ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12d ago
Did sainthood become something a typical person has a decent chance to attain, when I wasn't looking? If not, I don't see how that changes his point.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12d ago
Does prepending "virtually" before "impossible" change anything significant about his point?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12d ago
People tend to get banned for that when it's caught / suspected, the problem is that it's hard to detect, and prove objectively. What made you think that this is what happened here?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12d ago
I agree, but the political lean has it's issues. For example I'm a big fan of the "post something wrong and wait until someone smugly corrects you" method of truth seeking, and it can't work if your wrongposting feeds into the bias of the community.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12d ago
This place hasn't been healthy for a long time, and arguably wasn't even at its conception. Then again, one community's illness is another community's peak condition, so maybe I'm wrong and this place is good precisely for why I think it's ill.
It's an interesting question. It's not exactly healthy, in that it's not what I'd want to see in a community like this, but I think it's as good as it's going to get, given the circumstances. This may all be projection, but a part of the issue seems to be us accumulating cynicism as we grow older - I don't know how much I can play "steelman the opponent" post- gamergate, BLM, metoo, BLM2, COVID, and "WPATH to hell" - but more importantly I think it's less of a local culture problem, than a global culture problem. The culture of discourse that the rat-sphere sprang from is dead and buried. Personally I think it's because discourse is an existential threat to our ruling regime, and so people need to retreat to echo-chambers just to maintain society. From there, it's not exactly surprising that this place has become rather skewed in one direction, but the depressing thing is it's still better than the majority of alternatives.
I'm not terribly confident of the red-armband-man but that's because of the historical record of people like him, but I don't see the reason to apply that record to every would-be revolutionary. As a Euro we didn't put a lot of emphasis on the American revolution during history lessons, so maybe I missed something, but I don't think it was comparable to the Red Terror.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12d ago
I'm sure civil war will respect all of those fine details you specified.
Not respecting all the fine details doesn't imply genocide either? Do you think the US respected all the fine details in Afghanistan? Or do you think they committed genocide? Or do you think neither, and therefore your entire argument is invalid?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12d ago
Not gonna lie, gearing up on an absurd amount of survivalist gear for a long winter hike, only to head to the local bar and get shtifaced with the bros, does sound quite fun.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12d ago
I will not be satisfied until young men leaving for the Hock each winter becomes a tradition.
He says it's actually the Russians funding the German Green party, not even hedging or speculating.
It was going around in the news a while back:
Has the Russian Federation been funding environmental activists around the world? A few more voices point in this direction.
WWF Germany, BUND (Friends of the Earth), and NABU (Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union), three environmental organisations who were avowed opponents of Germany's NordStream pipelines with Russia, dropped their opposition after Gazprom promised funding for environmental protection, according to a 2011 report from the European Parliament. A foundation set up by a German federal state, environmental organizations, and NordStream (controlled by Gazprom) had filled its coffers with €10 million with representatives of the environmental organizations sitting on the board. Did these groups drop their opposition to the pipelines because of Russian funding? Whether they did or not is anyone's guess.
Another striking example is Belgium, where the federal energy minister Tinne Van der Straeten (from the green party "GROEN") has sought to dismantle Belgium's nuclear energy capacity. Van der Straeten’s former job? Lawyer and associate at a law firm whose largest client is Gazprom.
It shouldn't really be surprising, as this is the straight-forward result of everyone's incentive's on the issue.
Greens were pushing for no fossil fuels,
The Greens were pushing first and foremost for shutting down nuclear power, at which they have succeeded last year. They would have done so sooner, but the Ukraine war erupted just as they were first scheduled to shutdown their last reactors, and the uncertainty over energy security made it impossible to shout down people raising questions like "uh... is this really the best moment for that?". Which doesn't mean they didn't try. They first said the shutdown process is in motion, and impossible to reverse for technical reasons, to which the staff of the last functioning power plant said "uh... we can run this as long as you want, it's just a question of getting more fuel", to which they tried to say "well, we can't get nuclear fuel on such short notice", to which the US said "we'll gladly sell it to you, with Amazon Prime next day delivery included", to which they finally had to say "fine... we'll keep it running for one more year, but don't think this will avoid the shutdown!".
They have done so with full knowledge it will increase carbon emissions, and only offering the excuse that a switch to renewable sources will drive it back down later on, in the long term.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13d ago
Fair enough, in the end neither am I. Just remember someone posting about it on /r/stupidpol.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13d ago
As I remember, the disputes were principally about factual questions that were relevant for the moral dimension
It may be a question of asymmetrical enthusiasm then. I don't think the overwhelming majority of the forum bought the mainstream narrative, but a disproportionate amount of skeptics may have decided to sit this one out. From what I recall of your posts, I'm pretty sympathetic to your perspective, but I didn't really bother debating the details of Ukraine's politics.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13d ago
There was one on CNN or some other major news network, that they literally removed the day of Biden's inauguration.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13d ago
Remember how, at the outbreak of the Ukraine war, the overwhelming majority in this forum suddenly developed unconditional trust in consensus MSM reporting, if only on that topic?
No?
Trump won't do as much about global warming.
He didn't do much about global warming. I'm happy about that. Honestly worrying about something with consequences 20 years out feels a little silly at this point. It was nice when we had such long time horizons.
I'll take the other side of the issue here, and still argue that this argument is horrible. I'd love if we did something about global warming, but who the hell is doing anything? All the ideas thrown around are gimmicks with little effect on emissions, and Asia's growth in the last 20 years has already compensated for anything the US could possibly do, including magically cutting carbon emissions to 0. I don't see how anyone calling themselves a "rationalist" can spin this issue into a (non-) endorsement.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
15d ago
We are already doing most of these millenia-proven strategies.
Anyone with a passing familiarity with voting in any other part of the world will tell you that the US system is a joke when it comes to security and integrity, precisely because you don't follow these strategies.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
15d ago
How's your project going @Southkraut?
Thanks for asking. Please keep it up; it's expectedly motivational.
At this rate, I'm going to be the one who needs motivating. In my defense, I made several commitments leaving me with little time for Highspace. Some of them would actually make a good Tinker Tuesday entry, but *something something, never cross streams*.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
16d ago
Can you think of any other innovative tactics that could disrupt the election
Not today, federal agent.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
19d ago
Thanks for the links to your posts
Thanks for making this top-level post, I have to rate-limit myself, or this place would become a TERF twitter feed!
so there should probably be a way to search for them like you can specifically search for posts
Every once in a while I promise myself I'll start helping out with the code and add a few features like that for the benefit of users and mods, but I can barely find time to work on the projects I do for fun, so...
Anyway I don't mind people coming to similar thoughts to mine (quite the contrary), just couldn't resist the opportunity to say how I was doing this before it was cool.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
19d ago
and I'm much more of a political doomer than a science doomer.
I think the way you use the word "science" conflates the method and the process with scientific institutions. I'm an equal opportunity doomer when it comes to scientific and political institutions, mostly because scientific institutions have become transparently political, and this has happened precisely because we've entertained the idea of "evidence based policy".
MDMA is exactly the kind of situation I want to avoid. They held hearings on the scheduling in the 1980's, and sought scientific input. Neurotoxicity studies where central. They've since been critiqued.
It's not like the avenue of legalizing it is completely sealed off, you can campaign for MDMA's legalization, and try to convince voters that it's not toxic, and has benefits. I think that's a much better process than relying on experts.
If you disagree, that's fine, but my point that this isn't a precedent still stands, we've been doing this for a long time. Also, I gave you two examples where the question of expertise is irrelevant, which you haven't addressed. I don't care how many studies there are saying that surrogacy is great, it should still be illegal.
Strikes me as a false dichotomy.
I mean, that's a staple argument of all sorts of human-nature-denying idealists since forever. Communists will call "you can have free(ish) markets or poverty" a false dichotomy, pacifists will call "let he who wants peace prepare for war" a false dichotomy, and I suppose scientism-ists will call "you can have science or a regulatory state" a false dichotomy as well.
Science has varying degrees of confidence. In this case, WPATH etc are peddling what I believe to be bullshit science with bullshit confidence.
And those degrees of confidence that science supposedly uses were completely ignored by partisans in the scientific community, until other partisans said "no, go and evaluate the evidence properly" and even after that, these finding have to be enforced politically, because the scientific establishment is doing everything it can to ignore those findings.
Commissioned, but real science was done. Sounds good to me.
The question here is why did it need to be comissioned politically, if the scientific community is "mugged by reality" faster than politicians?
Easily the most challenging critique for me to contend with, but perhaps I'm just limited. On what principle should I argue against people voting for representatives that promise to put lead in the water? On one hand, I do think people have that right. On the other hand, I'm just sitting here with my dick in my hand wondering how I can escape this principle.
I don't understand why you're so torn over this. The possibility (which already manifested historically several times) of experts putting lead in the water doesn't bother you, because you believe the experts will auto-correct. I'm similarly not bothered by the possibility of people voting for lead in the water, because people will auto-correct. As a counter to your earlier point, I'm much more of a doomer when it comes to unelected bureaucracies than when it comes to legislatures that have to face their voters (though to be clear, I'm quite a doomer about them as well).
So how was the conversation "played out" if progressive PMCs were yet to realize that?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
19d ago
As I stated, legislators can eschew medical/expert consensus for anything they please.
How is this not already the case? We routinely ban various drugs (you brought up MDMA yourself), medical procedures (surrogacy, euthanasia)... how does banning this particular field of medicine set some dangerous new precedent?
Imagine the scientific consensus states that natal males in womens contact sports poses an injury risk. Well, Srkmetti would provide precedent that elected representatives can ignore that consensus
Good! This is the part that I wanted you to explain how there's anything bad about! If people want to have unisex sports, they should be allowed to vote for people who will give them unisex sports. These controversies should not be decided by the scientific community, and giving it this sort of power will only lead to a degradation of science.
No, I want both internal and external experts to study things without their findings being handwaved away by politicians with an ideological agenda.
And abolishing the regulatory state and applying your approach of "just sue the current bad thing for torts" to everything is the only thing that will give you this result. If you only use that approach for things that "experts" agree with, but allow them to ban things they disagree with via agencies like the FDA, AMA, etc., all that means is that the experts are political actors themselves, and will therefore jettison science themselves, or will be slapped down by someone more powerful. The regulatory state, not cases like Skrimetti are the things that are preventing experts from studying what they want, and having their findings be taken seriously.
The cass report led to a reversal in the UK
The Cass Review was commissioned through a political process to begin with, and it's enforcement is likewise political, which you can tell by observing that it's effects are constrained to the UK. If this was the scientific community self-policing, it would lead to a reversal in the entire anglosphere, if not the world.
But experts will be mugged by reality far faster than case law.
The case law in this case is about whether these controversies can be decided by the legislature, and I don't think legislatures are any less responsive than "experts".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
19d ago
Eugenics in practice necessarily entails a certain level of limitation put on women’s sexual autonomy.
Progressives have absolutely no issue shaming women for pairing up with the wrong kind of guy. The bigger problem right now is that eugenics in practice would require that they'd shame women for pairing up with people in their client classes. The moment surrogacy or other forms of industrial reproduction become viable, they'll happily return to eugenics.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
20d ago
The precedent it sets can be argued in favor of the next Bad Thing(tm).
What I'm asking is what precedent is it setting? As far as I can tell it's nothing new. Are bans on surrogacy some "dangerous precedent"?
Just sue the current bad thing for torts.
Again, if that's what you're going for you shouldn't be arguing against Skrimetti, you should be arguing for the total abolishing of the regulatory state.
The definition you were using earlier is "living a sin-free life", which is very different from "going to heaven", from what I always understood.
More options
Context Copy link