aqouta
No bio...
Friends:
User ID: 75
aqouta
10mo ago
You're on the verge verge of understanding the importance of 2A to the people you described.
And yes, I don't want to tell lies. They chip away at an important part of myself.
aqouta
10mo ago
I've not seen these videos. I'm not totally sure how I'd feel about it, I suspect having a kid is going to change some of these feelings but I appear to lack the ick factor about having my likeness used to train AI. As for the soft core CP stuff? I'm overwhelmingly disgusted by pedophiles but I don't really think there is a way to prevent them from ever even seeing young children. I may still not like the idea of there being a lot of content on the open web about my future children but it's not really because pedos might find it.
Excellent write-up, I agree with much of it nearly exactly. Including liking but being perplexed by deBoer. It's like one of those What english sounds like to non-english speakers videos. The underlying tone and analytical thought is there but he somehow manages to sprinkle in some moral mutant level different values in so he ends up veering all over to places I wouldn't have gone.
aqouta
10mo ago
I'm afraid when I'm made to interact with nazis through words rather than bullets I have only realpolitik's at my disposal. They are moral mutants to me, much like AI is. The direction you're trying to get me to go for animals proves too much and I really don't see why it would be more convincing to an AI overlord whether or not I have hold some kind of non-hypocritical reason for why it should value human life while I don't value life of less sentient beings.
If the way we need to align AI such that it values human life is to give it a value system that also values the inner lives of cows and pigs then we should do that. But I can't stress enough how I don't think it works like that.
aqouta
10mo ago
Sure, it's not quite the definition I use, but I'll point out all definitions have problems like this because people genuinely differ on how wide of a scope they want "racism" to cover. I frankly just try not to use the word because it's heat strength outpaces any useful light application. Of course people have always sought to weild heat where ever it can be found.
aqouta
10mo ago
I worry a lot that people in spaces like this one get blinded by the aesthetics of intellectualism and academic rigor. But it's actually not very hard to use big words and phrase thing in empirical framings. It's not even that hard to do a literature search and find the one paper out of 5,000 that has some stats supporting your view which you can cite.
I'd probably be fine calling him a racist but this really is hinging on what your definition for racism is. It doesn't appear that he has a deep seated hatred or irrationality based on race and some people might reasonably require that. It's one of many reasons we should probably taboo our words more often. If we're determining whether to call him a racist because when we apply that label it means we'll engage with his ideas differently(or not at all) that seems like it's removing and not adding to our objectivity. If we're doing it because we want to have a neat taxology of who the racists are then I question the purpose.
I'm honestly really fine dismissing what he says because it's an anecdote and he seems like the kind of edgy person to exaggerate, hell I'm engaged and deeply in love with a "Hanoid" or whatever he called them. But I don't need to do this based on some weird label technically.
aqouta
10mo ago
Perhaps true but from the perspective of the progressive it's intolerable that any are oppressed and large gears are the mechanism by which they're able to crush oppressors. You can say they shouldn't but that's a values disagreement.
aqouta
10mo ago
Their Aryan loved ones have the same common humanity as the jews and the people of other nations. Maintaining the sacredness of humanity is a ward against other groups of people deciding to discount your people's humanity. It's a very strong schelling point.
aqouta
10mo ago
I understand exactly what you mean and I think it gets to the heart of a lot of modern knots we're in related to wanting to both not be mean/shame certain behaviors but also having effective sign posts for "this is pretty bad actually and you should dabble in moderation if at all". In this category are obesity(A couple pounds is not a big deal but dozens to hundreds is a catastrophe), porn, alcohol, drugs, gaming, vanity and even internet arguments. One must balance their indulgences.
do HBD advocates equally call for recognition of intra-racial HBD between classes, or does it stop at skin color? To put it bluntly: every single statistic that HBD advocates point to as reasons why Blacks are inferior seem to be as or more severely accurate of poor people. Under an HBD lens, why should I regard poor whites as allies or brothers or anything other than vermin?
I don't view blacks of vermin either and I wish people would stop putting this liable on me. Whether you hate those less blessed than you is your own prerogative. HBD is mainly talked about skincolor because it's used as weapon against racial spoils and the blood liable of systemic racism. If you want me to explain why the whites in trailer parks are there, I'll be more than happy to do so.
Blacks are inferior
This is not what HBD says. You can't short cut it, you must say the whole thing out, yes every time. Blacks in americans on average perform worse than white americans on average. There are Black americans smarter than nearly all white americans, they are just rarer white americans who are.
Why not a colorblind meritocracy, where those who fail are harshly cast out regardless of race?
Why not indeed? I can think of no reason and thus don't.
If I accept its moral bases
There is no moral basis. It is a theory, not an ideology, not prescription, not a behavior. You believe it or you don't. I will never understand, besides uncharitable status signaling reasons, why people who obviously believe in HBD refuse to admit to it.
aqouta
10mo ago
I think the question of politically feasibility of HBD
What does political feasibility of HBD even mean? It's not a policy it's a theory.
aqouta
10mo ago
All fine and good but what if you think some large institution is systemically violating grandma's rules by building airplanes with too narrow of seats? The rub is when demands are made of others and individuals are crushed by society's immense gears.
aqouta
10mo ago
Hey actually, to all animals you’re more evil than Hitler. Animal lives matter. Have you considered being not animal Uber-Hitler?
I flagged the premise as being smuggled in here and lodged my disagreement. I know it wasn't you who did it but that's the point where it needed to be proved.
Regardless, if you take the position of moral difference by default, how do you respond to the Nazi who says “There is a moral difference between gassing Aryans and gassing Jews”?
I would disagree with them on the basis that Jews and Aryans are both human and that human life is sacred. If I needed to ground out that human life is sacred I would say that I and all my loved ones are humans and I have a vested interest in their lives not being forfeit. If they were in power and planned on gassing Jews I would shoot them if able.
aqouta
10mo ago
This sounds strange and unlike most interactions I see on these forums, are you able to find a link?
aqouta
10mo ago
You're the one including the premise in your argument, it's on you to prove this, not me to prove the negative.
aqouta
10mo ago
I reject even putting it on the same scale. It implies what you then go on to exploit, that they are at all fungible - this would require some kind of argumentation.
aqouta
10mo ago
How would you prove that someone is in the wrong for assigning moral equivalence to chickens?
I wouldn't, it's none of my business what weird other people value unless they make it my business by attempting to impose their beliefs on me.
And supposing you value humans more due to our intelligence
Intelligence is an important but not the only reason I place moral weight on human life.
does that mean it is more ethical to make unintelligent humans suffer than intelligent ones
Marginally yes. And yes, as I know where you intend to go with this if you find a human with pig level intelligence then I'd barely consider them human and my opposition to their subjugation would primarily be aesthetic. A disgust of the type that causes me to oppose incest or bestialities that have been philosophically spherical cowed to cause no harm.
If instead you go the route of saying “I am arbitrarily drawing the line at humans because I am speciesist, but all other animals are fair game,” can’t someone else arbitrarily tighten that circle further and say “I am arbitrarily drawing the line at whites because I am racist, but all other humans and animals are fair game”?
People already do that with race and I oppose it. The arguments over what moral line we draw is a live debate and I don't find this line of reasoning any more convincing from vegans trying to get me to include nonhumans than from racists trying to get me to exclude Laotians or whomever.
Is there an argument that both allows you to ethically kill or factory farm animals for food, without also allowing someone else to ethically kill or factory farm animals for food?
I presume you meant one of these to say humans. And yes, the argument is that humans are not morally fungible with animals. Not one chicken, not ten chickens, not infinity chickens.
aqouta
10mo ago
I don't know anti-car people who want to totally abolish personal cars.
I had thought this was a totally made up demographic until I joined twitter. There are genuinely a surprising number of rabid people who are just as obnoxious as the most passionate vegan jihadist.
aqouta
10mo ago
Hey actually, to all animals you’re more evil than Hitler. Animal lives matter. Have you considered being not animal Uber-Hitler?
I mean there is a smuggled premise that animals have something like moral equivalence to humans. It's a kind of hack of empathy and personification that we don't like admitting that animals just don't have moral equivalence. It's the same instinct that makes you cringe when a doll's head is ripped off. Hitler was killing people who have moral equivalence to humans, the argument is much simpler.
aqouta
10mo ago
Maybe I just want to do things I actually enjoy? Never liked clubs of any sort least of all the stripper variant. And practically anything I'd want to do I'll be able to do in marriage as I've won the heart of someone who trusts me. The actual hard things to do in marriage, because I'm planning on kids(If all goes to plan one will be in the oven by 2025) is gong to be finding time with my friends who are now all over the US to spend a few days having no responsibility fun.
But then again I don't think you'd have to really worry about being dragged to my bachelor party.
aqouta
10mo ago
Let's review: It is common knowledge that some people here express anti-black animus. Indeed, this site prides itself, and rightfully so, in giving users the freedom to express such sentiments. Indeed, as I understand it, that was one of the reasons for leaving reddit.
HBD is not by definition animus to groups that on average perform worse. I tire of the refusal, despite frequent reminders, to acknowledge this by people who should know better. It has, once again, caused you to completely mischaracterize and misunderstand the position of people here. There is nothing at all about HBD that commits its believers to doubting Obama's competency.
aqouta
10mo ago
Discourse across the political spectrum given that the really contentious issues are not broached. Freedom to discuss only matters as far as you apply it to topics that make your blood boil and no, SSC did not have a solution for that.
aqouta
10mo ago
The alt right was a weird thing. When I first heard of it the term was already being applied to tons of what we now call heterodox content creators, especially in the area of gaming. At first glance I thought it was referring to a version of the right that was breaking with the religious fundamentalists and mostly just directly pushing back against what at the time were called SJWs. I don't think this interpretation from potential members on the ground was that unusual and I suspect genuine misidentification was probably leading to a lot of the hysteria that thought young men that just didn't like being scolded in a manner they felt unjust.
Look, we're not finding you some wide spread statistics on how well transwomen do in sports because this whole transgendered athlete concept didn't come out in force until yesterday and coincided with a global pandemic that shut down youth sports. We don't have historical data on how well transgendered kids did at sports because "transgendered kids" as a concept wasn't even widely known about and the idea that there'd be a kid who got gender affirming care and was interested in sports and was in a place that would actually have humored them was an empty set. It's an experiment that can only be done looking forward and it wouldn't even be without seismic shocks of confounders until they were allowed to compete for some time.
So we're using our experience in the world and our knowledge of male vs female anatomy to make some educated guesses. Testosterone exposure at any point in time seems like an escapable advantage. Nearly every developmental step males take away from females represents a physical fitness advantage. It would be larger than the difference of taking steroids.
I can't show you data because it doesn't exist and won't exist in any usable form for some time. But what is your actual confidence here? What odds would you place against "Natal males who at least went partially through puberty have an advantage over natal females who underwent normal puberty all other factors(diet, training regimen, genetic twins) held equal"? I can't actually believe you would get that less than 95% odds of being true.
More options
Context Copy link