Jiro
1d ago
Normies have the idea that a price is based on cost, plus a certain amount of profit. Charging more for a product because the customers are less price sensitive rather than because the product costs more to make is considered cheating the customer.
Rationalists may not think that way, but everyone else does. If pink razors cost the same to make, but women are willing to pay extra for them, charging extra is dishonest.
Jiro
1d ago
I wonder if some of the problems people have with this kind of in-group bias is the reverse: immigrants who are culturally different and need to exert a lot of effort to catch up will get along with mainstream Americans, but immigrants who are multiple generation assimilated are more likely to use their immigrant heritage for identity politics.
Unfortunately that is past the point where Reddit lets you search. (You may see posts suggesting that Reddit only returns 1000 posts but narrowing it down will work. Narrowing it down will not work.) But I can come up with some related posts:
Moderator tells me that I can be abrasive but not antagonistic
Jiro
2d ago
There's also the opposite situation where the author launders his beliefs through his characters. If the characters never have any flaws in their beliefs shown by the story progress (or if the only flaw is "he's too extreme, but it isn't otherwise a bad idea"), there's a good chance the author does believe them. If the author mentions fine details that would refer to some real life incident that is not actually supposed to be in the story, there's a good chance the author is trying to lecture about the real life incident. If the character makes a 3 hour speech and the story quotes 2 hours of it, the character's probably an author mouthpiece.
Don't overcorrect on this.
Jiro
2d ago
Unlike back on reddit where being abrasive was explicitly allowed.
(The moderators had said that you can't be antagonistic, but darwin admitted to being abrasive. So they had to warp the rules to say "being abrasive and antagonistic are totally different things, so see, darwin didn't admit to anything banworthy".)
Jiro
2d ago
For years, the story of AI progress has been one of moving goalposts.
This is like saying that a Turing test is moving goalposts because the interrogator can suddenly decide in the middle of the test to ask the AI a new question that he hasn't talked about before and that the AI and its programmer has had no chance to prepare for. Except on a much bigger, slower, scale.
AI progress is moving goalposts because people are better able to figure out what they need to demand from the AI after seeing how it performs on previous demands rather than before.
Jiro
3d ago
The worst case scenario here would be that Epstein makes public statements accusing everyone from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump to The Man in the Moon of bangin underage girls on his private island. But as I mentioned earlier, there would be no motive for him to do so at that point other than spite.
Being harmed by revelations isn't an all or nothing thing. Fingering well-connected people probably would have some effect, even though since they are well-connected they won't be harmed as much as people who aren't well connected.
If he loses, it's rigged against him. If he wins, it's rigged against him
If you're considering the possibility of rigged elections at all, there's nothing inherently goofy about this. "Rigged" doesn't mean "they can fake absolutely any outcome they want"--if they could fake X percent of votes and he wins by more than X percent, it might be rigged against him and he could win anyway.
Jiro
8d ago
You have taken him out of context. If you look a few posts down, you see that he also says that people already understand that men need to be held accountable. You've distorted his claim that women should be accountable just like everyone else to imply that he says that only women need to be held accountable.
Jiro
8d ago
No, that's precisely the kind of rights-based mindset that I'm describing as not being duty-based.
If he owes the duty to other people, his mindset isn't the only one--there's also the other people's mindset to consider. And they may think that they are owed, but that they don't owe. It's exploitation by them.
Jiro
8d ago
But the thing is, it didn't look like an MS-13 tattoo. It was made of symbols and in a fit of pareidolia people made the symbols match MS-13.
If it actually was a MS-13 tattoo I'd expect we'd have heard of other gang members using it.
Jiro
9d ago
Beards can be shaved off, so they aren't indicators of low time preference like tattoos are.
Jiro
9d ago
If natural slaves exist, there's a lot of conflicts of interest and motivated reasoning in deciding that any particular individual is a natural slave, to the point where we're probably better off acting as though natural slaves don't exist.
Jiro
9d ago
There's a difference between "an individual doesn't reject stupid comments by their party" and "the broad mass of believers doesn't reject stupid comments by their party". The latter is much better evidence for the stupid comment being believed.
Jiro
9d ago
The tattoo that was in the news was plausibly a drug symbol, but it was specifically being identified as a gang symbol based on arguments that were a real stretch.
Jiro
11d ago
It's also demonstrably the case that Jews in camps often received high-quality medical treatment and had access to all sorts of pleasant recreational facilities,
This seems to violate "Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be."
Jiro
11d ago
Yeah when I wrote my original post it occurred to me that I was going to have to repeat myself ad infinitum about this, but, I'm not disputing that the holocaust happened or that millions died.
A common tactic of people questioning the Holocaust is to say "I'm not questioning the Holocaust but..." followed by things that are carefully worded to cast doubt on the Holocaust without explicitly denying it. And that's what you're doing. You're not disputing it, but you think the numbers are substantially inflated? That's disputing it.
Jiro
12d ago
Normal people don't count 1% as more likely in most contexts. They interpret it to mean "significantly more likely".
Jiro
14d ago
It's the real life equivalent of "your forum dedicated to free speech will have one principled free speech defender and ten zillion witches".
Jiro
14d ago
If America isn't clever enough, organised enough or stable enough to compete with China on an even footing, why should it be in charge of the globe?
Because the comparison isn't America to some hypothetical perfect country. It's a comparison to China, and China's government is pretty shitty. If you have to choose between China and America and you're not in the Politburo, America is loads better even if you don't like some of the things America does.
Jiro
17d ago
His arguments about drugs also include pornography, which he lumps in with drugs as causing only harm. If you don't count "people like to use it" as being good, you would oppose not only drugs and pornography but also video games, comic books, vacations, and Shakespeare (except that he probably has arbitrary categories of non-harm that would allow vacations and Shakespeare).
Jiro
17d ago
What about the atoms in your body that have gone through the food chain and been later used in someone else's body? Who gets them?``
Jiro
17d ago
I don't see how that's relevant. Is someone who wants to stop the suffering of non-cute animals counting it too much?
Sure, when someone says that insect suffering counts at 15% of human suffering, he's counting it too much, but that doesn't generalize. In the more general case "tries to stop animal suffering efficiently", how exactly is he counting it too much?
I find this unlikely.
More options
Context Copy link