@felipec's banner p

felipec

unbelief

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 04 19:55:17 UTC
Verified Email 

				
User ID: 1796


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
felipec


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
unbelief

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 November 04 19:55:17 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1796


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Overall, not impressed or compelled by the claims. People have already noted the singular anonymous source claiming, in an era where anonymous sourcing has been as disreputable as ever, but there are other elements that raise eyebrows.




Most importan stories are broken out with singular anonymous sources, and mainstream publications mention a single anonymous source all the time.




-The claim it was done by the pure navy, as opposed to special forces, to avoid Congressional oversight really suggests someone who is not familiar with the other forms of oversight- and security vulnerabilities- of American military branches.




It wasn't just the Navy, it was remote corner of the Navy.




There's a reason that the US black projects generally don't operate from the conventional forces, but in separate elements.




Yeah, and the reason may not have anything to do with oversight.




-The mind-reading/framing of motives is projection, or at least certainly not how the western military-security types would view items. I've yet to meet an American in a serious position of government responsibility who frames concerns over Nordstream in terms as abstract as 'threat to western dominance,' as opposed to the more concrete concerns of 'energy blackmail' or 'gas turnoffs.'




As if any politician is transparent about their true motives ever. As Noam Chomsky says: the stated motives of the government are never the true motives, therefore you can pretty much disregard the stated motives.


That being said, Condoleezza Rice did pretty much spell it out in 2014:






"But now we need to have tougher sanctions, and I am afraid at some point this is going to probably have to involve oil and gas. The Russian economy is vulnerable. 80% of the Russian exports are in oil, gas and minerals. People say that the Europeans will run out of energy. Well, the Russians will run out of cash before the Europeans run out of energy. And I understand that it is uncomfortable to have an effect on business ties in this way, but this is one of the few instruments that we have. Over the long run, you want to change the structure of energy dependence. You want to depend more on the North American energy platform, the tremendous bounty of oil and gas that we are finding"






The first thing she mentions is the Russian economy was vulnerable, suggesting they did want to attack the Russian economy.


There's also this 2019 Pentagon-funded study from the RAND Corporation: Extending Russia.






"Drawing on quantitative and qualitative data from Western and Russian sources, this report examines Russia's economic, political, and military vulnerabilities and anxieties."






They want to exploit all Russian vulnerabilities. How much spelled out do you need it to be?


It's clear USA has always been an enemy of Russia.




The proposed plans, as described, don't pass muster in the context of their own paragraph, let alone broader realism. For one, submarines don't "assault". That's the sort of language of someone larping military insight.




Why does the source have to have military insight? He could be part of the CIA, or any number of options.




This is something deserving of /r/credibledefense, but not credibility inspiring.




The fact that you don't see how something is possible doesn't mean it is impossible. That's an argument from incredulity fallacy.




-The argument about no longer being a covert option because of the Biden Administration's public statements on Nordstream are nonsense.




Is it? The exact moment I saw the clip of Joe Biden saying they would put an end to it after it was blown up I put two and two together, and so did many people.




This is a red flag for credibility. Covert options aren't covert because you have a known capability, but rather the secrecy.




But if everyone already suspects the USA did it--as it happened--then the secret would be much harder to keep, because people will not stop investigating--as it happened.


The more eyes, the harder to hide. How is that not obvious? Your desire to not see the obvious seems like motivated reasoning from you.




-The whole Norway angle is just comedic.




Once again this is a fallacy. The fact that you find something comedic doesn't imply that it didn't happen.




The narrative flops between the need for operational and legal secrecy as needed, without actually explaining why informing the Norwegians is necessary to carry out the operation...




It was explained that it wasn't necessary, but it would facilitate the operation. Plain and simple.




-The timeline is also all over the place.




Events unfold that way many times, so what? Things happen and plans change. That happens all the time.




-The argument on Russian mine-detection technology is getting into the military spy-fiction, and not the good kind.




Argument from incredulity fallacy.




This isn't the first part of the article to do this, but it's reocurring enough to note, especially since the 1970s Church hearings drove very significant changes in the American intelligence community... changes that are being implicitly covered over by the appeal to the 70s for narrative continuity.




It wasn't the intelligence community who ordered this, it was the neocon administration. The hatred for Russia runs deep, as anyone familiar with Victoria Nuland knows.




Aircraft are easily observable on a number of sensors or by regional naval traffic.




So? You just pick an aircraft that is going to travel that route anyway for whatever reason.


Once again: argument from incredulity fallacy.




All told, I do not find it credible, and would lower my judgement of someone who found it compelling.




I find all your arguments weak and relying precisely on what you accuse Seymour Hersh of doing: preying on the laziness of the reader. Many of your arguments boil down to "I don't see how this is possible", as if you were an semi-omniscient being. You may not see how X is possible, but I do. So what?


It's also a clear Gish gallop strategy: overwhelming an interlocutor with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. It's no surprise that your comment received zero replies. Who would sit down and read the entire thing, think about critically, and then reply. Well, I just did.




If you are trying to analyze this critically and actually give the article a fair shot, I would pick a single argument against it, your strongest argument, and defend it at depth, not throw dozens which in my opinion are weak.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I was not trying to build consensus: "anyone paying attention" is not "everyone", it could very well be less than 1% of the people, that's not consensus in the least. And very well could accommodate 99% of the people that as you say "doesn't know it yet".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Most Education is Wasteful and Immoral
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Wikipedia is an instance of MediaWiki, but there's many types of wikis. They were created precisely for people to write and avoid memorizing.


So you can disagree, but they were created, people use them, and they work.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Most Education is Wasteful and Immoral
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's not what the word education means. A person has to be teaching.


One receives education, one doesn't read it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It's a badly posed question because it's not fully specified, namely, you're not stating where (2+2=4) lives.




Really? Wasn't your entire argument relying on the fact that if the arithmetic wasn't specifically specified, then certain arithmetic was always assumed?




Your question is ambiguously stated.




Which was my entire point.




Normally it wouldn't be




So you are accepting it: normally 2+2 is not 0, but I didn't ask if normally that was the case, I asked if it was always the case.


For the record, when I ask ChatGPT if it's always necessarily the case, it answers "no". It says that's not the case in other arithmetics. Weird that it interprets math like me, not like you.




Define whether (2+2=4) in your question is integer arithmetics or (mod 4) (or something else) and I'll answer your question.




It's not any modular arithmetic, it's standard arithmetic (the one you claimed should always be assumed).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't trust Vox one bit. All I've seen from them is lies. They only push the official narrative. Always.




Those reports have had little proof




See, I know in the case of Syria that's not true. So yet another lie to add to the list.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


his recent factually incorrect takes on the Syria gas attacks




OK. Starts of poisoning the well by claiming something is false without evidence. This might work on people with no critical thinking skills, but not me.


Especially because I know the attacks have been thoroughly debunked by Aron Mate.


Not going to waste my time.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				My intuition about intuition
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Ah, I see. I didn't make it complicated intentionally, it's just a complex topic, at least in my mind. I made the text as simple as I could, the only thing that could be cut out are my comments of my thinking process while I was writing certain portions, but I added them for the readers to put themselves on the shoes of the writer a little bit. Since the topic was intuition, and I feel all of writing is intuition (as is much of art), I thought it was helpful.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for February 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I want to come back to it as well. I didn't research anything at all, I just thought about it a lot. But doing a bit of research afterwards I've found some resources of interest for people who want to explore the topic more.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				My intuition about intuition
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Look, I've heard this countless times for decades: "you shouldn't have said X", "you could have said X in a different way", "you come off as Y", etc. But the truth is that my writing style works: it attacks the right people, and repels the wrong people.


I'm not interested in my prose to be "better received", if popularity is what I was aiming for, I wouldn't say what I think at all. So I'm not interested in hearing what I could have said instead of what, or what I could have omitted.


If some readers are put off by one comment I made at the very end that I genuinely thought at the moment of writing that and as a result disregard the whole thing, so be it. I think the right readers could focus on what's important.


If you want to talk about my style, my tone, or why I wrote that particular sentence, I would gladly discuss that somewhere else. In this thread I would hope to discuss the meat of what I said, which unfortunately nobody has commented anything about yet.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It didn't shift my belief much. But it's clear who was the one who benefited the most, and who has being against it, sanctioned, and threatened to shut it down over and over.


I've put more information here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The word "would" implies that was the proposed plan at the time (before USA approved it), not that this is what they finally did.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I do think that conditional on the US being behind it, it is unlikely that Germany was not also in on it. It cuts through a particularly thorny knot for German leadership, taking a decision out of their hands that had no good political options.




Do you actually believe USA cares about its "allies" or considers them in any way peers?


It has betrayed pretty much all its "allies" to the point it's not trusted anymore by most of the world, and two quotes of Henry Kissinger explain that:


    

  • 

    “To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”
    

    • 

  • 

    “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”
    

    • 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Do you consider dementia a near vegetative state?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The more alarming question the article raises is




The more alarming question for USA citizens, sure. But the citizens in Germany would be alarmed in a different way: "USA are not our allies".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But look at the motive. Obama opposed it, Trump opposed it and sanctioned, Biden made opposition to it a top priority, multiple officials said they would stop it no matter what, and after the fact claimed it was a tremendous opportunity, and boasted about how glad they are it happened.


Doesn't it strike you as odd that somebody else did what they wanted to happen for more than ten years now?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


a random Substack




A substack of one of the most decorated and impactful journalists of all time is "random".


OK.




I’d change my mind if mainstream outlets can point to a smoking gun.




So, a genetic fallacy then.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I still favor a blockage/poor maintenance as the most likely theory




Poor maintenance that just happened to cause exactly what USA had wanted for more than 10 years and has pretty much said they would do if they have to.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What's conspiratorial about it? They have been opposed for more than ten years, they have implemented sanctions on it and threatened to stop by any means. And afterwards claimed it's a great opportunity, and boasted that they are glad that it's "a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


There may be an economic motive




It's not mainly economic, it's geopolitical. USA cannot allow Europe to get cozy with Russia, it undermines their worldwide vision of a strong united West.


If USA thought they would get caught they probably wouldn't have done it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Of course USA blew it up, no one else had a motive. For more than ten years they have opposed it, sanctioned it, and straight up threatened to stop it any way they possibly can. Only a person who is not paying attention or has no deductive capacity would not be able to conclude that.


Here's a noncomprehensive list of the positions of top U.S. officials and presidents:


    

  • 

    Obama administration opposed the pipeline
    

    • 

  • 

    Trump administration sanctioned any company doing work on the pipeline
    

    • 

  • 

    Biden administration made opposition to the pipeline a top priority
    

    • 

  • 

    Biden said he was "determined to do whatever I can to prevent"
    

    • 

  • 

    Nuland said "If Russia invades, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 Will. Not. Move. Forward."
    

    • 

  • 

    Biden said "If Russia invades…then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." and after being questioned "I promise you, we will be able to do that."
    

    • 

  • 

    After the attack Blinked said the bombing was a "tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy," and "offers tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come."
    

    • 

  • 

    Nuland said "Senator Cruz, like you, I am, and I think the administration is, very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea."
    

    • 



I believe Condoleezza Rice also said something along those lines.


But who could have the motive? That's a puzzler!


Here's a few more articles about the motives, which you will never find in mainstream media:



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Call for Submissions: TheMotte Intuition Effortpost Competition
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I see the same fervent faith-based beliefs among self-described rationalists. The only difference is that it's harder to prove them wrong, precisely because more often than not the beliefs are correct.


It's a sort of hot-hand fallacy: if rationality has gotten these 99 things right, what are the chances than the next is going to be wrong? Has to be zero. Right?


Of course, most people are not going to agree, because most people don't see anything wrong with the prevalent orthodoxy of their time.


But logic itself is not set in stone, there's many. See One Right Logic. If you based your entire epistemology on "logic", but turns out many beliefs rest on a feature that other logics don't share, well... You may very well be believing false things that are impossible to prove in your logic.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I see the three things as different.


    

  1. 

    Consciousness: doesn't control anything
    

    2. 

  2. 

    Analytical thinking: more thinking, takes more time
    

    3. 

  3. 

    Rationality: structured rules for thinking
    

    4. 



I'm not saying rationality doesn't matter (although I think it's overrated), I'm saying the idea that thoughts can be consciously generated is an illusion.


Consciousness exists, but all it does is observe. It doesn't control anything.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Call for Submissions: TheMotte Intuition Effortpost Competition
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


My thesis is the opposite of @felipec's: all human thought is intuition, and attempts to distill rational thought from intuition serve at best some communicative role; at worst, they are delusions. In both cases, rationality – and conscious thought – is born out of pain of stubborn mismatch, and principally amounts to a rigid pattern on intuition's surface, a tool to communicate with oneself to channel the powers of the whole – either to reduce noise in the system or to suppress doubts, affirming preconceived errors. Don't believe anyone who claims to rely on conscious mind only: he who has tricked himself has only deceit to offer you too.




I don't see how that is opposite. I believe the conscious mind has no control whatsoever, the next step is decided by the subconscious mind, an almost infinitely complex process the conscious mind has no access to (and evolutionarily had no need to). So whatever the conscious mind thinks it's deciding is an illusion.


In my view the question is not consciousness vs. unconsciousness, it's intuition vs. analytical thinking.


Analytical thinking is thinking slow (System 2), intuition is fast thinking (System 1). However, the one deciding to switch gears to analytical thinking is also the subconscious mind, which uses prior training to make that decision, so it's using intuition to decide to not rely on intuition. And at which point will the subconscious decide to stop engaging in analytical thinking? Intuition will be used to decide that a satisfactory answer was reached as well.


So yes, all human thought is ultimately intuition, but analytical thinking is the special case in which the agent does a deeper search which is more computationally intensive and thus appear "slower" to us. Usually this deeper search is forced by a hint that the initial "automatic" response might not be correct.


But the important point is that all thinking builds up intuition, and this is not a view generally accepted. Many people deride intuition as if the conclusions reached by it were not as valuable as those reached by analytical thinking. I think that's the important starting point for discussion.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Turns out USA did blew out Nord Stream: How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline.


It was obvious to anyone paying attention, but now it's pretty much confirmed.


Of course I already see the people married to the opposite conclusion trying to discredit the journalist (on of the most decorated and impactful journalists of all time), and his sources: anonymous: (as if established publications didn't use anonymous sources).


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-22
		
			
		

    •