magic9mushroom

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 3hr ago

This is also dragging in another one of my hobbyhorses: "whaaat's the haaarm in a few druuuugs, bitta fun, should be legaaaal". Well, maybe legal drugs in this instance would indeed have kept the man from getting killed by the paranoid, possibly high, 'friend' who was claiming he owed a huge drug debt.

But the problem is the 'friend'. A junkie who was doing some minor dealing, probably dipping into his own supply, probably being leaned on by his suppliers (who are not nice people who think drugs are wonderful and everyone should have free access to them so we'll supply them) for the missing money, getting paranoid and trying in turn to lean on his customers with claims that they owed more money than they did. This was not somebody doing 'few druuuugs, bitta fuuuuun'. Drugs and guys like this don't mix well (neither does alcohol, I'll freely admit that). The drugs legalisers seem to push the idea that drugs are just harmless party fun and if legal nobody would ever have any bad outcomes.

This is just not the right case to be making this claim. If drugs were legal, this guy would probably not be a drug dealer (because pharma companies have standards) and wouldn't be being leaned on by his suppliers to such an extent (because pharma companies that threaten to kill people stop being legal in a hurry).

The cases that actually do still arise from legal drugs are "addict (i.e. end-user) runs out of money and becomes a career criminal to get his fix" and "stimulant-induced mania/psychosis". These are cases which are unambiguously "this is not due to prohibition; this is just due to drugs being available at all". This is why I'm against legalising meth, for instance, despite being generally in favour of legalisation, because it's fucking notorious for doing the latter (the former is somewhat more tractable in other ways). But this case is not actually one of them, and you do your position a disservice by trying to cram it into that mould.

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 4hr ago

Or saying he got an axe and chopped a tree apart in lieu of his interlocutor's carcass. I actually did that once (and yes, I mean both the chopping and the telling him); I think the only reason I didn't get banned was that the troll who provoked the response was the forum owner and wanted to troll me more in the future.

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 2d ago

I've been inactive for a hot minute, but the last time I was involved in a big HBD hullabaloo the most common position (hard to tell if it was actually a majority) was something like: "HBD is real and the societal solution to that is something like Classical Liberal Individualism."

Still pretty common.

Obviously, with all due respect, fuck socialism tho.

Just so we're clear, when I say I'm a socialist I'm saying I support at least a large degree of command economy. I'm not saying I want a totalitarian one-party state.

If you're still saying "fuck that", okay, fine. I just want to be sure we're communicating effectively.

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 2d ago

Neo-Nazis: you're right, not many of them.

Trump: Trump is complicated because most Mottizens are not Trumpists, but a lot of Mottizens tend to downvote anti-Trump views because they associate it with SJ. Anti-SJ posts that also disparage Trump (particularly on a personal level) are eaten up with gusto; I have one at +17/-0.

"Right-wing extremists": it really, really depends on how you define it. The big stumbling block here is racism: obviously there are a vast number of possible views on "what genetic racial disparities in cognition/personality exist and what should we do about them", but according to SJ and much of the centre, literally any view on the topic other than "all numbers are zero" is automatically far-right extremism. And, well, "all numbers are zero" is quite an unpopular view here; it's outnumbered well over 2:1.

(Heck, they'd likely consider me far-right due to this, which is hilarious since I'm also a socialist.)

If you remove that one particular third rail... it still depends on definition (including whether your definition of "liberal" is the insane modern US one or the etymological one; there are a lot more Actual Liberals than there are SJers). There are more Actual Liberals here than there are ethnostate advocates; there are less SJers than there are people who think major reforms are needed to dismantle SJ; there are probably more SJers than people in favour of chucking bombs at SJers.

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 4d ago · Edited 4d ago

I don't think the law is bad. As Zvi said:

TikTok is not purely an op. TikTok is a legitimate highly predatory business, and also TikTok is an op.

There have been surveys showing that most TikTok users would prefer that TikTok not exist (they're still there because everyone is there and that imposes social costs on anyone who's not), never mind the non-users. It's got massively-negative externalities - and at least part of those externalities are malicious attempts by the PRC to destroy the USA.

It is one of the roles of government to destroy things with massively-negative externalities. This is one of the primary clauses of the social contract - "we'll deal with the villains in an orderly fashion, so don't murder them in the streets". Yes, not all TikTok bans would be net-positive; Zvi was an opponent of the RESTRICT Act, for instance. But this one looks good; the scum just managed to bribe their way out.

Context

Quality Contributions Report for June 2025

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 9d ago

I seem to recall putting "neutral" and then changing it to "deserves a warning" on noticing the last paragraph (because seriously, that was vicious). I also seem to recall taking so long to do it that @Amadan had already actually warned you by the time I completed the form.

(I've given out "deserves a ban" before, but all the times I can remember were death threats. There are other things that'd get it, like doxxing or advocacy of specific terrorist acts, but those are pretty rare here.)

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 9d ago · Edited 9d ago

My understanding is that it's not a hypothesis founded or invoked with nuance, which is what you're trying to insert here.

Disproof by example: I'm most favourably disposed to genetic explanations of group differences in a few specific cases.

Sub-Saharan Africans, because of longer timescales of the main, H. s. s. component (100,000+ years of relative isolation in some cases), and because of very low hybridisation with Neanderthals (whereas everyone else has ~3%).
Austronesians, because they're essentially the only group with substantial Denisovan ancestry.
Shitty immune systems from those that didn't settle down until recently, because of the massive and sustained selection for plague resistance since we started building cities. I'm normally sceptical of recent-significant-change explanations, but this one has actually met the high burden of proof given the Columbian Exchange and the similar effects on Australian Aborigines, and it's a relatively-simple tweak compared to stuff "upstairs".

What's not there? I'm highly sceptical of any attempt to explain differences within Eurasia by HBD; the timescales of divergence are quite short, with in most cases significant gene-flow for the entire period, and we've all been civilised for long enough. That includes people going on about Near Easterners (except to the - relatively minor AIUI - degree that there's sub-Saharan African introgression) and, yes, Jews.

So I'm not really with @DradisPing about Iraqis being genetically unsuited to democracy, though I will note that he did also mention "deep culture" and I don't see anything wrong with that claim.

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 9d ago · Edited 5d ago

you'll start questioning the concept of childhood vaccinations or jet fuel melting steel beams.

TBF, the conspiracists are right that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel (not without a proper burner, anyway). Their mistake is in assuming that you need to melt structural supports in order to make them fail; in actual fact, steel loses most of its strength well before it actually melts.

Reminds me of a bad habit among amateur analysts trying to calculate explosive yields: not knowing the difference between pulverisation (shattering something into dust) and vaporisation. Lots of people see "the building isn't there anymore" and then blithely plug in the specific heat and heat of vaporisation for the entire mass of the building, which is a drastic overestimate because it takes a lot less energy to pulverise than to vaporise something.

Context

Quality Contributions Report for June 2025

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 10d ago

I suppose in that case I have to credit @Chrisprattalpharaptr for making this post which I was served on the volunteer page.

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 10d ago

but still is free to publicly proclaim and propagandize them.

As I noted, this is not actually how it works in most of the non-US West. Literally, where I live (Victoria, Australia), @SecureSignals' posts on theMotte (not even what he's not said but never denied; what he's explicitly said) would (AIUI; IANAL) constitute a crime and he could be jailed for it.

As a high-profile example, Björn Höcke got fined (twice) for quoting a relatively-inoffensive Nazi slogan ("Everything for Germany"). This is a matter of record.

The simple fact of the matter in a significant chunk of the world is that Nazis are persecuted for their political views. You may think, as I do, that their views are a heap of steaming shit, and you may think, as I do, that that persecution is also a heap of steaming shit, but neither of these changes the fact of the persecution occurring.

Also, obligatory Scott quote:

If you start suggesting maybe it should switch directions and move the direction opposite the one the engine is pointed, then you might have a bad time.

Try it. Mention that you think we should undo something that’s been done over the past century or two. Maybe reverse women’s right to vote. Go back to sterilizing the disabled and feeble-minded. If you really need convincing, suggest re-implementing segregation, or how about slavery? See how far freedom of speech gets you.

In America, it will get you fired from your job and ostracized by nearly everyone. Depending on how loudly you do it, people may picket your house, or throw things at you, or commit violence against you which is then excused by the judiciary because obviously they were provoked. Despite the iconic image of the dissident sent to Siberia, this is how the Soviets dealt with most of their iconoclasts too.

If you absolutely insist on imprisonment, you can always go to Europe, where there are more than enough “hate speech” laws on the book to satisfy your wishes. But a system of repression that doesn’t involve obvious state violence is little different in effect than one that does. It’s simply more efficient and harder to overthrow.

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 10d ago

I mean, a dissident is someone who's in opposition to the majority and/or to the government. Neo-Nazis are opposed by almost all non-neo-Nazis, have zero influence on Western government policy, and in many Western nations are subject to arrest for hate speech for stating their views. So yes, I'd say they qualify.

(With that said, there's AIUI kind of a fight over the term "dissident right" between neo-Nazis, the alt-right more broadly, and the conspiracist/bomb-chucker right more broadly.)

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 15d ago

To give without restraint does not warrant taking without restraint

That isn't what @WhiningCoil and @erwgv3g34 are saying, though. They're saying that a contract which allows one side to take without restraint but does not allow the other to do so is a pure means to extort fools rather than something that is mutually beneficial. The specifics are that one can defect on providing sex within a marriage, due to marital rape, but one can't defect on providing resources, because of alimony/child support and because of divorce splitting assets.

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 16d ago

Yeah (well, assuming he survives; I don't imagine corpses get into many fights), but if these people are all dead, or if the parties aren't recognisable due to e.g. much of the Democratic voter base being turned into charcoal by Dongfengs, or if mass AI brainwashing obviates normal politics, this is just blatantly the wrong question to ask.

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 16d ago

I think that framing it this way misses some important alternative possibilities. Possibilities like "Trump doesn't survive to 2028" (even leaving aside the assassins, which will continue for the foreseeable future, he's less than four years younger than Biden), and "the gameboard has been flipped; this question is no longer relevant" (most obviously by WWIII or by AI).

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 16d ago

Unprosecuted crimes are usually still counted in statistics AIUI (specifically as "unsolved"). However, the more indirect route of "progressive prosecutors decline to do their job -> reporting crime now doesn't result in the crime stopping -> people stop bothering to report it" seems to hold water.

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 16d ago · Edited 16d ago

Free public transport is not really on the table either,

Melbourne has free trams in the CBD. Making the whole Victorian public transport network free (other than on Christmas Day, when it already is) is not really talked about, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone floats the idea; the fares got bid so low in the last election that it's questionable whether they pay for the infrastructure needed to collect them (ticket barriers, ticket inspectors, etc.).

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 19d ago

And for the record, this would be the case regardless of the group in question.

Depends on your definition of "group". There's at least one category of people that's basically just staggeringly negative-sum and appears to exist pretty much solely due to group selection not being strong enough to fully root it out. I'm speaking, of course, of psychopaths. I think "kill all the psychopaths" is a very defensible position; the big problem with doing it is not that we need psychopaths or that they don't deserve it, but that of setting a precedent of gas chambers (because once that taboo's broken people will start arguing for gassing the borderlines and the autistics and the morons, and that's a far-worse idea).

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 19d ago

I'm pretty sure @Amadan would stop asking SS whether he wants to kill all the Jews if SS ever gave a straight "yes" or "no".

I'm also very sure that if SS gave a straight "yes", he would not be banned from theMotte for that. While a number of Mottizens who want their outgroups dead have been banned, it was never for that per se (usually it's been for refusing to stop insulting other Mottizens who are members of those outgroups and/or for insulting mods who mod others insulting the same outgroups; I presume any attempt to use theMotte to organise murders would also get a ban under "Recruiting For a Cause" although I'm not 100% sure whether there's been an explicit example). Given this, I don't think it's correct to describe us as demanding he denounce exterminationism.

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 20d ago

Well, I apologise for mischaracterising you on the neo-Nazi point. Guess this must have been on Reddit, and you just haven't bothered to restate it since.

You're also mischaracterising me, though. I'm somewhat anti-Zionist myself, and there are plenty of others on this site that do not draw the accusations you do. The reason you get accusations of wanting to gas the Jews is because you AIUI combine anti-Zionism with having little faith in ability to assimilate Jews and believing Jewish-exploitativity and Ashkenazi-Jewish-intelligence HBD. At that point, there aren't really a lot of options left for solving the problem; I will grudgingly grant that assuming gas chambers is somewhat uncharitable, but the least-horrifying solution I can see with those premises would literally be ghettos. And, well, you're not an idiot and you clearly think about the Jewish Question a great deal, so it would be very strange if you hadn't reasoned that through.

(To boil down my disagreements with those premises, I think Jews are pretty assimilable if you make an effort, I think any form of HBD on Jews is much, much more suspect than HBD on Africans/Austronesians/Everyone Else due to shorter timescales, and given that of the Jews and part-Jews I've notably interacted with (and I am part-Jew myself, though it's a small part) most of them seemed fine (and the one major exception was probably just a case of misplaced righteousness meeting overconfidence in a risky plan) I'm not really feeling the whole "Jews are evil" thing.)

I mean, I suppose I do have to grant that it's possible to hold a bunch of premises that imply a conclusion and then just go "but I refuse to accept this conclusion, fuck logic". Have to, because there are two issues on which I've basically done that and laid down an unprincipled exception for the sake of my sanity. Is this you?

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 20d ago

The notion I hide my power level is absurd.

I mean, in one sense, sure. Everybody who pays any attention to you knows exactly what you are, and your very username is a coded reference to it.

In another sense... well, I did actually take a look a while back, and you do seem to have made a very consistent attempt to retain one last shred of totally-implausible deniability. You always slide around the accusation of being a neo-Nazi - you never deny it, but you've never actually confirmed it either. And in this very exchange, you have slid around the accusation of wanting the Jews dead; you didn't confirm it, and you threw shade at @Amadan for presuming it, but you carefully didn't actually deny it either.

So the scouter on you reads 8950 instead of 9001. Yes, certainly, 8950 isn't very much lower than 9001, but you are still hiding those last few points of your power level for some reason (the most charitable such explanation being that there are legal ramifications to you saying the magic words).

-1

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 20d ago

Gentiles are not at war with Jews. Neither are a nation.

NB: while I'm pretty sure you meant that Jews aren't a country, Jews do fit the primary definition of "nation" pretty well.

(Obviously, Gentiles do not.)

Context

Transnational Thursday for June 19, 2025

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 21d ago

Okay, I'm also confused now.

Context

Transnational Thursday for June 19, 2025

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 21d ago

I think the first one is that transaction costs in Africa are 1.5x transaction costs in not-Africa, although it's misleadingly worded.

I will also note that "X costs 1.5x what it should" = "1/3 the cost of X is unnecessary".

Context

magic9mushroom If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me 23d ago

I did not say the population would drop 80%. I said food production would drop by 80% (though that's a rough estimate). There's give in a few places (the USA exports food and that would be redirected; grain-fed animals would be replaced by eating the grain; also, while Westerners do need more food than Third-Worlders to not die - because the body stunts from undernutrition, but that's not retroactive - we don't need quite as much food as we get) - just not 5x worth of give.

I think you also have a different opinion of what constitutes "a going concern" than FCfromSSC.

Context