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
1mo ago
"If we get nuked at least we'd have got rid of some blacks" is certainly one of the takes.
I'm making an Is statement, not an Ought statement.
I'm really just curious what kind of a train of thought led you to that.
Nuclear war is on my mind a fair bit, especially right now since October's a good month for amphibious invasion of Taiwan and the USA has a known demented President and an election campaign in progress that's seen a disqualification attempt and two assassination attempts already (and the election being a shitshow was predictable years in advance). So when somebody makes a statement that seems to discount nuclear war as a possibility, it pings my "someone is wrong on the internet" instinct.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
There’s no reversing that.
Fully, no, but I'd be interested in statistics on what the racial makeup would look like if the 20 or 30 biggest cities got deleted; my eyeball says they tend somewhat more minority (especially black).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
Whoops, got them mixed up. Apologies.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
(the only alternative is the Volga-Don canal)
Wrong canal. You're thinking of the Volga-Baltic Waterway and White Sea-Baltic Canal, which together allow Russia to move stuff from the Black Sea to the Baltic or White Seas (the latter of which gives uninterdictable ocean access). The Volga-Don Canal connects the Black and Caspian Seas, but that's of much more limited value since the Caspian Sea is a lake.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
The only thing for it is to hope that they fail spectacularly in a limited way that kills fewer than hundreds of millions of people, and which results in some new oversight, before everything goes even more spectacularly wrong.
You could also hope for Silicon Valley to get nuked in WWIII, and prep to survive it in order to help lock things down afterward. That's one hell of a bleak and bitter view, though.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
If you actually believed that AI was an existential risk in the short- or medium-term, then you would be advocating for the government to seize control of OpenAI’s datacenters effective immediately, because that’s basically the only rational response.
This would be great, yes. To the extent I'm not advocating for it in a bigger way, that's because I'm not in the USA or a citizen there and because I'm not very good at politics.
It’s very suspicious that the most commonly recommended course of action in response to AI risk is “give more funding to the people working on AI alignment, also me and my friends are the people working on AI alignment”.
This has less to do with nobody saying the sane things, and more to do with the people saying "throw money at me" tending to have more reach. There may also be some direct interference from Big Tech; I've heard that YouTube sinks videos calling for Big Tech to be destroyed, for instance.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
If you let at most ten guilty men go free to save a innocent, you're implicitly saying that the risk of them committing crimes is outweighed by the good the innocent person could do.
No; there's also the harm of the imprisonment/execution of the innocent itself, and the second-order effects (you do not want the civilian population en masse to start treating the justice system as an occupying army).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
One thread I'd be fine with. Weekly threads is overkill and clogs up the main page.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
I think weekly threads about this are unnecessary given the low amount of traffic; this is not a very Mottely topic and draws little interest from non-Americans like myself.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
That's a valid position! But you can hopefully now see how your argument comes across as a strawman, because you didn't engage with the actual argument for the "you didn't earn my vote" position.
(And I'd have to agree with @RenOS: either be upfront partisan or be actually, for-reals nonpartisan. People really hate getting suckered.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
· Edited 1mo ago
This isn't about credentials. This is the third-variable problem: if A and B are correlated, then either A causes B, B causes A, or something else C causes both A and B.
I'm willing to take at face value that there's a correlation between anime-watching and transsexualism. But we already know that there is a third variable that causes both of these - autistics tend to like anime due to how our sensory processing works, and we tend to be susceptible to going trans although I'm not certain of why. (There's another obvious confounding third variable, now that I think about it; young people are more exposed to anime due to globalisation, and also are more exposed to pro-trans messaging due to greater Internet use and the rise of SJ.)
If the correlation is fully explained by causation from third variables, then there's no need to hunt for reasons A might cause B because it doesn't cause B. Folamh3's friend's noticed correlation was the preponderance of all four of teenage/autistic/anime/trans, which is totally consistent with "autism and youth tend to cause both anime-watching and transsexualism". If you have evidence that autism and youth do not fully explain the correlation between anime-watching and transsexualism, then yes, time to look for more complex explanations. Until then, there's nothing to explain.
(To give an example: Lung cancer is correlated with peripheral vascular disease. Neither causes the other. The correlation is because smoking causes both lung cancer and peripheral vascular disease, so an unusually-large fraction of the people with one are heavy smokers who are also at high risk of the other.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
I don't think we even know there's a correlation between anime-watching and transsexualism after controlling for the obvious confounder of autism (if you have evidence there is, I'm all ears). No point reaching for hypotheses to explain something until you know whether there's something to explain - especially not when you're thinking of reaching for a notorious false friend like the Jack Thompson argument.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
I don't know why watching anime seems to set so many people on the trans pipeline, I just know that it does. I know that being trans and watching anime both have very large overlaps with autism (in both boys and girls).
Autism causes watching anime because the sensory interpretive circuits in the brain don't work the same way.
I suspect it's being autistic, not the anime-watching, that causes the susceptibility to transsexualism; I saw anime as a kid, of course, but I hadn't gotten into hentai, or started downloading anime, when I went GID.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
Regarding consequentialism: The trend I see from the last ~20 years of US politics is away from catering to undecided votes and towards riling up your base. While a highly partisan voter might never actually switch sides, motivating them to show up seems to be the primary tactic employed by both parties today.
To the extent this is rational on the parties' part, it is because these people don't show up all the time to vote for the lesser evil! If they did, then the portion of this pandering that is rational (as opposed to the portion dictated by the primary system, which is significant) would go away! This is my point.
(To be clear, I think that "get out the vote"-based politics is bad for the USA and that Australia's mandatory IRV which mostly negates it is very good for us (IRV's clone independence also provides an important guardrail against "well, the special interest bought out both major parties, I guess we're fucked"). But that doesn't change the incentives for a US voter as it stands.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
Update: apparently tiny solar panels are, in fact, a thing. The emergency radio I bought has, in addition to its hand-crank and charging port, a ~5cm2 solar panel on it. I can't imagine it provides much power (it does have a cable to charge other things), but eh.
(Given the solar panel, I didn't even bother asking if the radio was EMP-proof; it's going in foil if/when there's a crisis.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
You have now internet-met a libertarian who thinks it's too high.
(I'm grudgingly in favour of an AoC simply because five-year-olds aren't going to understand sex ed and people who haven't had sex ed pose rape-by-implicit-deception issues where a kid doesn't understand that consenting to unprotected sex is consenting to possibly produce a baby and/or possibly get HIV. But putting it above 14 is crazy talk.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
Most libertarians oppose bans on loli hentai for exactly this reason.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
Are you selective with your votes or do you vote on most/all posts you see?
Selective/absent-minded.
Do you find yourself upvoting people you disagree with due to the quality of their argument, or vice versa?
I fairly-reliably upvote (and rate "high-quality" on the volunteer page) for convincing me of something, which requires that I disagreed - in the past tense. If I disagreed before and still do, well, why would I upvote it? Clearly it was untrue and/or not very convincing if I still disagree!
Do you downvote people you're arguing with or do you leave judgement entirely to the masses?
I mean, it depends. If someone's arguing with me in good faith and politely, no. If someone tells me to jump off a cliff, or someone's being disingenuous, sure, downvotes.
Do you remove the auto self-upvote on your posts/comments?
No. It's a community decision to not reward people for upvoting their own posts; the point of this would be negated if scrupulous people started undoing it.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
· Edited 1mo ago
black features don't seem desirable on a man either
AIUI women care less about facial features (on average), so even if the direction's the same, the strength of the effect on overall attractiveness might be less.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
Did you have an opinion of me before this video lowered it?
"Well-intentioned but overly simplifies things".
I am open in the comments that, while the rest of my videos aim to be nonpartisan, I do have partisan motivations for this video.
That's all well and good, but comments are typically something seen after the video, not information that's examined when deciding whether to watch it.
This is why I don't address [...] people that cannot decide on a "lesser evil".
Yes, you do. Section 3, "Does voting accomplish anything?", is basically addressing these people (though I suppose it's possible you haven't realised that this rhetoric comes from this position).
If you have some good alternate motivations I am interested to hear them, and I have been engaging with people in the comments so I can hear about them.
The reason I called your position "naïve first-order consequentialist" is that, while you deny it*, the motivation for parties to change their policies is less "what the base wants" and more "what undecideds want". If your vote is not realistically swingable (either from one party to another, or between one party and staying-home/third-party), the parties have no game-theoretic motivation to care about what you want. Naïve first-order consequentialism asks only "is choice A better than choice B?". Consequentialism with decent decision theory asks "are the choices I'm being offered contingent on how I choose between choice A and choice B, and what choice mechanism on my part gives the best incentives to offer me better choices?".
(With that said, the primary system in the USA does a hilarious job of making it very difficult for parties to behave rationally, and also one does have to vote sometimes for the game theory to kick in; a permanent nonvoter is also a sunk cost.)
The funny bit here is that these kinds of decision-theory issues are why evolution designed us to often defy shitty choices; you might be smarter than the people following their gut instincts, but that doesn't mean you're smarter than the process creating those gut instincts.
*I assumed your denial probably meant you understood this issue and were bullshitting; I suppose that was uncharitable and I should have considered that maybe you hadn't actually thought it through before trying to debunk it.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1mo ago
· Edited 1mo ago
-
I notice that 100% of what you've said both in your blurb here and in your blurb on YouTube avoids the appearance of partisanship, but the actual video is very clearly intended to get people to vote for Harris. This is disingenuous.
-
You have zero mention of the issue that, hey, this situation sucks and that preferential voting would help avoid these kinds of dilemmas.
-
You paper over the issue that while politicians do often keep their promises, a lot of things simply aren't on the ballot. You don't even acknowledge the possibility that for some people, not voting for either major party is in fact the correct choice because there's no difference on the relevant issues. (To give an example, I tried to single-issue vote on civil defence last election year here in Australia, but I couldn't, because all parties' civil defence policies were the empty string; I eventually gave up on that and voted on other, less-important issues, but like 80% of what I wanted simply wasn't available to vote for.)
-
Your description of the case for not voting for the lesser evil as an excuse for "it feels bad" is to a fair extent a strawman (also your naïve first-order consequentialist point is greatly exploitable), and reeks of using Dark Arts to shame people into doing what you want i.e. voting for Harris.
Overall, this is get-out-the-vote propaganda masquerading as a fair look at the options, I'm disgusted, and my opinion of you is drastically lowered. This is the case even though I would mildly prefer that Harris won.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2mo ago
It's more a BBS format than an imageboard format.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2mo ago
Either Reddit's reputation has to be ruined, or you have to offer something that's technically better that becomes the first place anyone interested on a community on any topic would check out (and not just terminally online contrarians).
Technically, there is a third option, the one that's deployed frequently by SJ - "destroy Reddit's technical capability to function, such that people can't use it anymore". It's just that that's really hard for such a large platform that doesn't have many external dependencies.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2mo ago
Wait, was this meant to be a reply to something in the "Cultural Marxism" thread a couple of top-level posts down?
I mean, if it's literally unanimous, then they totally can dump Turkey; they'd just need to agree to all leave NATO and make a new organisation that is literally copypasted NATO except Turkey doesn't get admitted.
More options
Context Copy link