TitaniumButterfly
No bio...
User ID: 2854
TitaniumButterfly
1d ago
My church is putting together a big fund for sending Haitian children to school and privately I thought, what's the point of educating Haitians?
Still not sure what to make of it.
TitaniumButterfly
7d ago
Meta: is it obnoxious to do multi-top-posts like this? I didn’t want to talk about these ideas right away because I felt it would bias the replies, but at the same time it seems like a waste to write this as a second level reply in an old thread just before the new CW thread opens up
My two cents, but you're fine. It adds to the impression that we have a rolling conversation going around here. Personally I'm unlikely to go digging through prior topics to see what conclusion you came to if any, not least because it wouldn't be clear where to look.
People who aren't interested can minimize the post and its children. I minimize about half the posts here within a few seconds of skimming. It's a great system. Also, this isn't 4chan; no topics died to make room for yours.
Finally, as you say, it's Sunday. So long as things are kept in good taste, there's always been an unspoken understanding that Sunday-poasting doesn't have to adhere as tightly to the straight and narrow. It's like Hawaiian shirt Friday at the office.
TitaniumButterfly
9d ago
Well in that case thanks for the insight.
TitaniumButterfly
10d ago
Okay! You go first.
TitaniumButterfly
10d ago
This is why we can't have nice things.
>ask if the abstract property is kiki or bouba
>he laughs. "It's a good property, sir"
Just thinking out loud here, really. I've had various dealings with Indians.
First of all, I'll freely admit that every Indian doctor I've encountered has been at least competent even if the bedside manner often leaves something to be desired. They often seem more disrespectful to their patients (or at least me) than doctors of other races, which I imagine has to do with how social status is understood in their culture generally.
In the corporate environment it's a very different dynamic. The Indians I've worked with are often spectacularly incompetent and, worse, preternaturally skilled at covering this up by spoofing the impression of a sincere, genuine colleague. It's frankly very creepy. Like they've modeled us whites, know how to exploit our good nature, recognize that they're intrinsically worse, and have zero shame in faking us out while leading us into situations where we're completely screwed and they're incrementally better off. It makes my skin crawl. After enough of this one is sadly obliged to develop a thick wall of prejudice simply for barely-minimal self defense. Chinese are often the same way except somewhat more reluctant because, I think, they realize they're less-convincing. Perhaps I might say that Chinese are smarter about modeling the future and not being too brazen in their duplicity? Whereas Indians often seem totally oblivious to the possibility that we might catch on to them, which adds a measure of insult to the injury. But, you know, they promote each other, so somehow this never seems to catch up to them.
There's some deep ancestral memory, some terror and hatred, of things which mimic benign features of the environment while actually intending to have us for dinner. Indians often push that button for me harder than I can believe.
When dealing with Indian business proprietors, based on the way they look at me and treat me, I'm often unable to shake the impression that they don't even recognize me as basically human. I'm a resource and they'd step over me as I die in a gutter as soon as they'd rent me a (cattle-car tier) hotel room or sell me a bottle of water. Again, it's creepy. But less so than corpo-Indians, since at least these ones have dropped the pretense. It's a bit strange that this should bother me. I'm engaging in a simple economic transaction; why should there be an expectation of mutual respect and friendliness? But again the sensation is that they know I'm dumb enough to assume good faith and have zero compunction about punishing that as hard as they can. Defect-bots. Namaste, indeed!
It can be almost cartoonish. They can be so unsubtle about it, and yet so simultaneously inept, that they remind me of the stock character of 'adorably incompetent pint-sized would-be villain'. Except it's not so adorable when you remember how few safeguards are actually in place. Not so cute when you walk through an area with dozens of dark eyes in dark faces tracking your every movement, calculating. When the pretender who's been holding back your whole team is suddenly your boss, and when did all the management start looking just like him? One of them is a curiosity; an opportunity to cultivate patience and compassion, with a side of smug self-satisfaction to boot. Many of them is a threat.
One oddity I've noted is that Indian men seem much worse about all this than Indian women. The Indian women I've met do generally seem to be nicer people and don't set off my "you are being eaten" alarm to anywhere near the same degree. I don't know whether the difference is fundamental or some kind of observation bias thing. I've also never actually worked with an Indian woman. Someday I'll probably find out what's going on here.
So all that plus the general impression of filthiness (caste-dependent, I'm sure) and I'm not surprised that there is some backlash. Frankly I think they're overdue for much, much more. Given time, even quokkas must evolve an aversion to predators.
EDIT: You know, I'd like to take a moment and clarify that while I've known plenty of lovely Indian men, they have universally been extremely high-caste. Obviously 'Indian' is an even worse category than 'Italian' for sorting people. But, that's the category we're using until people wake back up to the reality of race.
TitaniumButterfly
10d ago
Can we agree to call that debatable?
TitaniumButterfly
10d ago
Jeez, yeah, that's... that's enough internet for today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/its-catching/201703/why-are-females-prone-to-mass-hysteria
But honestly I'm at a loss as to how anyone could be so, uh, sheltered from the realities of differences between men and women that they'd ask for a citation. It's like asking whether boys or girls are more likely to throw knives at stuff for fun, and then demanding a citation when someone gives the obvious answer. There's a screamingly-loud pattern here that I'd think one has to be either extremely autistic or intensively propagandized in order to miss.
You're making a factual claim that it's significantly more common in one sex here, not about how masculine/feminine the behavior is
What a baffling statement.
TitaniumButterfly
11d ago
I don't understand the point you're making. How sexually-dimorphic does a trait or behavior need to be before it's rightly understood as either masculine or feminine?
The fact is that there have been no major wars in Europe since the creation of the rules-based order. In other words, when those countries played by the rules they've seen exactly the results they wanted: reduction in war, economic prosperity, global trade.
These are gingerbread thoughts. Rules are nothing unless they're enforced. What matters here is that there has been a hegemon (EDIT: I'm talking about the USA) around to enforce those rules, which it does for its own benefit. The rules go out the window when it benefits the hegemon -- or when the hegemon starts to slip.
Anyone who's given even a cursory look at the war crimes committed by Russia could never say something so ridiculous.
I really wonder what you think Russia is guilty of that hasn't been done by the US or US-funded allies and groups. Do you know what kind of stuff the CIA gets up to?
This myth of resource scarcity is not only foolish, it's dangerous, because it leads to bad ideas about policy.
You're fixated here on economic resources, which is understandable, but only part of the picture. It's true that massive exploitation of non-renewable fuels has allowed for an unprecedented (and unsustainable) bubble of wealth which even distributed very unevenly benefits almost everyone in terms of material standard of living. Also that it's enabled us to access deposits of raw materials which we previously couldn't, and won't be able to again if we mismanage the energy situation.
But let's say arguendo that we basically solve the energy problem. Fusion or something; idk. Still there are other types of resources than energy and raw materials. Many of them are positional. This includes desirable real estate and high-value mates. These things will always be scarce and life is mainly defined by competition for them. Power is another. In all cases, some few people will end up with these things while most others go without.
If those who go without are kept from organizing and competing, well, I'd call that oppression. Really, that's what oppression is. Is it better if it's done with social programming and antidepressants and entertainment rather than the point of a spear? I'm not asking rhetorically. Your answer is up to you. But as for my answer, I'd suggest that a frog dropped into boiling water may be a lot better off than a frog deposited in nice water only for the temperature to be slowly raised over time. A lot of people you'd have identified as 'oppressed' managed to rise up and secure a place for themselves in the future. I say this is good and right for them to do. Noble; vital, even. Benefits the entire species. The modern 'soft' alternatives make my skin crawl.
Who did they steal that prosperity from?
Suppose the ruling class reorganizes society such that everyone has a lot more stuff but it becomes much, much harder to find a good mate or raise a family. Suppose communities, social fabric, and cultural inheritances are lost. The very rich become very very very rich. Everyone else feels increasingly-squeezed by some kind of invisible vice. Connect the dots.
I don't like the use of the word 'stolen'; it's just that some people outcompeted others for access to what's good in life. Some few win big and many lose. This is just how nature works, across species. Yes, some nations have massively exploited the natural resources in territory nominally controlled by others. So? Good for them. That's how it works. And some rulers have managed to con their workers into accepting more stuff instead of what actually matters in life. So? The relationship is somewhere between predator-prey and farmer-livestock. The lower classes can't maintain society without the leaders, and the leaders can't maintain their positions without workers, especially in competition with other leaders. Though I do wish they were more self-aware about what's going on and less prone to status-signaling among themselves.
There was really something to be said for the institution of overt nobility and privilege. I think we're all worse-off for pretending like our betters are just normal people like us. We should recognize the situation for what it is and demand some noblesse oblige. Some sense of actual responsibility, you know? But even this, I think, mainly comes down to incentives. Religion was also very helpful here. Oops.
you don't happen to be a communist do you?
This is very funny to me. No; far from it. I'm an ecologist. I'm not upset about these patterns I'm describing. This is just how reality is. Actually, I could also fairly be called a social darwinist, and in that I'm fairly pro what I'm talking about. Superior people out-reproducing inferior people is how the species improves. Ideally this would be arranged so as to avoid cruelty where possible, but there's a difference between evil and cruel. Evil is often necessary; cruelty never is.
What upsets me is the refusal (or inability) of others to see it. But that's also just how things are. Sometimes I meet other people who understand this stuff but mostly they've given up on trying to explain it to anyone. Just makes people resentful and angry. I honestly don't know why I bother except that the position feels lonely. And, who knows? Maybe if people started seeing more clearly we could actually make the world a better place.
TitaniumButterfly
12d ago
It can definitely lower your iron levels, which is usually a good thing.
TitaniumButterfly
12d ago
Bus drivers recognize them and - oh yeah no way would violence be allowed.
But with municipal-uber, presumably access cards could be issued to people very cheaply and deactivated temporarily or permanently if abused. Sure someone could use someone else's card but then the person loaning it is putting themselves on the hook which seems fine to me. And all of this is before facial recognition.
My understanding is that this sort of mass killing is actually fairly common in China though targeted at schoolchildren as often as not. However my source is "a bunch of youtube videos I watched on the subject last year" so I can't be of much help there.
Particularly I remember that vehicular mass-killings are on the rise and that some schools are training their staff and equipping them with mancatcher devices (sort of polearms) to take down knife-wielding assailants.
The gist was that these attacks are being perpetrated by young men who have failed economically and want to 'get back' at kids with futures ahead of them and society in general.
How true any of this is, I don't know.
TitaniumButterfly
13d ago
Well I mean surely someone out there is no longer allowed on the bus.
TitaniumButterfly
13d ago
For some reason I've never imagined before that municipalities could simply create their own uber clones and call that public transportation, but I really don't see why not. Yeah some people will rapidly lose their privileges to use it, and should, but surely that's a solved problem?
TitaniumButterfly
13d ago
Also some communities are substantially more open to it than others. What I'd be curious to know is what marriage prospects look like for converts.
TitaniumButterfly
13d ago
Ah, the luxury of living in an area with the demographics of several decades ago.
The moral framework for me is something of a practical one - how can different nations live in the world with a minimum of morally despicable things taking place. Things like: war, slavery, poverty, oppression.
Right, well, they can't. The incentives don't align that way and never will. It can be more or less overt, and more or less local, but it's going on somewhere. This is due to resource scarcity. Someone has to lose, and usually many people. Those with the ability to change this are better-served by winning, and arguably should. And even they can't change it much.
The goal of the 'rules-based international order' was to create rules for the game of international competition and cooperation where the morally worst actions are taken off the table. We don't go to war to settle disputes over who gets to control land and peoples (especially nuclear war) because it's something everyone wants to avoid. It's morally bad and it's practically bad, especially for those lands and peoples.
No, that's just what the most-powerful cabals at the time said to justify the cementing of their power into the foreseeable future. In fact they're plenty willing to do abhorrent things when it suits them.
Russia is the clear bad actor in this framing. They are signed on to a ton of agreements that say 'we will not invade other countries to take their land' - the most fundamental being the UN charter, which says any UN member will respect the borders of the existing countries. This may seem arbitrary under your system, but it serves the very basic purpose of preventing war.
Only the power of the hegemon prevents war. This is a symptom of that power failing, not a de novo source of evil.
Hell, if Russian troops weren't blatantly and constantly committing war crimes, targeting civilians, indoctrinating the people of territories they've conquered... then maybe we in the West could ignore this as just another border dispute, like the other times in the 21st century Russia has invaded its neighbors. But, Russia is doing all these morally despicable things. They are the clear moral bad agent in almost every way, and are simply flaunting the fact that they can break international rules and norms, essentially do whatever the hell they please, because they have nuclear weapons so nobody will stop them.
I think you'll find that we and our allies do all that stuff in spades. Who, whom.
This needs to be punished so that every other aggressive authoritarian government with delusions of grandeur doesn't do the same thing, and the whole world devolve back into war.
From the perspective of the hegemon, it needs to be punished to preserve the hegemony. The question is whether that's possible any longer.
War simply is. There are ways to sort of move it from one column into another on the ledger book but basically, given resource scarcity, this is just how things work. There is no other way. And a bad peace is worse than war.
TitaniumButterfly
13d ago
Yes; men can also behave in feminine ways. This doesn't make those behaviors masculine.
TitaniumButterfly
13d ago
The thing is, 'hysterical' first and foremost described a gendered pattern of behavior. It's called what it is because women are much more prone to it than men, and always have been. So its 'origin' isn't even the problem, I think. And I think it's funny that people (not necessarily you) would have become so blinded to the realities of psychological and behavioral differences between the sexes that they'd parse 'hysterical' as not having anything to do with women except incidentally in its origin.
TitaniumButterfly
13d ago
I'm not sure what "y'alled" means.
It's a reference to such sentiments as "Instead of saying 'you guys', which is etc., try something like 'y'all!'" A typical example of a larger pattern.
TitaniumButterfly
13d ago
Incidentally I'm kind of amazed that the word 'hysterical' hasn't gotten y'alled yet.
it treats Ukraine as just some pawn instead of an independent country
Well, you know, that doesn't bother me. I don't believe in countries (states). Literally, I don't believe that they exist. They're fictions, like corporations. Really it's a sort of theological idea.
I do believe in nations and to be charitable I can sub that word in. But in that case, from a secular perspective, it's not clear to me why one nation has a right to a piece of land and another doesn't. Where would such a right come from, if not the test of societal virtue that is war? And how sure are we that the ruling class of a nation actually represents that nation, rather than having parasitized it?
It's so demeaning to the Ukrainian people who are fighting for the independence of their country.
If they don't want to fight they can stop. Or, if the people want to stop but can't -- as is evidenced by their enslavement and sacrifice by the men calling themselves their leaders -- we should ask if perhaps that's the real problem!
Ukrainians are the ones who will determine how far they are willing to go to protect their homeland and their people.
It's not clear to me that the ruling society of Russia intends to harm either the land or the people. Actually I think it would be happiest keeping both wholly preserved (but under its own control).
Seems to me that what's going on here is that the land and peoples (the people living there are hardly homogeneous) exist and two competing ruling classes are vying for control over them. One is willing to enslave them and spend their lives to stay in power. The other is basically willing to do the same. It's not clear why either of those is 'right'.
I just don't know where everyone seems to be getting their sense of clear-cut moral stances from.
Well there's teaching basic literacy, and then there's sending to school for years and years. If those are the same thing I'm not convinced it's worthwhile.
More options
Context Copy link