magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
No bio...
User ID: 1103
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
I knew about Nanjing, but not about the others. Good catch.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
Someone has probably made this argument on The Motte before. We aren't missing any communists from roll call, are we?
I'm not sure there have been full-blown revolutionary communists here since the site move. I'm a socialist, but obviously I'm not missing (never been to Canada, actually).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
It's not illegal for the kid to go wandering around the neighbourhood either (the kid won't be charged with a crime); the problem is that the laws/policies punish the parents for physically allowing him/her to so wander. Likewise, there are a zillion ways in which things are set up to prevent kids from killing themselves, and it would (AFAIK, though IDK about Canada) be illegal for a euthanasia clinic to assist a child suicide.
I don't think anyone's arguing for kids to be considered criminals for trying to transition; the anti-trans side want teachers and doctors (and maybe parents) to be liable for facilitating that transition, and for parents to not be punished for preventing that transition.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
I was giving regions in terms of pre-modern hegemons (and hedged "known world") because of the whole issue where transcontinental wars were basically not a thing you could do back then, so Rome and Beijing didn't really have to concern themselves with what the other thought. These days the concept of a "regional hegemon" has been severely undermined (though it's still not quite nothing).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
If "diagnose people with gender dysphoria if they say they're trans" is an effective diagnosis method, why is it getting so many apparent false-positives?
I rated your post Good, but I'll have to pull you up on this one. Gender dysphoria is the syndrome, where people start feeling terrible about their sex and sometimes get phantom-limb. It obviously exists; I've had it. The debate is about the appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, which in my case appears to have been "ignore it and it'll go away".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
I think we're all negotiating on price. Like, to give the obvious example, do you think kids should be allowed to kill themselves? Hell, do you think they should be allowed to apply for euthanasia if they get depression? I'd say no, and I'd say that on the grounds that most kids disallowed from killing themselves will, on reflection (and usually not that long a reflection!) be glad that they were stopped; their coherent extrapolated volition is to be disallowed from something that stupid. Hell, I've attempted suicide three times and am glad I was stopped the latter two (the first one I wasn't actually stopped; I just failed by myself).
Medical transition is not as serious as literal suicide. It's also far more serious than essentially everything else on the list of things the fun police don't want to let kids do with maybe the exception of some drugs. Kids playing by themselves without supervision are very unlikely to be maimed for life. Kids medically transitioning will with near-certainty. So one can consistently support free range kids and still oppose transitioning kids, at least as long as one doesn't take "free range kids" to the psychotic extreme of "deliberately let the kids jump off cliffs!".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
· Edited 2d ago
There is a difference between "is the pre-eminent power in the known world" and "has over 50% of the power in the known world, such that balancing fails and hegemony ensues because it can defeat every other nation put together". Tanista's claim is that #1 is true of the USA but #2 is false, which means the USA does in fact still need to do normal diplomacy (because while it could defeat any one nation, there is more than one non-US nation and it could not defeat them all at once).
The obvious historical parallel is Britain moving from "splendid isolation" and the "rule of two"* in the nineteenth century to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, Entente Cordiale and Special Relationship in the early twentieth (in which Britain was still the pre-eminent power, just not by such an impressive margin).
*The "rule of two" was that the British navy was larger than the second-largest and third-largest navies put together. This enabled "splendid isolation", in which Britain refused to form long-term alliances because it was invincible anyway. Indeed, one thing that stands out during the Napoleonic Wars was that Britain was the only country in the anti-Napoleon coalitions to never make peace with Napoleon; they didn't have to, because even with Napoleon and his puppet states across Europe - and for the last few years, the USA - against them simultaneously, the Royal Navy still made Britain and most of its dominions completely safe. That is the power that lets you say "fuck you" to diplomacy. It's the power the Romans had in Europe and the Med. It's the power the Persians sometimes had in West Asia (though not all that often). It's the power the Chinese had in the Far East for so long they forgot it could end (which is why they got bitchslapped in the Opium Wars; they said "fuck you" to Britain without the capability to back it up). You can maybe find some more examples, but there aren't many.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
In case you're not making a joke, "the EEA" in the context of evo-psych and human biology refers to "the environment of evolutionary adaptedness", i.e. the conditions humans lived with in prehistory and which our bodies and brains are selected to best cope with. For instance, humans don't like concrete jungles, probably because the most similar thing to a concrete jungle in the EEA was an area recently destroyed by volcanism and such areas were generally devoid of food and water.
The "sex cave and kids cave" part was referring to the EEA. The "sex room and kids room" part was referring to "the vast majority of recorded history", because peasants were poor compared to us.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
Which is why making such a claim about "most of the non-US West" when they really mean only UK and Ireland a ridiculous but sadly common thing here.
I mentioned Australia in that post. I know Canada has them as well, and I think NZ does too. I admittedly don't know that much about the Continent, but no, I didn't "really mean only UK and Ireland".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
Yup, we had an author get jailed in NSW a few months back.
(Enforcement is very spotty, as you'd expect.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
First time I've seen the term, but I think it's pretty clear if you know the context.
Specifically, that the three Abrahamic religions have different days of the week as the Sabbath. Jews consider Saturday the Sabbath. Christians consider Sunday the Sabbath. Muslims consider Friday the Sabbath.
Hence, asking him to work on Sunday implicitly (if imprecisely) tests whether he's a practicing Christian, because Christians are not supposed to work on Sundays.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
This is probably to allow Anthropic to have operations in the non-US West, most of which legally considers "a fictional story about underage characters boinking" to be "a video of a real-life statutory rape".
@erwgv3g34 In Oz, 700-year-old lolis are also treated as CP.
(These laws are dumb and I break them, but Anthropic probably can't get away with that.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
I genuinely wish people in these groups had a more traditional sense of morality, a better understanding of boundaries, and generally just cared about Chesterton's fence and second order effects.
There is no Chesterton's Fence here. Kids were exposed to nudity and sex in the EEA and for the vast majority of recorded history, because that's what happens when you can't afford a sex room and a kids room (or, further back, a sex cave and a kids cave). High ages of consent are also basically unknown before the 1800s. You're not espousing traditional morality when you want to keep the kids away from sex; you're espousing Victorian morality.
(Admittedly, orgies are a lot less common in history, though not completely unknown.)
I'd... maybe suggest checking your history and prehistory before accusing people of disrespecting tradition and Chesterton's Fence.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
10d ago
I think we understand each other, then.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
10d ago
Did you perhaps edit very shortly after posting? I recall seeing "100% bulverism" and responding to that.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
@Amadan did explain his reason for thinking @ArjinFerman was lying (that if he was unsure what Amadan meant he would have asked).
That reason was just bad, as it excluded the option of "AF was confident in his interpretation, so he didn't ask".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
You do this because you are not interested in truth seeking or understanding, but "getting" people you dislike (me, in this case).
Hopefully you don't think that of me, so...
I interpreted the post AF linked as saying "everyone on theMotte prejudged this incident according to their hatred of women, hoodlums and/or brown people, and no evidence will have any effect". The only element of that that's actually kinder than what AF read it to mean was that you didn't appear to be applying this to non-Mottizens, but clearly AF himself is one so I understand his annoyance.
Like, okay, if that's not what you meant, fine - and AF himself, in this chain, has not actually called you a liar or insisted that you did mean the thing you're denying, just noted twice that he legitimately thought your comment to mean what he originally stated. The only people who've called others liars in this chain are you and @TowardsPanna, and I think you're both wrong.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14d ago
The fact that men report being cheated on less and also report cheating less makes me wonder if the "have you been cheated on" question is actually mostly measuring having been cheated on. Seems plausible it could primarily be measuring "what is your standard of proof for concluding you've been cheated on" and "how good are you at detecting when you've been cheated on".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14d ago
· Edited 14d ago
Update: I asked the Victorian Greens if they still support that paragraph, and they said yes.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
It’s good that public figures are calling for calm. That is the most important part of their jobs.
It is a part, but I wouldn't call it "the most important part". Admittedly, in Northern Ireland specifically it is a larger part than usual, but I'd call running the country more important than calling for calm (I think I'd prefer a politician who ran the country and never called for calm to one which called for calm and never ran the country, although admittedly a politician that calls for mob violence is a different kettle of fish).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
If you expect an AI fizzle, sure, the rest follows.
(TBC, I want an AI fizzle, at least for neural nets, but I suspect that we will need to ban it to make it fizzle. And I am a prepper, just not particularly for AI - non-AI GCRs are definitely a thing.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
If you accept what should be very obvious - that it's much more likely that AI ends up creating the conditions for a catastrophic scenario that does not instantly kill you than one that destroys the world or at least you personally
I don't think "instantly kill you" is a prerequisite for "destroys the world". Sure, a hostile AI that goes full Skynet is unlikely to get everyone in the first pass with bioweapons, but if the AI is not destroyed or crippled beyond repair in that chaos then you're just the last light to go out; the cleanup robots will break open your bunker months or years later and there's fuck-all you can do about it. Skynet isn't like a plague or an asteroid impact, because it doesn't naturally end - indeed, if it wins, it gets worse over time as the robots build more robots.
I think a key point here is that most of the scenarios you're thinking of where there's a standard catastrophe are subsets of "AI fizzle", where AI does not hit a perfect 10. If AI is a 10, then either it's [OPPOSED TO LIFE] (and you're dead), it's aligned to someone who'll take all your stuff away/kill you (what use is wealth you cannot retain?), or it's aligned to someone who'll give you utopia (and possibly even resurrect the recently-dead).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15d ago
Never heard or heard of it before to my knowledge.
Well, I was more addressing the "murderer" part than the specific "black widower" part.
More options
Context Copy link