TequilaMockingbird
No bio...
User ID: 3097
TequilaMockingbird
1mo ago
The "Sic semper tyrannis" shtick is not a flimsy straw, its a 2x4.
The idea that building utopia is a simple matter of breaking down barriers and killing the right people is arguably the sine qua non of leftism.
Very little.
I called Booth a "Democrat" which he was, and a "leftist" which is admittedly more of a stretch but him being a theater person from a family of theater people coupled with the "Sic semper tyrannis" shtick is surely a gesture in that direction.
I think the thing that makes a progressive "progressive" is an axiomatic belief in "Progress". Ie a belief that current year is special and need not be beholden to the rules and realities of prior years.
I think that while not all leftists are progressive, almost all progressives are leftists. There are conversations and compromises that a sincere conservative can have with a sincere leftist that cant be had with a sincere progressive and that is the benefit to drawing the distinction.
Once upon a time there was a progressive faction in both the Republican and Democratic parties just as there was an explicitly Christian/Social conservative faction in both parties but as the Democrats became more explicitly progressive the realities of a two-party system encouraged the Republicans to become more explicitly conservative to pick up newly alienated conservative democrats.
TequilaMockingbird
1mo ago
Why should I be beholden to him?
Because ability to commit is one of the fundemental building blocks of all relationships. It is one of the basic things that seperates intelligent life from mere biology and you can't have a society with out it.
TequilaMockingbird
1mo ago
The only true privilege of the poor is hating on the rich. Therefore, it is the moral responsibility of the rich to hateable...
...If I ever end up super rich, I'll be sure to fulfill my responsibility.
This seems like a terrible attitude to have. What do you think you gain by making the world around you worse?
TequilaMockingbird
1mo ago
Maybe this is just the experience of persuing a career in math, but your experience aligns closely with mine, just replace "woman" with "minority". I will confess though that I did suffer imposter syndrome in the beginning but that just became the motivation to go the extra mile, be more prepared, and now I am at that stage in my career where jobs interview for me as much as I interview for them.
From the Saints side one of the popular narratives has been about how Dennis Allen has lost the locker room the fake kneel play against the Falcons last year being the proof and/or hitch. Long standing rumor has been that Erik McCoy was the dude who was actually running our offense, and the fact that the Saints went to shit the moment he went down would seem to reinforce that.
Agreed on all points.
TequilaMockingbird
1mo ago
Again, i called him a leftist and a democrat. You're drawing your own associations
TequilaMockingbird
1mo ago
I mean this is the same guy who believes that John Wilkes Booth was a progressive
No, I called him a "democrat" though to be fair those terms are becoming increasingly interchangeable.
FWIW the comment started as a reply to someone else but still...
There seems to be this perception amonst rationalists that the "based" option is by definition the most aggressively retarded and anti-social one and that is what I am trying to push back against as futile as it may be.
I believe the adversarial design of the American justice system made sense in an era where it was far more difficult to ascertain guilt. No video, no photography, no DNA...
We live in a world where allegedly hard evidence like audio and video is becoming increasingly trivial to fake and DNA evidence remains only as trustworthy as the Lab.
I dont think the ulterior motivations nor the inherent unreliability of the human animal has changed at all.
This started as a reply to @monoamine's comment here but I'm posting here for greater visibility.
I do not think that this is "Based". To be "Based" is to have a base, be grounded, firmly planted, to reject the world of wishy-washy postmodernist bullshit (deconstructionism, moral relativism, etc...) in favor of the hard and the fast. That is unless you're going for the alternate etymology where "based" is a reference to freebasing and you really meant to say "When the crackhead regime takes over..." which tbh also fits.
Its a common error amongst wishy-washy postmodernist to conflate "rejects postmodernism" with "retarded and anti-social" and thus there is an inclination to label any anti-social idea as "based". Our justice system was designed as an adversarial system for a reason. Don't go looking to tear that fence down before you demonstrate that you understand why it was built.
I can't say that saw this specific move coming, but i can honestly say that I am not at all surprised.
It would seem that Sam Altman is who I (and a fair number of other OpenAI sceptics) thought he was.
I would suggest that this is simply the mask coming off/a rectification of public image and mission statements with reality. If handled well, OpenAI will be a healthier organization for it but i would expect said rectification to be painful for the "Yudkowskian faction" of AI discourse however it plays out.
Its a low-key cultural "fuck you" aimed at conservative Christians. The message being that I know that you know that this is some sort of weird sex/fetish thing but I'm going to scream bloody murder and accuse you of being uncharitable if you try to point it out.
The theory is "reducing police brutality" the praxis is replacing the brutality of the police with the brutality of the mob.
Social justice warriors do not seek to reduce or mitigate the violence inherent in the system (just the opposite in fact) they seek to redistribute it.
I don't know whether it's out of ignorance or special pleading but these are bad arguments and you should feel bad for making them.
More pointedly, pretty much every reason you've given for why we ought to regard the British as the true villians of WWII has applied doubly so to Germans.
Germany did not beat France they mearly occupied portions of it. The Vichy Government's control was tenous at best and multiple colonies renounced the German occupation. In any case you still have not adressed the question above. Given that Germany was already at war with Britain why would you expect anyone in the British leadership to want to make life easier for the German high command rather than harder? Why privilege the Vichy over "the Free French".
Simply put, If guys like Churchill and DeGaulle are to be condemned as "race traitors" for getting a bunch of thier own people killed through thier stubbornness and warmongering, what do you think that makes Hitler and Georing?
Re Matthew: this is an excellent and often unapprecied point.
The reason being a "tax collector" was seen as dirty/dishonorable job was that it often meant that you would be working against your own friends, family, community, etc... on the behalf of a distant and foreign power. It's only natural for people to have an issue with that and view you with suspicion as a result.
Im afraid i have to disagree. Partially for the reasons @ThisIsSin describes below, but more so because the entire theory and praxis of "Social Justice" revolves around tearing people down and promulgating individual injustices in the name of some greater good. I do not get the impression that Jesus would've been down with that at all.
Jesus explictly tells us that he doesn't hang out with whores, sinners, and tax-collectors (ie those who collaborate with the occupying regime) because he thinks that it is totes ok to be whorish, sinful, or a collaborator. He does it because it is the sick who need a doctor the most.
TequilaMockingbird
2mo ago
Im familiar with the whole "one death is a tragedy, a billion is a statistic" line of thinking but is it really fundementally different?
TequilaMockingbird
2mo ago
I don't know if its my post you're thinking of but i did just post about this very topic
TequilaMockingbird
2mo ago
I'm about 99% certain this robot is just a very expensive and fancy remote-controlled car. I don't think this incident has any bearing at all on AI, since no AI was involved.
You would be correct. As much as we talk up "autonomous systems" the overwhelming majority of systems are not "autonomous" at all, they're "remotely piloted". Anything resembling true autonomy is still deep in the realm of DARPA grants and strictly enforced NDAs.
TequilaMockingbird
2mo ago
It is of absolutely no comfort to me that we went thousands of years trying to set woods on fire before we figured out how to roast cities.
Im not suggesting that it should be. I am mearly pointing out that the difference is one of degree not of kind. A man killed by a rock to the head is just as dead as a man killed by a bullet to the head.
The Germans were the ones who opened Pandora's Box by bombing civilian infrastructure in the opening phase of their invasion of Poland. Meanwhile the RAF did not start intentionally targeting civilians until the Luftwaffe made night bombing and the targeting of population center official policy in the latter half of the Battle of Britain.
In short, your claim that the British were the ones to "escalate" the conflict is false.
Churchill sucks. He was a warmonger who was terrible at war and failed at everything he tried to do.
I would consider the fact that Churchill's side won pretty much every every war he was involved in to be evidence to the contrary.
He was still responsible for pushing the RAF to terrorize the German civilian populous in the hopes that the Germans would retaliate in a way that would pull America into the war.
This is a very dumb objection for you to be making here. Either Churchill was a brilliant mastermind who played the German high command (and everyone else in the world) like a fiddle or he was a "warmonger who was terrible at war and failed at everything he tried to do". Pick one.
In either case it doesn't adress the issue that the US didn't move against Germany directly until after the Germans had declared war on the US and started shooting at American ships.
Finally "the Madagascar plan" wasn't even proposed until the summer of 1940. Not only were Britain and Germany already at war by that point but Madagascar wasn't even Germany's to give. Forget Churchill, what reason would anyone in the British leadership have to agree to that plan at that time?
Maybe if the Germans had used one of thier own colonies, or an ally's colony, or tried to cut a deal with the global hegemon instead of declaring war on them things would've played out differently but we don't live in that timeline.
Well he wasn't not doing so.
...and when you look at Jefferson in context he certainly "leaned left" relative to other founding fathers like Adams, Hamilton, and Madison.
More options
Context Copy link