is too high".
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3hr ago
Probably because this is my background but I would conceive of it as analogous to computer security. When you are talking about adversary-proofing your production you need to have in mind, what adversary? What capabilities does that adversary have? How are they going to try and attack my production? You need to start with a Threat model and go from there. Talking about "adversary-proof" in a vacuum is as useless as talking about a "secure" computer in a vacuum. Secure from what?
To take a common example, the United States imports a lot of the goods used in our defense industry. Particularly computer chips and the parts used in their production. Specifically, these parts are often imported from countries which we believe have a substantial likelihood of being adversaries in the future (primarily China). So it would be sensible to talk about adversary-proofing the United States supply chain for computer chips from China. If China decided to invade Taiwan tomorrow and we were unable to source chips from there, what are the alternatives? Same question for the case of China cutting off exports of all rare earth minerals. Crucially the answers to these questions may be different depending on who we are modeling as our adversaries and what their capabilities are.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3hr ago
What can we learn about optimal cultural leadership in light of the 2013-2021 social justice period?
-
Religious leaders did not adequately stand up against the mass movement. Although many conservatives see value in religious institutions as a cultural defense, mainstream Catholicism and Protestant denominations did not substantively address the social justice craze. In some cases they placated or even promoted it.
-
Academics did not adequately argue against the mass movement. It is not the case, for instance, that the experts in western history, literature, or philosophy were more likely to argue against the mass movement in any substantive way. This is problematic: if learning the best of western culture does not lead to protecting said culture in any genuine sense when it matters the most, then how great is the actual utility of such learning?
-
The main “public critics” of the period have little in common except that they were passionate and somewhat neurotic men. Yarvin, Peterson, Weinstein, Scott Adams(?). My memory of who was most dominant in this period is somewhat hazy, maybe someone with a better memory can correct me. There were more psychologists among critics than philosophers. You had people like Stefan Molyneux passionately criticizing the proto-movement well before its zenith. His Twitter attests to his neuroticism.
-
Random people online were able to sense a threat that leading experts weren’t able to sense, and made arguments that leading academics did not make. Why?
It’s difficult to come away with clear takeaways. IMO: (1) it is beneficial to increase anonymous discussion, as this laid the groundwork for future criticism, and allowed for arguments to spread which would otherwise be banned. (2) It may be essential to increase the number of passionate and neurotic men, over men with other skills, as the major critics were more often passionate and somewhat crazy. A “passionate” temperament is occasionally inaccurate, and may result in behavior that leads institutions to weed them out — but their utility in sensing and addressing threats compensates for the occasional bout of craziness.
There is a funny review of Jordan Peterson from 2013, possibly the first time anyone commented about his personality online. It was made on the anonymous literature board of 4chan in 2013, long before his rise to fame.
he's craaaaazy. he so crazy. I had a class immediately following one of his lectures like, his was from 1:15-3:15 in Room 101., and my different classes was from 3:25-5:25 in Room 101 too. ok? So... he would totally bug out if someone opened the door early. Like, screaming fits and stuff. my prof (who was just a postdoc and wasn't going to get tenured at u of t) encouraged us all to fuck with his head because in addition to being a rageaholic spaz, peterson would also leave the podium really dirty. also, he lectures in a cape for some reason. he went on this ontario talk show with his daughter talking about how they're both clinically depressed bla bla, I feel bad that she's his dad, that must be hard to deal with
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
3hr ago
The only crime of that movie is that it sets up a metaphysical science fiction story that's much more interesting that it with its ending and never delivers on it.
I want to see that world 2000 years in.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
3hr ago
I'm surprised no one compiled a list of all of the jobs or things he claimed to have experience with, but I wasn't about to spend the time going through his comment history to do it.
If you or anyone actually does have a list like this, it would be helpful. People keep handwaving that he was doing all sorts of nefarious debate tricks but nobody can actually point to any examples. Nobody has receipts, so they broadly fall back on "trust me bro".
"Engaging in good faith" seems to be synonymous with "only disagrees with me within certain bounds".
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
3hr ago
4chan is already controlled by the American Intelligence Community, that's the only meaningful difference.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
3hr ago
what the internet did is not make people crazy, but show them how much of a fraud the world they lived in is.
It specifically made them think the world they currently live in is a fraud much more than ever before. The Right takes this to mean we must RETVRN to the 1950's (when we didn't notice the fraud) while the Left takes it to mean insane purity-spiral wokeism is the only cure.
WhiningCoil
3hr ago
Overwhelmingly, every time it's put to a vote, people vote for less immigration. People vote against affirmative action policies. People vote against racial carve outs. Don't pretend the call is coming from inside the house, and whites are inflicting this on themselves. The government is running amok, either because racial spoils are easy to lie about but still deliver votes, or because some unaccountable aspect of it has been captured by racial interest groups. Might be worth looking into that "Critical Race Theory" thing. Whenever it comes up, I always hear it's defenders claim "They aren't teaching that in schools, it's only a legal theory".
Pynewacket
3hr ago
the once-oppressed Chinese have been content with their rising standards of living.
isn't the US in a fentanyl epidemic?, last I heard it came to the US through Cartels that bought the necessary precursors from the Chinese.
hydroacetylene
3hr ago
Part of adversary proof production for the modern U.S. would almost certainly be near-shoring; Mexico has one of the largest manufacturing sectors in the world and it’s probably easier to convert a pickup truck factory into a humvee factory than to build a new factory.
The other thing that seems often left out of these discussions is diversion of civilian goods(probably through rationing). Civilian boots, food, fuel, mechanical parts- it can all get diverted to the army. This is part of why I think it unlikely the modern U.S. will engage in a full blown war anytime soon- thé cuts to civilian standard of living would be a no go.
TitaniumButterfly
3hr ago
The series starts very strong but gets worse as it continues, not to mention that it eventually segues into something like superhero fiction. Last one I read was The Labyrinth Index and I will not be proceeding.
I'm actually surprised at how effectively Stross keeps his leftist ideology from ruining the books entirely. It does make it through sometimes but generally can be ignored. There's much handwringing in later books about how 'society' basically renders middle-aged women 'invisible' e.g. Sure I rolled my eyes but no big deal.
DoctorMonarch
♬We're so happy that we live in 1800's Alabama 'cause it's sunny and there is no crime!♬
3hr ago
Here's James Spann talking with other meteorologists about the Texas floods last night, will take me a few hours to listen to it in full https://youtube.com/live/T-mT7v6tjc0
TitaniumButterfly
3hr ago
Sounds more experimental than anything but you've piqued my curiosity.
SSCReader
4hr ago
-
Yup, but this isn't medication, or mental illness. This is a choice. You may not like the choice, but that doesn't make it mental illness.
-
If anyone is carving out the founding stock, it is the founding stock themselves. Indians, Mexicans and whatever else can't do anything they are not allowed to do. The vast majority of your political apparatus is white. This isn't colonization or invasion. It's invitation. And it is invitation largely because of the white guilt felt by large numbers of your fellow white Americans. You can't fix that by making them do the same thing they felt the guilt about in the first place. If you think it is a problem (and it legitimately might be!) then you have to resolve it, not repeat the actions that led to it. Unfortunately this is one of the dividing issues your nation has faced since its founding. It was called out at its founding this was going to be a huge problem in fact. The Civil War, Civil Rights movement, wokism is all downstream of the choices your ancestors made.
I don't see a good answer, with the possible exception (and even this is shaky) as you point out as going all in for blacks. Affirmative action for blacks only, reparations for blacks only, attempt to help your fellow white Americans extirpate their guilt by focusing on the main group that was harmed so others don't get pattern matched in. But that guilt is the foundational issue you are going to have to deal with. Letting immigrants in is asymmetric. It takes much less effort to do so, than try and get rid of them afterwards. So you have to find a way to make them stop wanting to. To make them stop feeling guilty about being so privileged and about how that privilege was used against yes primarily black people through American history.
I don't think you can do that, by going back to the same behaviors that got you here in the first place.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4hr ago
Respond to women in variable ratio intervals, and only in a way that increases their engagement.
ABigGuy4U
4hr ago
I suspect Ryan Coogler wanted to make a movie about a juke joint in the Mississippi Delta in the 30s, and then tacked on some vampires and gunfights to give it enough mass market appeal to get produced and make money.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
4hr ago
what's your opinion/review on the Hundred Line game?
It's a lot of fun! Definitely recommended. If you liked any of Kodaka's or Uchikoshi's other games you'll like this too. Especially if you liked Danganronpa, because although it's a very different kind of story than Danganronpa it's got a similar "vibe".
you called it a VN where I got the impression it's more like a TRPG. How do the two mesh together?
Yeah so it's not a "pure" VN because it does have a combat system, but most people I've talked to classify it as a VN. (The main gameplay loop is long VN segment with a chance to upgrade units -> battle -> another long VN segment -> repeat). The combat (assuming you play on normal mode, I finished the game before the patch that added hard mode) is more than just a "formality", but it never gets super difficult. It's less complex and involved than what you would find in a game like Fire Emblem or FFT. You're really here for the story, not the combat.
Plus if you keep playing long enough (meaning you explore multiple routes instead of just making a beeline for the true ending) you basically get the ability to just skip combat altogether, which means you're just free to explore and at that point the game becomes a "pure" VN.
WhiningCoil
4hr ago
-
Sometimes people with severe mental illnesses go off their medication because they feel better and think they no longer need it. They don't like the side effects, etc. Just because the medicine doesn't feel good doesn't mean you don't need it.
-
Even assuming I agree, that only goes for Blacks. How does it go for Indians, Jews, Asians, Arabs, Mexicans and every other nationality colonizing America and carving it's founding stock out of it?
This is the result of the much-discussed "march through the institutions". By the time social justice began to come out in the open, the institutions -- even religious ones -- had largely already been taken over by progressives.
More options
Context Copy link