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
4d 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.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d 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).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d 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.
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
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.).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d 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).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d 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.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
8d 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?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
8d 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).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
8d 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.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
Okay, I'm also confused now.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d 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".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d 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.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
There is an important distinction between the current USA and the USA of 1860. Namely, one of these has eleven times the population of the other despite being mostly the same size (yeah, yeah, Alaska, but it's not exactly the breadbasket of the USA). The modern developed world has staggeringly-high, unprecedented population densities, and while some of that is from permanent knowledge gained, a lot more of it is from economic sophistication. A farmer of 1860 can make most of the stuff he needs - not all, but most, and his tools are at least pretty durable and repairable. A farmer of 2025 is using agricultural equipment manufactured in cities from mined minerals and fuelled with petroleum products from oil fields to spread mined/synthesised fertilisers, pesticides, and F1 hybrid seeds whose progeny aren't viable. Most of those things are produced hundreds of kilometres from his farm if not thousands, and many of them are well beyond his capacity to even repair let alone replace, and they make him more efficient.
Civil strife means things hundreds of kilometres away are not available to you anymore because there are enemies between you and them, and they can't get their inputs either. What we've built is a gleaming metropolis of elaborate, carefully-built crystal towers, not an indestructible pyramid. Guess what happens when your food production drops by 80% and you were only a moderate food exporter in percentage terms before this, and you also have difficulty importing food. Then consider what people will do in their desperation, and the resulting lasting damage to culture and society.
I am actually eliding a fair bit of stuff here because, um, some Mottizens want bad things to happen instead of good things.
(The extent of Australia's food surplus is such that with the standard abandonment of grain-fed livestock (which is super-inefficient in terms of food calories) we'd still clearly pull through if the music stopped. This is a special and highly-unusual privilege. The USA, despite being the biggest food exporter in the world in absolute terms, does not have that absurd cushion of safety.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
"Chopped" is apparently slang for "rough-looking."
I will say, this is a lot better than there being a (new) epidemic of men being chopped up or having their dicks chopped off. I suppose if you wanted to get particularly creative, a particularly disgusting case would be an epidemic of meat intended for eating being discovered as, well, "chopped man"!
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
· Edited 11d ago
Is their heart going to be more in it when it's their own homeland they're burning and shelling?
Probably, yes. Civil wars do tend to have a lot of massacres because both sides consider the other to be traitors and not a legitimate state actor to whom the laws of war apply. Remember, "The Blue Tribe has performed some kind of very impressive act of alchemy, and transmuted all of its outgroup hatred to the Red Tribe." That's a lot of hatred, although perhaps still less than that which the Red Tribe has for the Blue.
On reflection - and you're right, I was kinda repeating old arguments without sufficient reflection - I was basically assuming "tyrant has first move, has the armed forces in lockstep, and is willing to wage Vernichtungskrieg", which is the worst-case scenario for the militia. I will note that you are, in fact, still talking about a lot more than small arms here; mortars are far, far more effective than small arms, and are not something the Blue Tribe is currently trying to take away from private citizens (I'm... pretty sure there's nowhere in the USA where random people can walk into a store and buy a mortar? Something something, Federal Firearms Licence? So then, a militia that has them is specifically either one with illegal stockpiles, one that's basically pulled a fast one on the tyrannous government regarding having such licences, or one with improvised mortars constructed after the start of hostilities when the term "legal" becomes meaningless). And even then, I don't think that's enough to win the war. The peace, yes, I'll vaguely allude to that being a fairly-likely win (if an extremely-Pyrrhic one). But not the war, not if the armed forces are united against you for reasons.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
Riiiight, so they can be more easily doxed and their families threatened.
That's called terrorism and rebellion, and there are other ways of dealing with it. A state that hasn't at least partially failed doesn't need to hide from terrorists.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
I will note that since mechanisation, you kinda need militia to have tanks and MANPADs in order to provide a credible deterrent to tyranny. This isn't a reductio ad absurdum; that's colourable. But that's where the goalposts are.
(I am armed up to the extent of the law in Victoria - i.e. I have a compound bow - but this isn't to FIGHT THE POWER. This is as a moderately-unlikely contingency in case of the police failing to control cannibal looter mobs subsequent to nuclear war. Cannibal looter mobs are much easier to fight off than SWAT.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
"Women can do no wrong" is an extremely uncharitable reading of this transcript.
It's a harsh reading, but a fair one of Tonia Antoniazzi's rhetoric.
Originally passed by an all-male Parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls.
New clause 1 will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help.
As Members will know, much of the work that I do is driven by the plight of highly vulnerable women and by sex-based rights, which is why I tabled new clause 1.
While my hon. Friend and I share an interest in removing women from the criminal law relating to abortion,
The fact is that new clause 1 would take women out of the criminal justice system, and that is what has to happen and has to change now.
However, all that this new clause seeks to do is take women out of the criminal justice system now, and give them the support and help they need.
You can argue about whether her proposed amendment actually reflects this, but her rhetoric absolutely does.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
Do you endorse "accompaniment" killings like Sati?
The voluntary form is something I can appreciate, if not endorse. Reactionary on deep love, and all.
The involuntary form can fuck off. Murder is bad, news at 11.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12d ago
Everything getting greyer is less to do with gay activists and more to do with society, in general, not loving bright colors everywhere. I blame autism increasing,
This isn't the autistic pattern. My understanding is that we mostly tend toward loving highly-saturated, solid colours (the most notorious example being anime).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12d ago
Yes, this is a clear distinction between the two problems. Kavka's billionaire does care about what you intend to do, not only (or even at all) what you will do.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12d ago
· Edited 12d ago
But I don't think it creates much light to try to talk about "bad faith" when describing the external behavior of a movement without any reference to the conscious experiences of anybody in the movement, whether sincere or otherwise.
From within the movement, it sure doesn't feel like it. I did say that it only counts by the outgroup-definition of bad faith, and called it a "third option".
From without, as someone who wants to know ideal behaviour for dealing with the group, the game-theoretic incentives are identical: "don't make deals with things that aren't going to honour those deals". For the outgroup, the rest is gravy; this question of "will X honour deals" is 99% of what it wants to know, because it determines whether it should make terms (and avoid a needless civil war) or fight (and avoid exploitation). That answer rests solely on the result, not the process. The rest is interesting anthropological information, but they're your outgroup; it's not like you matter to them as people and they don't care about all of the same things as you.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12d ago
· Edited 12d ago
To which I say, you aren't offering any evidence that these compromises are offered in bad faith, you're pretending to read the minds of your outgroup and ascribe the worst possible impulses to them.
I feel there's kind of a false dichotomy/definition debate going on here.
Let's talk about Newcomb's Paradox. There is and stubbornly remains some class of people who think the solution to the problem is to intend to one-box, but then to become a two-boxer after Omega has made its prediction. This solution is fatally flawed because, to misquote Minority Report, "Omega doesn't care what you intend to do. Only what you will do". If one will "become" a two-boxer before the decision is made, then one already is a two-boxer, because the definition of a two-boxer is "one who will pick both boxes", not "one who currently thinks he will pick both boxes". If I am programming Omega, and I want to make Omega as reliable as possible, I should count such people as two-boxers because they will two-box; their false consciousness of being a one-boxer, no matter how sincerely believed, is not actually relevant.
(I went looking for the exchange I had with one of these people, but I couldn't find it.)
The shape of the excluded third option should now be pretty clear. There exists a class of people who'll sincerely make a compromise, and then change their minds later. When talking about your ingroup, the natural tendency is to count these people as "good faith", because they believe what they say and you sympathise with them. When talking about your outgroup, the natural tendency is to count these people as "bad faith" because the natural context of analysing your outgroup is wanting to know whether deals will be kept or not.
Hence, under their definitions, "deals have not been kept in the past" is evidence of bad faith, because "your outgroup doesn't care what you intend to do. Only what your movement will do". It's not totally-irrefutable evidence - movements change, and not all deals are created equal - but it's relevant. Moreover, I think modelling social justice as unable to keep its bargains is actually fairly justified, because of two reasons:
-
Social justice is leaderless. Committees are bad at keeping their bargains absent specific effort, because committees tend to include people who wanted to reject the bargain, and turnover might lead to those people gaining control of the committee at some point (and "you should respect a bargain you never agreed to, because others in your movement did over your objection" is a much-tougher sell than "you should respect a bargain you agreed to"*).
-
Social justice is not very interested in keeping historical norms. "Dead old white men", and so forth. So that tough sell is even tougher.
I get that it's really awkward to respond to the claim "you can't make a believable compromise, because you will change your mind and/or others in your movement will overrule you". I sympathise. Unfortunately, that doesn't always mean it's false.
*I'm reminded of the exchange at the end of the TNG episode "The Pegasus":
PICARD: In the Treaty of Algeron the Federation specifically agreed not to develop cloaking technology.
PRESSMAN: And that treaty is the biggest mistake we ever made! It's kept us from exploiting a vital area of defence.
PICARD: That treaty has kept us in peace for sixty years, and as a Starfleet officer, you're supposed to uphold it.
It's very, very easy to be a Pressman. There are probably still circumstances where I'd be a Pressman, despite having assimilated Ratsphere cautions against it.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12d ago
Google "Chopped Man Epidemic" for a vantablackpill.
I did, and 100% of the links are videos. I tried watching one of the less-terrible-looking videos, and it was still terrible; it started with a "preview" reel that was clearly just there to inculcate feelings of "WTF is going on" in order to maximise watchtime.
Could you summarise for people who don't feel like dipping their brains in the brain-hacking engagement-optimisation industry?
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.
More options
Context Copy link