domain:abc.net.au
Botond173
10m ago
It's still not advisable though. Getting lost or suffering an injury can have grave consequences in such a situation, especially if there's no cell phone signal.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12m ago
As the others said, moral foundations - care/harm, liberty/oppression, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation.
Everyone cares about the first three, but WEIRD (white/educated/industrialised/rich/democratic, and especially autistic) people care much less about the last three (while caring more about care/harm), which generates liberalism (and is why liberals frequently fail ideological Turing tests for conservatism, because it's harder to hypothetically add things to a moral compass than to remove them).
As @fishtwanger said, Haidt's book laying these out is dated because it predates SJ. My best working theory of SJ is that it's what happens if you try to cram 90s liberalism down the throats of people who are six-foundation-inclined; they will take superficial features of it, connect them to the missing foundations, and produce a bizarro-world morality that has all six foundations but lacks coherence and is divisive rather than unifying.
As I said above, this is a bulverism; it's an explanation for "why would people believe this crazy thing despite its craziness" rather than "what is the thesis of this thing and is it true". I don't like bulverism, and I don't like thinking of people as, well, morons susceptible to memetic effects. But it's the most sense I've managed to make of SJ.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18m ago
We've been through this. He's not a milquetoast neoliberal, he's a radical transhumanist techno-surveillanist, with sympathies for (if not direct allegience to) Critical Theory.
2rafa
23m ago
Klaus Schwab
The turning of a befuddled, milquetoast neoliberal German finance professor who started a conference into the arch-villain of modernity is quite something.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
24m ago
Aside from the fact that the far likelier scenario is a stalemate resulting in extinction, as we (not)fuck ourselves to death, it's because it wouldn't go the way you think it would go. If you want to see a completely male- or female-dominated society, look at the gay/lesbian community. Even if you crack reproduction, neither of these is capable of maintaining civilization, IMO.
do_something
25m ago
Heavily depends on location, claim you made is silly and reveals that you are unaware that situation elsewhere is different.
BahRamYou
29m ago
There is no “true” set of races that “falls out naturally” from genetic or cultural data, but the US government’s system was especially fake and embarrassing. they declared Hispanics to be an “ethnicity” that you could have along with a different race.
I've heard stuff like this before, that Hispanic is a nonsense category. But I actually think it makes sense, at least as far as anything makes sense in the US legal/cultural system of race.
First, just to state the obvious: this wasn't ever intended to a rigorous, comprehensive, scientific system. It's just a quick and dirty way to classify people, in a way that any average person on the street can see and more-or-less agree on. You don't want to make up dozens of separate categories because it quickly spirals into confusion.
Second, look at the history. Hispanics, in the US, come mostly from Latin America (not from Spain). And Latin America was colonized long before the US, and much more brutally. One of the very first thing's Columbus did was to immediately start taking slaves! And on the other side, explorers such as Magellan's expedition were, um, not exactly celibate.
The crew also found they could purchase sexual favours from the local women. Historian Ian Cameron described the crew's time in Rio as "a saturnalia of feasting and lovemaking"
This quickly led to a situation where Latin America was of white conquistadors, indigenous slaves, black slaves imported from Africa, and mixed-race offspring. Pretty soon the Spanish realized they needed some sort of classification system for who was going to be a slave, who was trustworthy enough to rule, and who was somewhere in-between. Eventually they came up with a rather byzantine system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizo#Mestizo_as_a_colonial-era_category
- Español (fem. española), i.e. Spaniard – person of Spanish ancestry; a blanket term, subdivided into Peninsulares and Criollos
- Peninsular – a person of Spanish descent born in Spain who later settled in the Americas;
- Criollo (fem. criolla) – a person of Spanish descent born in the Americas;
- Castizo (fem. castiza) – a person with primarily Spanish and some American Indian ancestry born into a mixed family.
- Mestizo (fem. mestiza) – a person of extended mixed Spanish and American Indian ancestry;
- Indio (fem. india) – a person of pure American Indian ancestry;
- Pardo (fem. parda) – a person of mixed Spanish, Amerindian and African ancestry; sometimes a polite term for a black person;
- Mulato (fem. mulata) – a person of mixed Spanish and African ancestry;
- Zambo – a person of mixed African and American Indian ancestry;
- Negro (fem. negra) – a person of African descent, primarily former enslaved Africans and their descendants.
Which made sense for their situation, but sort of stops to make sense once you abolish slavery and royal titles and all these people start to intermix with each other. So after a few hundred years of that, you end up with modern day hispanic people. Some are mostly white, some are mostly black, some are mostly indigenous, but a lot of them are a roughly even mix of all three, to the point where it's an obvious group of its own. You still can't exactly call it a race- it's a mix of other races, and it's hard to tell where exactly is the border between hispanice and one of the other races. But you can't just say "mixed-race" either, for something that's been so thoroughly mixed for hundreds of years. So they made up a new word, ethnicity, and called it a day.
Of course all this is awkward to talk about in polite society, and most Americans don't really know the history of Latin America. In Mexico they call it La Raza which makes a lot more sense, but that sounds kind of bad in English and the term hasn't made it here yet. So they decided to classify it on language, "are you from a spanish-speaking area?" That's... weird, since it includes people from Spain and excludes people from Brazil or Belize. But it works well enough for the US, where most Latin-American immigrants are from Spanish-speaking areas.
It's certainly not a perfect term, and I think we're moving towards changing it with weird terms like LatinX or Chicano, but it's good enough for 99% of situations to get the idea across. It's actually a lot less confusing than African (eliding the difference between North, West-subsaharan, and East-Subsaharan African) or Asian (it's a big continent lol) or white (are Arabs white?).
epohon
30m ago
Why? I think it was Jim who suggested to block oxygen to every newborn female's brain long enough for irreparable damage to sapience but not long enough for death. "We" can continue like that indefinitely. Or if instead the other sex manages to win decisively, that's a weak proof that they also could continue in this manner by doing the same to boys.
2rafa
31m ago
Like I said, it wouldn’t come to it. Chinese trade isn’t enough to keep Texas alive. It all comes back to the fact that secession without a comprehensive, EEA-style free trade and movement treaty would be suicide. A single sanction prohibiting US-domiciled corporations from doing business in Texas (which would be a day-one emergency bill through congress) would be enough to kill the Texan economy. The US couldn’t survive the loss of 10+ states for long, but Texas? Yeah, it would be weakened, but it probably could.
The question is ‘how much is the average Texan prepared to suffer for independence?’ After all, unlike Russia, Texas is a democracy. The US would gladly welcome back smart refugees. The average Texan is not ethnically or culturally discriminated against by the rest of the United States. They share the majority of their culture, religions and values. How badly do they believe in independence, how much is the average car mechanic in Fort Worth or defense attorney in Dallas prepared to sacrifice to live in broadly the same kind of state they already live in?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
36m ago
This is just like communists who adore their meme about how every other division between people is an invention of infinitely powerful capitalists as a distraction from the class struggle, the only one that the communists insist matters.
Not exactly. I think all divisions, including this one, are based on some kernel of truth, but while we can probably live with race war, class war, religious war, or anything else you come up with, we're kind of fucked if we don't resolve the sex war.
zPvQINBQvfFR
38m ago
Well, Cocaine Bear is just from last year.
epohon
40m ago
This is just like communists who adore their meme about how every other division between people is an invention of infinitely powerful capitalists as a distraction from the class struggle, the only one that the communists insist matters. There are countless axis among which other people are my enemies. Only one from the set of every religion plus atheism can be on top. Only one sex can subjugate the other. Linguistic prescriptivists can't live in the world where linguistic descriptivism is the dogma.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
41m ago
If men are so bad, why would having more of them around help?
Sorry, I’m feeling like an idiot, but I think you answered this in the previous paragraph, so I’m confused why you’re asking it rhetorically.
2rafa
45m ago
My suspicion has always been that the CCP elite is less committed to increasing the birthrate than is often suggested.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
46m ago
You're changing the scenario from "pariah state" to a full-blown war with this.
2rafa
47m ago
I largely agree. Most historic societies have had similar things (chariot races etc). Arguably in a more functioning society there would be even more need, because there would be higher birth rates and as such more young men.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
49m ago
"female" is equivalent to one of the many kinds of enemies.
Don't fall for the psyop, man. There's always going to be tensions between men and women, they're probably even necessary for our growth as a species, but we cannot let this turn us into enemies, or Klaus Schwab wins. Do you want Klaus Schwab to win?
BahRamYou
51m ago
but where do us high-IQ aimless NEETs go to post? can I sue Blind for discrimination?
2rafa
52m ago
Yeah, and the United States could close shipping traffic to the Gulf (which in any case requires ships from China to take the long way around) and could block imports from California.
BahRamYou
56m ago
Are we allowed to do anything alone or do we need adult supervision at all times no matter what?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
It's @SkookumTree, on his way through The Hock!
So, who is identical with who? And who's the odd man out here?
If #2 actually is as you seem to be intending him, then #1 is the odd man out, because #2 does not actually believe the axiom that "we know how to solve all our problems is shorthand for. Free market democratic capitalism observably doesn't solve all our problems, ASIs don't exist in the present tense, and wouldn't be "we" even if they did. As you seem to intend him, #2 doesn't claim that we have the tools at hand to solve, say, racism and poverty, or indeed any other problem, doesn't claim authority to use those tools, and doesn't blame people for getting in the way of the fixes he doesn't have. All of these contradict the description I laid out.
On the other hand, if #2 is a "Libertarian" who believes nothing matters as much as solving the alignment problem, or is scheming about "pivotal acts", or believes that we should export "free market democratic capitalism" to the rest of the world at gunpoint so as to make the ASI arrive sooner and thus shorten and minimize the death-agonies of our non-utopian existence, then there's a fair argument he actually does believe that "we know how to solve all our problems", and #3 is the odd man out.
If someone actually believes the axiom I'm summarizing as "we know how to solve all our problems", they can be a lot of different things, but whatever they are is flatly incompatible with both Libertarianism and Christianity, at least as far as I understand the two concepts. The axiom is a claim that one has the right to wield absolute power over all other humans without accountability or restraint. It is not a subtle thing.
I don't actually care whether the plan is Marxist revolution or Pivotal Acts purportedly aimed at preventing unaligned AGI; either is inimical to my values, and for the same reasons.
Maybe... Japan is doing something right especially given the cards they've been dealt with.
More options
Context Copy link