cuwurious_strag_CA
No bio...
User ID: 190
only way for the world to function is for society to assume parents have their biological children's best interests at heart, which they do 99% of the time
Not that circumcision is that important, but - say we took this approach with 'lead paint', or unregulated medicine for serious medical conditions, or, when polio was widespread, polio vaccines. It doesn't really make sense.
He has a lot of tweets that feel like /r/iamverysmart material, like saying chess is a simple game and now that we have computers games like Polytopia are way better
A lot of his twitter posts read like a combination of normie humor and the internet-meme style of acting quirky / dumb in a wholesome way for laughs. Maybe he posts them because people like it and he gets attention (and this helps in other ways - tesla meme stock etc), maybe he genuinely finds the memes funny and his wacky observations to be true (and overstates them for effect, like everyone else on twitter does). das baby!
For the russia/ukraine thing - "Twitter's really not a good platform to share nuanced geopolitical analysis to try to encourage peace" - he probably does think he's being useful in that specific case, and that's just him being wrong, but 'person smart in one area is less smart in other area' is pretty universal.
A normal person would notice this and stop saying crazy shit
You seem to be conflating the senses of normal that are "average person", "sensible person who is correct", and "person who follows social mores". But ... normal people in the first sense constantly say very dumb things on twitter (who do you think is liking and retweeting all the "culture war" stuff), smart correct people are often wrong and also sometimes go against the mainstream and are right, and should publicize that.
after which point it's easy to see why his Twitter feed is a mess; there's barely enough time left for the "say on Twitter" and sadly not enough time for the "thinking".
Musk's twitter rants aren't that much less coherent than the opinions of plenty of professional political commentators, thinkers, etc. Extremely intelligent people, mathematicians, physicists, artists - even those who spend a lot of time on politics - still usually have some variety of standard-ish political beliefs, whether that be republican, democrat, socialist, including many of the dumb parts. It's not obvious Musk's claims are any dumber than most peoples', or even many pundits' (though they are dumb) - when @TrumpJew2 says the same thing about ukraine, they just get 5k likes, instead of everyone dogpiling it for being dumb.
edit - redacted to avoid doxxing threats.
huh?
I think that where test policies on the road to hand-out-heroin-to-junkies-ville have been tried, such as SF's open injection sites, or open-access methadone clinics, local incidences of "junkie smashing windows"-type-public nuisances have not significantly fallen or otherwise responded in a way which leads me to believe that broader adoption would be beneficial.
His argument goes like - yeah, but those only were "injection sites" or "giving small amounts of heroin", not "as much heroin as you want for free" - if you really could go down to the local hospital and ask for 100 grams of heroin and they'd just give it to you, because heroin is just a chemical compound and we're good at mass producing them, so almost all of the current cost of heroin is because it's illegal - then there'd be no need to smash stuff anymore.
Fortunately in this case, it is very dumb evidenced by the fact that the theory is logically inconsistent in just about every level of analysis
Sure, but this is also true of 'all people are equal and we should love everyone', 'the Christian god exists and He is three persons co-equal in one substance', most schools of moral philosophy, and a lot of stuff people believe. My argument isn't "you should consider it because it might be right", it's "you should consider it because it's worth figuring out why people believe it" (same for all of the former). Also, it is currently winning.
Understanding precisely what's going on with some stupid set of beliefs can be enlightening.
It can also be useful - if, hypothetically, said beliefs were held by the vast majority of the smartest, most influential, and most powerful people in your country / civilization (and also by most of the less smart, and less powerful people too). In that case, it's probably worth figuring out what they mean and why! Saying "lol this is dumb who cares" doesn't seem to help with that, or suggest ways to solve it.
Edge cases / thought experiments help tease out subtle inaccuracies that may point to deeper problems. "What happens when you divide a piece of matter in half a hundred times" is a weird edge case, yet atoms. "If the laws of physics were different, what happens" is a very useful approach to physics!
For the specific edge cases: Plenty of people declare they are 'nonbinary' with very little change in the way they present themselves or """"perform gender"""". I know a few people who say they are trans, but still act almost entirely like men/women, but that's rare.
IV is clearly something that happens, physically. There are some cases where less-masculine teenagers are bullied constantly, and then transition, and then are 'supported'. And the question is - are these people 'really trans', and what does that mean? Is it possible for someone to transition for reasons other than 'truly being a woman, like, feeling it'?
(Personal opinion: 'people are supported for transitioning, which is why they do it' is, least for mtf, less common than 'everyone thought i was weird / my parents and friends hated it / i was very scared and didnt come out for years').
V and VI are far-out hypotheticals, ofc.
That blog's a better scott-post than most of recent ACX tbh
I haven't denied that election fraud by either side sometimes occurs in local elections, I don't think ymes has either. But - how on earth does arresting people who were told by the govt that they could vote help, at all, with that?
Also, the motte is "sometimes politicians tamper with the ballots, bribe election staff, etc". The bailey is "lots of illegal voters are tipping elections". You provided evidence that the former might've happened - desantis's actions only affect the latter.
On the potato diet - wouldn't that just work if there's 'something wrong with modern food that makes people want to eat more and be fat', independent of anything specific about potatoes? Or [not my guess but plausible] even if the issue is something else, maybe it's just that potatoes, when you're eating only them, are just less appealing and people eat less?
'feeling more energetic' is almost certainly just random fluctuations / placebo
Also, IIRC SMTM never replied to https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-probably-not-lithium, pointing out many deep flaws in the lithium posts. (these aren't even the only flaws, it was an incredibly poor quality series of posts, and it was bizzare that e.g. it got a shoutout on dominic cummings' twitter)
Probably the lighter color
... you can absolutely just betray the interests of your parents. The children of monarchists or even aristocrats became revolutionaries, the children of russian elites became communists, children of union bosses become nazis, children of nazis become psychoanalysts, etc. Why can't that happen?
And every influential group will be overrepresented as relatives of every other influential group because of social selection and genes.
Race realism, killing the civil rights act, and 'tough on crime' without slurs is going to polarize more than that with slurs?
When the seams of angry young men are mined out
"angry young men" aren't really an independent class and that doesn't describe most of the specific things driving people to the far-right - but taken literally, no they won't, because every year a new 1/100th of the population is born, and a new 1/100th turns 18!
I'm referring to full on chattel slavery with whippings and whatever, specifically in the US, to say that enforceability of nonprogressive ideas is contingent on will to do so
I had a class with Alex Tabarrok and he tried to argue for the dissuasion effect of the death penalty by saying "How many people would speed if the penalty was death? Zero of course." Well, no.
Right now, legalizing slavery would do nothing, nobody would enforce it. Yet slavery was widely practiced and legal many hundreds of years ago - and people did enforce it. So, right now, in a "different culture", or with an occupying army or sufficient power, there could certainly be slavery.
Similarly, much harsher penalties for smashing windows is plausible, certainly within the wide space between Rome and today. Homosexuality was punished in many places, before 'death recorded'
and there is no realistically feasible amount of surveillance that you can implement to sufficiently tamp down on this
Cameras are incredibly cheap, drones are somewhat cheap, we could just have cameras everywhere and track everyone's movements with those. I don't think that's necessary at all but this statement isn't really true. Expensive? Sure, but still much lower than the welfare or military budget.
Not that any of that is necessary to prevent smashing windows.
Right, and if you have 350 democratic congresspeople in your basement, "If the left imagines they can govern by force and without the consent of the opposition, why should the right not adopt a similar stance" might mean something.
But this is a question of 'was it cool or not for desantis to charge a few people with meaningless crimes', that isn't 'crushing' the left or 'governing by force', it's just a random minor issue. Same for the gun thing, a few people go to prison for dumb reasons, people can't own cool guns, that sucks, but doesn't really have any long-term impact. The right isn't "on the chopping block", legally, if a few gun owners go to prison sometimes - i mean, is the left "on the chopping block" because people go to prison for weed and LSD sometimes? It sucks, but it's quite minor, hardly a pogrom or a work camp.
Responding to this and all the other comments - yes, it's dumb when the ATF does stuff like this, they internally and externally justify it on procedural / justice grounds in addition to people on twitter saying 'assault rifles banned good maga mass school shooter incel republican bad', and it's dumb when desantis does it too, that is the argument
The variety of examples is so anyone will disagree with some of them - a 'conservative anti-vaxxer' would object to the first but agree with the third, for instance.
The point is - spanking is 'domestic violence' if spanking is bad. Forced schooling is bad if school is bad. Giving a child a vaccine is violence if ... vaccines are bad. Saying it's 'domestic violence' doesn't add anything beyond a strong signal that 'this isn't okay' and 'you are abusing your power to hurt people', but you can only do that if the action itself is bad.
Probably not - () / [] are obvious ways to surround text in the context, and adding more []/()s is an obvious extension
That you, and even a significant portion of the American electorate
Most of the american electorate on both sides wouldn't know a motte from a pot, so that's a weird objection. Most voters vote for a combination of 'my friends/family vote this way' and really strange idiosyncratic reasons, and their positions on any specific issue are much worse. I don't see what that has to do with ymeskhout's precise and very long arguments
I would submit you are not objective on this topic, given your frequent shills for your private substack and the financial interests in catering to your desired target audience
Wouldn't he just not post on what a journo could call a "alt-right dogwhistle reactionary forum" in that case?
like domestic violence, is violence within a context where there is a special duty of not committing violence, specifically, within the family
Yeah, but that's only held to be true in cases like 'beating' or 'spanking', not for murder. I don't think anyone recognizes the idea that murder should be punished more because it's against a family member. And most people would find it very strange to call 'a father killing their 5yo child' domestic violence. The bad parts of domestic violence - the idea that a husband can 'psychologically manipulate' a wife or something, the battered wife, or the vulnerable child - don't make any sense in abortion, given that a hospital is administering it, the fetus can't talk or take action, etc.
I'm disagreeing with the principle OP stated, while agreeing with circumcision being bad, and also agreeing it's low priority for legislation or banning relative to things like lead paint or unregulated medicine.
Society functions in places where homeschooling is illegal i.e. some form of regulated schooling is mandatory, and mandatory schooling seems to be not assuming that parents have their childrens' best interests at heart. Now, this is bad in particular, in large part because schooling is bad, but it shows that the world can 'function' despite that - and, even if most parents did have their childrens' "best interests" at heart, they may disagree on what those interests are (cheap, but "it's in my child's interests to transition!") or be too incompetent to promote said interests effectively.
More options
Context Copy link