YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
13hr ago
If you forgo the drivers license, and still drive on the road, the state will fine you. If you refuse to pay the fines, eventually the state will arrest you, if you refuse to come quietly because you don't recognize the authority of the state, the state will inflict violence on you until you comply. Your drivers license is the state's permission to drive without falling afoul of the state's monopoly on violence. Whether this is the non-central fallacy or not, it is practically how society works. We just abstract much of the unpalatable stuff away behind a veneer of civility so we don't need to remind ourselves of how violent the world is and how fragile peace is.
YoungAchamian
14hr ago
Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?
Considering I literally answered your question and you continue to claim I didn't, I'm going to say calling it evasion is just being deceitful. Answering in weird twisting logic to try and mime some Fae approach to argument is definitely a style.
Here is my answer again: This requires you to know ahead of time whether evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, are you able to predict the future? If not, then removing evidence is just you being biased towards one outcome. All data is evidence.
YoungAchamian
15hr ago
It hasn't descended, pointing at the crazy insane partisan hobo on the street is no more indicative of the local communities culture than an indictment of what is considered mainstream.
YoungAchamian
16hr ago
You do seem pretty insistent on avoiding a rather foundational question that should do the opposite of stir an emotional response. Speaking clearly, this is likely because you recognize that answer it directly will either make your first attempt to ignore it in favor of passing judgement come off as bad faith, less than competent, or both.
But thats not actually what you did, rather than discussing my idea you started discussing me. That is the definition of ad-hominem. Claiming you aren't in an attempt to score points with an external audience is precisely what I mean when it comes to "waging the culture war" you aren't here to discuss ideas, you are apparently here to look good. I'm not going to answer your leading question, just because you stand past a pit of spikes and taunt me. If you have an actual argument you'd like to make I am all ears, but this "¡Andale, toro!" like I'm some bull that you get to use for entertainment with the crowd is tiresome. It is the definition of troll behavior.
Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?
This requires you to know ahead of time whether evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, are you able to predict the future? If not then removing evidence is just you being biased towards one outcome. All data is evidence.
YoungAchamian
17hr ago
So definitely a bad faith troll, trying to elicit an emotional reaction. I do always fall for it.
YoungAchamian
17hr ago
The fact that we need to hope for body cam footage, is the really cursed part of this. I hope its not a cell phone with one hand again, that did not make the agents look competent.
YoungAchamian
17hr ago
However, I'll settle for the first one you avoided.
I'm not avoiding, you launched in to a low effort attack on me rather than a discussion of my ideas. I can answer yours with the same level of effort you put into answering mine.
Is your difficulty in considering potential factors supposed to invalidate the relevance of factors you did not consider but which may apply to the validity of the shoot?
They were considered.
Are you competent enough in the particulars of Agents of the State to judge competence?
Aye.
Are you any more competent in judging manslaughter than you are in judging competence?
Sure.
Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?
I believe speaking plainly is a rule on this site, stop trying to lead me into the alley, I'm just not interested.
YoungAchamian
18hr ago
Is your difficulty in considering potential factors supposed to invalidate the relevance of factors you did not consider but which may apply to the validity of the shoot?
Are you non-tribal, non-partisan enough to judge the actions of your in-group as they affect the out-group> Do you consistently fall to one side of each scissor event?
Are you competent enough in the particulars of Agents of the State to judge competence?
Are you competent enough to speak on any of this, let alone judge my competence?
Are you any more competent in judging manslaughter than you are in judging competence?
Are you anymore competent in engaging in discussion around ideas than you are in waging the cultural war?
YoungAchamian
18hr ago
There's enough cofounders to that approach that I'm not sure its relevant: tribal solidarity, brother's in arms, espirit de corp, adrenaline, bad training, good training, irritation at protestors, rage at the out group, and seeing themselves as under assault. They evidently interpret the use of force more broadly than cops, and don't appear to think of themselves as stormtroopers or deaths squads. But they also seem to have very little regard for civilians lives, very little regard for minimizing casualties or deescalating situations (as much as they reasonably can), and apparently very little training.
The normies see shit like this and they freak, a competent ICE operation in Minnesota could have politically paid dividends, now its going to be a lead weight.
YoungAchamian
18hr ago
I am always willing to accept the "Lets wait and see" approach.
YoungAchamian
18hr ago
I have a really hard time with considering shooting a man being restrained, kneeling, in the back regardless of evidence of having a gun or not, to be a good, defensive shoot. I expect competence from Agents of the State, and this is not it. I think much like a felony murder, an agent of the state acting in such a way that is negligent, and leads to the death of someone should be charged with manslaughter.
YoungAchamian
19hr ago
YoungAchamian
19hr ago
I'm sure why this is relevant it's almost a non-sequitor, look at that video and tell me who had a gun drawn. I cannot see the victim with the gun but i can see the ice agent draw his and then fire the first shot.
You can literally see the agent draw his gun and shoot the guy in the back. I'm not sure what part of this you think is defensible.
Edit: @ minute 1:00 you can see the agent in the middle reach and pull his gun from his holster. The victim appears to be kneeling resisting arrest with multiple agents holding him down. At minute 1:01 that agent points his gun at the victim, and then it is blocked from view by another agent, milliseconds later you hear shots. The victim is still on his knees, it looks like one hand is supporting himself on the ground. His other hand is by his side.
I got 7% with one disagreement. I'd say its more of a semantic conflict with their question.
I think the answer is pretty straightforward. A person doesn't have consciousness and selfhood after bodily death but they continue to exist in memories, impact, legacy as almost an egregore. It's encapsulated by the saying from the Havamal and my favorite song Helvengen: "Cattle die, kinsmen die, You yourself will also die; I know one thing that never dies The reputation of those who died" and “Every man has two deaths, when he is buried in the ground and the last time someone says his name. In some ways men can be immortal.” - Hemingway
(I hate this spoiler formatting, I give up trying to get the last paragraph to be hidden)
YoungAchamian
14d ago
Yeah it's a long game, if we finish in 10hrs we were moving pretty quick. The expectation is that if you sit down to play its a 12-14 hour game at the minimum. We did the draft mode at 5-Players over break and it took 17.5 hrs. In hindsight we should have broken it up into two days, but that's the game.
YoungAchamian
15d ago
Not really a video game, but I got the new Twilight Imperium 4th Edition expansion played the new franken-draft game mode: Twilight's fall. Got super addicted to it and and couldn't wait for my group to organize another game so I've started playing it online via the online asynchronous community. It plays a lot like online diplomacy in that people take turns throughout the day politic/react. Very addicting, I got almost no work done this week...
YoungAchamian
19d ago
It was meant to be a comment on his: "If you can't explain it to a 5 year old, you don't really understand it" (the irony is not lost of me). Here (this medium article and hundreds others like it) I feel like people use deliberately obscuring or jargon rich language because its not about the conversation, its about the social-intellectual signaling.
And what is honestly the worst part, is if you don't partake you are the odd one out. Signaling you are either too autistic, truth-driven, or asocial to really get with the program of speaking AI-gobbly-gook speak to the peons in an attempt to sell more, network more, chest bump more etc. It really is a weird and annoying af failure mode.
YoungAchamian
19d ago
I found this insightful
Admittedly I skimmed it but I didn't find it all that enlightening. Maybe this is just my personal pet peeve or I am getting cantankerous in my old age, but I really hate the sci-fi/mathematical-gooblie-gook that lots of AI/ML discourse becomes. It become increasingly hard for my midwit engineering brain to parse what is actually being talked about rather than people wanting to be seen "to have deep AI understanding". It's like a deliberate failing of the Feynman Technique in order to sound impressive and smart. If I have to spend 10 mins a paragraph and a bunch of Wikipedia tabs trying to understand what you are conveying, that's bad.
I'm actually curious what the semantic distance between this and how I talk about AI/ML in my professional life to my non-mle colleagues. Maybe I sound closer to this than I think, which terrifies me. My heuristic is the more unparsable, jargon-filled sounding it is, the more scammer-adjacent the speaker.
YoungAchamian
1mo ago
Any system of government works under a certain amount of people. I am uncertain as to the exact number but it's probably lower than Dunbar's.
Interesting, I'd think that any system of government works at a Dunbar number or lower. It more likely that each system of government has a scaling factor for a threshold that after which it fails or becomes inefficient leading to failure.
YoungAchamian
1mo ago
I think the general topic of our discussion was that he was advocating for treating actual people differently, I was not. He has a strong moral distaste for certain historical positions, to which I pointed out if HBD is even slightly true, the downstream effect of his positions, would lead directly to the historical ideas he so loathes. He had never heard of HBD, and I didn't have the the necessary repository of information to give him an in depth highlight more than the surface level: Traits are inherited across different ethnic groups leading to a distribution between groups.
I wanted to attempt to fix that.
YoungAchamian
1mo ago
This is useful thank you! Low chance he'll actually read it my it's nice to have a repo of links.
YoungAchamian
1mo ago
Thanks! The names Charles Murray and Steven Sailor are the two I remember at the moment. Are you aware of any others?
YoungAchamian
1mo ago
Weird ask, but I got into a discussion with a friend, and the topic of HBD got brought up. Now I never really paid attention to it when it was discussed, here and the before and the before before. It just really wasn't interesting to me to dig into. But he has never heard of it and wants the studies that get cited by HBDers (He is more interested on population level differences and whether that means we should treat people differently).
I know around here it is approximately a stable-ish state, so would anyone drop some links from their old argument folders that I can pass along?
I'd disagree with the original poster that all state actions are definitionally violent. Like providing permits or ID cards. However the police are the agents of the state empowered to carry out it's monopoly on violence. The police do not issue you the ID card or the driver's license, that is done by different agents of the state that are not empowered with its monopoly on violence. All enforcement of the laws of a state by police are violent explicitly or implicitly and the job of the police is the fundamentally the enforcement of laws. What jobs done by the police do you think are non-violent?
More options
Context Copy link