domain:theintrinsicperspective.com
Yeah. There's been a long-standing conflict between AAQCs not needing to be correct so long as they're positive contributions for the community. This at least looks like a serious if flawed attempt to discuss a complicated rather than active trolling, so it's far from the worst version of that issue, but the lack of engagement with even the most overt criticism of the most central claims makes it really frustrating.
I think most people who fear IQ as a concept are generally unwilling to live in a world of winners and losers. They don’t want to admit that being born a loser is possible and that no amount of trying hard can overcome it. Women seem especially prone to this because they’ve been socialized to be “nice” and to believe that “if everyone had access to the stuff the rich have, they’d all succeed.” IQ is a monkey wrench in that concept of the world. A hard limit.
He was poor, but what he had going for him was that he was likable and not dysfunctionally insane and his crime didn't fit neatly into reprehensible crimes like murder or assault with a deadly weapon
I think people miss how foul tempered the vast majority of "real" criminals are. Half the patients I treated in prison felt entitled to call everyone a faggot then demand thirty different types of controlled substances. If you make at any attempt at all not to be a huge asshole than the system is extremely more likely than not to go extremely soft on you.
Sure - it isn't guaranteed too, but I met guys who committed incredibly heinous murders and because they were nice they were treated like they committed a white collar crime.
I think you could have a more charitable take where the government isn't sending a lot of resources and doesn't have a lot of leadership buy-in (because the crimes are ironically not very sexy, ultimately pretty small, and it is somewhat sketchy that it is federal at all) and the person they are prosecuting is throwing every last financial resource at it because he doesn't want 20 years in jail.
This can easily result in the prosecution being tired, busy, buried in paperwork with minimal resources and therefore forgetting things that now seem brain dead obvious.
I think with 4 and 5 it’s much more likely that they have various companies do that for them, and have arrangements to let them ask to see it. There’s a lot of ways that this could be happening, and since your isp/phone company/social media isn’t literally the government, it’s not really illegal. The arrangement would be something like what happens with pictures. Apple can search your photos (or at least tge ones on their cloud) for child porn. They are also obligated to report any such images they find. But I absolutely believe that if I said something that the government really really doesn’t like that it would be reported to the government fairly quickly. And it’s mostly down to liability laws — if I have a social media account where I talk about doing something illegal and I actually do it, my victims can absolutely go after those media outlets for knowing that I said that and not warning people to stop me.
"Suit and tie conservatives lost the culture war."
Though they still tend to win the economic war, in their own lives most certainly.
Maybe someone is self-hosting something that takes, filters, backups etc content? Or some other kind of custom front-end?
It's a curiosity because without principles, what makes someone choose any particular side to begin with?
here is a sample of some of the best responses I have gotten (NSFW, obviously)
Heck yea, sign me up
Here is a list of things that can cause the model to hang up:
- Incest
WFT X premium subscription cancelleD!!!
More seriously, I think the fact that it's willing to do straight up smut, and seemingly the AI images too will do NSFW, this is certainly a big step in that direction in the arms race. But also it's still AI slop in the end. The second thing that stood out to me in the story was that it was —em—dashes— for days.
What will it do for old style abortions, frankly they might become illegal. You don't want it in your body? Fine. But you don't get to kill it. And you don't get to weasel out of raising it.
This remind me of a thought i had watching the most recent superman movie. DC's Earth dodged a bullet when Kal'El was found by a conservative midwestern couple as opposed to literally anyone one else. As much as James Gunn, the people of Metropolis, and to some extent theMotte like to sneer at Smallville, Smallville is arguably the reason that Superman is a force for good instead of an existential threat.
Why say he was never on Epstein's plane when we know he was on Epstein's plane?
Because people lie when you accuse them of something that makes them look bad. It's practically a universal response.
I am only surprised that you can actually buy it on Amazon, rather than having to go to some more obscure mail-order site.
That reviewer deserves the "they hated him because he told them the truth" award if anyone does. Unfortunately, just going by the famous page I linked above, it doesn't really do a good job of teaching the correct usage of dirty words either.
Are you accusing me of being a worse version of Scott?
If you are, I can't fault you haha. I live in the shadow of giants, and try to grow in the space between their toes.
Very high salary, ironclad employment security, lifelong employment, clear delineation between work and rest, etc
God, I wish that were me. Or true of most British doctors. At least the WLB is better in psych.
That's a pretty thoughtful comment, and I think it makes eminent sense.
"The Feds" aren't a unitary actor here. The point of Wickard etc. is that Congress can regulate anything as long as it does so as part of a coherent scheme which mostly regulates interstate commerce. If Trump tries to punish states and municipalities which boycott Israel, it will be a statutory interpretation case about whether Congress did or not.
No need for it to be involuntary, just allow the degens to sterilize themselves.
Hmm.. How would that work? If they're self-hosting, then are they executing all the server-side code themselves and also mirroring the content?
Thank you. That seems quite sensible
You can be a software dev in a small 100% male company in Eastern Europe that has a chat channel for sharing porn.
I suppose they need additional perks to make up for the low salary haha.
But I was under the impression that these uses were more for logistics than for combat
Genuinely unsure, but combat use was a thing, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Cavalry_Division_(Wehrmacht)
It was withdrawn to France in November 1941 and its 17,000 horses were handed over to infantry divisions.
so I don't want to give the defense too much credit
definitely, it was overall poor showing in many ways, but admittedly "being simultaneously invaded by two foes with at least twice their population each" was hard to overcome
And it was not at "planning to charge tanks with cavalry" levels, cavalry against tanks was closer to "use anti-tank guns, relocate, repeat" or "cut down infantry with mobile cavalry while hilariously poorly mobile early tanks are uselessly stuck somewhere else". And if it would be Germany vs Poland + maybe France etc there was some chance.
This is true for American citizens, but the fact that we're even considering applying it to non-citizens shows just how much the concept of "citizenship" has decayed. It also, incidentally, shows how little anyone actually means it when they say America is a "creedal" or "propositional" nation. If citizenship is not a matter of ethnic belonging (i.e. an intersection of familial and cultural ties), it must then be ideological, which necessarily means exercising discretion and control over the ideologies of people allowed in or, at the minimum, allowed the rights and duties of citizenship.
As I've quoted before, GK Chesterton wrote about how this used to work in America, before our imperial phase:
The Spanish Inquisition may have been admittedly Inquisitorial; but the Spanish Inquisition could not be merely Spanish. Such a Spaniard, even when he was narrower than his own creed, had to be broader than his own empire. He might burn a philosopher because he was heterodox; but he must accept a barbarian because he was orthodox. And we see, even in modern times, that the same Church which is blamed for making sages heretics is also blamed for making savages priests. Now, in a much vaguer and more evolutionary fashion, there is something of the same idea at the back of the great American experiment; the experiment of a democracy of diverse races which has been compared to a melting-pot. But even that metaphor implies that the pot itself is of a certain shape and a certain substance; a pretty solid substance. The melting-pot must not melt. The original shape was trace on the lines of Jeffersonian democracy; and it will remain in that shape until it becomes shapeless. America invites all men to become citizens; but it implies the dogma that there is such a thing as citizenship. Only, so far as its primary ideal is concerned, its exclusiveness is religious because it is not racial. The missionary can condemn a cannibal, precisely because he cannot condemn a Sandwich Islander. And in something of the same spirit the American may exclude a polygamist, precisely because he cannot exclude a Turk.
"What I saw in America" 1912, pgs. 8-9 (boldface added for emphasis).
To be more specific, IIRC aftermath of what was used in German propaganda was case of Polish cavalry demolishing German infantry with an actual charge and in turn being demolished by German tanks that arrived later.
BTW, Germany also had frontline cavalry units in WW II.
My take on this is that the US is somewhat unique in being a nation founded on a proposition rather than blood, soil, or some historical what-have-you. To that end, i believe it is in the US's interest as a nation to vet those it let's in on the basis of whether or not the are "on board" with that proposition.
Free speech is a human right, residence in the United States is a privilege.
That is an interesting question: to what extent is "suicide watch" in a prison actually taken seriously, versus as a rubber-stamped "well, we tried" box to feel better about ourselves without substantially changing things. It's a somewhat dark thought, but I guess not surprising.
Values lie below principles and give rise to them. Principles crystalize in particular environments, and whether they are worth having is dependent on how well they enable the execution of values in that environment.
Both environments and values shift over time, but the point of principles is that they do not shift. Because they do not shift, they are sheared away under sufficient values/environment drift. This does not greatly complicate choosing sides, because that is better done for values reasons anyway.
More options
Context Copy link