@Primaprimaprima's banner p

Primaprimaprima

Bigfoot is an interdimensional being

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:29:15 UTC

"...Perhaps laughter will then have formed an alliance with wisdom; perhaps only 'gay science' will remain."


				

User ID: 342

Primaprimaprima

Bigfoot is an interdimensional being

2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:29:15 UTC

					

"...Perhaps laughter will then have formed an alliance with wisdom; perhaps only 'gay science' will remain."


					

User ID: 342

It's therefore ironic that the people who made this choice consider it a feminist move.

Well, no, it's not ironic at all actually. The writers know exactly what they're doing, at least at a subconscious level. The idea that femininity could be manipulative and dangerous is a bad look for women, so obviously they would rather not depict such characters.

Feminism as a concrete social movement is about advancing the material and social interests of women (or at least, the interests of a certain subset of women). It's not about "giving people the freedom to explore their identities" or "recognizing the complexity of every human" or any claptrap like that.

There's a lot to unpack here.

You raise a valid point in that there are a lot of ugly/undesirable women who miss out on a lot of the benefits that conventionally attractive women get. But at the same time, I think the average woman (so, not outright ugly/disabled/etc, but decidedly not 95th percentile either) still underestimates how much attention she gets just for being a woman, because she's never had to experience the other side of things.

To put things in perspective: if you even have a "social circle", like at all, then you're already doing pretty damn well for yourself relative to the entire adult population. There's a non-trivial number of men, especially among the spergy AGP population we're talking about, that have essentially no friends or social connections of any kind. They got nothin'. There are women who find themselves in this sort of position too, but they're significantly more uncommon than their male counterparts.

If only the top 5% of women were experiencing substantial amounts of male attention, could feminism really sustain itself? It's a rare woman who doesn't have a story about a bad relationship, or at least an instance of catcalling or harassment, something. Clearly there are lots of women who are having lots of interactions with men! Otherwise the "gender wars" wouldn't be a political topic in the first place. For the type of isolated recluse who's been essentially invisible for his whole life, even the idea of negative attention like catcalling can become part of the erotic fantasy.

(I'll also just note that if you actually dive deep into AGP porn, you'll find a surprising number of "status loss" stories, i.e. rich white businessman gets transformed into a poor Mexican cleaning lady, things like that. It's not always a power fantasy of being in the top 1%).

Compassion isn't a social affect: it's an act of the will.

This makes it sound like something you can arbitrarily turn on or off "at will", which can't be right. But it also can't be right to say that it's entirely outside of your control either.

I suppose I would say it's something like an "unchosen choice".

I think the criteria is that if it’s not bad enough for your own side to care (I mean a large number of people genuinely caring, en masse, rather than just some senators thinking “I’m gonna have to burn some political credit to confirm this guy”), then it’s not a genuine moral infraction, and it can be assumed that the alleged outrage on the opposing side is largely performative.

Wow, what a great point. And this applies to so many other groups, not just vegans. Thank you so much for this, I’m stealing this.

I don't mean masculine in some spiritual sense of idealized masculinity (masculinity of war, hunting, bravery, leadership etc) but in the empirical sense of percentage of partakers in the activity.

Right. But shouldn't we take special note of this distinction? When you look at this personality type that's "at risk" for AGP - nerds, aspies, autists, whatever you want to call it - isn't there something about it that's "in between" masculine and feminine? (Appropriate, given the topic at hand). In one sense you are correct that it's "hyper male" just in terms of sheer statistics. But at the same time, these men tend to display traits that are decidedly unmasculine - higher in neuroticism, more emotional in general, higher verbal ability, less physically aggressive, often averse to traditionally masculine interests like (physical) sports, etc.

Genuine empathy cannot be compelled. And to the extent that it could be, it would have no value. We should encourage understanding; that is, a rational understanding of the physical and social causes that make people think as they think and do as they do. But such understanding is distinct from empathy and compassion as emotional affects.

What I find most obnoxious about the contemporary transsexual "movement" is that they have legislated, by social fiat, a prescribed position on a philosophical question that rightly should be a matter of free inquiry and debate: namely, the metaphysics and ontology of gender. This really grinds my gears like nothing else. Possibly more than anything having to do with bathrooms or puberty blockers. The right to open inquiry is one of the closest things I have to a sacred value. When you are forced to refer to an MTF transsexual as "she", you are being compelled, under social duress, to assert as an ontological truth that this person just is a woman (and all parties are aware that that's plainly what's going on here - otherwise it wouldn't be such a heated topic of disagreement in the first place). I can't accept being compelled to assent to such a contentious position.

For my part, the two positions on the ontology of gender that I take seriously are the conservative position - that there are such things as men and women, and the way we usually sorted people into those buckets up until ~40 years ago is basically correct - or the eliminativist position - that no person is either a man or a woman, and thus "X is a woman" is vacuously false for all X. On either position, to say that an MTF transsexual "is a woman" is to utter a falsehood, and thus I do not believe that such a statement should be socially compulsory. There have been serious attempts to develop an ontology that would support the transsexual position, and I treat them with the same respect that I give by default to all positions that I disagree with, but I don't personally consider any such view to be a live possibility.

I don’t understand why more people don’t recognize that Allman is clearly superior.

Undoubtedly so! Although the point is that I'm less of an outlier when compared with the transsexual population, as they're more likely than average to be hypersexual and have a wide range of paraphilias.

Why is this such an issue? Restrooms have stalls.

If I’m allowed into the women’s bathroom, I’m 100% going to listen to women pee and it’s going in my spank bank for later. So if women don’t want that, they should keep men out of their bathrooms!

Zizek explicitly distinguishes the death drive from Schopenhauer’s concept of Will:

Drive is a persistence which goes on even when the will disappears or is suspended.

The death drive is the point where the subject contradicts and undermines himself; it belongs to the domain of the unconscious. It is what makes a final state of completion or satisfaction (even in the purely negative sense of being free from desire) impossible. It certainly has nothing to do with any conscious willing or desire.

I didn’t quote the part where he references Schopenhauer by name, but if you check the video, he does mention him.

I don't suppose I could interest you in psychoanalysis? This would be a "skeptical" position by your standards, but, hopefully it's a type of skepticism that may provide some illumination:

In what, then, consists the gap that separates psychoanalysis from Buddhism? At least, Lacanian psychoanalysis.

In order to answer this question, we should confront what I think is the basic enigma of Buddhism, its blind spot. Ok, maybe some of you are more intelligent, but I was talking with many Buddhists, and all of them, I'm asking them this same question. I didn't yet get a good answer. The simple question is the following one: how did the fall into samsara, the wheel of life, occur? That is to say, the question that we should raise is the exact opposite of the main Buddhist concern; "how can we break out of the wheel of life, this wheel of false passions and so on, and attain Nirvana"? The question is exactly the opposite for me... it's not, "we are caught in this false reality, can we break out of it and attain the void"? The question is, how did we fall into it in the first place? [...] The nature and origin of the impetus by means of which desire, its deception, emerged out of the void, is the big unknown at the heart of the Buddhist edifice. [...]

This question points towards an act that, precisely in the quantum sense maybe, breaks the symmetry of Nirvana itself, and thus makes appear something out of nothing. Freud's answer for this is precisely "drive", trieb [the death drive]. I want to be here very precise. What Freud calls drive, trieb, is not the Buddhist wheel of life. [...] The point of Freud is not, "no we cannot get out, we are forever caught in the wheel of craving which makes us nonsatisfied". Drive on the contrary is a kind of Freudian eppur si muove. The Freudian ontological wager is that even when you traverse the fantasy, go through the illusions and so on, you are not in Nirvana. Something still moves. [...]

...Drive is a persistence which goes on even when the will disappears or is suspended. I think it's wrong, phenomenologically, to read Freud's todestrieb as another expression of "will". Todestrieb is precisely something which remains even when you suspend the will. [...] Again the question that interests me in Buddhism is, to put it in popular culture terms, the question that unfortunately Star Wars fails to answer: how did evil emerge? How did Anakin Skywalker become Darth Vader? And the film fails there of course, miserably. But there is one useful notion that you find there: this idea of a disturbance in the Force. The idea is, to put it in Buddhist terms - and there are some mysterious passages in Tibetan Buddhist stuff that point in this direction - it's not simply that we have Nirvana, and then samsara, the field of false passions and appearances. Something can go terribly wrong already at the level of Nirvana itself, up there. There is something wrong up there, some pathological disturbance, which is not yet "we are caught in desire and false craving", and that would be "drive", I think. Drive is Nirvana, spiritual enlightenment, going wrong.

So… what exactly is the suggested course of action here? Abstract theorizing about who is and isn’t part of the coalition is all well and good, but what do you want me to do about it? Because I’m sure as hell not voting Democrat.

Senator Gillibrand recently said about UAPs: "We don't know whose they are. We don't know what propulsion they use. We don't know the tech. We don't know it. It's not off the shelf stuff."

Hearing in the senate on UAPs scheduled for the 19th of this month.

Exciting times!

I agreed with you yesterday on needing to have more compassion towards anti-vaxxers

I didn't use the word "compassion" in the posts I wrote about vaccines, and that's not what I was asking for anyway. I was asking for understanding - an understanding of the conditions and values that cause people to do what they do and think what they think - but that's different from compassion.

There's an intense sneering involved in what you're saying there

No there isn't.

It's just a fact that some people are more fit for biological reproduction than others. But I don't think that evolutionary fitness is tied in any direct sense to your ultimate moral worth. Some of the greatest men to ever live (Plato, Kant, Nietzsche, etc) had no children.

Nature is dumb; it is opinionated, certainly, but you can decide for yourself how seriously you want to take its opinions. The appropriate response, upon learning that you are defective according to nature, isn't "ah, I am defective, all hope is lost". The appropriate response is "very well, I am defective. I accept this designation. But now what? What can this defective organism accomplish? You might be surprised at the answer."

The fact that anyone takes "For Bee" seriously is completely wild to me.

The best analogy I can think of is that it's like if a dad is going through his tween daughter's text messages, and he comes across one that says "Sally isn't allowed in our secret club because we don't like her". And instead of brushing it off with a "bleh, kids can be so mean", he instead becomes deeply concerned with what will become of Sally if she is denied the prestigious honors of being part of the secret club. Like, obviously being in the secret club is the most important predictor of life success, right? What can we do to rectify this injustice? Can we get the school involved? He forgets that he's supposed to be an adult on the outside looking in, and instead he becomes completely absorbed in the (obviously childish and ultimately unimportant) narrative.

Stop worrying about people not having kids! Like, if you're reading this and that is something that you were worried about, I'm begging you, please, it'll be alright. Evolution works! It doesn't need your help! Organisms that are supposed to reproduce, will. Defective organisms that are unable to reproduce will weed themselves out, and rightfully so. It's almost a tautology. Humanity will not go extinct; but if it does, it'll be because it deserved to, and there won't have been anything you could have done as an individual to make a difference either way.

Also:

I think it's pretty clear that gender is a bigger divide than race.

This is undoubtedly the sort of comforting thing that one might like to believe, because it is tantamount to saying that there are no real conflicts to deal with, only pseudo-conflicts. But it is of course false. Racial/ethnic conflicts are real; they are based in material reality, and they have real effects on people. The alleged "conflict" between men and women is a purely symbolic construct, a postmodern creation of cyberspace. Women have neither the ability nor the desire to sustain an actual, physical conflict against men for any length of time. And to the extent that this "conflict" does have a basis in reality and isn't purely virtual, it's largely a good thing anyway, as its primary effect is to prevent evolutionarily unfit individuals (largely male) from reproducing, while more fecund and vigorous strains are unharmed.

I encourage you to travel to Palestine and tell people that the real divide is not between Muslims and Jews, but between men and women, and see what kinds of responses you get.

That is the implied connotation, because it’s true.

Well, not in an entirely unqualified sense, obviously. We know that people can live without vaccines, because they did so for thousands of years. Life expectancy may have been lower, sure, but modern medicine is not a necessary precondition for human civilization to exist.

the entire concept of rewarding companies for treating disease is getting dunked on

But Tabarrok didn't say "we should reward companies for treating disease". What he actually said (if you scroll up a few posts) was:

Pharma stocks nosediving means your life expectancy is nose diving.

This is not good.

When I read this in the political context of the ongoing vaccine debates, the implied connotation I get is something like: "Listen here, you ignorant yokels. You might like to think that you're 'self-sufficient', but you're not. You depend on me, my tribe, the educated elites. Without us, you'd be dead. Specifically, you are dependent on the stock valuations of big megacorps continuing to rise. You know; stocks, the global finance market, i.e. that same thing that is the engine of mass immigration, the offshoring of industrial labor, the woke-industrial complex, and so many other things that you find politically abhorrent."

Obviously, he didn't write those exact words. But that's how it comes off. And that's a poor way to endear people to your cause, regardless of the actual merit of your claims. So the backlash he got on twitter makes perfect sense to me.

Right, obviously I’m not going to do that! I didn’t say it was easy, or even feasible.

In fact when questions like “when will woke end?” or “what can we do to stop wokeness?” get raised on this forum, I’m usually in the position of being the bearer of bad news: wokeness might last for a very long time, and there’s probably nothing you can do as an individual in the near-term to hasten its downfall. There was probably nothing that any one individual could have done to hasten the end of communism in the USSR. If someone did speak out publicly, we might admire it as an individual act of heroism, but ultimately it would have accomplished nothing in historical terms. Deciding to arbitrarily burn all your social credit one day is pointless if it doesn’t accomplish anything. Probably you could make a bigger difference by staying under the radar and putting your talents to use elsewhere.

But nonetheless. The biggest historical changes still have to start as individual, isolated thoughts. Just letting someone know that they have permission to think heterodox thoughts, privately, to themselves, can be very powerful. If it wasn’t, then TPTB wouldn’t be so obsessed with censorship and deplatforming. Tiny messages communicated from one individual to another can go on to have ripple effects. Or so we have to hope, anyway.

What is there even left to be said at this point? You really just have to put your foot down and tell these people (the men, in this case) that they're not welcome. And when they inevitably respond with accusations that you're being sexist, transphobic, and exclusionary, you say: "yes I am sexist, yes I am transphobic, yes I am exclusionary, yes yes yes, it's all true; now please, the door is that way, if you don't mind."

The left only has as much power as they do because people are deathly afraid of their accusations. If people would just affirm being racist, sexist, and transphobic as positive things then so much of their power would evaporate.

EDIT: Just to head off some potential misunderstandings caused by my imprecise phrasing: I'm not saying to turn yourself into an evil caricature. Don't make yourself adopt positions that you don't sincerely hold in the first place. What I meant was that, the ideal scenario would be, you lay out your position as honestly and truthfully as possible, and if you are then informed that your position is sexist/transphobic, etc, your response would be: "ok, point accepted. I am. Now let's move on to the actual substance of the issue."

a certain kind of entitlement to other people’s money

I know what you’re talking about, but I have to wonder to what extent it’s due to actual objective differences in the “national character”, or whether it’s due to my own political biases, or perhaps whether it’s due to America’s (my country of residence) geopolitical relationship with the countries in question.

India and China both come off to me as being notably entitled (not just in terms of “other people’s money”, but more broadly). But I don’t feel that way about Russia, or Japan, or Latin America, or basically anywhere else in the world.

I dunno, it just seemed like the right thing to say.

EDIT: Permanent unelected bureaucrats were instrumental in blocking the implementation of certain Trump policies during his first term. The fact that the transition team has already floated multiple proposals for trimming the bureaucracy seems to show that they’re aware of this fact and have a strategy for dealing with it.

The DOGE combined with the pending executive order to review military officials for "requisite leadership qualities" make me think he might actually make good on the Project 2025 promise to do some housecleaning in the bureaucracy. I'm not holding my breath, but, we'll see.

The speed at which the transition team is moving gives at least the superficial appearance that they learned something from Trump's first term. They know how they were stymied the first time, and they're making efforts to prevent that from happening again.

Sure, I agree with all of that. It would be silly for skeptics of LLMs to “declare victory” now. I say give it another 5 years at least. The main reason I brought it up is because Ilya’s the one who’s saying it, which lends quite a bit more authority to the claim.

It's hard to become a dictator in the US, would be one huge reason. When people are worried he's going to 'become a dictator' there are a lot of steps that would need to happen, only some of which he has any control over.

Sure. But it seems like this is just bolstering my case. Yes, it is hard to turn the US into a dictatorship. That's why he wasn't able to do it in his first four years. We can extrapolate that he probably won't do it in his second four years either.

I think the right's self image of being very tolerant of different opinions is massively exaggerated though

I don't disagree. Especially if we take a broad historical view. Going back not only through the religious right of the 80s and 90s, but going all the way back, through the centuries of western political thought; if we polled most people who could at all be classified as "rightist" throughout history, "tolerance of dissent" would probably not rank highly as a political virtue for most of them. And the right is no stranger to moral judgement and condemnation, certainly. I don't deny any of that.

Ultimately the only person I can speak for is myself. The views I have expressed here are not universal among "my side", although they are not wholly unique to me either.

The terms "left" and "right", although convenient, may not be the most accurate terms for our current political context. Perhaps "woke" and "anti-woke" might be better?

there are tonnes of people on the right who absolutely revel in liberal tears and obviously loathe their political opponents.

Oh sure. Some amount of animus towards your political opponents is natural and unavoidable. I get angry at people, I find myself wondering why they have to be such NPCs. But I think all of that is still importantly different from thinking that your opponents are evil. Evil is harder to come back from; there's less chance of redemption. It seems unclear how one could sincerely wish for there to be any space for "evil" to flourish in the world. If possible, I'd like for my opponents to have a space in the world where they can be happy and live their lives according to the principles they believe in. I just want them to do it away from me.

You say you just see me as different but in the end our ideas are probably incommensurate so if you are going to impose your beliefs on mine (as is the right of those who win elections), how do you feel okay about it if you don't think your ideas are superior but just different?

I don't think there's much that can be said in the abstract here without a concrete example to work through (what am I imposing on you, by what mechanism, etc).