MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1hr ago
I think pure data is a directionally useful way of looking at the world, and useful for most problem-solving purposes. I am a theist so I think there’s more beyond just physical reality, but whether or not it’s true, I think that for most projects, reducing the universe to data is going to work just fine. Consciousness is produced in the brain, and definitely experienced there, so I think you can get something like a conscious AI simply by recreating a brain. Might be easier to start with a dog or something like that, but I think even though there’s a metaphysical aspect to consciousness, that doesn’t mean that there’s no point to studying it in brains.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
3hr ago
The alternative would be to not hold funds hostage. You want bike lanes, pass a law making bike lanes and fund them. As a completely separate thing. What happens often is that the money for I.e highways is contingent on X miles of bike lanes. Or school funding rests on the enactment of policies like trans rights and trans students in women’s restrooms.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1d ago
I think the difference in requirements for agreement are due to the position of each group in the American dominance hierarchy. Democrats are still pretty dominant in most spheres, and therefore they don’t need to tolerate a situation in which they are hearing wrong-think. They don’t need Allies who are imperfect because they control most of the consensus building organs completely. Republicans and conservatives need those imperfect allies because they’re on the bottom of that hierarchy. They don’t wholesale own social media, in fact there’s only one social media platform out of 3-4 big ones where they aren’t actively suppressing conservatives. The6 therefore cannot simply move on if they hear something they don’t like. They’d have to cede the entire thing.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1d ago
I mean sure, it’s plausible that in some odd universe that it’s possible that someone might pull a gun on a FEMA agent. But again, even with millions of Trump supporters there’s no incident like this. There’s perhaps a need for caution, but there’s a difference between “there have been threats made, so be careful and buddy up” and “avoid houses with [out group] signage because those guys are more likely to be the shooters.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1d ago
I think just as a matter of principle, we need to prevent commerce clause abuse and the abuse of federal funding which both end up being used as a back door way to force states to do whatever the federal government wants them to. As it stands the government can dictate through federal funding that roads be marked for bike lanes, that schools must teach LGBTQ narratives, that the state can regulate environmental protections on products that have never and will never leave their state of origin. It’s ridiculous.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1d ago
Except that there were no such shootings. It literally never happened, and to my knowledge no one actually pointed a gun at anyone working for FEMA. The idea that they were worried about getting shot is a just-so story.
Second, it is part of the job. The job of a FEMA agent is to get people aid, and “I’m scared” is no more valid for FEMA than it is for the local cops. You don’t get to join a first responders agency and then be too scared to respond. Especially if you’re doing checks on the safety of Americans in a hurricane situation.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2d ago
Logistics would be a nightmare as you’d need cops on every corner to prevent defiance. Even at that, I’m not sure if it’s possible. There are enough hotheads with guns in America that if Americans decided to actually resist an order, you’d have to either back down or bomb cities like Gaza to do it. I’m not sure if even with the police and NG you’d have enough people to pacify 300 million Americans who want nothing to do with a lockdown. At the very least, it would take a lot of effort.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2d ago
Even at an unknown, the known negatives of lockdown are known — and the end dates given by the authorities are known to be suspect. If some government officials told you to lockdown for “two weeks” given what happened in 2020, very few people are going to believe that the lockdown is actually going to end within 6 months. They also know that they won’t get much in the way of support when the lockdown forces people into unemployment and to close businesses, or schools or forbidding social gatherings. And given that, and given the knock on effects of inflation and shortages, it’s going to be very very difficult to convince people to go along. Covid wasn’t exactly a nothing burger but it also wasn’t something that justified the extreme measures taken to slow the spread.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2d ago
He’s head of a movement though. And the movement is not a bunch of limp wristed hand wringing party loyalists. They support Trump as the guy who’s there to basically clean house of the establishment and in their view restore the republic to its glory days. They aren’t going to sit home and do nothing if that establishment doesn’t allow the changes to happen. They’re at minimum going to attempt (probably successfully) to primary any republicans who don’t give them what they want. And that’s if they’re nice. We also have a fairly good sized militia contingent who might not be so nice about it.
Trump is perhaps irrelevant except as figurehead. JD Vance is probably more aligned with the movement as I see it, and he’s definitely going to work to implement MAGA and Project 2025
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2d ago
I would generally put anything law enforcement on a national level into Coast Guard (maybe rename it to state security or something) just for the ability to unify such things under a single legible chain of command. As it sits, CIS, CBP, CG, ICE, TSA, and CG are all doing similar things and even at times crossing purposes without any cross communication possible. A bunch of Migrants picked up by the CG would be handed over to BP or ICE, but why? What’s the purpose of doing so when you can simply dump them off at a port in Mexico and shorten the process by days or weeks?
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2d ago
They’ll be pacified (and this is true of much of trumps base) if the state allows them to actually win. What you saw on Tuesday was a Revolution, and the people who won are going to insist on actually winning and not symbolic victories. They want Trump to clean house, they want the deep state brought to heel, they want their agenda to happen. And unlike the last time, the6 won’t take no for an answer.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2d ago
Wouldn’t they also have to consider public compliance? After 2020, I don’t think a lockdown is going to be allowed to happen. You won’t get anyone to abide the lockdowns even if it’s Cordysepts of zombie apocalypse fame and mobilized the entire US military to enforce it. It would be resisted and probably violently so. The government would have to be insane to try it.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
2d ago
I’ll be honest in that most people are, in my view mostly consensus driven as far as actual morality goes. Maybe one in a hundred would have something akin to actual morality— as in a code of morals that the person would risk any substantial losses to uphold a moral code. It’s hidden in various ways behind arguments about the definitions of words — in this case fetus vs baby or child, though similar arguments were had in arguments about slavery and the definition of Negro and just how human those Negroes are, or perhaps in the Nazi era there were arguments about how much Jewish ancestry tainted a person as untermensch. The arguments might well sound rational, but the purpose is not to define terms but to define away humanity. Pragmatism often does the same, hiding cruelty behind the line items of a budget. There is always money for more bombs, but rarely for school lunches. We can afford prisons, but paying for schools is not pragmatic enough.
Morality is something we should strive to develop, but in 99% of cases, it is simply to be expected that people will go along with whatever the wider society wants to do. The limits are not some strange scruples that people hold, but thei4 own aesthetic preferences. As long as the nasty business is done in ways that you don’t have to actually watch the deed done let alone do it themselves. Keep it within those bounds and you can get most of the public to be perfectly fine with anything the wider society wants to do. You want to flatten a city, most people are perfectly fine with it, so long as the bombing isn’t on their screens.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
3d ago
The problem I have with social constructions is that virtually everything in society is at some level a social construct. It’s meaningless as a claim. Religion is a social construct and likewise contains legions of subgroups and deviations that make generalizations difficult. And that also isn’t a good reason to say religion is unimportant. Just because Southern Baptists, Anglicans, and Greek Orthodox Christians are all Christians, that doesn’t mean they’re identical or interchangeable in obvious ways.
Further, most of the ideas of what to do (generally deconstruct it) are silly. Just because it’s no longer seen as anything other than a social construct doesn’t mean it doesn’t have something of a force of reality. People are affected by social constructs, gender roles, social norms, and other social conventions because that’s how society actually works. Even if we recognize that we drive on the right side of the road in the USA as “just a social construct” that doesn’t mean that change is desired.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
3d ago
But if that’s true, I’m still saying no to this one. It cannot work if you’re going to be in her life socially. Sooner or later you will be at a party or something and the topic will come up. Probably not Trump specifically, but some future iteration of the same. And if she feels the need to be proactively politically correct online, she’s not going to allow you to be yourself in the presence of her friends no matter what her IRL friends think. If she’s doing it for a career move, you’re going to either have to act the part or at least bite your tongue whenever politics comes up, or frankly most social issues. And I don’t see tha5 working long term
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
3d ago
I think you misunderstood the issue. The anti-vaxx portion of the base is very vocal and they won’t hesitate to primary a senator blocking RFK from the FDA. O I’m not sure about Gabbord, simply because I don’t know much about her or the base’s opinion of her. But the thing here is that the people putting Trump in office want to put those types of people in to secure an actual victory, and they’re not shy about insisting on the changes they fought for.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
3d ago
Demographics isn’t the only story here though. Trump made serious headway with conservative Hispanic voters, which proves that the GOP doesn’t have to be a rump party for grumpy white men hrumpfing their way to demographic irrelevance. The thing drawing people is that the conservatives are also the Christian Party and the party of such values as anti-abortion, pro-marriage, not wanting to trans your kids, teaching the Tem Commandments in schools, etc. all of which conservative Catholic Hispanics would be mostly in favor of. The GOP is also the meritocratic and capitalist party in which hard work and private ownership of goods, businesses etc. are seen as the keys to prosperity. This would also tend to draw the same demographics as they’re fleeing actual socialism, and they know exactly where it leads. They’re not going to vote for socialism in their new country.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
3d ago
I agree with this. What Trump did was more bring the issue into the open. Woke itself is fairly weak outside of whatever got snuck into HR. That’s why it got so loud when Trump started challenges to it. Once the stuff was open, people rejected it and the Woke couldn’t really stop it. They could only make a lot of noise in an attempt to appear powerful.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4d ago
I’ve always been suspicious of the narrative of “alienating the base” for the democrats (AKA not being woke or economically left enough), simply because most of those positions are not held by that many people. The number of people out of nearly 400 million who would not put up with Kamala’s rather tepid support of Israel is probably not that big. Likewise, the number of people turned off because her economic plans were too moderate seems fairly small. Especially since the only viable alternative is a guy who’s basically running on “take everything the liberals like and destroy it as hard as we possibly can”. The Trump answer to all of the positions these people are left of her on Trump is radically on the right on. Trump is not shy about supporting Israel — he wants Israel to “finish the job (presumably of blowing up Gaza)”. Trumps plan for student loans is “make the student pay back the loans”. Trumps plan for the environment is “let’s pull out of all the agreements, drill baby drill, and deregulate so it’s easier to pollute without consequences”. There just isn’t a way to punish the dems on this when the alternative is “not only get literally nothing you actually want, but lose things you have now.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4d ago
I mean, I think that would produce partisan politics into it. If I’m in a blue state, I want to detect Red fraud because it reduces my party’s power in the federal government. If I’m in a red state, I want to detect Blue fraud. So you can do that by putting a thumb on the scale based on the kinds of fraud that Reds or Blues are likely to do. Reds might be prone to voter intimidation, so you make very strong rules aimed at preventing that. Blues might stuff ballot boxes or have illegals vote or whatever, so make a rule about that. But you don’t care about your own tribe’s fraud so you either ignore the problem or make it easier.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4d ago
It turns out that that autopsy was wrong though. Personally I think it was a complete lack of doing anything while claiming to be against it.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4d ago
Did she not read the job description of a politician? Public speaking is at least 2/3 of the job description.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4d ago
For me personally, I’d want to see significant statistical anomalies— over or under performance, precincts in which apparently every single person voted for Kamala. Places where more people voted than live in the district. Stuff like that. I think the statistics will be much more likely to show the fraud than anything else.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
4d ago
I think if anything that would be worse. As it stands now, I’d minimally double the terms of most offices. The trouble we have now is due to short terms. The house barely gets settled in and knowing where the bathrooms are before it’s time to run for office. And this kind of short term means that they really don’t have to do anything concrete to fix problems. Worse, if you can make it looks like you’ve fixed something but the consequences of your bad fix don’t show up within two years, you’ll be gone before the negatives hit. Even four years for president is pretty short. By the time the economic impact of your policies hit the mainstream, you’ll be packing up to move out.
The second thing is that really, the short terms mean politics is taking up an extraordinary amount of the collective bandwidth of the public imagination. Every two years we’re choosing new leaders, and that means 6+ months every two years of constant speculation, political ads, push polling, and punditry aimed at convincing the public to vote in a given way. Worse, because fear and anger are the most effective means of inducing people to care about politics, we spend those six months learning to hate those who disagree with us politically. You hate abortion? You’re killing women, you sexist. Oh, you’re pro abortion? Baby killer! And so on, through every major issue. This tends to create tensions between people that shouldn’t exist. And the wounds caused by this short cycle never completely heal.
In my opinion, politics, ideally would be such a minor part of life that they really don’t matter. The general public is not served by a system so broken that it’s near top of mind what a political figure said or did today or any other day. It’s not supposed to be that important, and frankly, if the government worked properly, you wouldn’t have to constantly baby sit it and change its nappies.
Hype can certainly help. Without some positive attention even the best product will sit on the shelf. On the other hand most people will be smart enough to notice when the sales pitch is overselling the actual product.
Kamala had a lot of negatives that were pretty obvious. She’s annoying and has a nervous laugh that’s obnoxious. She can’t give interviews, and when she does, her obvious non-answers are barely comprehensible. She cannot generate enthusiasm for her own ideas. Her rallies needed concerts just to get people to show up. At the end of the day, all the marketing in the world can’t make New Coke taste good.
More options
Context Copy link