@gaygroyper100pct's banner p

gaygroyper100pct


				

				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2022 November 14 17:51:48 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 1855


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
gaygroyper100pct


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 November 14 17:51:48 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1855


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I will suggest that much of what is happening there is invisible to you because you lack the context.


Consider a modern movie that takes place in the American civil war. There's a black character named Forge Lloyd who is totally not on drugs and just has a heart problem, never did any home invasions, and he's killed by pro-slavery police who stand on his back while he yells "I can't breath". And by the way, police were invented to enforce slavery in 1850's USA.


Lets have some flashbacks. Forge Lloyd's mom got pregnant, but no one can figure out who the daddy is, and she quietly admits to someone that she's never been with a man. Forge Lloyd then goes around preaching a message of love and equality. At some point he says he has a dream. Then he makes a thanksgiving dinner for 12 of his buddies, and his bro Jubas kisses him.


After the flashbacks we go back to 1850's USA, 3 days after his Forge Lloyd's death. We see a mysterious figure riding off into the sunset, :insert cinematography here: and it's Forge Lloyd.


Now imagine someone who doesn't know the story of the bible or the story of Forge Lloyd writes a review. He loves the pro-Hindutva messages in the movie, and thinks it makes good points about GST.


That's your review of RRR.


Note: I haven't seen the movie. It would not surprise me if the FX are video-game like, because that is the natural evolution of ordinary telugu cinema + modern CGI. That's telugu film vocabulary, and it's evidently not your thing. That's fine.


You might as well criticize Japanese anime for showing a character tasting some bad food, and then flashing to a scene where the character is being tentacle raped under the ocean. The viewer familiar with that vocabulary knows the tentacle rape isn't literal, it's a visual metaphor for how bad the food tastes. (Food Wars is excellent and you should watch it, BTW.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
India has been having famines since at least as far back as Sanskrit existed. It's in the Purana. There were plenty of famines under the Mughals and other empires too, e.g. this one:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_famine_of_1630%E2%80%931632


In any case, I am merely disputing the claim that the British were not invested in the long term success of India. They clearly were, and on long timescales. I wish my region had rulers with the effectiveness and foresight of the EIC instead of our current NIMBY with globohomo characteristics.


I am not claiming to have clear econometric proof that the British were better than other empires which might plausibly have ruled India. (Though I am fairly convinced that the Mughals were terrible.) Perhaps India would have been better off had the Marathas or the Bengalis driven the British out and taken over, or perhaps not. I don't know.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This seems to be a new definition of colonialism: colonialism is not determined by any actions or properties of the colonizers, but instead by the actions of their descendants?


In any case, the idea of "Indian culture" is meaningless in the 1526-1760 period. The Marathas and the Mughals today fall under the "Indian" umbrella, but at the time most of their empires were foreign subjugation by a distant ruler - it's just that prior to 1948, "foreign" might include Aurangabad or Poona.


It is far from clear to me that the Mughals were better than the British (or worse). Nearly all the research is too politicized to be trustworthy; leftist academics tend to support the pro-Mughal/anti-Britain position and western sources tend to defer to them. By "leftist" I of course mean what English language Indian newspapers describe as "left", i.e. generally aligned with Congress party and opposed to "right wing" Hindu nationalism.


I've seen some esoteric and well disguised academic work suggesting they were dramatically more extractive than others (most notably "Taxation under the Mughals") and the visual artifacts that remain are consistent with this - just compare the opulence of Mughal tombs to those of Maratha or Bengali palaces. The beauty of Taj Mahal and Bibi Ka Maqbara are the product of taxes paid by lacs of poor peasants.


In contrast, think about British artifacts that persist. The biggest of these are Bombay (about 20% of India's GDP) and EIR/some other companies (today known as Indian Railways). In terms of specific structures they are quite visible today - e.g. an iconic train station which tourists refer to as "Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus", various universities, bridges and museums.


At least based on what I can see, the British certainly seemed to have invested more into building India up than the Mughals did. I visited the Taj once in my life. I've taken trains built by the British more times than I can count.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


As far as I'm aware, rather than become subjects of the native authorities they instead set up their own and in some cases subjugated the native authorities by force of arms, which modern day immigrants generally don't.




This is, generally speaking, not a particularly accurate description of colonialism as it actually occurred. It postulates some kind of actual "native" authorities, a condition which the world often did not satisfy.


For example, the British displaced the Mughal empire. The Mughal empire was not native, it was founded by an Uzbek warlord who was in tern descended from Gengis Khan. Insofar as this Uzbek warlord became native, he then expanded his empire into other quite distinct regions.


Whether you attribute Mughal rule to Uzbekistan or Agra, it was still foreign to Bengalis by the time it reached Calcutta.


Mughals were displaced by the Maratha empire in some places, and the British in others. Eventually the British replaced the Maratha everywhere.


From the perspective of someone from Delhi or Calcutta, "native rule" is so far in the past that it's silly to consider the British as removing it. (In contrast someone from Poona can claim to have been ruled by natives - the Maratha - until the British displaced them.)


And in some cases - e.g. the princely states - the British never did what is considered "colonization". For example, the British had a longstanding alliance with the Nizams of Hyderabad. But in 1948 the British were forced to exit and allowed the Princely states to decide what they wanted to do. The Nizam of Hyderabad chose independence, and shortly after that it was invaded by India.


Was Hyderabad colonized by the British?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I could be wrong about Jews specifically. I was mainly inferring from the fact that Jews have, for all of my lifetime, been considerably wealthier than others. It's possible that this only happened to the children of immigrants. I'll take your word for it that my example should be reduced to only cover Indians.


(Or at least Indians are the only easily identifiable group, due to self-identification with the "Hindu" religious grouping in surveys that also include income.)


Also worth checking whether - by this stated standard - immigration is colonialism in basically every country that uses a merit based system (e.g. Canada, Australia).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


colonists tend to primarily be interested in exploiting and expropriating a nation's resources (natural and human) for the benefit of the colonist's home country (even if they do temporarily move to the colony in question to run a business, they aren't intending to make it their home, nor do they expect their children to be natives of the colony). Immigrants, even if they do end up changing the culture of the nation they move to, are invested in the success of their new home country,




This is definitely not true in the case of British colonialism in India (to go with the example of the movie being discussed). They invested massive amounts into India over long periods of time. For example, many iconic buildings were built by the British over hundreds of years:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhatrapati_Shivaji_Terminus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Museum,_Kolkata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul's_Cathedral,_Kolkata


As another example, consider the fact that the British spent 70+ years turning the 7 islands of Bombay into 1 island, and then built a city that currently has a population bigger than the Netherlands and accounts for about 20% of Indian GDP.


https://indianculture.gov.in/stories/bombay-joining-seven-islands-1668-1838


A third example is India Gate, which memorializes the Indian soldiers killed in WW1.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Gate


Any claim that the British were not invested in the long term success of India is profoundly ahistorical.




Even without considering the racial aspect of things, a simple rule might be "If a person moves from country A to country B and is immediately wealthier and more powerful than natives of country B, that's colonialism and that's bad.




I don't think this captures the mood pushed by the zeitgeist. Indian immigrants to the US today and Jewish immigrants in the post-WW2 era both fall into the "is immediately wealthier and more powerful than natives" bucket.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				[META] Something Shiny and Two Things Boring
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But the new system can be weaponized too, as an example, harassing someone (within the bounds of the rules)




It is my belief that the rules of this site, as they exist, do not allow harassing people. Can you provide concrete examples of replies you consider to be "harassing" that are also within the bounds of the rules?


(I am of course aware that some leftists consider citing statistics that invalidate their arguments to be "harassment". But I think this is something we very much want to have happen here, and if someone chooses to block the people who prove them wrong, that speaks volumes about the quality of their comments.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				[META] Something Shiny and Two Things Boring
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Consider someone making lots of detailed, high quality posts on Romanian politics and nothing else. I might block this user simply because I DGAF about Romanian politics, and there's just soooo much of it.


This could also be solved with "mute toplevel comments by this user but not replies to something I wrote".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				[META] Something Shiny and Two Things Boring
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I think there's a misunderstanding, that would absolutely work fine with the workaround I described. If B makes a reply to A, B would be unblocked for that entire thread from A. C replies to B, B can reply to C, or A, or D, anywhere in that thread.




Nope. A blocked B, and C replied to B. A did not reply to B, so B does not get unblocked for this conversation.


And you've still not solved the issue of "A few days later in a different thread" from my comment upthread.




I'm not much of a programmer, and I don't know how the site is built. I assume that the mods can get access to who has blocked whom, as they would need that anyway to know to apply the extra-civility rule. And I doubt if someone is seriously abusing the blocking that they would need a whole "statistical analysis" to find out, someone blocking everyone will show up with many more blocks than a normal user right?




When you try to actually implement "many more blocks than a normal user" in code, you'll quickly discover you are doing a statistical analysis. And you'll almost certainly discover that detecting patterns like this is far more complex than you think.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Lets actually roll with your example:




Does a story of a man repeatedly abusing and eventually murdering their young child move the needle for how you'll trust, hire, or promote other men?




Apparently it has, for professions where this is relevant. 89% of childcare workers are women and about 85% of elementary school teachers are. So it does appear that we, as a society, have decided that it's too risky to let men work around children.


https://www.zippia.com/child-daycare-worker-jobs/demographics/


This story discusses that the suspicion you describe is rampant.


https://abcnews.go.com/Health/men-teach-elementary-school/story?id=18784172


I would be curious to see your studies which claim 1-5% of men do sexual crime. A quick google search suggests that about 1.5% of America has ever been in jail and about 1/10 of violent crime is rape. Assuming another 1.5% of America got away with a crime, all criminals are men, and everyone in jail is a violent criminal, that gets us a ballpark of (1.5% + 1.5%) x (10% of crime is rape) / (50% of america is men) = 0.6% of American men did a sex crime.


https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States




I don't know the specifics of how large Brinton's group is nor do I know the estimated number of sexual crimes they commit. But I think you're giving the OP quite a pass to use assumptions about a group that they probably couldn't name as justifications for discrimination.




Consider an experiment one might run:


    

  1. 

    Allow gattsuru to select a person he considers central in this group.
    

    2. 

  2. 

    Put that person, along with 9 randomly selected other people of the same gender and race into a lineup.
    

    3. 

  3. 

    Me, an internet rando who believes he understands gattsuru's point, has to pick the person from (1) out of the lineup from (2).
    

    4. 



With what odds do you think I'll get it wrong?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				[META] Something Shiny and Two Things Boring
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


As I have brought up in the quoted post, a logically straightforward workaround is to have blocking only prevent new replies in the future; the existence of a reply can override the blocking feature,




This really doesn't solve the problem I described at all. The conversation I'd like to have:


Party A: "blah blah lies"


Party B: "A is lying "


Party C: "B, can you clarify that a bit? I'm uncertain about X."


Party B: "Clarifying statement"


You've now prevented this from happening.




And then, trollish behavior should be treated accordingly, no matter what form it takes, and someone blocking anyone who disagrees with them is surely leaving evidence in e.g. the number of blocked users.




This is only accessible to someone with programmatic access to the DB and the time to run a statistical analysis to identify such things.




Let's see the cost-benefit analysis here.




The only cost I see is that when you bail on a conversation, others are allowed to continue it which might make you feel (self-)excluded. That seems like a negligible cost in my view.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				[META] Something Shiny and Two Things Boring
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I see blocking as analogous to walking away from someone at a party. I haven't restricted their conversations with anyone else. Having them reply to me, extra scrutiny or not, undermines my opt out.




You are restricting their conversations with anyone else. Here's a pattern I've seen quite frequently:


Party A: "schools with poor kids are underfunded that's why NAMs do badly in school."


Party B: "False <link to data on funding levels by family income/percentage NAM>"


Party A then blocks B, possibly after making some argument why they are right.


In the reddit implementation it prevents me - party C - from engaging with B in the current conversation. Perhaps I want to know more about his data source or reasoning, but I can't do that except by starting a new thread.


But the real weaponization comes from repeat interactions. A few days later in a different thread:


Party A: "schools with poor kids are underfunded that's why NAMs do badly in school."


Me: "that sounds reasonable and no one is refuting it."


I suspect this is a pattern that at least one person was using this on reddit, though I have no way to prove it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Your threat model is wrong. Here's the threat model:


https://www.themotte.org/post/205/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/38246?context=8#context




Given the fact that the majority of purchases will be through the mobile app (i.e. most likely the same device receiving the 2FA code as the one signing in and ordering), it's quite useless, actually. This is on top of the fact that SIM-based 2FA is horrendous for being extremely susceptible to social engineering,






...Or it could be that people were phished to hand over not only their password but also the 2FA code for authentication...




Current attack: an attacker with 10k stolen CCs, 50%+ of which are already reported as stolen, and he's buying burritos to determine which ones are still live. This attacker is running a python script on his laptop and placing orders either with selenium in the browser or an android VM.


Effort: python test_on_chipotle.py todays_batch.csv


Reward: 5k valid CCs.


Your proposed new attack: make 10,000 phone calls to either T-Mobile/actual Chipotle customers, perhaps half of which will be successful in convincing the customer to hand over the OTP.


Effort: 10k cold calls


Reward: 2.5k valid CCs.


Even assuming the 10k cold calls are still worth the effort to the scammer (they probably aren't), chipotle has just cut phony orders in half.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It is difficult for me to put into words why "the kind of person who does public kink shows" automatically registers to my mind as "the kind of person who is likely unfit for public office at any level." I don't think that being into BDSM or dressing like a dog or even crossdressing is especially likely to correlate with being bad at making dispassionate policy decisions, or whatever else it takes to be a good public servant. But being quite loud and public...




Similarly, most defenders of this guy would probably object very strongly to giving the same job to someone like Andrew Tate. That would be true even if he had a degree in nuclear engineering or wrote 12 academic papers on the topic.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You seem to be trying to compute probabilities by counting occurrences within a reference class, and then forgetting to divide by the size of the reference class. That's odd.


(# of sandy hook and synagogue shooters) / (# of white men) = small


(this one guy) / (# of transvestite puppy play wtf this guy is) = much bigger


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There's a very legit purpose here. No one is stealing burritos, but quite possibly Chipotle is seeing lots of CC fraud.


Suppose you have a bunch of stolen CCs, about 75% of which have already been reported stolen, and you plan to buy a bunch of x-boxes from Walmart with them. If you pickup an order placed online with card reported as stolen, you face the risk of Walmart calling the cops who walk out to the online order pickup parking and arrest you.


So what you do is before buying the x-box you want to test the credit card by making a low value/low suspicion purchase that you don't face the risk of arrest for. A burrito from a national chain (which you never pick up) works nicely.


This is a huge pain for chipotle. They pay penalties on the shady purchases and have the fraudulent transactions eventually clawed back (messing with cashflow). Also uneaten burritos aren't free to produce.


By requiring 2FA you make it costlier for scammers to play this game. (And "costlier" != "impossible". I know you can get a SIM card for $20 at the tmobile store, but now you've just made using a stolen card $20 more expensive and required the scammer to make an extra trip.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What I was originally responding to:




My sense is that EA does not lack for scandals




I do not generally characterize "believes things different from me" as a scandal. I guess you disagree?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I agree that CFAR/MIRI are weird and perhaps hold beliefs that differ from yours. But that's true of many folks. Did you know Muslims believe a powerful being is going to torture me (or perhaps a simulated me?) forever after I die because I do gay sex and didn't visit Mecca?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sorry you're right, I misinterpreted your claim as actually asserting that CFAR/MIRI were doing something scandalous as opposed to merely claiming the media might invent something.


As a claim about the media, I agree. But if the media wants to hit someone, they don't need actual material - they already did that to polite white boys who defend themselves against violent criminals or who stand around doing nothing at all (all captured on video from multiple angles).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Actual specifics I've identified in this story:


    

  1. 

    A mentally ill person who did psychadelics thinks MIRI is like Leverage and currently has assorted vague mental illness symptoms similar to the typical tiktok "I'm mentally ill" influencer.
    

    2. 

  2. 

    Said mentally ill person attributes their mental problems to MIRI. "I had paranoid fantasies about a MIRI executive assassinating me...."
    

    3. 

  3. 

    Multiple people at CFAR had mental health issues. One person took a seminar then did some crimes.
    

    4. 

  4. 

    The word "corruption" is used with no specifics.
    

    5. 

  5. 

    "I had disagreements...and there was quite a lot of effort to convince me of their position..." :O
    

    6. 

  6. 

    Some anti-CFAR protesters were unruly and local cops in a rural area got really excited about trying out their SWAT gear: https://sfist.com/2019/11/19/four-people-in-guy-fawkes-masks-scare-sonoma-retreat/
    

    7. 

  7. 

    "I was certainly socially discouraged from revealing things that would harm the “brand” of MIRI and CFAR, by executive people." :O
    

    8. 

  8. 

    Leverage leverage leverage, it was like leverage. Did you hear leverage was bad? I want some of the attention that leverage girl got.
    

    9. 



The allegations against Leverage are equally non-specific and mostly come down to "I didn't get the social status I was seeking."


https://medium.com/@zoecurzi/my-experience-with-leverage-research-17e96a8e540b


I do agree that some of these folks would be better off attending church than CFAR.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Can you clarify what you mean here? I thought MIRI just wrote not very exciting math papers and CFAR is just another self help seminars for $5000 program.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


On the one hand this seems a bit misguided: if you're going to send death threats to someone, shouldn't it be a literal neo-Nazi,




Those are pretty hard to find. And once you actually do it, you're mostly just punching a homeless guy who can't do anything without an FBI informant holding his hand through the process.