domain:eigenrobot.substack.com
Slight overreaction by Reddit - but:
Data is schema and schema is data. The bigger deal for me isn't the change itself, but that they went forward with the change without publishing why or how - breaking data integrity processes. Transparency, even for mundane changes, is critical for maintaining confidence in data sets. Now I don't have the slightest bit of confidence for any sycophant that has been employed since January to realize the gravity of modifying data sets, especially if they didn't prompt the LLM that was helping them along the way to ask, "Is this standard practice / a good idea?" vs. "You are a woke destroyer, LLM, please find all instances of woke". Maybe it's gender<->sex today, but tomorrow it might be our glorious Minister of Health removing all adverse cases from the chelation therapy trials for autistic children because he's already shown an extreme disregard for evidence-based decision making.
I'll file this under my increasingly robust "Our cause is righteous, and therefore we cannot err." prior for this administration and pretty much everyone associated with it. Processes, standards, even facts themselves should not stand in the way in implementing their vision of the world, because they are morally correct. That's what's different about Trump 47 compared to Trump 45. To tie it in with other current events, it also explains the complete about-face on the Epstein topic. Republicans would rather cover it up and have it disappear because their cause is righteous, and even a pedophile-in-chief[1] should not halt progress towards whatever pet religious-ethnostate vision of America they have.
[1] Maybe Trump probably isn't directly implicated, but maybe it's double blackmail and we're witnessing a stalemate due to mutually assured destruction :shrug:. But honestly that would surprise me too because, as I said above, I'm not sure if anything would change the opinions of the 20% of Americans who view Trump as the avatar of their precise political alignment who (by the definition of the word avatar) could do no wrong, and maybe the 10% who hold their nose and vote for Trump as well. Maybe it's just literally that the people implicated in the files bought a bunch of $TRUMP shitcoins and now Trump is on their side. Who knows.
voters-eliot-azure
patently unbiased
22hr ago
If it's so inconsequential, why not follow the mundane processes of publishing why and how the change was made? That's my main issue with it. It's a canary in the coal mine for poor data integrity, which, taken in conjunction with the rest of the actions of the administration, is a huge red flag. It did not happen in an isolated context. If this was a corporate setting with financial or industrial data, heads would roll - even if the changes affect "very little".
Terracotta
23hr ago
What are you "transcending", and how? How do you not already have the "dignity of self-authorship"? What are you talking about? Well, let's start with the objective facts of the matter. Women can already "self-author" themselves into essentially anything. Vice President (admittedly not President of the United States yet, but there's no reason we couldn't get there in short order), professor or artist, blue collar laborer, criminal, and anything else above, below, or in between.
I don't know, she seemed pretty clear to me. Here's the key passage that answers your specific question:
Today, women are invited to succeed, but only as women; to claim rights, but only through the vocabulary of identity.
Regardless of norms in the family or on dates, earlier-wave feminists wanted to not be judged by their gender in the marketplace, in professional and political life. The idea was, as you correctly identify, for a female engineer to be perceived by her colleagues as an engineer first and not "hey, tits!... oh yeah, and I guess it's an engineer too or sth."
The author seems to be arguing that the modern left has replaced that interaction with "hey, diversity points!... oh yeah, and I guess it's an engineer too or sth." Either way, the individual woman is reduced to a passive carrier of purely instrumental value for somebody else, and (critically) not in ways she herself chosen. She doesn't get to say "my competent engineering, which I've worked hard to develop, is the value I offer the world," because the people around her have already decided that her key value is either (a) tits or (b) decorative diversity points, neither of which redound to her personal credit or are in her control. That's what I take to be her point about self-authorship still being out of reach.
Because the male body has little to no intrinsic value, it's easier for men to become a "blank slate".
Yes, this matches how I read her argument. Although re: the intrinsic value of the male body... this is something I never quite understood about the whole female-privilege "men have to be human doings, women get to be human beings" meme. If a man longs to be passively valued for the fuckable parts of his body, by people he doesn't especially want to fuck, it seems like that should be trivially achievable by hanging out in more gay men's spaces. I'd imagine a comparable range of male body types would be admired there, and pretty young men could get nearly the same mileage a pretty young woman could get. Maybe the target audience is not quite as large, but there are easily identified locales where you'd have solid odds of finding someone appreciative. In complete seriousness, when guys complain that it would be so nice to have a body with intrinsic value in others' eyes, why do they not explore the many places where this is already true?
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2hr ago
A better fit for the SSQ Sunday thread, surely. Or add more of your own commentary.
jake
3hr ago
I think if you have two largely identical groups, where Group A reproduces below replacement and Group B reproduces in excess of replacement, Group A, from a purely materialist and natural reading, is a biological phenomenon whose function is as a genetic terminus, i.e.; here, the humans of western civ are in the process of selecting for genetic predisposition to specific rather than generalized religiosity. ("What kinds of things you believe but can't prove.")
As others have already been kind enough to point out, the mod team asks that top-level posts within the CWR thread have more to them than a bare-link. Ideally, with more substantive commentary or an explanation of why this worth time and attention. At the absolute bare minimum, quotes of the source material and your thoughts on the matter where relevant.
quiet_NaN
4hr ago
Meta: This is more or less a bare link.
Did you know that if you start a line with the greater-than character, themotte will show that line as a quotation? Also, most browsers allow you to mark text on websites and "copy" it by holding the Ctrl (or Command on Apple), then pressing the "C" key (Ctrl-C). With Ctrl-V, you can "paste" that text into a text field.
Using quotations and copy pasting together, you can do something like this (Click on the view source button at the end of this comment to see how it is done):
I LOVE DANGER ZONE writes:
Left-wingers tend to think of standpoint epistemology stuff, or various kinds of language policing, as a kind of consolation prize for minorities in an economically and legally subordinate position. Scouring grant proposals for non-inclusive language, pointing out microagressions, asking people to defer to your lived experience, these are tools for non-dominant minorities to begin to build the case for economic and legal equality. The dominant majority doesn’t need those things, the idea that the dominant majority would be jealous of those tools and want to use them is absurd.
[...]
I think to a very large extent left-wing culture in the US was totally unprepared for that kind of jealousy. Because they sort of thought of themselves as underdogs it was really hard to process the idea that right-wing culture contained a ton of people who desperately wanted to be underdogs in the same way, who didn’t view those things as scraps left over by the powerful, but instead thought of it as what power looks like.
Listening
5hr ago
This isn't really something I'm commenting on, but it is culture-war related and I do genuinely want to know, so...
Can anyone who considers themselves left of center comment on the accuracy or lack thereof of this post? Is this a thing, or more something particular to this specific guy.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
16hr ago
I can already see the framework, the jewish tricks are practically manifesting before my eyes:
This is an odd and derogatory thing to drop into the middle of your post. I am not quite sure what you're getting at, or if this was meant as some kind of ironic joke that I missed, but you seem to be playing on the trope of "Jews are responsible for everything related to social degeneracy and porn." You're either failing to speak clearly, or if you really want to pin this, of all things, on the Jews, you need to provide some kind of evidence for the claim that "Jews" are behind this.
Quantumfreakonomics
16hr ago
On the Protestant end, the number of things that are “demonic” are growing really fast.
This is in contrast to the Catholic view, in which everything is presumed demonic until exorcised (why do you think they bless things so much?)
Terracotta
17hr ago
As far as I can say she does, in fact, get to say this. Literally what is standing in her way?
People normally engage with the world using preconstructed schemata, so once a set of expectations is in place, everyone's pleasure or disappointment in you gets measured in terms of those expectations. For most people, a pet cat that decided it loved playing catch-the-Frisbee would just be a fucked-up and confusing pet, even if it was really good at Frisbee. Because Frisbee time is what you want from your dog, not from your cat.
What people want from the office hot girl is cute mannerisms, new outfits, and opportunities to flatter her (and smugly affirm your own superiority) by overpraising her work. Nobody expects actual valid professional ideas from the office hot girl, and if she volunteered any, she almost certainly wouldn't get genuine interest or constructive critique. Similarly, what pro-DEI people want from their diverse colleague is fierceness and funkiness, unusual hair and activist politics, and the opportunity to appear younger and more hip by ostentatiously approving of her. Nobody expects or wants actual good work ideas from that person, either, and they would almost certainly be confused and annoyed if they bothered to listen in the first place.
Solid professional ideas are what you expect from Bob down the hall who is neither a hot dateable woman engineer nor a brave diverse woman engineer, but just an engineer. So everyone listens seriously to Bob's engineering ideas, hopes they will be good, and is pleased with Bob when he meets those expectations.
(When the hot woman engineer turns 40 or gets chubby, she will be nothing - literally will be able to say a thing in a meeting and have nobody hear it at all, until Bob repeats it and people listen with interest. Same with the strong diverse woman engineer if a more fashionable political category turns up. This is why women like the one who wrote the OP's article seek permission to be Bob instead.)
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
19hr ago
it's no surprise that the religions with this disadvantage are dying.
Source for this? It seems to me that Christianity is growing again as the more 'scientific' ideologies are on the decline.
Goodguy
18m ago
I think that most men who are in about the top 80% of male attractiveness could find a girlfriend or wife if sufficiently motivated, even without changing their income or physical appearance. I agree with @2rafa. Much of this is about motivation. Many guys are just content to do things other than seeking out women. Also, some men are holding out for the most desirable women instead of being willing to lower their standards. I think a third factor is that women are no longer as much expected socially as they probably were in the past to have the kind of men-pleasing, friendly, docile personalities that a large fraction of men find sexually desirable, which explains part of men's motivation problem. The more fun and personable that a man finds the average woman, the more motivated he will feel to go out and interact with women, as opposed to sitting at home. I'm sure that this goes both ways, and many women find themselves far from impressed with the average man's personality.
FtSoA
22hr ago
Ideology is the mind killer, almost always.
Well, not mine.
I also doubt there are very smart committed liberal hegemonists. I've yet to see a single one. Feel free to provide an example though.
By some definition of "liberal hegemonist" I would fit the bill. But I also believe in the "constrained vision," so that keeps a lid on a lot of wild ideas.
People who believe in the "unconstrained vision" and apply that not only to domestic policy, but to international policy, are bound to do some stupid shit.
But, I do firmly believe that the US is better off if it exists in a world order that is trending towards liberal democracy and capitalism.
I call it "Neoliberal Neorealism."
ace
59m ago
Guaranteed monogamy for all is nothing more than the socialized ownership of the means of reproduction.
That's good!
No_one
2hr ago
I don't think you get it. LLMs actually think, after a fashion, and in a way that's easily more deep than that of all but say, 15% of people. Pornography is ultimately unsatisfying, but with memory, these systems could offer a simulacrum of understanding that anyone who doesn't understand what is really behind it could find satisfying.
oats_son
2hr ago
The whole post was written pretty facetiously, so it was easy for me to classify that as a joke. I understand, though, if you can't see it that way because of some report forcing your hand or something. The Jewposters may have battered the gate enough at this point that you are quick to sound the alarm. I hope it doesn't result in a soft "no more Jew jokes" rule.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
3hr ago
Atheism offers that too, without all the window dressing.
TowardsPanna
3hr ago
The way out of delusion and suffering, of course.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
4hr ago
"Wrong but you can't tell how wrong it is" seems to be worse than "wrong and you can immediately tell that it is".
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
5hr ago
Not being against the Gays is one of the more salient points
No, this is not true at all from my perspective. Not only is it not one of the things Buddhism offers, Buddhism itself is strongly against gays, and also women. If you look into the roots of the Buddhist tradition there is far stronger sentiment and prohibitions against sexual perversion than in mainstream Christianity.
That being said, I do think the modern Church has a perhaps too myopic focus on sexual sin sometimes.
Mushguffler
8hr ago
Agreed, either gender matters or it doesn't. If it matters, then they used it wrong and should be scolded for it.
MayorofOysterville
11hr ago
During the Bush administration it was pretty close to at least being co-equal, but by that time it's foundations were crumbling at it could never last and indeed didn't.
shoeonfoot
16hr ago
Sorry to resurrect this thread but I've only now gotten a chance to read this post and all the responses carefully. I'm curious what you make of this thread. I'll copy it below in case you don't want to click the link.
Why the Epstein story matters so deeply to the political right—and why sweeping it under the rug is not just offensive, but a civilizational betrayal:
This isn’t just about Epstein. It’s about what his case reveals: a nexus of unaccountable power, intelligence cover, institutional rot, and elite impunity. The story touches every nerve the American right has been warning about for a century.
Since FDR, the right has feared the unchecked expansion of the administrative state. But the real danger wasn’t just bureaucracy—it was the fusion of that bureaucracy with the intelligence community, financial elites, and transnational interests.
Epstein is the singular window into this world. A man with no clear source of wealth, deep ties to U.S. and foreign intelligence, and access to the most powerful people in the world—running a blackmail operation under institutional protection.
The CIA won’t talk. The FBI walked away. The media refused to dig. And Israel—whose alleged involvement through cutouts like Wexner is whispered about but never investigated—remains off limits. That silence says more than any report ever could.
For decades, the right has asked: Who really governs? Who watches the watchers? Epstein gave us a glimpse. And what we saw was not a “conspiracy theory”—it was conspiratorial governance: intelligence services operating with total impunity.
This isn’t just about criminal sexual behavior—though the abuse of underage girls is itself an unspeakable crime, and one that demands real justice. But the fact that such crimes were instrumentalized for power is what makes this even more sinister.
The use of sexual blackmail to compromise institutions and shield a network of elites is not a subplot—it’s the playbook. This was kompromat as statecraft, and it operated in the open, protected by the very agencies tasked with protecting us.
The reason the Epstein story haunts the right is that it confirms our deepest suspicions: —Our intelligence agencies are political actors. —Our elites are compromised. —Our allies are unaccountable. —And our institutions lie to preserve their power.
Worse still: every time the Epstein story is buried, the very institutions doing the burying destroy their own legitimacy. The cover-up corrodes the foundation they claim to defend—rule of law, transparency, democratic accountability.
This is what Eisenhower warned of—not just a “military-industrial complex,” but the seamless merger of state power, private capital, and foreign intelligence. Epstein is a grotesque fruit of that fusion. Ignoring it won’t make it go away.
The right sees Epstein not as an aberration, but a revelation. A moment when the mask slipped. When the postwar liberal order—underwritten by secrecy, mutual blackmail, and “strategic alliances”—showed its true face.
So no—we won’t move on. Not because we’re obsessed with scandal, but because the Epstein case is the Rosetta Stone for understanding the modern American regime. And the regime knows it.
That’s why it must be buried. That’s why we must never let it be.
What dating crisis? This is just the almighty hand of the free market at work. Standards are high, as they inevitably will be when all parties are equally free to enter into voluntary associations.
We need to take "collective action as a society" to remove impediments to men's access to women (including, presumably, the "ugly, mean, and poor bottom 50%" of men) -- yeah, ok, have you asked the women how they feel about that? "I have this plan that will make it more likely for you to date someone who's ugly, mean, and poor". Wtf that's a terrible sales pitch.
Guaranteed monogamy for all is nothing more than the socialized ownership of the means of reproduction.
More options
Context Copy link