@cjet79's banner p

cjet79


				

				

				
11 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 04 19:49:03 UTC

Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds

Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds

Verified Email

				

User ID: 124

cjet79


				
				
				

				
11 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 04 19:49:03 UTC

					

Anarcho Capitalist on moral grounds

Libertarian Minarchist on economic grounds


					

User ID: 124

Verified Email

@ZorbaTHut looked into it a few hours ago:

odd. it seemed like a memory leak, so I've rebooted it, and it's not coming up. trying to figure out what's up

alright, I think it was just a rapid increase in bot traffic for some reason. I've done some stuff to fight the bots back, and while it's not perfect, it does seem improved

I'm not conservative so maybe you aren't counting me among the responses you read, but I wouldn't fit in either of those categories.

I think people are allowed to be ugly imperfect beings within private spaces, because we already have a great deal of "public" spaces and the judgement within those public spaces is already very harsh.

Politicians and political actors need to be good about distinguishing between private and public spaces.

The Charlie Kirk situation seems totally different then this one or the Jay Jones one. The outrage there is about leftists making public comments of glee or happiness at the man's death. These aren't leaked conversations, its people posting it widely on social media, or saying it on a TV show.

The Jay Jones situation is comparable. And I think the democratic machine mostly did the correct thing and the republicans should have done it too: just entirely ignore this and pretend it didn't happen.

Which is a norm I'd kindly suggest everyone adopt: ignore all leaked private conversations. At a minimum, know that the leaker or publisher of the leaks is an asshole. The reason I'd suggest this norm is that society with zero privacy in communications is awful for everyone. And incentivizing leaks is going down the road of zero private communications.

What is your threshold for being convinced? If you don't have one that's fine, that saves me even more time.

So two adults coordinating a child porn ring is acceptable as long as it's done in private? Might need to walk back your literally nothing claim here.

I italicized "said" for a very specific reason. Plenty of things you can do that are unacceptable behavior. But the doing is the bad part not the saying. And ya you can larp being pedos in your own private time. As long as you don't do it why should I care?

I'm sorry, but if you're in such a world where you genuinely believe that every man jokes this way and anyone who doesn't is just a liar, it says a lot more about you and the people you hang out with in your dark matter world than about men in general.

This "world" I'm living in is also called TheMotte. Every other comment here is agreeing with me. I don't think it is literally every man, but it's close. Similar to the percentage of men that jerk off to porn. Sorry if that is also a revelation to you.

This type of defense is truly incredible just as a concept though. Like it's literally "Yes all men!" but as an endorsement, it comes off as a lack of imagination and theory of mind.

I don't think I'm the one lacking in theory of mind. Everyone here is telling you this is a common experience and your response has basically been 'no way!' how many people would you need to hear it from to believe us? I can find you clips of famous people talking about it, but unless you pre-commit to some threshold that would change your mind I'm sure you'll just find new reasons to dismiss that evidence.

Ha, ya the military is often the Pinnacle of male bonding rituals. I'm sure any given barracks regularly has the most heinous shit said in it.

I knew more leftists growing up than righties. They absolutely had these places. One of the most leftist people I knew in highschool was a Jewish guy and he had all of the best Holocaust jokes.

I know fewer super lefties today. But the moderate democrat dads I know are still willing to sling around the wild stuff in private conversations.

To be clear, is support of Hitler acceptable from politicians and staffers or is it not? If supporting Hitler is acceptable when done in private conversations, then what behavior if any is unacceptable to you?

It is absolutely unacceptable and abhorrent behavior to leak private group chats. See, I have standards!

In my opinion there is literally nothing that can be said between two consenting adults in a private conversation that I would consider unacceptable behavior.

When I was in middle school and highschool kids around me would make dead baby jokes, Holocaust / gas chamber jokes, they'd say all racial slurs, and they'd talk about fucking each other's mothers and sisters.

I think you missed the part above where I said this is lame because of how tame it is. These people are nerds. And the only thing I find lamer is pretending that this is horrible as a way to score political points.

Of course some Republican dude condemned them. As I said above they should resign for failing to distinguish between a private and public space.


You seem really stuck on the Hitler thing. But I clearly was talking in general terms about many different ways we can be terrible human beings.

My assumptions for someone that says they have not experienced this kind of bonding:

  1. They are female
  2. They are autistic
  3. They have no intrusive thoughts
  4. They are lying

It's fine if you are 1-3. You'll just have to trust me when I say that these conversations take place all the time. I'm 100% certain that you know a man who has had a "say horrible things" conversation within the last month. I'm decently certain (80%) based on your comments that none of these men would be stupid enough to admit it to you, so you'll never know who they are.

I googled myself in 2009 when I was a senior in highschool and the fourth result that came up was me on a Facebook post saying that a movie was stupid. In a group that I thought was private.

That was when I scrubbed what I could of old posts from Facebook and elsewhere that had my name attached. I started using reddit more instead to comment. But even on reddit I had it in the back of my mind that my username might be linked to my real name at some point.

Something in society has been damaged from everyone living in the panopticon. I don't even know what it is, because it has been this way my entire adult life. I do know that the way most people cope is by making the private spaces as different as they can.

Anyone leaking private space conversations is always the asshole. I try not to change my opinion of the victim of the leak, but that's not always doable.

I have not, I'll look into it, thanks for the recommendation.

This is in fact lame

I know discord chats. I know signal chatrooms. I know locker room joking. I can't help but roll my eyes at this, and I probably agree with Vance the most that it is Pearl Clutching. I'd also agree with Hanania that for a private group chat this is tame (and I'd go further and say that it is in fact kind of lame for how tame it is).

There are public spaces and there are private spaces. In public spaces you should expect hostile audiences and for people to take your words seriously. You better say what you mean and mean what you say, because you be held to account. In private spaces ... well we aren't actually robots capable of perfect emotional control all the time. Sometimes you want to blow off steam, or say ridiculous things you don't mean, or exaggerate for a joke. Or god forbid, the worst of all, have a friendly audience reading and interpreting your thoughts.

I understand trying to use whatever ammo you get against your political opponents. I just can't imagine any scenario where I'd condemn my political allies for this kind of leaked chat group. Especially one with younger professionals. God forbid I ever get judged for the things I have said in private spaces.

Making friends 101

I've had a mostly tame internet life because around 2009 I started considering everything I typed and wrote online to be public, even when written under a pseudonym. I try to write things that I am willing to attach to my name and identity. I do not have the same rules for spoken conversation or private group messaging. If you have not said things in private conversations that would get you pilloried and lampooned in public then I would submit that you have no real friends. Its a trust exercise. Say heinous crap, get a laugh, then they say heinous crap back. Or if its not funny, you still say heinous crap back because its a sign of trust in a society where certain opinions can get you "cancelled". Even if its your real opinion and your real opinion sucks and I hate it and think its evil, I can signal that I'm a real friend by being like "ok im not gonna hold that shit opinion against you".

And why the hell am I explaining all of this? Is everyone else just pretending this is not how the world works while we put on a public facade of 'oh yes this is so terrible, how could anyone ever say this'? Or is it genuinely secret knowledge to people about how to make friends and socialize? If its the former, drop it, we don't need to lie about the world here. If its the latter ... I'm sorry I don't mean to be harsh. But try something for me ... go nurse some beers at a bar. Try and find a lonely guy to talk with. One hour into the conversation start making it clear that you are something absolutely reprehensible. A nazi, a closet racist, a former criminal, etc. As long as it is not something directly antagonistic to the guy you are speaking with (can't be a racist to a black guy, that is hard mode and you can try it next time) they will mostly shrug it off and proceed to tell you something equally reprehensible about themselves. It can sometimes accidentally turn into a one-upmanship of "im the worst human ever". I was drunk enough to type up an example of what me and one of my friends do in the "worst human ever" one-upmanship game. But that violates my other rule of treating this like a public space.

As always I can test my acceptance of this by how I'd respond to people of different viewpoints saying this shit. And I remember "oh yeah I lived with a guy who was kinda communist". He definitely joked that me and my libertarian self would be one of the first ones up against the wall when the revolution came. I have another person I knew that is now a mayor in a small Pennsylvania town. I have video of him petting an endangered species (manatee), and saying the n-word just to get a rise out of another person on the trip we were on (I might have that on video as well). I like him more for having done those things. But I actually strongly dislike the guy. If he had not done those things in front of me, but I had evidence of him doing it, I'd probably happilly release those things.


Someone failed the trust test, or just didn't want to be a part of it all anyways. All the people that got caught saying heinous shit should resign, but mostly because they failed in the judgement test between a private and public space. Probably one of the most important social skills to have if you are a politician. This whole incident says little else.

Working on a new project. There is an old out of print book about my family. "The [family name] and their kin". Old copies run for a hundred or more dollars on Amazon.

There is a free scanned version of the book too, but the scan isn't great quality. Adobe was able to figure out most of the words, but there are some glaring mistakes. Typically a mistake every 50 words or so, which is far too common.

I'd like to do a reprint. I just attended the annual meeting of the "[family name] society" and there was interest from everyone there in getting a new hard copy.

I've been copying and pasting the text from the PDF into a grok window and having it make corrections, re-italisize, and de-format the text. Might be another 20 hours to get it all converted.

I've looked up some print options as well and think with about a hundred copies I could get per book costs to $15-30. Depending on options I select. Color / hard back / images / etc.

Some Benefits:

  1. People can be guilty of two crimes when they don't pay taxes: not paying the taxes, and lying about the amount of taxes owed. Which also makes it easier to catch criminals who are making lots of money illegally. (Al Capone Argument)
  2. Its only hard to pay taxes if you are trying to maximize the amount you are not paying. You can very easily give the maximum amount you suspect you owe, and if you are wrong the government will send you a reimbursement for taxes you overpaid. (Kennedy, do your part argument)
  3. Special interests can be given special and hard to follow exemptions that are only meant for them, and require a bunch of hoops to claim. You can then write off those estimated tax costs as something you did for the consumer while not having those full costs get reflected in the actual budget. (Cynical jack ass argument)

There are more special interests that benefit from complex tax systems than just H&R block.

I have been absolutely addicted to the song "Golden" from k-pop demon hunters on Netflix.

I'm not the only one, apparently it's a huge chart topper.

The story of the lead vocalist is pretty fascinating. She was part of some k-pop training academy but they never launched her career cuz she was "too old" 7 years ago. She left them and went into composing songs. She was good at that, got some of her songs picked up by other famous k-pop groups and then got tapped to write the songs for the k-pop demon hunters movie. Well she was demoing the songs for the studio, and they thought "you sound great" so she got the lead role. Now she is the biggest (maybe second biggest) k-pop star ever.

The group just recently did their first live performance on jimmy Kimmel.

Nah, he hated central banks and had a huge wheel of cheese in the Whitehouse on his inauguration. One of the coolest presidents.

The Waffles article is a reminder of how much I hate interacting with other parts of the internet.

Its a writing style that consists almost entirely of assigning the worst possible terms you can get away with to people you don't like. "Fascist", "race scientist", "shit-head", "racist", "white supremacist", etc. No regard for truth value, just pure culture warring and mud slinging.

I barely learned anything reading the article. There was about one paragraph of content explaining something that happened and then like 30 paragraphs of name-calling. That half paragraph that is most useful is here so no one else has to visit that link:

A little while back, Bluesky CEO Jay Graber approvingly tweeted a post by Jerry Chen about a person bursting into a Waffle House and shouting "oh, so you hate pancakes?". In the replies, someone asked her why she'd not yet banned notorious transphobe, fascist and serial instigator of harassment campaigns Jesse Singal from the platform, to which she replied with only "Waffles!".

Even in those two sentences she couldn't help but throw out some names.


I have to wonder if part of this writing style is a leftover problem of "micro" blogging platforms like twitter. In isolation you might believe those things about Jesse Singal, and it would be very useful to learn that thing. So a tweet saying that would get boosted up and retweeted.

But when its paragraph after paragraph of everyone being called a fascist, or some other thing that is the worst thing a progressive liberal can think about someone. You can't help but notice that this writer thinks everyone is a terrible awful no good human piece of garbage. And suddenly the information content collapses from "this person she is speaking about is really really bad" to just "she doesn't like this person, and everything she says about anyone is suspect".

It also highlights why some of Scott Alexander's takedowns of people are so damn effective and brutal. He will spend a lot of writing space saying many nice things about people that seem objectively bad. And then he will end by saying something slightly not nice about one person, and you come away thinking "damn that person must be the worst piece of shit ever".

If your default is to be nice, kind, and charitable to everyone, then if you ever need to stray from that default and say bad things about someone we know you really mean it. If your default is to insult everyone you just look like a misanthrope.

This is what was so concerning about Islamic terror attacks in the early 2000's. It was a group of people willing to think rationally about killing and causing a bunch of damage. They used box cutters and a few flying lessons to kill thousands of people in a day and cause massive damage in New York City.

I do remember people trying to war game potential avenues for future terrorist attacks where there might be low hanging fruit. It quickly got depressing. The Western world mostly functions and operates on the assumption that everyone is not trying to cause massive damage and death to those around them. The water supply, electric grids, transportation infrastructure, etc are all vulnerable to determined saboteurs. Massive crowds of people in unsecured areas are common in every city every day. Explosives materials are monitored, but anyone can walk up to a gas station and buy a fire accelerant with cash.

As Ulyssessword pointed out, licensing boards often have their powers constrained and limited by the state.

There is a bargain happening here. Licensing boards get to borrow some of the power of the state to create and have the state enforce semi-monopolistic characteristics in their industry. But in taking that bargain they are in turn subject to the whims of the state that has granted them power.

When you are acting as an individual you have rights. When you are acting as an agent of the state you have constraints.

I'd be fine if the state licensing board for these therapies said "screw this, we are disbanding". That is fully an option for them. But they'd lose a lot of the benefits that they get being under the aegis of the state. Especially tie ins with insurance, both their own malpractice insurance, and medical insurance that pays for these therapies.

"Is talk therapy medicine?" seems like a very easy question to answer.

Is it licensed and regulated by a state or federal level medical board? If yes then it's medicine, if not then it's just speech.

The constitution was a political document. The distinction you are making seems meaningless to me.

I'd describe the divide on preferred gun policy or preferred speech rights in the same way.

I don't read Twitter. Patton Oswalt's comments got picked up off Twitter space, that's how I know about them.

The kid in the incident successfully sued/settled with two news agencies over how irresponsible they were in reporting on this.

A comment below compared this to enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. I actually had the same thought, and wanted to expand on it.

Lets get this out of the way first: I don't think they are morally equivalent, escaping human slavery is not the same as escaping a crappy country. Being sent back to a crappy country is not the same as being sent back to a crappy country.

Where they are similar is in the political situation at hand. The fugitive slave act was meant to bring a recalcitrant north in line with the south's slavery policies. Now the divide is more between cities and rural, and the different policy preference is on immigration levels. In both cases local enforcement is needed everywhere to maintain the policy. In both cases the different policy preferences means that some areas are just not interested in carrying out the law enforcement needed.

Slavery is perhaps about 80-90% of why the civil war started. These kinds of issues do have the power to tear a nation apart. But I don't think immigration will do it. Not because of the geography of the situation. Sometimes civil wars have clean geographic dividing lines like north and south. But plenty of modern examples just have a pervasive insurgency hiding in plain site among civilians.

The reason I don't think immigration will be a lynchpin for a civil war is that most civil wars have competing groups of elites vying for power. And there are no elite groups in America that actually want to limit immigration. Academics don't want that. Business owners don't want it, immigration is great economically. Politicians don't truly want it (as someone else pointed out Trump is very conveniently ignoring the many illegal migrant farmers that keep food prices down).

I also don't care about whatever algorithmic rage bait slop event you're talking about.

This is what he is referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation

I'd not describe it as rage bait slop.

It was genuinely upsetting that much of twitter at the time came to the conclusion of "this kid should be punched in the face". I specifically remember the comedian Patton Oswalt saying something along those lines.

Len's Island

Thrustmaster

Risky click to see if that was a specialty controller maker.

Mach 3 Gillette razor. Shave in the shower usually about once a week. 2-4 full shaves per razor. Only go about an inch at a time, by then the razor is clogged with hair and I need to wash it out. If I've waited longer than a week I'll use a trimmer to shorten the hair and make the shave easier. I use to do this at the sink instead of in the shower. Shower made cleanup easier and faster. I've been shaving for 20 years this way. Cuts are rare.