CloudHeadedTranshumanist
No bio...
User ID: 2056
immediate otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.
so, a guy without a knife saying "I'm gonna go get a knife come back here and stab you"
According to this video, to be in the clear in most jurisdictions, you should... just not be there when he comes back.
In the case of Neely... did he have a history of causing grave bodily harm to anyone? The man had... let's see... four alleged assault charges? everything else was trespassing, public urination, disturbing the peace, etc. Is that even enough? If his assaults were impotent does that count as disparity of force? In the situation where he died, he was in a subway with enough other sane people that he was rather outnumbered... everyone else had the force of numbers. This doctrine seems to let you do a lot of dickery before anyone is actually permitted 'deadly force'.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
We're also seeing advanced tooling start to come out.
Personally, there's so much else to work on that I'm waiting on Drag your GAN models to seriously get into the art side of things. (Those should be able to let you edit away those pesky pauldrons with ease)
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Sure, "Fake News" being applied to biased news, the term "Cancel Culture" being applied to people calling you a jerk on twitter, "Patriot"... which is it again? Nationalism? Libertarianism? The status quo? Just slaps onto any right wing cause for ingroup points. "Socialism" meaning any form of social safety net, "Freedom" and "Liberty" being extended to Laissez-faire economics.
The list just goes on and on because this is a very common and effective strategy that people use to argue for their cause. They staple a metaphor with their preferred affect to their cause or the enemy cause and run with it. The connotation of the word shifts and becomes ingrained, and its history is forgotten as generations are onboarded into the linguistic tech.
Usually the culprit doesn't think they're redefining anything when they do it, because to them the metaphor is apt. They honestly think their cause is good for the same reasons that the thing they stapled to it are good, or vice versa, and that they have found a new valid use case. Meanwhile another person looking at the metaphor, might not see the same implications or values implicit in its components, and disagree that it is apt, seeing it as a redefinition.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
it is hyperbolic to compare transition with death."
Oh hey, that's me.
I have to agree with the gist of your post. In retrospect, I don't even know whether the other posters were pointing at the final death. The words aren't automatically hyperbolic, it is hyperbolic to say that it is equally bad for a kid to transition as it is for them to actually die for real.
I find it interesting that you say: "it becomes possible to simultaneously say things and not say them at all"
This is exactly what was happening in my situation. The people I was responding to were just as complicit in using metaphors carelessly for impact. It's not exclusively the left's fault that language is a mess. Every culture war meme on the right, "groomer," "murder" (in the case of abortion) etc, are chosen dynamically for impact in the culture war. Not because they immediately create a deep understanding of the exact concept, but because they create an understanding of the concept that is predisposed to create favorable implications for their side of the culture war regardless of root level truth value.
I think your arguments that this is a disease are excellent. We should endeavor to communicate more clearly. I think your etiology is flawed. It's the culture war itself that breeds the weaponized language.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
My perspective is heavily shaped by the fact that most of the people that I interact with are AMAB, and the fact that most of the AFABs I interact with are oddballs that have chosen to dwell in AFAB spaces.
Yes I think estrogen vs testosterone makes a difference, I can feel the difference. Testosterone is... grindy... unsatisfied... demanding... estrogen is... a lot more chill... empathetic... similar to the vibe of an SSRI... the degree to which my gendered associations exaggerate the effects via placebo is unclear to me. But at least part of the effect is real, and the end result is real regardless of how much of it is the 'placebo alcohol' effect.
But mind you, most of the people I've socialized with who are on estrogen were AMABs. So I don't associate estrogen with AFABs to begin with.
There is definitely a difference between how AFAB cis rationalists and transgender AMAB rationalists act as well, transgender AMABs are more likely to be techie programmers for one. Whereas AFAB cis rationalists seem to be more likely to be close to EA. Meanwhile AFAB trans rationalists seem more likely to get into internet fights than AMAB cis rationalists. AMAB trans rationalists are more likely to be occultists than AMAB cis rationalists (or AFABs for that matter), more likely to be autistic, AMAB cis rationalists are less likely to take up social space in the room, are usually more relaxed and have fewer quirks to contribute on game night. They might have more to say about tech but they're less likely to go on an infodump.
At least among rationalists, this feels like at least 4 different "genders" to me. The early socialization matters, but the direction a rat is self-directing matters too. How they self direct is both less impacted by socialization (because they question it all), and further less impacted by traditional socialization (because they aren't spending time in the traditional sphere).
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Male humans and female humans, in fact, act qualitatively differently and are more accurately modeled separately, notwithstanding how “masculine” a woman is or “feminine” a man is.
If this is what you want me to address, I can address it directly.
...
Actually no I can't address it. My life is too weird. The reason I didn't add my own anecdotes is because I understand that most people weren't finally taught to socialize at the age of 20 by transgender-rationalist group houses. Didn't go to a private high school with the cast of an anime, didn't go through middle school with the hippie fifth of the school- the only fifth of the school that inexplicably goes to class in repurposed trailers outside and goes on hikes every Friday. In my life, male and female humans do not act qualitatively differently. They are all queer fucking autists doing their own thing in some galaxy brained direction.
Most people don't go through every stage of their life surrounded by the strangest possible cast of weirdos. I'm sure many, many people actually do get utility out of gender as a modeling tool. I only ever get utility out of gendered 'things'. Yin and Yang, left side and right side kabbalah. Things that different people pick and choose according to their need, regardless of what happens to be in their pants. Culture and biology as tools that you tear apart and reassemble to fit your need.
I didn't argue that the 'gender spectrum' idea is useful to me, because it's actually insufficiently intricate for me. I didn't argue that it would be useful to raggedy_anthem, because it doesn't sound like it would be that useful. The gender spectrum as an idea is good for one thing, and that is being the antithesis to the gender binary. That is to say, if you are so stuck on the gender binary that you cannot conceptualize why a man would want to wear makeup- then the special sauce: 'Male and Female are not thin edged monolithic categories, there is some blur, you have to model a bit more finely than that.' might be just what you need. But raggedy_anthem claims to be doing alright with their conception of males and females +/- small variances. They have enough of the special sauce to conceptualize the gender weirdest woman they know.
It seemed like delving into their anecdote would mean more to them. I'm easily empathy-sniped by people sharing their social troubles. I blame the estrogen.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
My brother just got it. He's still on tutorial stuff. So far it isn't fundamentally different, but it iterates on the BoTW formula well enough. If you were really tired of the game by the end of BoTW, TotK might not bring enough new to the table for you, but if you were craving more- It's more BotW and does bring some new stuff to the table.
So far it feels more like moving from sonic to sonic 2 than from sonic to sonic 3&k, if that makes sense. But since this is still the beginning... I'm still hoping to end up pleasantly surprised.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
I'm wouldn't go that far. I mean, it would end this culture war, but the pendulum would end up with leftist censorship for a while before people chilled out. And you'd end up with trans women in sports.
I think this is somewhat cyclical too. The culture war will wind up again eventually, on another topic.
If 2003 culture norms are what you want, then you have to fight for 2003 culture norms.
If you're ok with trans people existing, but want things to be chill again, then you have it a bit easier, because you can compromise on their behavior being ok but wanting your language to be uncensored.
Either way though. Things have gotten very spicy. It's hard to prove that you want peace while holding tools others have used as weapons. That's why it's 'bussy' and not 'manhole' or something. And it's a lot easier to maintain a compromise with a small group of friends who have already chilled out about it a bit than to end the culture war when so many people still feel so much more strongly about it on both sides.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
There is no high-minded 'pushing the physical limitations'
I agree that there is a focus on victory. But come now. Hardly anyone reaches the top without falling in love with something about the feeling of climbing.
And I'm not looking to the tops of mountains for reasonable men. I look to the tops of mountains for Great men. For men so mad that when they reach the top, they begin to teach themselves to fly.
I’ve been instructed to conceptualize natal males who eat estrogen for breakfast as women, full stop.
That's a common experience. But no. I wouldn't recommend modeling anyone with so little nuance, regardless of what they insist upon. I think it's common for people to oversimplify one another in general. If you can get a good model out of starting with a gendered cluster then listing divergences from that cluster that's great. I find it's easier to start with a sub-cultural cluster.
Realistically, everyone has more eccentricities than they show the world, and if you want to really get to know someone, you're going to end up personally tailoring a model to them. Moreso with people that won't or can't slot into neurotypical norms, where it might be best to just start out that way.
Negotiating norms is a more complex matter. You certainly have to do less modeling if you're in a subculture with a tight set of well delineated standards for how people ought to behave. You don't have to negotiate how you treat each person, and get to have a tight standard for misbehavior. But you also get less versatility with regards to what interactions can occur and how you can ask to be treated.
It sounds like in the case of the most masculine cis-identified woman you know, your social circle is giving a lot of leeway to her. I'm not sure how the rest of your circle feels about this- what each of their perspectives are on this woman being a git. It sounds like she is effectively playing the game on both the feminine and masculine side of the spectrum and gaining the benefits of both sides. I think this is the most interesting version of the social game, but I get that it's frustrating that your social circle doesn't have your back on the things that annoy you about her. You might have an easier time of it if you bonded more closely with the members of your circle. But if they won't let you do that- Obviously you're at a disadvantage if you yourself are not permitted to use the synthesis of masculine and feminine social techniques and she is.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Well, regarding your affinity for the classically human, I'll just reiterate from a past post that I'm fine with the neo-Amish existing. And am even willing to protect them if they decide to stay human while I race ahead into the unknowns of the alien frontier. But I'm not going to sit by and let "you can be whatever you want to be when you grow up" remain an empty platitude parents tell their children. When I say it I mean it.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
It's a prisoner's dilemma.
This is a valid concern. Ideally, sports would gatekeep based on the actual end result concerning health and sustainability. Currently, it is acceptable to destroy your body through non-PED methods but unacceptable to improve your health with PED methods. If health is part of bettering oneself, and that's the point of sports, the current system is using very poor heuristics for it.
Regarding restrictions on cybernetic implants, I believe you might be mistaken about where we are drawing the line right now. We do permit glasses, for instance. So, our boundary is more like "Only cybernetics that enhance people to a perceived human norm," which is also a somewhat natural distinction.
I do think the appeal of sports needs to relate in some way to the human body, and technological advancements should be integrated into that body. Otherwise, it becomes more like a vehicle expo than a competition to enhance human morphology. In the long term, we might decide to move on to less human morphologies, but at that point, I think there will be plenty of room to subdivide by factors such as morphology type and weight class.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
I believe the word signifies a slightly more significant cultural shift than others might suggest. It's a joke, but it's a joke that trans people sometimes use. This indicates that some individuals are becoming more relaxed about the nuances in their sexuality. While this won't necessarily lead to trans people giving up, for instance, the fight to be included in sports, it's likely a sign that language norms are becoming less strict, more playful, and less serious.
Of course, this is downstream of cultural victories on the trans side. They become more secure as queer sexuality becomes more normalized and positively coded.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
As someone with the letter X on their driver's license, I find this a little funny. Let's assume you're correct, and I fall smack dab in the middle of the side of a high dimensional bimodal distribution with other AMABs.
It still comes off as weird and subversive that I eat estrogen pills for breakfast no? The doctor is still going to be confused if I tell him I'm a man and hand him my hormone test results. TSA still stops Trans girls for having a dick in their pants.
If some of the dimensions of your gender expression are off the charts outliers, I think it still makes sense to make room for the term 'non-binary' in relevant contexts, if not as a personal identifier.
Striving for self-improvement every day is a commendable goal. I agree with your entire last paragraph. However, my frustration with non-transhuman sports is that we've been approaching it wrong. By establishing boundaries on the extent of self-improvement, we've failed to encourage individuals to truly maximize their potential. Imagine how much stronger and healthier you could be with a carefully developed and safe PED stack? Society discourages such considerations. How much greater could you become by aiming for a pair of cybernetic limbs? Integrating the best technology is a core component of human betterment. Rejecting this notion undermines the very premise.
The purpose of sports is to teach people to continuously strive to push the limits of human physicality—except, it seems, when it comes to genuinely pushing those limits. Sports have always been constrained, sanitized by the types of self-improvement that the general public finds acceptable. This approach is marred by the sentiment, 'I don't want to better myself in this way, so no one else should be rewarded for it either.' It's affirmative action for bioconservatives.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Yeah, the original modpost even makes for a very nice clue.
Personally, I think banning slurs here is a good idea, just because it's really hard to regulate the actual principle.
Which is, you can use whatever language you want as long as you don't start wielding it as a tool of war. We're fine with calling ourselves "tranny gayfucks" or whatever because we know each other's motives well enough to have faith in it's lightheartedness. Or on 4chan because threats aren't credible anyway and desensitizing to toxic language is fun.
A semi-anonymous internet culture war thread where you're not supposed to be waging culture war is a trickier situation.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
lol. What diet? Maybe try attacking my worldview. My diet hasn't come up.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
What about divorce as a method of splitting finances to ensure medical bankruptcy doesn't take the house.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
It's only a 1 day ban. It's fine.
I'm not really arguing either of those things per se... though I do live them. And the fact that I live them religiously is leaking into my posts.
I think these things are worth considering. Any reader that hasn't considered them should. I see that you have done that thinking and have come to more or less the same conclusions that I have. Nothing about the future is a given.
You might be confused because I spent part of my last post tearing apart the idea that my philosophy can be used as a Pascal's Mugging. Saying that we could meet aliens that we need to be monsters to kill was part of that. It's analogous to 'but what if anti-god exists and bad people get infinite reward' in response to Pascal. It isn't an argument that we have to be evil because anti-god exists.
I am of the position that if you aren't aiming compassion at animals you're really missing out on a huge amount of the higher pleasure that you can get from really reveling in the complex emotions available if you really explore the feelings of eating something you love as a sophont. Compassion is not some mere game theoretic mechanism for aligning with other humans. That is a mere use case. Compassion is a tool for gaining a biological and predictive understanding of your prey. This is why it is a higher pleasure. It is a universally applicable learning skill.
I'm the primary 'monster' here. Pridefully so. My use of the word 'monster' in the my top post was careless, and led to needless confusion. I have updated to the belief that there was no way for anyone outside of my closest confidants to make the inferential leap from what I posted. But you can take my intended meaning as a synonym for 'brother and kindred' that evokes 'body-horror exalting aesthetic' with a positive, or complexly meta-negative affect.
Illustrative Side Note: Hit me up post-singularity if you ever want to hunt and eat someone or vice versa. Platonically I mean.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Thank you, I find social updates to be intensely euphoric and one banning is worth a thousand downvotes informationwise.
I particularly appreciate:
If it's meant sincerely, then saying "in the most loving possible way" does not make calling people monsters for a difference in moral values acceptable.
This really drives home the point that my comment utterly failed to convey my intended meaning, and in fact conveyed nearly the opposite of its intended meaning.
To be clear, I am not being ironic or sarcastic. Self-satisfied, perhaps. It is very satisfying seeing my kindred post things like "I do many immoral things and have made my peace with them, and I like the taste, so I remain omnivorous."
I am a monster, and they are in-group. If I had conveyed my meaning properly, perhaps I still would have deserved the ban for making a post that only accomplishes buttering up my ingroup. But regardless, that is not what I posted. That meaning was not conveyed at all. It created some second order conversation that let me make clearer posts like this one, but it would have been far superior if it had stood on its own.
Side note: If anyone here wants to join my collective's 'transcendent compassion of deep understanding' themed vore club come post-singularity, hit me up. (I'll be the one in the 'Peter Watts The Thing' shapeshifter body wearing a pink and blue striped velociraptor morph.)''
They're not... well, ok. This misses the point but:
To be rigorous, I see two ways things can be morally relevant, terminally, and instrumentally. Instrumentality is much more convergent than terminality. So a Vegan would value them terminally, and they have value instrumentally, I might even argue that we've thus far squandered the potential for use cases for animals- But instrumentally, food is valuable, obedient servants are valuable. So this does the Vegan who wishes for all to treat them as Kantian persons few favors.
So yes, I can totally squeeze water from a stone and come up with ways in which they are morally relevant if you push me to. I can argue that side of the argument. But I'm not trying to do that. My top comment has failed you. I apologize for that. It seems that I have brought you to the conclusion that I'm a vegan.
My position is much closer to- "Those animals will taste even better if you embrace their suffering with a sociopathic compassion that levies understanding but no mercy, and indulge deeply in the body horror. (Also my indulgence in this mode of thinking is why I'm not a vegan)"
My comment absolutely failed to convey this. Mostly because it was busy clapping.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Are you seriously asking?
In any case, I feel compelled to unravel the question if only for myself.
setting aside the vapidly true 'humans are animals' take-
Highly abstract language, highly evolved culture and technology (even when compared to other animals with culture and tool use), their unique status as current peak predator and as our game theoretic peers, the fact that they are foom-ing much faster than any other animal species, thus becoming less and less like other animal species.
Other than those very, very crucial differences, the remainder of our variance is perhaps average among mammals.
I'm not smug. Sadistically giddy maybe.
I think that my comment is the same thing as 70% of the comments in this thread.
People explaining why they aren't vegans- with their explanation boiling down to a difference in values.
I think my comment points at the idea that which lives by monstrous means is likely to die by monstrous means, perhaps at the hands of those running selfless tit for tat (treat others as they treat others. Engage with each organism by the rules it uses to engage with other organisms, etc). But this is not an argument against carnism.
I mean, who's to say we'll ever run into a sufficiently powerful species running selfless tit for tat? We may just as well run into another race of monsters that we will be better suited to devour if we develop ourselves as monsters. And in any case, rejecting meat for that reason would be Tasteless. Unauthentic. Frightened. Unbased. I personally run something like selfless tit for tat, but I'm fringe. And as I've said, it's not about stopping people from eating meat. It's about respecting the beauty of the principles, joining in on the fun, and developing ourselves as monsters. An almost Klingon sentiment... but for eating people.
Unless of course the carnist didn't realize how based and Jungle-pilled they're being, in which case they should reflect on that and become based and Jungle-pilled.
And as for whether my comment was good. I did write it with the thought that I might need to write this follow up comment. I believe both of them together stand tall.
CloudHeadedTranshumanist
1yr ago
Absolutely. I think it's a little ironic that said Europeans now want to stop being based and stick with their ancestral diet but-
It's perfectly reasonable. Who wants to spend another thousand years evolving capabilities we'll probably be able to add by hand with gene-tech within hundreds?
Also putting milk in everything is... well.
I'm sure plenty of people here are willing to bite the bullet and say they're fine with poisoning the non-Europeans on purpose.
Can't argue with based people.
Just gotta steal their mutations and express yourself even harder.
You don't need it to be impossible for them to trade it for standard money for the system to achieve its purpose. You just need enough negative pressure that it is never traded as a proper replacement for normal currency in general.
As long as it all terminates in being spent on government services, it's still a government services cap and trade system. If you punish people for routing around and trading it, that's a tax on selling it. If you actively let people trade it in for real currency at a loss, that caps the market for routing around it and makes doing so less worthwhile. Etc.
More options
Context Copy link