boringusername69
No bio...
User ID: 1857
boringusername69
1yr ago
Yes, this nic was apparently bad only after I called the mods out on tolerating ilovenonasianminorities69, but banning bigdickpepe1488. I missed it because your message was sent on thanksgiving. Sorry about that.
Noted that you are unable to find a single comparable case of prosecutors letting white criminals get away with the kind of thing they routinely let black criminals get away with. But we definitely have "equal treatment".
Segregation and "unequal treatment" (we have equal treatment now?
Yes.
Lets play dueling anecdotes.
My turn: black attacker, elderly asian victim, racial slurs used, charges dropped.
Your turn: white attacker, elderly black victim, racial slurs used, charges dropped.
boringusername69
2yr ago
I think the cover ups are a more general phenomenon. There's a reason why LGBT-friendly school districts and the Catholic church react in similar ways to a sex scandal
I do not disagree with this. Though I will suggest there is one big difference - the Catholic church hadn't developed the memeplex to get ordinary churchgoers to ignore it as "Protestant misinformation" or whatever. Unlike modern leftists, they were pretty horrified.
If people want to use the Loudon case to speak against censorship, then they go with my blessing.
I used it as an example of how you can have a very small number of gay tranny pedos but a much larger number of people involved in the conspiracy to cover up their actions. I believe the old time feminists characterized this as "rape culture".
boringusername69
2yr ago
It’s not too horrible to allow. It’s too much of a drive-by.
And yet the mods don't seem to have much problem with my current handle. It's just as much a drive by, but from the opposite direction.
If you want to argue something,
I don't. I just chose the handle because I was amused by the contrast between bigdickpepe1488 and the actual discussions I'm likely to have here (which you can find if you look up the handle, it wasn't deleted).
boringusername69
2yr ago
Recall that I'm responding to this:
a coordinated effort by millions of gay adults and teachers and community-leaders to manipulate children into acting trans and gay and then have sex with them?
The point here is that the millions don't want to have sex with children but will participate in the cover up of child rapes anyway, at various levels.
At most thousands, probably less: people who actually want gay sex with trans children and will act on this.
Hundreds of thousands: Administrators/teachers/community-leaders/"journalists" who will cover up the rapes, or if they are publicized minimize them and make it socially and economically perilous to advocate for stopping them. These are the Loudon county school board folks who use violence against the father of a rape victim and directly cover things up. They are also the reddit/twitter mods who suppress the story, and the journalists who dowplay it when they grudgingly cover it.
Millions: regular folks who pay not very close attention to NYT/MSNBC and are happy to attribute politically inconvenient facts to Russian misinformation or whatever.
This doesn't seem like the typical example people think of, when they think of the dangers of transwomen in women's bathrooms.
Perhaps Loudon county schools should have made that case instead of using violence (perpetrated by police) against the father of a crime victim.
boringusername69
2yr ago
Certainly not. There's a coordinated effort by a very small number to do this. Think of them as the inner party.
There's an outer party - larger in number - who are happy to get positions of petty power where they push ideologically compliant stories and occasionally hide truthful information that might harm the party. Think: all the journalists/content moderators happy to hide what Kiwifarms/libsoftiktok/NY Post want to reveal, regardless of it's truth. As another example, consider the case of Loudon County covering up a rape because it was done by a transwoman, or the police covering up hundreds of rapes in the UK.
Most of these folks would certainly never rape children. But even if a few leftist drag queens do want to rape children, it's an isolated incident and it's best to cover it up to avoid getting conservatives elected.
And there's a much larger group of folks who believe whatever MSNBC and the NYT tells them, and also believe that if it isn't on MSNBC it didn't happen. These folks can be forgiven for not noticing the small correction the NYT made that Trump supporters never killed anyone on Jan 6, or the line casually buried in the 8'th paragraph that hate crimes the police solve in NYC almost never fit the stereotype of a right wing white guy. If it were important, it'd be on the front page, right?
boringusername69
2yr ago
Is the NBA and the USA bad for expecting their guests to conform to rigid American social norms? Or are you merely appealing to American cultural imperialism, "gays good islam bad"?
If you do not want people in your country who do not conform to the rigid social taboos of your culture, you shouldn't host the World Cup.
On the contrary, FIFA - owners of the world cup - disagree with you.
Qatar was always clear about what they want - no gays, jews, beer drinkers or other (to them) degeneracy. They asked FIFA for this and FIFA voluntarily gave it to them. They made the rules to visit them quite clear. So really, if you don't agree with the values of Qatar/FIFA, you shouldn't go to the world cup.
An equivalent might be showing up to a global sporting event in the US - say an NBA game - wearing a "1488 SS :swastika:" armband or the Islamic "death to Jews" equivalent. Or perhaps even something utterly innocuous elsewhere in the world, such as the word "nigger". If America and the NBA invited the world, this should be totally cool, right?
(Note that even this forum considers "1488" to be too horrible to allow. I originally started posting here using the handle "bigdickpepe1488" but was told by the mods that I need to change it, hence my current handle.)
boringusername69
2yr ago
This is confusing. Women are more risk-averse and place a higher value on safety, but at the same time they are advocating for violent criminals and random foreigners.
I briefly worked with a woman who quite vocally (in meetings about spreadsheets) would opine about this sort of thing. When the pandemic hit she moved to one of her parent's vacation houses in Aspen Vineyard Beach. She complained vocally about how the vacation house wasn't big enough for her + her husband to WFH.
She had great sympathy for all the BLM rioters in the place she fled from.
Recall that when people of her social strata faced the prospect of 50 or so illegal immigrants in their town, Biden sent 100 soldiers to take them away. Women's risk aversion is irrelevant because PMC women are not at risk.
boringusername69
2yr ago
I agree that on net vibrators cause more orgasms than they prevent. The same is true of porn, however it is far from clear that coomers are better off than chads in spite of having more orgasms. My general thesis is that a non-trivial fraction of women have, thanks to the social acceptability of vibes, become a female analog of coomers. To be clear, the analogue is not exact - women are different than men. Female achievement is not the product of sublimated sexual desire as it is with men. A female coomer will be more functional than a male one.
And I very much have no idea on the net benefit/loss.
I'll also suggest that centering female sexual satisfaction on orgasms is a mistake. One personal experience: went on vacation with someone and due to a luggage snafu she didn't have her vibrator. After about a week she told me sex was better without it in spite of orgasming only a fraction of the time, and she certainly wanted it more. Some years later I ran into her again and she related that the experience prompted her to give up vibrators when in a relationship. Almost a female version of the coomer gives up porn and finds a girlfriend story.
boringusername69
2yr ago
keeping in mind that many women can't really orgasm without a vibe,
I question how true this would be in the absence of pervasive vibrators. Just as overuse of masturbation reduces men's sensitivity, it does the same to women. I've known a few women who absolutely can have orgasms without any mechanical assistance, but only if they give up the vibrator for the prior week.
boringusername69
2yr ago
What about the countless hundreds of people who committed basic fraud with mortgage transfers and bundling before and during the finance crises of 2007 onwards?
The vast majority of the fraud happening at that time was done not by evil vampire squids and CEOs, but by parties with full political and media support: ordinary Americans who bought more house than they could afford. The other major party involved was mortgage brokers who colluded with ordinary Americans. "Don't worry, they don't check this. Just say you make $X."
boringusername69
2yr ago
I could be mischaracterizing eigenrobot. He struck me as the sort of person who would be comfortable in far right spaces such as this one.
boringusername69
2yr ago
Ambushing her friend is the most recent.
Prior to that was (as per her beliefs) letting people die by not warning them about COVID cause she didn't want her Vox buddies to think she wasn't cool. (This was back when journalists were calling techbros racist for worrying about the China virus.)
boringusername69
2yr ago
I believe that progressives will say they are universalists if you explicitly ask them and their answer has no consequence beyond emotional.
However I believe that in terms of either money donations or choice of causes to give attention to, progressives are not. Many EAs are, however.
boringusername69
2yr ago
EA reverses normal concentric loyalties and therefore it's bad. Normally it goes family -> friends -> acquaintances -> locals -> nationals -> etc...EA, like progressives, say this is bad and that actually a random African is worth as much as your neighbour.
I don't think progressives do this. They simply put certain tribal loyalties higher than those a conservative might. Unlike EA, progressives value the life of a single American black criminal far more than they value of thousands of black Ugandan children.
boringusername69
2yr ago
But it's not clear how related these are to this specific failure,
The relation is the following. SBF specifically is the top "sociopath" in Eigenrobot's telling. He has become one of the most visible public faces of EA, and has personally donated a substantial fraction of money to EA-umbrella causes. Moreover, there are many such sociopaths in the community; Kelsey Piper is another very visible one.
The critique here is that folks like SBF are funding causes like the Clinton Foundation and "TRUMPLOSE" and this is guiding EA-the-movement.
FTX could likely have collapsed even if SBF was a techno-libertarian. But I'm starting a discussion about EA-the-movement, not FTX.
The underlying core of EA remains: it's a set of mathematic principles, not a set of people. To the extent I would have once trusted CEA, GiveWell, or OpenPhilanthropy's assessments of a given charity at one point, I don't anymore, but even when I trusted them it was worth checking.
EA is both a movement/principle and also a community. I'm personally very aligned with the principle. But I'm wondering if the movement still aligns with that principle, both in terms of current activities (which they mostly do, but proportionally less than before) as well as future activities guided by the current zeitgeist.
boringusername69
2yr ago
I think my objection is a bit different from yours. I actually want the old EA back - the one that would make a spreadsheet, honestly attempt to evaluate criminal justice reform, and then say "sorry we don't like cause B1:B/C1:C -> sort put it at the bottom".
And now they're "when we told you to forget your suffering neighbours in favour of the malaria-stricken children in Africa, now we're forgetting the malaria-stricken children in Africa because AI RISK!!!!"
Assuming you think AI risk is real, why is this anything other than absolutely the right thing to do?
And before you jump in with "that's uncharitable", there were plenty arguing that donating to actual suffering going on right now in the world was stupid because if you saved your money and invested it, you could help so many more people in the future. That the future never comes,
This is a very bad criticism of EAs who actually use spreadsheets. It's like saying "because some growth companies are getting 2x growth yearly, no company should ever do share buybacks." But the reasoning fails once you actually encode it in a spreadsheet - once the gains from consumption exceed the future projected gains from investment, you stop investing and spend.
...so you end up with a growing heap of money 'to help those in need' that somehow never gets given to those in need.
Um, that is very much not what has happened with any EA org yet. I think you're describing college endowments.
Your disagreement with EA and mine are quite different. I don't object to EA because it's weird and non-mainstream, or because spreadsheets lead to different results than zeitgeist informed intuition. I think that's what is right about older EA. My lament is that the visible people claiming the title of EA seem to have mostly given that up.
I am not lamenting that I hate EA and always have because "ugh weirdos in fedoras". My lament is that I liked it before it became cool.
boringusername69
2yr ago
California HSR is LA->SF, that is close enough to 100% of the economic value. Failing to serve central valley residents is entirely irrelevant.
Plus, transit brings development. It might be the case that people currently live on rt 99, but once transit to places that matter becomes available, folks may choose to live near it. This is literally what happens in China: they build a subway stop in an empty field and a few years later it's a walkable mass of 20 story mixed use buildings. Then again, China has legalized the construction of 20 story mixed use buildings, unlike California.
boringusername69
2yr ago
"I liked it before it was cool."
This is a phrase typically associated to hipsters and the mainstream bands they still love, but I'm now starting to think the idea has some merit. I liked EA before it was cool.
It just makes sense to take an abstract principle ("black lives matter"), a set of causes, put them into a spreadsheet and sort by (black lives saved)/(dollars spent). Maybe that works for me because to borrow a phrase from Scott, I'm a regional manager of playing with tiny numbers in spreadsheets. Or jupyter notebooks, but whatever. I liked EA before it was cool.
But now? I'm not really sure I like the current EA movement much. Just today, a far left and a far right substack I read both converged on the idea that it has been captured by the mainstream.
To the extent that money—real money—flows from such people, EA priorities will inexorably align with what they want, and anyone who resists this will be pushed out. You have data? That’s swell. Donors are how charitable organizations make payroll. You want to stop malaria on the grounds of maximum impact per dollar spent? Actually, this week the hot thing is criminal justice reform in a first world country—why don’t you go rationalize that cause for us?
https://eigenrobot.substack.com/p/effective-altruism-and-its-future
Rich people are using their connections with EA and other forms of philanthropy, real or chimerical to try and prop up their own position, and, implicitly or deliberately, the position of others like them. Critiques of billionaire philanthropy, its tax, reputational and political dimensions, have, at this point, been done to death.
https://philosophybear.substack.com/p/sbf-ftx-ea-and-lt-my-reflections
I guess the example of the latter he's probably not hinting at is SBF's "effective" investment in "TRUMPLOSE".
I can't see any plausible case this is "effective", but it's certainly the position of the rich.
For those in this community who are closer to the movements, what do you guys think is the current state of EA? It's clearly not just a bunch of weird nerds who discovered mosquito nets in uganda >> mental health for suburban teenagers anymore. But does that original core remain? Has it moved someplace new?
boringusername69
2yr ago
Violence. You're describing a violent ideology.
(Former bigdickpepe1488 here.)
Many ideologies advocate violence. Should we also ban usernames such as "bigtitsactblue" or "BLMPawg" on the grounds that the mainstream American left has actual literal militias threatening political opponents with violence and murdering people in the past few years?
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1592288152471109633?cxt=HHwWgoDUwe3o-JgsAAAA https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1592073976180019200?cxt=HHwWgMDU5ZO2l5gsAAAA https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/feb/17/blm-louisville-defends-bailing-out-activist-assass/ https://fox11online.com/on-fox-11/pofficers-shot-at-protest-in-dallas-reports
Amusingly, the perpetrator of the one recent attempt at right wing violence also has the flag of leftist militias on his house.
I did not argue that Jews are all terrible and guilty of all injustice. I asked about probability theory. A couple of months ago I expressed an opinion about Jeff Bezos's Generic Female Lead Beats up Orcs With Character Names Borrowed From Tolkien.
Murdering a black man: life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Murder while black: receive the maximum sentences for a lesser crime that the prosecutors gave them the option of pleading guilty to. No possibility of prison time but a few years in "youth care".
If you think that's comparable, I don't know what to tell you.
More options
Context Copy link