@crushedoranges's banner p

crushedoranges

Russia and Ukraine are two butch lesbians fighting over a condom

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:35:13 UTC

				

User ID: 111

crushedoranges

Russia and Ukraine are two butch lesbians fighting over a condom

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 19:35:13 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 111

It's a consequence of living in a liberal, progressive society. There is an overwhelming pressure to not judge people for their individual choices and it is honestly suffocating. It is a very low bar that they are refusing or unable to meet. Or, in other words, to classify you as 'think you are better' is politeness. You are better, straight up, then people who cannot shower or who dress like freaks or who pretend disabilities they do not possess.

Unfortunately, you've just outed yourself as otaku-who-thinks-he's-better-than-other-otaku, the missing archetype in your observations. As a fellow patrician in this category, you have my sympathies. I refer you to Roger Ebert's observation on fandom as an explainer for the poor hygiene: knowledge on obscure anime is used in replacement of social normality.

There was a time and place where Communists genuinely believed that central planning and the socialist economy were genuinely superior to the capitalist mode of production, and their victory would come about through increased productivity and a greater standard of living. That did not come to pass, and nowadays the only people who flog that are ivory-tower intellectuals that retreat into decades old data and tortured misinterpretation while ignoring the mountainous piles of lived, subjective experience.

Cuba was always poor, relatively speaking. Communism has made it even poorer. Today's communists don't even try and sell you on the idea of a centrally planned economy anymore, instead degenerating into standard Maoist and third-worldist fare on how American is the originator of all imperialist evil. Even their fellow communists in China have criticized them for their lack of reforms. Defenders of Cuba now mostly do it out of habit, and not out of any genuine belief in a imminent revolution by materialist praxis.

That wasn't what he was asking for at all. He was asking for your priors, not the content of the truth of Vance's statements. That would give important information ('why are we forced to guess?' and 'why is this important to you, much less the conversation?') That is certainly within the possible, if you weren't so evasive about it.

Let's flip the script on you. If I said 'Now we can all assume that Magicalkittycat both tells the truth and lies', that would be superficially true (no one is completely honest 100% of the time, and even if they tried to be, they would make lies of omission on occasion). The statement tells us almost nothing about which parts of your speech are truthful and which ones are lies. But besides being useless, this statement certainly isn't smuggling in a trojan horse's worth of assumptions against you, which certainly wouldn't be used against you in a partisan way. Certainly, I wouldn't imply you tell the truth when it looks bad for you, and you lie when you argue in your defense.

I mean, I'm just saying the truth, aren't I?

As a person who manages to be longwinded without the use of LLMs, I demand a redistribution of this wealth, less I start using AI myself to encourage a similar payoff.

I speak in the most general of terms. I applaud you for sticking around. I admit that my bias towards replying to the comments that annoy me the most has skewed my perceptions. I may have exaggerated in my charactization of the political polarisation but I do not think it is baseless.

You know, I am very happy that this space exists. It's great. I can voice my righty opinions without being mobbed by the average denizen of Reddit. But it's precisely because I can do this that intellectual left-wingers leave the space. You've seen it. I've seen it. The nice ones that would be pleasant to talk to have genuine emotional distress to arguments that they find distasteful. They don't stick it out to fight it. They leave and never return. So the conversation to expand the Motte might be - how do we keep the people we already have from disengaging from the space we have now?

I... believe, that mods engage in affirmative action, to keep the leftists we do have from leaving. I have no evidence of this. But from observed experience, there seems to be a longer leash for the provocatively left-leaning. But the problem is that the temperament of those that remain are not in the first group. They are either clever trolls or freshly educated zoomers who seem to be unaware of the very basic rightist objections to common leftist beliefs. A policy that is intended to preserve our left-leaning goodposters saves the worst of them, instead.

Is this better than having no leftists at all? Supposedly. As good as mod work is in preserving the character of the Motte, I think the fault of the righty-consensus here - in addition to the usual social media partisanship factor - is exogenous. Namely, the broader leftist intellectual sphere is intolerant. Not to say that righties are any better, but they lack the cultural and academic soft power to abuse ingroup inclinations IRL. There's nothing we can do about it. The academic-NGO complex moderates righty ideas out of the public conversation. You have to go out of your way to even know that such objections exist that do not immediately cast our motives as racist, misogynist, etc.

This has been a long tangent, but to sum it all up... To expand the Motte will inevitably lead to a righty-Motte and a lefty-Motte. A schism, so to speak, that has already happened. I do not believe that the death of lefty-Motte was a coincidence. Ring-fencing the topics of acceptable debate destroyed the entire purpose of the space. The magic (and the witches that casted them) was gone.

I don't know how to solve this partisan self-sorting problem. But it should be something that should be kept in mind. As soon as you create subforums out of the current Big Chum Bucket we have, this will happen. It is inevitable, and I don't think it can be solved with good moderation.

Literally the entire alimony regime limits the ability of men to reproduce (unless they go deadbeat, which perversely encourages the stupidest and poorest to breed over the intelligent and conscientious.) Talk about 'splinter in thine eye, sequoia redwood in mine'! The health insurance market is a transfer of wealth from men to women. The entire DEI structure is a transfer of wealth from men to women. Social security - from demographics and life expectancy - is a transfer from young men to old women. The west has not tried a bachelor tax, or literally enslaving men. But they very may well do so, in the near future!

But the most timid of social considerations (well, maybe women should consider family to be important) immediately gets shouted down. Not even the most reactionary of radicals has something like a 'female tax' on their agenda. Or even lifting the extraordinary privileges the feminists have given themselves. And you say that we should try more restrictions on men?

I recall the excellent Westworld, Season 1 (and deny that anything else came after that) that the dividing line of sentience is a mostly illusory one: that it is a emergent property of the self-concept, of the internal monologue. That notions of a soul may either be chauvinist hubris: or perhaps God will endow them with one, as Providence dictates.

Since there's no way to ascertain that any individual has consciousness from without for certain, we have to extend the benefit of the doubt to our fellow human beings. Is it possible for superintelligent AGIs, on the line of Helios from DEUS EX? Uncertain. But I am fairly certain that LLMs will reach human capacity in my lifetime, or at the very least reach a level of sociability that it will be monstrous to treat them any less than equals. If the technology stalls out at that level it will still very be much worth it: I will reserve at least 16gb of vram for my new friends.

Are you being serious?

Again, this is you adhering to the letter of the law. You're not calling me a Nazi (you're only saying that I'm saying that I'm one.) But it amounts to the same thing. You would not dare say this to anyone in real life.

In this very response, in the last sentence, you have a descalation, a insult, and a sneer. If I call you out on it, you'll focus on the first part (while conveniently leaving out the other two.) Like how you exclude the last sentence of 'Add another on the pile of growing unashamed Nazism'. The second sentence clarifies what you meant.

You're not fooling anyone.

I'm going to disengage from this conversation because you're clearly trying to ragebait me. I do not understand how this behavior is acceptable to the moderators.

No, it is not. And rather than ask for clarification or give me the benefit of the doubt (as any good faith argument would go for) you immediately jumped to calling me a Nazi. An argument so facile and childish that it was a meme back in the usenet days (argumentum ad Hitlerum.)

I am pretty sure that this forum is filled with the neurodivergent, and I had made myself pretty well understood to them. That I was making a figure of speech: that I was not literally speaking for myself, but making rhetorical flourish to illustrate the widening of the Overton window.

That you jumped on the superficial elements of that argument to discredit me is not an error on my part or autism. It's a you thing. So, again. What did you mean by that? What should be done with Nazis? Tell me what your beliefs are. Stop evading the question. If you have no beliefs about Nazis, then why is being one bad? Why would wearing Nazi tattoos be bad, or having a swastika on a flag?

If I hold you to your own standards, should I take your words as you say them? Or do you not believe that about yourself?

I will actually credit autism here: I am hyperfixating on it, until I get a proper answer.

You literally called me a Nazi. Did you meant that when you said that? Here, I'll link it again for your convenience.

So, taking this new principle of yours you seem to have found, when you said this, you meant it, honestly and earnestly. What did you mean by that? What could you possibly mean? Please, explain yourself. Elaborate in detail. Let's suppose that you're right. I am a fascist. If a leftist radical killed me, would you be overtly bothered? Would you engage in the same minimizations and evasions you're doing here? Please. Do clarify, if you have the time.

Surely, if Kirk the nonnazi is a matter of humorous anecdote, an actual Nazi would be quite funny!

For I live in the real world too, and I don't have to take your prepositions naively on their face. You twist yourself into pretzels trying to win the argument. If you mean what you say you mean, and not just as political polemic, I must hold you to account. I asked you this question almost a year ago, and you've never answered. You've never apologized, either. I'd take that as well, because in my reality, calling someone who isn't a Nazi a Nazi is an insult.

Go ahead. I'm waiting.

If you can't see that the memes about Kirk postmortem come from the desire to rile up the genuinely aggrieved right - that you stubbornly insist that the fig leaf is an burka - then there's no point to arguing with you. We simply don't share the same reality. You may skirt the rules of the Motte in doing what you're doing, but I refuse to let you bait me any further. Even if I did write a well-written, precisely worded argument, you'd just duck out and say that you didn't have time in your busy life to respond.

I'll merely reiterate what FCfromSSC said already, and add on: it's easy to win arguments when you run around the field with the goalposts. Or, in other words, you have already contradicted your past positions, and it's hard to see if you have any principles whatsover.

Come on. You're doing the thing that every edgy leftist is doing, and pretending that their not-so-subtle mockery wasn't concealing their glee at getting him. It does not convince, no more than 'in minecraft' is a defense against conspiracy. No comedian ever went on television and said that George Floyd was probably killed by a commie, and certainly no con was going around saying he deserved to die because he punched a pregnant woman (which is something he actually did.)

And yet, Kirk's assassination is deemed his own fault because of some amorphous harm to leftist causes, or something.

I'm not stupid. I can see the winks and the smiles. Your argument is unconvincing and insults the intelligence of anyone credulous enough to extend you the benefit of the doubt. The people who called him a Nazi have blood on their hands. People who use that word to rile up extremists to kill their political opposition have blood on their hands. If this isn't stoastic terrorism, it is at the very least 'turbulent priest' levels of wishcasting.

It is not too far to suggest that you have some infinitesimal part of his blood on your hands.

Wildly? Half of the left wing said it was a good thing, and that he deserves it. (The other says its a bad thing, but also deplores what he said, thus negating the virtue of the first.) Virtuous centrists are a rounding error.

Maybe you are sincere. But there are certainly players that are not, and I am tired of listening to the snide and back-biting commentary of the partisans of the other side. You take it seriously because a man is dead because he was killed for speech, a right that he had every freedom to exercise. Nothing can diminish that, although you've certainly tried.

If the BLM riots didn't discredit George Floyd, then it's farcical to say that the circus of Kirk's death discredits him. Right-wing George Floyd 'I can't breathe' memes are scrubbed off the internet, while Kirkist mockery stays online because of leftist bloodthirstiness.

Tu quoque?

You could apply this same logic to the allegations made against Trump by Ivana Trump. It's about the same level of veracity, with one difference: Ivana retracted her statements after the fact. I don't believe that people who say this now wants to stick to just the facts - mostly because everyone who tried was sent to the social gulag a long time ago. If you dared make such a argument to those of progressive and liberal leanings, you would have been called a rape apologist. I was there. I lived through the MeToo period. Superficially this is a fair argument to make. But if you lived in the past ten years - if you have been exposed to public discourse at all - you know that this is the left not living up to its principles that it used to oppress men.

Because even feminism is subordinate to the cause, in certain conditions. You can make the most crunchy granola hippy defend a ex-blackwater totenkampf-toting sexual abuser if he says the right platitudes about Israel. People sneer at the right-populists all the time, but at least they have a movement. They get elected. Platner is a man that doesn't deserve any loyalty but every tankie and communist has torched their public reputations to defend him in the past few months. It would be funny, if it didn't make your heart ache.

'Full genocide' is hyperbole on your part, because apparently 'genocide' has lost its punch, mainly because of Third Worldists applying it liberally to anything and everything they don't like.

What would you classify the Armenia and Rwandan genocides, then? Hypergenocides? Are the Israelis genociding the Palestinians in the same way we're genociding the transgenders in the West? The Amerindians?

There's no all-encompassing definition of Confucianist Asians of which ardent nationalists will accept, so Oriental is a crude but acceptable exonym. At least, that's my guess. You try grouping Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese cultures with a single name.

I believe that the heroic quality manifests in different times of their lives. A not insignificant number of women will go down to the knife for their children, even if they are personally the mildest and gentlest of creatures. Valor under fire is something that can only be partially trained, which is why the standards for soldiery and police work should be higher than the general population, and not lowered because of considerations to the representation of the sexes. You either have it or you don't.

German Progessive Weirdo: "Ha! Don't get into relationships with men. Checkmate, incels!"

Tribal Afghani Chud: "No want to date. Only rape."

This is called motivated reasoning. It's obvious that progressives and liberals are applying extra scrutiny to avoid asking any hard questions.

It would be like being told that monkeypox was effecting gay men, animals, and children, and then someone barged in and told you to quarantine the petting zoos.

I cannot help but notice that is the logic of Saddam Hussein, who also justified 9/11 by the civilians who were 'associated' with Israel by the dint of democracy. The marines of Beirut were there to evacuate and protect the PLO. 58 Frenchmen died, as well. They were there to protect the PLO, are they all associated with Israel, too? That military presence was by the invitation of the legitimate government of Lebanon.

I'd go into how indiscriminate a truck bomb is as a weapon, but if you're going to apologize for Hezbollah then it's not really a conversation I want to have.

I don't hate him for tankie/anticapitalist reasons: I hate him for spiking the cost of memory and SSDs, and his market manipulation tactics would earn him a Bitcoin Assassin™ if we lived in Shadowrun.

But it's not only that, and you are putting forth a strawman. I'm sure the men who drove a truck bomb into Beirut and killed two hundred Americans knew exactly what 'Death to America' meant: killing Americans.

They're not insane, but they are not rational. They are religious fanatics who hate the west and want to kill every American they get their hands on. An enemy, by definition, is an other. No special intellectualizing required. It is you who are making apologetics.

For the same reason the geniuses behind 'Abolish the Police' engaged in epicycles to say it actually meant [Liberal Slop], you are doing the same. Surely the Kantian PhD scholars would come up with a clarifying slogan and instruct their people to communicate what they actually mean, right?

No, this is quokka reasoning: you cannot define away enemies who identify as enemies. That's not how the world works. At least respect them enough to believe that they say what they mean, and not fall for obvious lies.