cuwurious_strag_CA
No bio...
User ID: 190
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
The more obvious (and moldbug) example is startups / large companies and their CEOs - they can more or less direct company operations as they will, with only advisory input from the board, and these run the entire modern economy. You can deny the US military is relatively effective, but apple? google? semiconductors?
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Historic kings needed to consider and encourage candid input from their advisors too! That didn't mean they didn't have 'absolute power'.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
One local 'john brown chapter' twitter account saying that (and it's plausible it was some guy trolling, like all the 'portland city antifa' accounts - although the links below seem real) doesn't mean all john brown chapters are automatically awful. Same goes for right wing orgs or w/e
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
How do either of those supposed weirdnesses justify the 'gay escort' theory?
And how is it that random mentally ill people can get into expensive residences in San Francisco anyway
Haven't we done the "SF has a homeless criminal problem and the police won't do anything about it" thing to death?
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Nobody would be criticizing Fox News for biased coverage of Jan 6th if, instead of exploiting their protestors' incompetence for political gain, they just memed them for incompetence. The Fox line should be: "lmao look at those stupid trump supporters, they got into the capitol and just walked around! Didn't even do anything! Classic trump incompetence. And trump endorsed them! Give biden a try."
Also, pelosi isn't personally responsible for her home's security, is each congressperson supposed to personally audit the secret service's protections or what, so the accusation doesn't make sense.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Jesus's reverence at washing shoes demonstrated a supposed moral virtue of caring for the meek, the downtrodden. This was understood, and followed, by billions. Buddhism, too, is a complex set of claims that guide peoples' actions, understanding, etc. Mental states aren't merely states, there isn't any value in, say, permanently 'reverently washing shoes' aside from the outcomes of it. Also tangential, but 'possesing the fortitude to self-immolate' is not that difficult, suicidal people do it every day, and it's quite analogous to fighting in a battle/war you know you'll probably die in - something dome by at least a billion people, historically.
So these interesting mental states are hollow without corresponding understanding or action. If I take all your neurons and just ... immerse them in dopamine or heroin or something, forever, do you feel infinite pleasure? (no, you just die). What would it even mean to be perpetually in a state of equanimity or reverence? Imagine you're literally frozen in time, in that 'state'. Again, you're just dead, functionally.
Not that said 'states', in particular ones buddhism describes, aren't interesting - just that the above vision entirely decouples them from any purpose whatsoever. "After AI takes over, we'll masturbate forever, except with equinamity!"
Pain as a non-voluntary state could be mostly removed from the adult human experience if everyone was equipped with excellent mindfulness techniques from birth
Is pain anything more than ... understanding a negative imperative or harm? The person still needs to react to potential issues, right? So ... if the hand touches a fire, the thermoreceptors fire, action potentials go to the brain, action potentials go back moving the hand away, the person rapidly makes sure it doesn't happen again. Without pain? "What would it be like if you didn't hear. Well, the vibrations still travel through the ear, you still understand the noises, but it's not hearing, something else". It's a koan - pain is contingent and empty, but it already is, and making it not-exist won't change that.
If the AI did take over, wouldn't it be capable of better, more complex and subtle, 'mental states' anyway? That seems like an issue.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Yeah - most bluechecks won't buy the paid version, and the meme value of having an epic blue checkmark will wear off after the first year or two, so even if the numbers look good initially i can't see it staying. None of the other benefits (half the ads?) seem particularly appealing.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Why can normal accounts suddenly not spam people? That'd require better spam prevention for non-verified accounts, which you can implement without this change. Doesn't seem related.
Who are they targeting that follows Vitalik and/or Coindesk but is so dumb that they'll follow up on the world's laziest cold call?
The million normal / below-average people who jumped on crypto not because of an interest in decentralization, experimental financial systems, or more practical applications for cryptography, but because the number went up and it put money in their bank account. Someone's buying and bagholding all the shitcoins after the bots and traders pump them.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Twitter probably won't accept a payment directly from crypto so you need a bank account to pay from
There are massive underground industries in stealing credit cards and payment accounts. They can just buy stolen accounts and use those. These scammers are already hacking / buying hacked verified twitter accounts to rename as ēlon müsk who's giving away free crypto at cryptobuy.link.party, just click 'accept' in metamask!
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Was it really the same carlsbad?
There were some good points embedded in there, I think, but it was insufficiently adapted to the audience. I know a lot about the DR and the history of RW thought and so on and was still somewhat confused.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
I mean, banning sex and porn is of little consequence; whereas banning ideas is of larger consequence.
This is when a progressive would bring up sex workers, sexual repression, etc.
However, banning ideas is how we arrive at a communist/authoritarian regime
"First they came for the pornographers, then the disabled, then the jews" or something.
Which is why we value free speech
It's useful to know about all sorts of things out there. Images are information too, being able to understand why porn is what it is personally is useful in understanding its effects and importance, whether good or bad.
Not that censorship is evil because of that - but the same applies to politics. Censorship may have benefits that, locally, outweigh the negatives, as well as the slippery slopes and principles etc. Would you object to censorship during wartime, on grounds of any of preventing spies / preventing leaks of important war information (this might include stuff like 'how much the local factory is producing) / keeping morale up / explicit propaganda? The US has engaged in this heavily in the past, depsite the 1st amendment.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Do you actually think it's bad?
If I gave you a representative sample of my statements about trans people across all platforms, you'd recoil in horror at how much of a disgusting reactionary I am.
Please stop the personal accusations. It doesn't matter at all if I'm morally disturbing for wanting to groom trans people or anything. Let's just discuss the actual physical events that occur, the people who are transitioning, the circumstances under which they do, motivations, effects, etc.
Either you think it's good or you don't
I've said multiple times today that nobody should ever be trans, it's a crime against nature, confused, degeneracy, et cetera.
You're just doing a moral purity spiral, and have no interest in engaging in the details of why trans exist, what's happening with the people who are trans, etc. And certainly nothing about, like, conversational norms or meta-debate, which is what OP was mostly about.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
There are significant differences between past religions and current progressivism that this doesn't capture, but you're decently correct here. A distinction between religion and ideology in a legal sense, like 'separation of church and state', is sort of incoherent.
Have you read how dawkins got pwned or UR generally? I'd guess so.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
accepts abuse as a form of care
That's cool but what abuse specifically?
We're in a sixth grade social science class. The teacher is covering a history of the liberation movements of the 60s, and is describing how they bravely fought for gender exploration, which is good and everyone should consider their gender and here's some resources and links and support communities, join the school LGBTQ alliance discord, try out identities like clothing see which ones you like that are better, three years later sally is steve and john is jane. Okay. That isn't a major path to children transitioning, but let's just say it is, for the hypothetical.
So - what was the grooming? Was it the 'here's the discord, here's the links, here's the resources'? Okay. If grooming is 'preparing a child for abuse' - where was the abuse at the hands of the teacher?
A groomer assumes a role of a trust and care in a child's life and convinces them that abuse is good for them.
Is the teacher obtaining sexual gratification from ... the abuse? What abuse?
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
You - and all other social conservatives - want to keep children away from sex education so they get pregnant young, maybe not consensually, and then deny them abortions to force them to have children.< / blockquote >
Obviously that's not true! At all! Some conservatives do dislike the current form of sex eduction, and some conservatives don't want minors to have abortions. A few even claim they don't want raped minors to have abortions. but they don't want ... all of that, above. Most of them would prefer the minor doesn't get pregnant young, in particular! You can do this for any controversial position. Democrats are RACIST and have JEWISH QUOTAS IN COLLEGES just like HITLER!
Similarly, trans activists would not say "i want to mutilate and sterilize children. and i'm jerking off as I type this. Hail Marx."
That is the terminal reality of living as trans. Being permanently medicalized, mutilated and sterilized
The point of charitability rules here is that people don't generally discuss 'children being sterilized and mutilated', or 'hitler jew segregation racism', in a particularly useful way. While I'd rather have a totally-freeze-peach style moderation where you can say whatever you want and get moderated if it's not useful, there's clearly a correlation between the two. What productive response do you expect your interlocutors to have to "you are literally mutilating children!" How does that work!
Ideally, the interlocutor would carefully investigate the meaning of that, referring to many irl examples, and figure out precisely what is happening to children, how it matters, how it relates to the traditional nature of sex and modernity or whatever. But, again, that doesn't usually happen when you call someone a "child mutilator".
The thing is, sometimes things as bad as "child mutilation" do happen. And trans may be even, in a broad sense, as bad as "child mutilation". So saying mean-sounding things can be useful, when they are happening. But saying 'child mutilation' doesn't help at all, it just says it's something bad ... happening ... to children. But the disagreement is if it's bad, if wearing girl underwear and getting euphoria <...>s are bad, if HRT and SRS are bad, etc. Both sides are aware that is happening to children. And it distracts from the fact that all of that is happening whether or not teachers push it, because people are coming across it on the internet and deciding to do it themselves. (even censoring the internet isn't a good option!)
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Here's a bunch of claims - the percentage of teachers who introduce trans stuff in their classrooms that go on to sexually abuse children is similar to the percentage of teachers who don't mention trans stuff at all and then go on to sexually abuse children. >95% of teachers who introduce children to transgender material do not do so with the intent of sexually abusing them, in any form. >90% of children who transition were not introduced to 'trans' by a teacher or other school official, nor did said teacher or school official play a primary/causal role in the child's transition.
Which do you disagree with? What evidence is there for any of them? And - if they are all accurate - how does 'trans grooming' make sense as a claim leveled against most instances of trans stuff in school?
Again this is entirely orthogonal to 'should children transition', or 'should adults transition'. Gender/sex are a constellation of traits arranged around finding a suitable mate to have children with, so transitioning genders is like painting a rock like an apple and eating it. It's pointless in every case. But grooming is not, at all, involved.
If It's never ok for a 25 year old professor to talk to a 22 year old student without the office door open for fear of grooming, why the reluctance to call out weird sex stuff with leftist teachers and kids
Well the premise is false, so who cares? A->B is always true, and usually not very interesting, if ~A. If we're willing to lynch witches on obviously false accusations, why not lynch my neighbor for calling me an asshole, which he at least did do something wrong? If those communist democrats love their violent black soros-funded mobs so much, why can't we firebomb a few abortion clinics? If my grandma's a monkey, then i'm a mixed-species freak of nature, and I can make billions by selling my tissue to biolabs. These are stupid statements! You know the former is a dumb left-wing thing, and is being done for stupid, hypocritical reasons, so - why bring it up - and what does it prove about the latter? They could entirely hypothetically correctly understand the latter doesn't matter, and that the former doesn't matter, and just be delusional about the former - and be in the wrong only in the former case.
Let's say I brought up being raped as a child in a discussion about abortion or parents' rights or something. Any individual should be able to have precise intellectual conversations about that, one with strong disagreement, clear claims, and details - in principle, right? But unless you frequent 4chan or WPD, that's just not gonna happen - it's a taboo topic and saying anything other than "that, and 6 degrees of kevin bacon from it, are cursed ground and must be righteously condemned lest we harm the victim" is just not okay.
In order to discuss the topic, we need to consider how the your teacher telling you to wear girls' underwear might, actually, be good. (note the immense cringe it takes to type that out - i'm basically a pedophile for saying it!). Sure, it isn't, but there are multiple ways something can be bad! And not being able to consider that it might be good means, essentially, you can't discriminate between the ways that it's bad - because "realizing it's not bad in one way" and "realizing it's good" are, in the moment, rather hard to tell apart. After all, if the reasons you previously believed it's bad are mostly wrong ... And there isn't any "uh, it's still actually bad though" you can fall back on to ensure you're safe from "dangerous questions", because that's just an empty claim that prevents you from finding the real reasons.
Notably, that teacher doesn't actually want to have sex with you. At all. Which makes it ... not ... grooming. And not pedophilic. At all!
It can still be bad for being sexually degenerate or anti-nature or a simulacra of appearances or something, there's lots of approaches. But it's not pedophilia. And if it's not pedophilia, why is it grooming?
But if you think it's a serious issue worth being emotional about, why can't you come out against teachers doing it?
And this is just a struggle session. You need to personally condemn the outgroup, or you're as bad as them! What? What does this have to do with ... figuring out why something is happening, what its causes are, why it matters? Why does any person need to "come out against" anything? This is a discussion forum, not a cult.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Several people have told us that they think a clear case of grooming a kid into weird sex shit doesn't actually count as grooming to them, which tells us all we need to know about the whole conversation.
If you're not referencing any particular post, what did you mean by "Several people have told us"? If there's someone who told 'us' (themotte) this ... who? There's only one set here, and the set is finite, so you can't claim ~AC or anything.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
Please tell me: do you believe my art teacher telling me I should come to school in women's underwear to get in touch with my true self qualifies as grooming
To be clear - are you claiming this physically happened to you? If so, I'd appreciate if you elaborated a bit, gave context, etc, although it makes sense if you don't want to.
I know a lot of trans people, many of whom transitioned in high school, and at least 80% of them weren't encouraged at all by their school / parents to be trans, and despite knowing a lot of personal details of several I've never heard of anything like that happening, so it's not really representative of the median 'trans kid'.
cuwurious_strag_CA
2yr ago
You're right generally but clearly there's something different about the modern 'religions' that don't actually worship any deities, observe any miracles, sacrifice goats, etc, right?
I have never understood the word "groomer" to be a synonym for pedophile, and in fact it is not a synonym for pedophile
I have used the term groomer several hundred times, and heard it used a thousand times more, outside the context of politics in the past few years. every single time, it referred to a sexual relationship of some sort - whether purely by chat or IRL - between a claimed minor and a claimed adult. almost every time, it was used to imply pedophilia-adjacent awful misconduct on the part of the supposed groomer. And our culture has a bizzare fixation on the idea of pedophilia (the fact that "it's actually ephebophilia" as a mocking term itself is bizzare, given almost all individuals actually accused of pedophilia are adults preying on 14-16 year old girls). There is a massive amount of unjustified taboo around that issue, and it makes every single person that touches it go completely insane. Conservatives are attempting to appropriate some of that taboo to 'fight back against trans'. Of course, it's totally ineffective and boxes at shadows, because 'sexually manipulating minors' and 'a kid is bored school, watches a bunch of ecchi anime, and goes to /r/egg_irl and wants to MtF' are not at all related.
This has nothing to do with whether trans or 'mixed-age relationships' are good or not, but the taboo on them is bizzare
Pick the word that you think fairly encapsulates the above concept
Transgender, trans children, transgender propaganda, gender marxism. You can pick any term! Grooming is just not a useful term. The fraction of kids who transition because an adult in their middle school personally targets them to transition is like 10^-5
Well, the corporations that organize and deliver the work and economic output do follow that model - one leader (ceo).
More options
Context Copy link