@PutAHelmetOn's banner p

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

				

User ID: 890

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 890

Someone on the anti-trans side -- who wants trans women to play in mens leagues -- is still thinking in terms of status when it comes to competitions. For them, it's stolen valor for a trans woman to play with real women.

I admit I have trouble understanding the pro-trans mind on this issue. If I had to guess, they are biting a bullet, and sacrificing womens sports on the altar of the greater good of tolerance. The womens sports issue is just one piece of a mass-deception designed to convince society that a transwomen share the same characteristics as ciswomen. This is the only way to effect the desired change, which is to make society treat transwomen as-if they are ciswomen.

As I expected, your groupchat was treating it as a factual matter, which is a real shame. Even worse, the one person suggesting to autistically use proxies is either deluded about transwomen, or is just too cowardly to point out the obvious.

If your goal was to prove a point to them then maybe the use of a political example was unwise.

I was not giving opinion on if "athletic" should be graded on a curve.

Brodski's weakness is low-status but an athletic woman's weakness is high-status.

In case this sentence wasn't clear, I can annotate it:

Brodski's objective!weakness is low-status but an subjective!athletic woman's objective!weakness is high-status.

There, I used "athletic" in the curve-grading sense, the same as you seemed to use it.

This kind of discussion confuses me sometimes, because a lot of men who aren't running 3hr marathons and can't climb 5.13b and can't sink a three pointer on an open basketball court love to shitpost about how stupid the idea of an athletic woman is.

Yes, you are dunking on average men because female athletes outperform them. The sting of your dunk is precisely because the idea of an objective!athletic woman is silly. It wouldn't take much for the average man to outperform her. The disrespect we show female athletes is precisely because a man at that level is also not praised or respected for it. The respect and praise is allocated based on status (and society's intuitions for who should be given it), not based on who can do what.

The existence of weight classes proves that the featherweight's objective!weakness is high-status.

That there is no league for short basketball players seems to prove that short king's objective!weakness is low-status. I suppose one could try to argue that short players are not outmatched in basketball to the same degree that light players are outmatched in fighting. Probably the team-based aspect of basketball makes it harder to analyze individual players. In some sense it is the team that is the player in basketball, and there is no such thing as a short team.

I do not think it is a coincidence that short stature in men is one of the classic incel status resentments. Furthermore, I've heard it (but have not looked into it) that the male height-income gap replicates better than the gender income gap. In other words, a man's height is a classic status marker.

Do they get to demand a first-class flight with their choice of hot meal, too?

To be less flippant: probably few believe God gives them that right. Whether the state gives them that right is a question of law. Everyone will have their different opinion, for example I disagree with the cases you list:

I don't see any sovereign right for a country to dictate where an individual goes next

Since you don't speak of God or law, I'm unclear on what you mean. You seem to just be giving opinion on how nice the state should be to deportees. You give your opinion on reasonable guidelines that compromise between the state's burden and the deportee's comfort. It would indeed be kind for the state to ask where the deportee wants to go. Take away the talk of "rights" and this is just a debate over how the state should act. Are "rights" just rhetorical techniques for debating how states should act?

if I invite someone into my house and then rescind the invitation (as I'm absolutely entitled to do), it's required that I give them a chance to leave in an orderly fashion before forcing them out.

I disagree. If someone gets violent in my house then I do not ask them to leave. Probably though, it would be nicer of me to ask before physically removing. If my guest didn't start any violence, then I probably wouldn't either, but I do that out of kindness or maybe some kind of custom. Whether the actual deportations match this hypothetical (are only criminals being deported? I don't think so) is irrelevant -- you and me clearly disagree on how to run our house, and we would probably run a country differently, too.

I think it is safe to say this person had a blindspot preventing him from seeing the truth. Rationalists are often criticized for being arrogant over normie blue-tribe beliefs.

So Brodski held this belief deep in his Soul (metaphorically) which prevented him from seeing reality. What if, on this same topic, I'm limited the same way? My beliefs about sex-differences might be correct, or more correct at least, but maybe entirely by accident? What if the deeply felt hatred for women in my Soul is the reason I believe in sex-differences?

I am not giving the skeptical claim that nobody can see reality. I just mean, how can I tell reality is the thing that is influencing my beliefs, personally?

Of course on different topics I am just as blind to reality in embarrassing ways. Obviously I can't know what those topics are.

What if the word "fair" is actually normative? It seems everyone in the groupchat attempted to defend it under (b) but if someone said it belonged to the separate magisterium of (a), wouldn't you need another example?

Your point about marathons supports a belief I have about womens' sport leagues. I am not sure how many others share it.

Competitions are mainly about status and the purpose of sex-segregated sports is not to keep the league fair per se. It is really because society intuitively understands that regardless of the differences between men and women, female athletes should not be penalized in status. The same is true for disabled athletes, which is why we have the special olympics and other sporting events like that.

That we don't have a competitive league for unathletic men like Brodski reveals that league segregation is not really about fair play. Arguments about "not putting in the same amount of effort" are essentially my point -- Brodski's weakness is low-status but an athletic woman's weakness is high-status. It is even difficult to say it in English. We still call them "athletic women" because all the words we will use for this concept (like "weak" and "athletic") are status-laden and graded-on-a-curve.

Because the way we talk about athletes (of all sexes) uses fuzzy terms instead of objective ranks, someone like Brodski can hear about women qualifying for marathons and being strong and he will continue to be blind to physical reality.

Contrast in Chess, where the definition of Grandmaster is actually the same for men and women. However, there is a different title called Woman Grandmaster which has fewer requirements. Presumably, being a woman is also a requirement to hold the title, but I am not sure. Maybe a man who can't quite make GM can call himself a WGM. It would be an unconventional for sure. But, nobody can deny that the purpose of the WGM title is the same as any other title, which is to assign status.

Is being deported a punishment?

Those who feel yes:

  • want due-process to be followed
  • want everyone treated equally

Those who feel no:

Perhaps:

  • Deportation is not a punishment
  • Due process does not apply since it is not a punishment
  • The state has ultimate authority to deport anyone, including its own citizens
  • "Citizen" is the status of being a friend to the state. Why would the state deport its own citizen?
  • A Democratic (the party) administration could just deport Trump supporters, if not for ...
  • The state may choose to bind itself by giving citizens the right to not be deported

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about law, so this line of thought must be wrong. This post is just theoretical musing.

I agree with some other replies, most likely the fans think white boys are a concerning problem. They probably have a blind spot preventing them from seeing it any other way. Other fans likely hate low-status (white) men and the show is like a minstrel show - legitimately entertaining as a sneer.

But, the writers could have more principled worries and know this is the only way to express it. By comparison, The Handmaid's Tale is actually inspired by Muslim theocracy, not Christian theocracy. The two stories are not completely comparable since THT I think is more of a cautionary "it could happen to us" and AFAICT this show is not meant to be a hypothetical -- it seems to be a show about current social issues.

Oh, this doesn't make Scott a Conflict Theorist (Know the difference between #1 and #2). This just means the Conflict Theorist's description of reality is correct - Power is power.

Why is it a wild read? You seem to be saying Scott is part conflict theorist, but I don't think you've argued it well.

A mistake theorist does not lie down on a train track to kill himself. He will move out of the way of an oncoming train. A mistake theorist will not try to have a discussion with a train. Likewise, a mistake theorist knows that conflict theorists exist. He will probably not try to have a discussion with them.

Know the difference

  • The Mistake theorist says: "My opponents are conflict theorists and do not respond to argument. They are making a mistake. We want the same things. Forgive them, for they know not what they do."
  • The Conflict theorist says: "My opponents are conflict theorists and do not respond to argument. They are enemies in the conflict."

For Scott to "be a Conflict theorist on some things" you would need to demonstrate that he believes his opponents to be the enemy, in the #2 sense. I think you've only demonstrated that he does not lie down on train tracks.

Small point but I imagine that split-screen videos of Family Guy and Minecraft are ways to elude automated copywrite detection. At least, Youtube Family Guy clips have weird oddities like that for that purpose.

I'm not familiar with the discord takeover, but hasnt the sub had a "no CW" rule for a long time? The redditification of the subreddit seems to coincide also with Scott's new blog, his new writing, and his blog's new comment section.

Related: As a software developer I can make a small change at work to save the company hundreds of thousands in processing costs or performance SLAs. Is my work really worth that amount, and should developers be paid according to what they're 'owed' instead of just a salary? (Ignoring the boring question of "only the salary was negotiated")

Aside from the practical issues of how to measure each developer's 'worth' (or maybe I am drilling into the details here), the fact is the savings are only possible because of the massive platform and software that the company already has, which I did not create.

The charger is critical to the win, but a bystander demanding too much money is being an asshole. Your struggling startup is obviously providing most of the value.

Women are asexual unless Chad is around. The upturn in their identification rates is just an upturn in hypergamy. I'm not sure if Korea's situation is the same.

Also, 50 Shades isn't porn for women; Tinder is porn for women. That's probably part of the situation, too.

I'm not sure Nature has an opinion on who reproduces. That's what the phrase "fitness landscape" is for. The fitness landscape can change. It seems like you're trying to abdicate value judgements. It's fine if you don't care who reproduces, but this kind of appeal to nature shouldn't persuade anyone.

If two demons are fighting over to change the fitness landscape, you wouldn't care?

(After re-reading my post, I see I am making essentially a "postmodern"/subjectivist argument, kinda)

Lastly, it seems self limiting: as women drop out of the relationship market, the women who choose to remain in it move up in terms of the quality of the men they can get.

Seems that the discerning liberal woman can use the Trump victory as a plausibly deniable way to get the competition out of the market. I won't say all the American 4B'ers are "in on the joke" but maybe the most rabid are? See also: "wokefishing," and a post in this space a couple years back suggesting that a lot of progressive-coded dating dynamics are because the gender ratios of woke spaces skew heavily female.

If 4B was a cup size, how big would it be?

Finally, I think that if you want to avoid having sex with Trump supporters, a better strategy might be to select on geographic location.

Does someone even need to do that? Your statistics give the impression that filtering mates by Trumpism is a fool's errand, and the best she can do is move to Hawaii and hope for the best, doubling her odds.

In Scott's cannon post Outgroup, he writes about his strong filter bubbles. Surely an extreme liberal woman has a filter bubble pretty strong, no matter their location? But, I could see if the American-4B import is here to stay, then it wouldn't just be radical women who partake. More normie liberal women probably don't have filter bubbles that strong.

This feels like the uncanny valley of civil rights & protesting. A truly authoritarian country doesn't have protests, because everyone knows they will be squashed. Presumably South African women have it so bad, protesting would just anger the men.

Is it actually an uncanny valley? Do we know for sure that utopias don't have any complainers? Given that utopia is impossible*, is the question even meaningful? Yudkowsky's recent post on future humans being impoverished by lack of oxygen makes a lot of sense to me. As an average progress-critical reactionary, I think its human nature to want more, so my rule is simply the more protests and 4B movements, the better everything is.

I think that is kind of what they are saying - that Trump emboldened Wokeism and caused it to break free into normie spaces.

Obviously in 2024 a woman who wants to be in the professional workforce is normal and doesn't have a defective brain module. Can the same be said of the woman in 1950? Would people (you, or others) lump the 1950s woman in with queers and call her "confused" because she is non-conformist? Would people not lump her in with queers, because queers gross them out, but she's just a little weird?

The only wrench in my argument is there may not be such a woman in 1950 - or rather, any woman in 1950 that wanted to be in the professional workforce was probably also a butch queer.

How are homosexuals "confused about the binary of sex?" Maybe I don't know enough homosexuals but -- I get the impression that lesbians don't like transwomen, by and large. It seems to me that the homosexual lobby and the transgender lobby can be at odds with each other. The only way I can consider them similar is through the powerful outgroup homogenizing lens of "they repulse me" and "they are about gender." Was women entering the workforce another manifestation of that pathology?

Maybe I'm missing some context, but what is ahistorical here? Did Vance say "the Founders would agree with me?" Maybe partisan bias and Vance simpery has blinded me to something, but I don't see the error in what he's saying. Is it because he unequivocally said, "the answer is no," placing him directionally with the "they used fake ballots" crowd?

While its true humans try to engineer AIs' values, people make mistakes, so it seems reasonable to model possible AI values as a distribution. And that distribution would be wider than what we see real humans value.

Still, i'm not sure if AI values being high-variance is all that important to AI-doomerism. I think the more important fact is that we will give lots of power to AI. So even if the worst psychopath in human history did want to exterminate all humans, he wouldn't have a chance of succeeding.

The only way to fight this is to ensure that everything is squeeky clean and beyond reproach, which it won't be because too many people are taking all the talk about about subverting the process to defeat Trump too seriously.

It sounds like you're saying there are some people that actually think trump is bad enough to subvert normal processes. The OP was asking for specific evidence but you didn't give any.

Unfortunately, showing evidence of people saying trump is a unique threat to democracy or whatever isn't enough because they could be exaggerating.

I admit it would be funny if it became a common talking point to get anti-Trumpers to say stuff like, "it would be right to commit electoral fraud or murder to save America from Trump, but I wouldn't do it"