ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
8d ago
Back in 2020 some people here tried to say a Biden win will the blue tribe to de-escalate, only for all the things you're warning about here to happen anyway. They'll keep on clamping down on dissent no matter what, they're doing it even in countries with no Trump. The idea they'd go easy on us if we let them win is hard to take seriously at this point.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
8d ago
Is there any chance people are being hasty on this, or are the numbers such that it's impossible for the end result to change?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
8d ago
That's not an axiomatic belief, it's a derived belief based on your definitions of "man" and "woman," which in turn descend from your beliefs about the duties and privileges a society should afford to members of each sex,
This is false. My definition of "man" and "woman" has nothing to do with duties and privileges a society should afford to members of each sex, and believing that it does already effectively means believing that men can be women relative to my definitions.
you could actually have a productive discussion with leftists about
To the extent you could have a reasonable exchange of ideas with a person like that, those ideas would not be representative of what is actually being pushed by their political establishment. This person would not acknowledge what the establishment is actually doing, instead they would constantly sane-wash it into something palatable. If you provide evidence that the sane-washed version ins't what's being pushed, and the version you're objecting to is, two things might happen depending on the temperament of the person: conversion ends, or they'll the thing they just swore isn't happening is actually good. I don't think that's a productive conversation.
You're assuming people here are siloed off in an echo-chamber. Please consider the possibility that we've been having these conversations for a long time, and what you claim simply does not fit our experience.
discussion with leftists
I doubt you'd change your mind, or the liberal's mind
Why are you conflating liberals with leftists?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
8d ago
The misinformation in your post and on twitter in general is reaching insane levels. People were voting without American citizenship?Really? Is there any proof of that actually happening?
Other people already posted links, what made you think this is something that couldn't have happened, and anyone believing otherwise must to be a result of "insane levels" of misinformation?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9d ago
We all feel like we just got here, and the 2016 election is one of the reasons why many of us are here to begin with. We feel like it was barely yesterday.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9d ago
How have you been doing @Southkraut?
Redot
So I had a some time this week and decided to give Redot another look. Turns out that their Twitter accunt has been hacked because of course it was, but other than that they seem to be chugging along. There's finally a build that runs on my distro of Linux out of the box, so I'm dusting off some of my old sandboxes, and going over the docs, because it's been a while since I did anything with Godot.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9d ago
Funny, but you know what I mean,
Yes, but I like my version better.
"Assigned gender at birth" can rescue you if you have a pre-transition person that already wants to change their gender, but it won't when "universally regarded" includes the person in question themselves. If they denied that men can be women, that would mean someone who changed their mind later on either has always been a woman, or that they're not a woman now, which pro-trans people don't believe.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9d ago
The Holocaust denial, YEC conspiracies and extreme esoteric weird online stuff seems more a consequence of being at home in a foreign country with a phone and babies for company;
Man, when did kids go from asking why is the sky blue to "I don't get it, mama, how can you dispose of so many bodies in such short time? They didn't have enough crematoriums in Auschwitz, it makes no sense, mama!"?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9d ago
people who have Read The Sequences hold that 'man' and 'woman' are an inaccurate map of a more complicated territory
The left != people who have Read The Sequences. Also, I don't see how this idea is any less kooky.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9d ago
There was a story about British Labour staffers working for Kamala as well. If this isn't illegal, I feel like it should be. I hope it doesn't kick off some trend where Americans help European parties in their campaigns.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9d ago
So would you say it is unlikely that the dude got radicalized by Islamists, or are you just pointing out this is not a smoking gun? The latter claim is not interesting, as it's only a matter of time until it gets resolved now that there's a full-blown terrorism investigation. But I don't think this should be an argument that allows people to throw a wet blanket on the conversation around immigration and Islam.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9d ago
I mean that the whole framework is designed so that you never end up having to eat crow. "My priors for this are very low. Oh, it happened anyway? Oh well, I promise to bump up my priors somewhat for the next time this non-repeatable event happens!".
I've only seen other people ask this question, but haven't seen an answer. I'd imagine you're right, but I'm not a lawyer.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
It's not being sloppy with the phrase "without evidence", as @RenOS pointed it's more about elevating your position to the null hypothesis.
The whole Bayesian reasoning thing always felt like a gimmick to me anyway. You can claim to be a good Bayesian no matter the outcome of any particular case.
Who do you think will win, Trump or Harris?
If I had to bet, I guess I'd bet on Trump, but as a foreigner looking at the situation only through the Internet, I don't feel particularly confident.
Relatedly, do you think there will be issues certifying the election results? Which side do you think will struggle more if they lose?
Stranger things have happened I suppose, but it would be weird for Dems to do it after 4 years of handwringing over voter-fraud conspiracies. Don't think Trump will try anything either given how the last time turned out, unless they'll find a smoking gun.
And of course - do you think we'll see outright political violence? I certainly hope not, but it's good to be prepared.
My impression is people are tired. Maybe some half-heated protests. Maybe a lone-wolf attack. But nothing mass-scale, not even a repeat of J6.
Overall, how was your experience of this election? Did it seem noticeably different from any recent elections in any particular way?
It was bizarrely vibes based. No actual clash of ideas or policies, either from the candidates, or from their supporters.
Some follow-ups on past stories
The teenager accused of the fatal stabbing of three girls at a dance class in Southport has been charged with production of a deadly poison and a terror offence, the chief constable of Merseyside Police has said.
Axel Rudakubana, 18, will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court by videolink on Wednesday charged with production of a biological toxin, Ricin, and possession of information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing to commit an act of terrorism.
The charges come after searches of his home in Banks, Lancashire, Merseyside Police Chief Constable Serena Kennedy said at a press conference on Tuesday.
The terror offence relates to a PDF file entitled Military Studies In The Jihad Against The Tyrants, The Al Qaeda Training Manual, Ms Kennedy said.
Previous discussion here, and here.
Part of the controversy was about how the right wing assumed the attacker was a boat-refugee and/or a recent immigrant, and while that part remains false, another part of it was about his religion, (see Al-Jazeera, Wikipedia, BBC, or even our own discussion) and how it was wrong / islamophobic to jump to conclusions this way. It now turns out that he was indeed radicalized by Islamists.
A shocking new development has emerged in the case of Algerian boxer Imane Khelif after a French journalist reportedly gained access to a damning medical report revealing Khelif has “testicles.” The news comes months after Khelif seized a gold medal in women’s boxing at the Paris Olympics.
The report was drafted in June of 2023 via a collaboration between the Kremlin-Bicêtre hospital in Paris, France, and the Mohamed Lamine Debaghine hospital in Algiers, Algeria. Drafted by expert endocrinologists Soumaya Fedala and Jacques Young, the report reveals that Khelif is impacted by 5-alpha reductase deficiency, a disorder of sexual development that is only found in biological males.
(...) The report concludes by recommending Khelif be referred for “surgical correction and hormone therapy,” to help him physically align with his self-perceived gender identity, and adds that psychological support would be required because the results had caused a “very significant neuropsychiatric impact.”
Previous discussion here and here, and here.
More than the object level of either of those stories, what I want to know is: what do?
I've had this discussion with @Hoffmeister25 about assuming the worst about your outgroup without any evidence. While I maintain that it's plenty of fun when your unproven stereotype-based claims are vindicated, I'm going to agree with him that this way lies madness, and that's no way to have a conversation on controversial political issues. On the other hand, I can't help but notice that this sort of recommendation for caution is asymmetrical. When mainstream institutions make a claim, that claim is itself treated as evidence, any caution goes out the window, and requests for evidence are met with ridicule. So how should we be approaching these controversies, given that bombshells like these hardly raise an eyebrow anymore?
As time goes on, I'm leaning more and more towards simply rejecting Rationalism, as it leads to cudgels like "falsely claimed without evidence" beloved by the mainstream media. Vibe Analysis has been the subject of some ridicule, but I think there should be some space to say "I don't have evidence for this, but my gut says there is something off here" and Reddit-tier "source?!" responses to that should not be accepted. At the end of the day we're only people, and our guts will influence us, no matter how much pretense of objectivity and evidence-baseness we'll put on top of that.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
I think it's good because it reminds people what the better position is. Not just oppositional, but actually taking a stance which doesn't amount to rejecting one side or the other by embracing the opposite totally.
Well, the latter has the issue that sometimes one might hold a strong opinion, and feigning neutrality would be hard to pull off, and come off us dishonest anyway, but on the former I guess you're right, and I'll try to keep that in mind. I think I even managed to pull it off one time with words to the effect of "I do have my doubts sometimes, and if I'm wrong the opposing view that I find most likely to be true is...", followed by an expose on a group that holds a completely different view, which I disagree on the level of fundamental values. If that fits with what you had in mind, I guess it's something worth going for.
But I acknowledge that it's hard to say something like "you're saying the truth, but you should be more sensitive to presentation" when the issue might be so lopsided.
Funnily enough, that's something I'm willing to concede immediately. My tendency to sperg on some issues will probably get in the way of living up to this standard, but it's a standard worth aiming for.
But we don't expect people to be just human. We expect a level of rationality and reason.
I may have lost the track of the conversation somewhat, but I think that was my point. This is why I'm salty at all the people that outright flamed out - I thought we all signed up on for some baseline level of decoupling. But yeah, in the end we're all only human.
That's a tall ask, and I recognize that. I can't say I'd tolerate it if I was treated that way. So maybe this whole thing is doomed from the start.
To be fair, I see how the roles are reversed now. It takes a different form, but between the downvotes on unpopular views, and the constant background hostility to progressivism, it must take a pretty thick skin to post here, if someone is leaning left. The only thing I'll say in our defense is that it's still better than most mainstream forums, as we don't ban for disagreement, and are at least theoretically aware of the value of having dissenting opinions. But in any case, my hat is off for the lefties that still hang out here.
I think that often comes down to the vast inferential distance between the two sides. One man's hypocrisy is another's "clear distinct situations".
Sometimes, maybe even often as you say, but there are cases where it's really pants-down "you literally said this never happens" type stuff. "No one is doing surgeries on minors" is something still being repeated by people who haven't caught up with what's actually happening.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
Most point and click adventures had decent and enjoyable stories (since they were carried or buried by them), RPGs were hit or miss because they had a tendency to rely on D&D clichés, but unless you're referring to some B-list stuff, this seems flatly wrong.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
Of course, that's not counting "spontaneous abortion"
Oh please, this is like calling death by accudent, illness, or natural causes "spontaneous murder". It has nothing to do with the issue of abortion.
the online American right spending the final days before the election losing its shit over some squirrel seems like losing type behavior.
Huh... most of the stuff I've seen looks like they're having fun with it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11d ago
Whether it's because I have more quokka in me or I am simply better at decoupling my anger at wokeness from the argument I'm willing to believe about it, I've always tried to muster the energy to take people to task for uncharitable arguments which are directionally correct.
"The argument I'm willing to believe about it" might be the crux of the issue here. Like you, I can charitably describe almost any view, but I'm having real trouble believing these views are held honestly. What good is my Charitable Steelman about accommodations for trans people being about alleviating the suffering of people afflicted with a rare condition called gender dysphoria, when people spearheading gender affirming care are putting up conferences where they say you don't need dysphoria to be trans, that schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder shouldn't disqualify you from transitioning, and for that matter maybe we should dispense with that pesky binariness, and start affirming eunuchs as an identity? At some point it's the steelman that caricatures actually held views, rather than the supposed strawman.
I think your framing denies the majority the right to express discomfort with views without it being a stain on their character.
That depends on what you mean by "expressing discomfort". I think we all agree that FCFromSSC improved when he abandoned the firebrand speeches about not wanting to share a country with the other tribe, and embraced exactly the kind of decoupling you were advocating for earlier. I wouldn't call it a stain on someone's character if they can't do that, it's far too human of a flaw, I can't pull it off myself most of the time, but it seems it's something necessary for both sides to do in order to create the kind of space you'd prefer.
I think the second has some issues, though, because you'd have to control for the quality of the responses.
I agree, but the advantage is that it's a structural, rather than a cultural measure. The latter, like your "no exo-sadism" suggestion has the issue of needing buy-in from the majority of participants. If the problem is the current culture, you're going to have a hard time convincing people who maintain it to do a 180.
It's not rationally honest, but it's psychologically helpful.
I'm not sure what you mean by "rationally dishonest". I agree that something that would signal "there are other people like me here" would help in drawing more left-wingers, but tribal chatter usually boils down to shitting on the outgroup, which is exactly what you want to avoid, from what I understand. Even if we found a way around that, is the idea here that the regulars here would perform such chatter to attract new left-wing users? Won't that fall apart rather quickly, the moment we discuss any issue of importance (and maybe that's what you meant by "rationally dishonest")?
Just as anti-abortion advocates would not remain in spaces where they are presumed to just hate women, your opponents are not going to show up if they are presumed to be evil, monstrous, inhuman, etc.
I'm not sure I agree with the premise. Back when we had a much more of a 50-50 split, we regularly had to field accusations of racism / sexism / xeno-islamo-trans-phobia, and we kind of had to take that on the chin. In fact, I kinda think that to the extent you're right, it's more of a product of Current Year culture than being some iron law of human behavior. I distinctly recall Christians, creationists, etc., showing up on atheist forums of yore, trying to convert us, no matter how much they got shat on.
Yes, there are people who, if accurately described, would fit that description. But in consequentialist terms, it would have greater value for the plurality of views if half the political spectrum wasn't treated as if it were the sworn descendant of Stalin himself.
This goes back to the earlier point about cynicism. I have no issues taking someone at their word when they say "I believe in X, but I don't want any of that crazy Y and Z stuff", the problem we're having is that for a while we've been seeing the "Y and Z are not happening, and it's a good thing that they are" pattern unfold several times. When we start discussing issues X', Y', and Z', I can take a specific supporter of X' at his word, but it's going to be hard to believe that the movement he's a part of is not going to push for Y' and Z' in short order. If specific charity is not enough, and group-charity is necessary... that's going to be a tall order.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11d ago
Voting is literally the only way the community can respond to a persistent troll the mods have decided to enable
There was only one instance that I recall where this was an actual issue, and it was Darwin, and by the time we moved here, even the mods were tired of his schtick.
I don't know why anyone would want to take that one recourse away from the users.
Because for every person that gets downvoted for being a troll, there are scores that get downvoted for having an unpopular opinion.
All of it. Pre-Elon it was a regular occurrence for me to go "oooh, there goes another one" as another mildly interesting, not even very spicy, account gets the ban hammer. If it was still under old management, they'd probably be cracking down on Peanut the squirrel memes. That's without mentioning the impact of things like Community Notes.
More options
Context Copy link