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
2hr ago
Yeah, it also gets complicated when your same-sex parent has been married multiple times, as the implicit terms are "with nothing else for the rest of your life" even if your same-sex parent did in fact have other romances at other points in his life.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2hr ago
Watch out for reverse causation there; a bun in the oven is frequently a trigger for people to actually tie the knot.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3hr ago
I assume the "total nuclear war" exception extends to anything that's an imminent and significant emergency warning for theMotte or a large fraction of its members? "Carrington-class flare incoming, unplug all your electronics ASAP", that sort of thing?
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3hr ago
But then, if you're rushing to The Motte to write a post after total nuclear war starts, you might want to reconsider your competence at making decisions.
Depends on how much prep you already have done. Most of the relevant stuff can be done either well in advance or when the crisis starts.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
22hr ago
"Choad".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
22hr ago
If you want the hard-boiled, fuck-your-sensitivity argument against using it to describe the condition that used to be called "mental retardation": because "retarded" is a euphemism (at least originally) that's not accurate. Developmental retardation is "slowing"; things develop later. (Autistics' motor co-ordination is retarded; it usually shows up in full, but it does so at a later age. I was practically unable to catch a ball until midway through high school.) But low-IQ people will never develop their mental faculties to normal adult levels. "Idiot"/"imbecile"/"moron" don't have this problem (neither does "intellectually disabled", though).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
There's no "killing" in debates,
Eh, there kind of is. The cancellation movement inflicted RL punishments for people's Internet speech (including, outside the US, some people being jailed), and even in the literal sense it's not usually impossible to track down someone from the Internet and murder him (though there are a few on theMotte in particular who have taken massive precautions against that).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
The harm from Jim Crow was largely not from the suppression of Black talent, but in the message it sent to the Black man - that even after he was freed, he was still the White man's strict social inferior.
I feel I should note that I could switch some words around in this sentence ("suppression of male talent", "the woman's social inferior") and then draw a line between DIE and "quiet quitting".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
Marxbro might have been one, but I'm not sure, and I think he was gone before the site move.
Other than that, I don't think so. There's at least one socialist here (me), but AIUI "tankies" refers pretty specifically to the Leninist/Stalinist authoritarian revolutionary socialists, and I'm not one of those. (Stalin was one of history's great villains; the post-Stalin USSR gets perhaps a worse rap than it deserves but was still pretty mediocre.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2d ago
I'd estimate the proportion of the population who has bloodthirst relating to some category of people, in the West, at over 10%. Might even be a majority; I dunno.
How do you propose to make a significant fraction of the population stop being "in your country"? This isn't something that's super-genetic, either; you're talking about killing or exiling members of most families. This idea is civil war bait, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Humans will always have some tendency to think this way. No amount of angry declarations will change that. There exist ways to keep it mostly under control, and every civilisation has made some use of those ways. We should probably be using some of those ways a bit more; serving up Shiri's Scissor to the population was pretty dumb. But your proposed solution is nonsense.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
The list you cited is not very good because it looks at percentage points.
It's not ordered by percentage points. The first four are literally in reverse order of percentage-point difference. The list is bad, but not because it uses that measure (which I think is okay) - because it doesn't use any measure and is apparently just an arbitrary order.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
To be clear, in my post below I was expressing reservations about the idea of trying to deport everyone who cheers atrocities, not about trying to deport (or kill) people who commit atrocities. Thankfully, most of the fuckwits who cheered October 7 do not go out and try it at home, which means we do actually have options in how to deal with them beyond "to defeat the spree killer, shoot at it until it dies".
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
From my perspective you are attempting to draw a distinction without a difference.
I think that whether someone hates all Jews or merely Israeli Jews is somewhat significant to risk assessment by countries which are not Israel and contain Jews.
I will also note that, while bloodthirst is certainly distasteful, there are really quite a lot of people with bloodthirst regarding some group, even in the West. I suspect that trying to outright expel all of them would, ironically, end in rivers of blood.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
For hating Jews qua Jews? Yes. It's not zero correlation, but one does not have to hate all Jews to hate Israelis.
(For hating Israelis, it is of course sufficient.)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5d ago
· Edited 5d ago
This is a real phenomenon, anti-Semitism is a real phenomenon, and obviously a lot of anti-Semites are also anti-Israel, but you can want Israel destroyed without hating Jews qua Jews. Using "anti-Semitism" for - even vicious - hatred of Eretz Yisrael alone frankly is mostly a cudgel - it's trying to discredit all anti-Zionists by equating them to Hitler. (Of course, the NSDAP, while of course horrifically anti-Semitic, wasn't actually notably anti-Zionist - in some cases they supported Zionism in order to get Jews to emigrate.)
To give a similar non-Jew example: I'm very leery of Mainland Chinese expats and exports. This problem does not apply to (South) Korean, Japanese or Taiwanese expats and exports. I have no problem with the Han Chinese as an ethnic group (and remember, most present Taiwanese are Han; the refugees from the Chinese Civil War outnumbered the native population), nor with the nearly-racially-indistinguishable Koreans and Japanese. My problem is with the totalitarian state of the People's Republic of China, which brainwashes its youth and may in the near future enact full-scale cyberwarfare against the West; enemy agents and hardware with enemy backdoors are dangerous.
There are legitimate reasons to dislike Israel and Western support of Israel that have nothing to do with the fact that most of its citizen population is Jewish. I don't happen to think that those reasons justify massacre, but some do. To insistently consider such people "anti-Semitic" is to buy into the Zionists' (and, to some degree, the neo-Nazis') preferred frame that Israel speaks for and is supported by all Jews, which it doesn't and isn't.
Are there true anti-Semites, including in the West? Yes, obviously. But your proffered litmus test for them is inaccurate. And while I'm not attributing malice to you personally, the conflation of anti-Zionists and anti-Semites is to a large degree enemy action - and it's difficult to blame people for refusing to concede to that.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
Is blond Jesus common? I mean, I can think of one blond Jesus depiction off the top of my head, sure, but it's the painting by Adolf Hitler and one must assume that's a bit unrepresentative.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
7d ago
Mostly decent points; I was largely criticising the structure of your argument, not particularly taking a firm position on the issue, and I did think of some of these questions myself.
I will note that, uh... not trans spaces specifically, but some SJ spaces can get pretty bad. When I said "terrorist propaganda" I wasn't being hyperbolic; I was talking about the shit I've seen, which is if anything worse than the stuff mentioned in that Unherd article (I hadn't actually read it until writing this post). I was talking about literal calls to do terrorism, and advice about how to avoid being arrested for violent crime. I'm pretty libertine when it comes to speech, but "don't literally urge people to riot and assassinate" is probably like #2 on the list of exceptions everyone makes (#1 being the most blatant forms of harmful sensation, like pointing a concert-rated speaker into someone's bedroom at night). You're right that mass shootings specifically have some mental-illness issues, but I do think there's cause to crack down on the places that start to function as insurgent communications infrastructure and that doing so might ease some of the rioting in the medium-term.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
8d ago
· Edited 8d ago
The question, at that level, is not whether all mass shooters like speed skating, but how many speed skaters turn into school shooters.
That depends on whether you're trying to determine how to treat your friend the speed skater, or trying to stop school shootings. If most Ys are Xs, and you want to get rid of the Ys, it's generally a good idea to take a look at X to see whether you can make it lead to Y less often - whether or not Ys are a large fraction of Xs. This chain leads back to FtttG talking about how trans spaces ought to be given a spring cleaning of terrorist propaganda, not talking about how all the transsexuals are evil and must die.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
9d ago
Oh, right, I forgot that that feature's called "blocking" here (and I wasn't aware you could tell if someone blocked you; some forum software doesn't tell the person being blocked/ignored, and if I've received such a notification it was a very long time ago).
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
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
11d ago
The democrats have never cared about “blasphemy” in any form, in fact they quite often (especially with regard to Christianity) celebrate “transgressive” art that is often by it’s nature blasphemy against Christianity.
"Blasphemy"'s a wide category and is not amazingly helpful toward understanding this.
SJers generally celebrate things that denigrate or subvert Christianity, like the aforementioned Piss Christ and like depicting Jesus as black. Arrogantly claiming to be Jesus (at least without obvious subversion as well) implies that being Jesus is a good thing, which is not in accord with the SJ narrative. It's not the worst thing in the world by their standards, but AIUI they generally consider it negative from an ideological point of view.
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
Even with all these caveats, exempting dating entirely (as you seem to suggest?) from conversations about discrimination, prejudice, and stereotyping feels fundamentally wrong.
I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at.
The main thing I think you might be driving at is that you might be thinking I'm trying to shush discussions like this. As you can likely tell from reading that link, I'm not. But I stuck to descriptive objections and acknowledged the Bayesian evidence; I didn't call @self_made_human evil.
Could be barking up the wrong tree, though.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
12d ago
To a fair degree, yes. Just spotted a common misconception regarding pre-modern lifespan and sought to point it out.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
13d ago
If she were to follow up her statement with “and so as a rule I don’t date Black guys” then we have a problem. That’s discrimination because it ignores the humanity of individuals (and also creates hard feelings that are often counterproductive on a societal level). I realize this is not always cut and dry (what if she says “and so I’m reluctant to date Black guys?”) but I strongly believe we should save the vast majority of the moral approbation for this kind of specific individualized behavior.
I feel that at the point where we're throwing moral rebukes at people for their dating choices we're dancing very close to "here lies all of France" - this is not how you avoid societally-counterproductive hard feelings. It's no secret that African-descended women do substantially worse on dating sites (and presumably, other forms of dating) than others, almost certainly because an extremely-large slice of men find them ugly. Now, those women's appearance is certainly not their choice, but the men's conceptions of beauty are also not their choice. The only possible compromise here would be literal arranged marriages; if we don't want that, and we insist on making this a moral issue, then we're going to be fighting ourselves forever for no conceivable gain.
The bright line of "nobody gets to tell you you're evil for your dating choices" sounds like a good one to me.
Yes, although if I'm any indication they're at high risk for gender dysphoria.
More options
Context Copy link