campfireSmores
No bio...
User ID: 539
These are extremely rare
The rate of serious problems is debated. For instance, Intactivists say stuff like this
"Study design has an effect on the estimation of complication rates. Prospective studies, in which complications are tracked going forward from the circumcision via follow-up examinations, theoretically should capture the incidence of complications most accurately.[11] On the other hand, retrospective studies typically rely on a review of patient charts, a form of data that was recorded for a purpose other than research. Inaccuracies in the medical record (e.g. the not uncommon possibility that the complication was not charted in the first place) tend to lead to underestimation of complication incidence.[12] Even less reliable are retrospective database studies which can only capture events that have had an actual diagnostic or procedure code listed upon discharge.[E.g. 13] It has been estimated that database studies may miss up to 90-95% of complications.[14]"
I do not believe you can demonstrate a significant difference in population-level outcomes.
There are some studies showing a significant difference. Here's a list:
https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/psychological-impact/
Autism is 5 times more prevalent in the United States than in Europe, some people think MGM might have something to do with it.
We used to perform other surgeries on babies without anesthetic, do you think that had a long term effect on their psychologies? From Wikipedia: "It is now accepted that the neonate responds more extensively to pain than the adult does, and that exposure to severe pain, without adequate treatment, can have long-term consequences." Do you think science is just generally wrong about this? It seems to me like the idea that torturing babies has long term psychological consequences is just obviously what we should predict based on priors. Are you really skeptical?
There are a lot of Jews who do a religious ritual called the Brit Shalom instead. Religions give up stuff all the time; I think the transition would be easier than you imagine. What percentage of Mormons still practice polygamy? Catholics no longer say that people who commit suicide go to hell. Etc etc etc.
What does it mean to care about this issue but not care about human rights? I care about making the world a better place, and ending infant circumcision would do that.
People should get in the habit of solving coordination problems. Yudkowsky, dath ilan, etcetera. The "weirdness points" thing is a coordination problem.
Well there are other ways to hurt a brain besides lowering IQ. Neuroticism, Autism, etcetera.
What arguments do you speak of? What about them do you find unpersuasive?
Well this seems like a good time to do the standard rationalist technique "what evidence could convince you otherwise".
What evidence could convince you that infant circumcision reduces sexual pleasure?
Because it seems to me like once you understand what the foreskin does and how sex is different without it, how could it not?
Let's talk about infant male circumcision. Common in the United States, considered beastly in most European countries. But they don't spend much time criticizing the United States about it, perhaps due to fear of being called anti-semitic.
Reasons not to do it:
The foreskin has functions
Bad for the infant's brain due to inadequate aenesthesia
Complications ranging from meatal stenosis to more grisly and life-changing outcomes
Etc etc
Anyway, besides just introducing a topic I believe is underdiscussed both on the Motte and in general, my questions are this:
How do you rate the importance of this issue relative to commonly discussed culture war stuff? If it is true that circumcision is a serious violation akin to rape, then it seems very very important.
and
Does anyone on this board support routine infant circumcision, or is this thread just going to be full of a lot of devil's advocate stuff?
ultra-hardcore Taiwanese nationalists
There's something to be said for using nukes. Game theory. I'm sleepy, but using game theoretic deterrents are kind of rational, I think. Maybe, I need to read up on that.
Why?
Possible solution: Say "I'm pretty sure X will happen. Let's say 80% sure." Sounds very unassuming that way.
I see a lot of people get indicted and convincted for simple words, stuff that would be obviously and uncontroversally protected speech in the US. That bothers me.
There are other things. Banning homeschooling, banning yawaras, etc.
Elon didn't walk back his twitter purchase out of bipolarity, he did it because his net worth crashed when the tech stocks did. No mental illness required as an explanation.
In my opinion.
It's not easy to think of an IP that's buyable that has nearly as much pull as lord of the rings. Almost everything famous is owned by someone that doesn't want to sell it. Amazon already acquired MGM for 8.5 billion dollars (the James Bond owners), so there's that.
And Netflix is in the same boat as Amazon with regards to "Oh shit we don't own enough IP, what can we buy/license" so they're going to be bidding against each other.
The only big one I can think of that isn't already outright owned by someone who is making full use of it and therefore probably won't license it is Godzilla.
Smaller ones:
Popeye
Starship Troopers (the novel)
Robocop (which Amazon now owns through the MGM deal)
I think an adaptation of Stand Still Stay Silent or Bad Machinery would be cool. Two webcomics.
I try to care about artistic merit and not intellectual property/license/brand. But I do think some Nintendo movies would be cool. Nintendo's probably already got their course plotted out with Illumination though. There's probably some other videogames from other corporations that might be worth licensing.
Magnolia is my favorite Cruise performance.
Are you talking about indie games or AAA games? Because both seem to be doing fine to me. Some AAA games are unispired, but not all.
There are still good movies in theaters. There are even still good American movies. Watch stuff like Pig or I'm Thinking of Ending Things or whatever instead of stuff movie studios spent a billion dollars on.
I think there are reasons not to make a lotr show at all. Politics, IP rights issues, Game of Thrones ending poorly, lotr being an inherently difficult property to work with because of its focus on the ineffable and deep lore, etc.
Bezos's 2016 letter to shareholders:
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/2016-letter-to-shareholders (read the whole thing, it's interesting)
On the subject of "Escalate and Disagree"
"This isn’t one way. If you’re the boss, you should do this too. I disagree and commit all the time. We recently greenlit a particular Amazon Studios original. I told the team my view: debatable whether it would be interesting enough, complicated to produce, the business terms aren’t that good, and we have lots of other opportunities. They had a completely different opinion and wanted to go ahead. I wrote back right away with “I disagree and commit and hope it becomes the most watched thing we’ve ever made.” Consider how much slower this decision cycle would have been if the team had actually had to convince me rather than simply get my commitment.
Note what this example is not: it’s not me thinking to myself “well, these guys are wrong and missing the point, but this isn’t worth me chasing.” It’s a genuine disagreement of opinion, a candid expression of my view, a chance for the team to weigh my view, and a quick, sincere commitment to go their way. And given that this team has already brought home 11 Emmys, 6 Golden Globes, and 3 Oscars, I’m just glad they let me in the room at all!"
I like to imagine that Bezos understood the difficulties inherent in this project. Or at least some of them. Maybe I'll write a Bezos fanfic one day.
Also: whether or not to make a LotR TV show sounds like a decision for a prediction market to make. "Conditional on us making a LotR TV show, will it be a success?"
Additional discussion topic: what IP-driven tv show should Amazon have made instead?
My thoughts exactly.
One factor that should be acknowledged is that "We are alone. We are not represented anywhere" is a painful thought to have.
Even Osama's kids watched Detective Conan and Batman cartoons, let's not forget.
I think China not meddling (except for all the times it does) is a pragmatic thing, and that the policy would change if circumstances changed enough.
His/her wife is Russian, and it seems like she was leading the operation. She even had to overcome some hesitancies from the officer, apparently.
Truly a sinister people, those Russians! (jk)
As long as an employee doesn't go beyond the allotted number of sick days, is it that big a deal to the employer what they use them for? Is it worse for the employer than calling in sick when not actually sick, something Americans have done since who-knows-when?
I don't think I've ever called in sick just because I wanted a day off, but it seems to be not such a shameful thing in our culture. Is this worse (for the employer) than that?
Next time you're masturbating, pay attention to what parts are sensitive and what parts aren't. I think you'll find that only the circumcision scar and everything below it are sensitive.
I don't think the hyper-progressive coalition was saying it would be terrible if Elon Musk didn't buy twitter. Only that the way he was trying to get out of it was dishonest.
More options
Context Copy link