ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
7d ago
I have no idea how or why women “handing back the wheel”
Women need to co-operate with men for this one to actually fix the problem about which they complain. Right now they're just bitching to bitch.
Women would like peace in Palestine because they value peace over war. And fine. Peace is good. But women don't make war[1], so how much are they willing to pay for it?
Normally, women will give up some of what they want- a society that honors exclusively them and not men, and imposes their fundamental desires of safety, equality, and consent- so that men will go and accomplish some of their other goals. Men will risk their lives if it comes with some benefit beyond that which women currently permit them in society, like "allowed to own a house" [and/or a bunch of ludicrously expensive things most people spend their lives working for and never get, which attract women by proxy], "free pass to the upper-middle class" (would need some updating, college degrees are dime-a-dozen these days), "lots of sex and being considered a hero forever [re: 'I love a man in uniform' and 'thank you for your service']", etc.
But right now they are not willing to pay what it costs for men to go to war to enforce that goal (and make token efforts instead; like "impose sanctions", "excommunicate Israeli politicians and prosecute them in religious court[2]", "Queers for Palestine" [which is the same thing- an instinctual attempt to provide social cachet to the men who want Israel checked by conflating Palestinians with themselves -> implying those who defend them will be rewarded in the above ways, and if they actually had bodies that were more attractive than the average PornHub woman they might have a point], etc.).
If they actually wanted to pay this cost, much as Britain and France once did (to spread their cultural values throughout the world), they'd arm an expeditionary force and send them in (much like Ukrainian ethnic groups currently do for their allies) with those rewards bestowed upon return.
But they don't want that. They want to crybully (which does give them some control to the extent powerful men are willing to listen to it) and otherwise run the "poor me" routine typical of little girls. They no longer want a set of men who are attractive to them because they met the goals women/the culture set. And young women could spend their current power to incentivize the creation of men attractive to them, but they do not.
The Clancy case is the exact same on a much smaller scale- society's civil war against one woman. If young women wanted justice (in a way that's fair to men, meaning "women [who kill their children] are punished for that evil action" [this harms mostly men, as the authority to produce children is something men inherently lack]), they'd start calling for her head and eventually they'd get it.
They're willing to throw loads of money around to get this done, as the GoFundMe pages prove; a man who did this would result in a million dollars paid to his family at the cost of rolling the dice with his life in front of a jury.
But they don't, and they won't do this themselves (again, because of [1]), so the evil persists.
[1] Outside of very specific circumstances where losing means inescapable genocide; WW2 Russia, Israel (all the time), Palestine (also all the time, but abstract as their military and soldiers are all irregular).
[2] The ICC is basically just the Inquisition, meant to legitimize how righteous Europeans are in killing the losers of wars Europe has some stake in. (Which is the purpose for which it was created in '45, to legitimize killing rival elites from the defeated German state.)
Yeah, imagine having a model that does what you tell it, how horrible.
Did you know that this existed in other forms called "books" for the last hundred years? And what was the maximum we actually got in terms of terrorism? Arguably the scariest it got was Aum Shinrikyo, who had a bunch of people intelligent enough, and driven enough, to wage chemical and (if they actually had the materials) nuclear civil war. The secrets behind those mechanisms were at the time widely-published; everyone knew how the Hiroshima device (and sarin gas) worked maybe 20 years after it was used.
The only really dangerous thing I could think of would be biology, and perhaps after the inevitable novel biological attack (which will likely be least-effort) we'll see agar become a controlled substance. But the models aren't ready for that yet and it still requires a researcher with their head on straight, which is selected against when we look at the average (for example) mass shooter or mass car-driver; even Aum's highly sophisticated attack in one of the most crowded places in the world only managed half the death toll of an angry retard attacking an office with a gallon of gas).
Then again, I kind of believe in the American way where "having every tool necessary to destroy your neighbor should they piss you off, and every day of your existence is a choice to deal within the rules" is probably more stable than highly authoritarian regimes simply because the existence of the veto helps ensure those rules remain fair. If the State is otherwise capable of complete totalitarian control, which with the coming tools they will, then individuals under it must have some power to check it or there's no reason, from a realpolitik perspective, not to go full 1984 and enslave them.
Even then, political violence (which the more intelligent types prefer) tends to be targeted; the prototypical example perhaps being an autonomous turret set up in northern Ireland trained on pictures of Oranges, set up as non-lethal simply to make a point, or otherwise depending on how angry they are.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
8d ago
What's more, it comes across as a highly emotional approach, driven more by dominance seeking and sense of grievance than material benefit.
Yes, that's exactly how said allies are behaving. I honestly don't get this impression from the US, but then again, I'm the one who has to pay the bill for Boomer cultural posturing and said Boomers have made me poorer in the first place because of that posturing, so my perspective is slanted in that way.
There isn't a damn thing Commonwealth countries are going to get from Europe outside of "more resource extraction from an even less competent ally". Canada pretends it'll just make gear for war to maintain its industrial supply chain, but it has no need for it and Germans would quite rather those jobs be made in Germany (to preserve its industrial supply chain). These deals are merely cope.
German industry is already idle, so agreements these countries make will be contingent on their winding down their own manufacturing capacity to keep European capacity (and hence political power) alive. The same wouldn't be true for Britain, but their supply chains packed it in in the Thatcher years, so they have no use for any former imperial possessions.
What now remains is the resolution of the teething pains of countries that permitted themselves to be hollowed out (and sold their ability to maintain a national identity to keep their real estate prices high) collapsing under the weight of their own bureaucratic-welfare complex. If Canada can't resist economic destruction on its own, and realistically it can't, the others have no hope either.
Nobody has any clue what the fuck to do, nobody has any idea of what the next 5 years are going to look like let alone the next 20, and depression of this type is a happiness-rationing system designed to protect you from this type of circumstance (mostly so that you don't blow your entire stockpile of resources on something really risky trying to get back to that state).
And really, that's just the way it is now. Welcome to the post '90s Japanese economy, I guess.
Maybe once the data centers get built out there'll be enough room in the economy to fund software again (as in, "now we need people to do the thing the data centers were for"), but who knows? Industry in particular has been missing its 'smarter than the average bear'-types for a while, especially those that are smarter than the automation.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
9d ago
Rigid adherence to something that they read somewhere while not really understanding the reasons, I guess?
Ok, so they simulate a human being perfectly then.
Like, we are sending some questions and getting back answers; "the answers keep getting better!" seems like an awfully lazy excuse for not making the tools also get better!
It's because we don't fucking know how to make the tools better. Half of it is because we have tunnel vision on just how hard the models can go, and the other half of it is because we don't even know if we should bother making the tools better because the current approach seems to be working pretty well so far (and to pitch that in a way that doesn't just sound like you're advocating for faster horses) and the entire industry (and certain companies, and their workers) have come down with a case of clinical depression because of it.
At this point I'd rather just switch to the WIS side of software development, rather than the INT side, because that to me seems like a losing battle. But maybe that's the wrong approach. I dunno.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
9d ago
I still don't fully understand that meme. I get that it's the most spaghetti/rigid-definition Java code that was popular in the late '90s but I've never seen it quite that bad before.
If anything else C# is even worse, since you look at the docs to try and figure out how to use something... and the minute you do, you see
public static IQueryable<TResult> SelectMany<TSource,TCollection,TResult>(
this IQueryable<TSource> source,
Expression<Func<TSource,int,IEnumerable<TCollection>>> collectionSelector,
Expression<Func<TSource,TCollection,TResult>> resultSelector);
which is fucking awful in a way the worst natural-language sentence doesn't seem to be. Though maybe it's a better Rorschach test for programmers; if even the insane people give up when they see that shit maybe it's time for an ADHD diagnosis.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
9d ago
But Israel/Palestine is mostly just a proxy for
But it is, to me, disgusting and evil when people reward the use of killing children with sympathy
which is what modern feminists do, so you can generalize your statement to
The crybully tactics of modern feminism need to be punished like they would have been by the men of the 19th century.
and we'll note that it's not the 19th century any more. In fact, it's been over 100 years since it was the 19th century.
This is a problem with women, and women will have to hand over the wheel back to men on this one.
You, as a man, cannot force this to happen; you have no more military or organizational power in this matter than modern Britain or France do under US hegemony.
I detest cooking and the resulting food too.
However, I will cook for others who don't have that problem, and by their judgment I know I am at least passably competent.
The industrial kitchens do this better (more variety, more consistency, specifically engineered to be a tasty and relatively well-balanced product, drastically less time) and cost the same as it would for me to do it; the ingredients and the waste thereof are the reason why (I can't buy portions small enough for this to be cost-effective). At last count, it cost about a half hour's wage to do that.
Modern ingredients are generally completely tasteless outside of specialty stores, so I'd rather buy from people whose recipes are built around overcoming that fact. (And they are successful; I don't know how, I've yet to fixate on flavor chemistry.)
If I was married or had kids I'd cook more simply because that economic calculus would no longer hold in the "you can just use the whole bag" sense. Until such time, I'm going to McDonalds because that's still a nutritionally-complete meal (I'm not Big Smoke but I'm also not magically repelled from fast food places and don't understand why anyone would be outside of "it's low class").
For a relatively sedentary lifestyle a breakfast (or dinner, if I do decide to cook it myself), that, and some snacks/drinks throughout the day results in roughly 1,000 calories as surplus per month. I'm as thankful for the supply chain that makes this possible as I am for the food itself in terms of being able to survive the day, and would prefer to move to an area where a wider variety of these places existed.
I am one of those people who will eat the same thing for a literal year, then get tired of it and never eat it again (and am thankful that I haven't hit that point with hamburgers; truly the Platonic ideal of foods, perhaps appropriately named after a city bearing some of the most autistic peoples on the planet). I have some intellectual appreciation for people who eat nothing but chicken nuggets, it's just that I don't have any reason to resist situations where I can't do that and won't explode if I can't do it. (Comfort isn't actually that much of an end.)
But I have trouble finding any sort of consistent principles in modern progressivism that don't boil down to "who, whom".
This is true of all ideologies, including classical liberalism, where the who is "people who can handle it and get along" and the whom is "people who can't". Abel on the who side, Cain on the whom. (There's an attitude I get from that story that Abel is the first liberal and Cain the first socialist- it's very difficult to explain, more of a 'whose heart is where and why' thing.)
The reason I prefer this is that "people who can handle it" are incredibly productive in ways "people who can't" just aren't. Which is also the claim progressives make about their grouping, and given that we (and especially they) live in conditions that are to a degree post-reality (where raw productivity isn't as much of a factor), there actually is some observable truth to progressive statements, which is why progressives are that way.
Of course, I disagree with progressives because they take the post-reality state (that liberalism has given them) for granted and use that as license to re-impose all the evils that were destroyed (by liberalism). But I also understand it's easy to tolerate that which is not an injury to you, and I'm not injured by iniquity, weirdness, or moralfaggotry so long as it doesn't get itself on me beyond its otherwise productive value (which I feel inherently puts me above rules imposed to control those things, and my claim to that is "look upon all the things that were designed and implemented by people who share my values"- perhaps because they all migrated to the only place that wasn't actively trying to murder those people, but still, a win's a win).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
9d ago
Do we not have, uh like, modular software design? Encapsulation?
Nah, we just let the AI care about that now.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
9d ago
The people who will age into being beneficiaries of feminist power are the ones that need to deal with it.
Men were that way in the beginning of the 20th. It's Her Turn.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
9d ago
it would be necessary to frame it as "we are keeping men out" not "we are keeping women in."
Which would be trivial were Clancy's husband to give his wife the pedophile treatment of shooting her dead while leaving the trial (even better if he's acquitted by a mostly-male jury- imagine if he raised the insanity defense). Cities of refuge are justified in the same way (though importantly, they don't extend to first-degree murder).
And besides, the bleeding hearts love exposing themselves to risk from mental health patients. They can tell themselves they're saving them.
This creates a problem because then women would try to get into the gulag.
No more than they commit crimes to try to go to female prison more generally, I don't think. Sure, you'd have some men trying to do that, but they already do that by dressing up as women.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
10d ago
That paints an even worse picture, though.
they're imagining that they are themselves in a situation where they have just killed their kids, which they know would have been impossible for them to do in their right mind
Ah yes, the "it just... happened" defense. We already have laws that distinguish between the two: first-degree and second-degree (and to a point manslaughter).
thus it would be unjust to expect them to take responsibility for the actions
Yet they still assert they deserve rights without that corresponding responsibility (which is related to it being All Men's Fault, reflected by these same people claiming the husband [or men in general] should have done more).
In this framing, the insanity defense (mentally incapable of taking responsibility for their actions) and the feminist defense/assertion about themselves, are one and the same. But insane people are locked up and stripped of most of their rights because they are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions (and are thus too dangerous to exercise those rights).
Persons that are capable of taking that responsibility are trivially correct when they assert this same treatment should apply to those who are not.
and generalizes in such a way that everyone would be forgiven for every crime
Then they can compromise with everyone else and create a system of exile (that, because the aristocracy are designing their own prison, isn't going to become a gulag even though that's basically what this creates). It's problematic to sentence life in prison/death for aristocracy (women, pet demographics), so just put them there. If they leave before their term is up, then the death sentence is immediate.
The "not guilty because I'm insane" defense is not contesting the fact they did the thing. It's fine to not be responsible (the female view), but it's also fine for that to have system-level consequences (the male view).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
10d ago
Is it actually possible to align a being that is more intelligent than you in every single way?
The existence of competent Soviet and Chinese science programs, and [my political outgroup] tending to find itself developing AI, suggests the answer is yes.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
10d ago
but in plenty of societies it’s reverence for motherhood.
The irony being that the women in question are, statistically, not mothers.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
10d ago
How much more will it take for people to start recognizing feminism as a real problem?
That's not really the question. Everyone knows. Even the feminists.
The actual question is "how much more will it take for non-state actors to organize and physically block expressions of feminist power". And that's a much more difficult question to answer; the last generation that had any real reason to has died and they were the ones that created this problem in the first place.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
10d ago
· Edited 10d ago
If she is acquitted, it would bias expectations in future conflicts towards "women can get away with anything"; if she is convicted, it would bias expectations towards "all the efforts of women activists can't get one woman acquitted".
Which is the exact reason the pro-choice/pro-life debate exists in its current form in the first place. It's really not about killing kids- Palestinian women are more than happy to send them on suicide missions every day. Why would Western women be any different?
The only places that don't have this issue take the posture that both men and women are subordinate to the State- the more subordinate, the more even-handed and pro-social the restrictions (it's still not going to stop the State from killing kids who have disabilities incompatible with life, but that honors men more in the sense that it acknowledges they have to pay for it).
Meanwhile, in the Anglosphere, women are the State.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
10d ago
The number 1 rule of AI safety is don’t build the AI that takes over the world
No, the number 1 rule of AI safety is "don't build an AI that leads to my enemies putting an end to my politics".
It's laundered through "takes over the world".
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
10d ago
It's when the fluffer comes in you.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
12d ago
In order: Christ rose from the dead (and he'll be back), Garden of Eden is almost certainly not historical (much like Genesis 1-11, for reasons that have a lot to do with the mustard seed not actually being the smallest of all seeds), yes, real, (if this is somehow proven not to be the case I'm going to have a much harder time than I did leaving YEC behind).
Maybe functionally I'm more of a deist? I haven't really found much community from church for reasons that have a lot to do with the second topic, but then again I haven't really looked that hard. I don't really bear many other markers that make it obvious from an outside glance I'm [still] a Christian; you wouldn't necessarily discover that from the way I talk.
I'm not an adult convert, though.
(Actually, adult converts in particular tend to act really weird to me for reasons that, while I think I understand why they act that way, I've never really found success with doing that myself. They seem to observe that God has an active role in both talking to them and shaping their lives. I have come to the somewhat-related conclusion I already possess all the help I'm ever going to receive and as such don't much bother to ask any more, but then that also puts me in a rough spot with these types of people. It's not even really jealousy- though it's not like I'm not- I've simply heard enough "God's plan for you"s to last me an eternity and I no longer want to be around the people who don't understand that, just like how all Rapture analysis is uninteresting naval-gazing since the conditions for its imminence are as trivially true as the writing inside your average fortune cookie.)
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
12d ago
not a contract with the government
And when the draft officers show up to collect you I'm sure your insistence on seeing this contract will keep you un-drafted.
Different situations entirely.
Violence is work performed by the unique properties of the male sex; surrogacy is the same thing for women. They're both sex work- as in, they both exercise the inherent value in one's sex (when one has no other value).
And medical procedures forced upon conscripts are generally limited to vaccines.
I'll take the feminists (and clueless social conservatives) at their word and say that a low-speed injection of semen with a 9-month recovery time and risk of permanent downstream injury is about as harmful as a high-speed injection of lead and steel.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
13d ago
It was almost like a violent outburst born in a fit of narcissistic rage on a societal level.
Oh, so that's why Canadian society gets along so well with them.
this is one aspect of our pagan past I wish we would have the balls to recover: the ability to unashamedly and utterly crush our enemies without moralizing or hemming and hawing about it.
That's hilarious. Come on, man. Americans are constitutionally incapable of doing this. (And somehow I don't think the Romans were either.)
You have written in your supreme law that it's permitted to prepare for a war against your own countrymen, and your founding posture is that this is inevitable. Most of the laws in that document grant similar powers for the same purpose.
Even more incredible is that your militiamen/law enforcement actually honor these laws even though it makes basically zero logical sense for you to permit citizens to do even half the things they get up to.
You have civil war statues that venerate the enemies of the Union, and people don't want to take them down precisely because they are symbols of you not wanting to do this. The colors of that existential enemy are still publicly flown in a way that also invokes this, but from the other direction. (It's also the root justification given for why you're allergic to most varieties of collectivism, be that the red star or the black swastika variety, of which you are both and neither.)
You settled with the Indians despite really not needing to. (And the Germans, and the Japanese, in stark contrast to what was normal conquest behavior at the time.) You have foreign prisoner accounts that, and this is true with respect to the Soviet Union as well, that what you considered sub-citizen treatment and what they considered a propaganda picture are one and the same.
You go to war under the guise that you fight for your enemy's right to collectively decide to be your enemy (or "for democracy")- absurd nonsense by the standards of any historical power. Your media machine continually bombards the populace with this conclusion, even in movies that really don't have much to do with war.
Your civil religion has a God whose entire statement of godliness is a posture of specifically targeting what's wrong over who's wrong. Perhaps most of the above posture is the logical consequence of a people who are expecting God in the gaps that your laws create, like the Virgin Mary appearing on a piece of toast.
I say a US government acting in the best interests of its citizens would find that to be essentially inevitable, and the last 25 years have vindicated me.
The day the US government fully embraces acting in the best interests of its citizens is also the day it ends.
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
13d ago
Fuck insurance. What's the point?
To provide plausible deniability for back-channel diplomatic goals.
In this case, "stop shipping and claim it's too risky as an excuse to try and extract a diplomatic concession from the Americans".
Ship owners can earn this back in a single year.
The risk is now priced in: a company may now buy a whole new ship if the Iranians sunk one (and provide their now-merchant marines appropriate hazard pay, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to that pricetag).
ThisIsSin
Like a wild animal, the threat to our body was coming right for us
13d ago
Obviously the US needs crime reform but in enforcement, changing trials won’t fix the main problem of low-level nuisances because they’re not getting arrested in the first place.
Then put the booking station in the middle of nowhere, ideally in the places where it's illegal for anyone but the government to build. (Employees work 2 weeks in, 2 weeks out.)
Oh, what's that, Madame Prosecutor, the interests of justice require he not be charged? Oh, what a shock, better luck next time- you're free to go then. The public transportation back to your city runs once, on the second week of the month. The bus is free. It's 3 hours, one way, due to the length of the route and budgetary restrictions.
Naturally, if you're going to take that transport, our bus stop is very well-stocked. There are rooms with cots for rest, and along with the food, they are free until the next bus leaves. It's well-maintained by transit staff and secured by transit police.
If you're going to have a revolving door the least you could do is make it actually inconvenient. Perhaps somewhere you aren't legally prohibited from leaving, but unless you have someone from your place of residence that can vouch for you (and is willing to drive 6 hours to retrieve you), you are now in a state that is legally, but not meaningfully, indistinguishable from exile. Your "bail" is now collected by physics (the money/time/effort it takes to retrieve you).
Issues with this being a political prison are avoided simply because it's not actually a prison (the prison is coincidentally right next door to house those the prosecutor will charge, and this branch of public transit has a convenient labor-sharing agreement with them). You can just straight up go and visit if you wanted to audit the place, as it's public. (No overnight parking or camping, though.)
If you have someone who will help you, you'll be back home very quickly; I figure that the more people you can call on who are willing and able to help you in this way, the less of an anti-social element you were. You'll wear them out quickly with repeated use if you're truly an asshole anyway.
It's all very reasonable, safe, and consensual... while at the same time just being the modern version of transportation-as-punishment, and maximally frustrating external efforts to defeat this purpose. (It's true that, for example, George Soros has the power to simply send every criminal an Uber or fund busses of his own, but now he'll have to fund more than just the prosecutor to do that.)
"Computer" is also no longer a job category thanks primarily to the machine named after said profession.
More options
Context Copy link