Spez1alEd
2mo ago
Thank you as well, I was a little worried it'd come across as harsh. I do sympathise with the reservations many have about the trans issue obviously but the hysteria over trans people supposedly all being paedo groomers is really disgusting, and probably does more to move me in a more trans-friendly direction than any actual pro-trans argument. I'm sure many people feel the same way. All the best.
Spez1alEd
2mo ago
Apologies for the late reply. It's true of course that there are mixed-race people who pass as one side of their ancestry or another without controversy, but even in many trans-friendly spaces the notion that an unambiguously white man could become black or vice versa is very much not accepted. I think this indicates that for race at least people feel there is an essentialist component based on ancestry, just as many believe gender has an essentialist component based on sex, which is the sticking point.
I do agree that if people want to have surgery to look like another race or ethnicity, this should be allowed, but I wouldn't consider them to truly be of that ethnicity nor begrudge members of that ethnic group for not accepting them as such based on lack of ancestry or similar experiences, which I think is similar to the view many have on transgender issues, too. When you reject the need for sex as a component of gender, it can feel as if you're undermining a useful method of categorisation for distinguishing between materially different kinds of people, who have different needs based on that material distinction.
That said while I definitely believe private sex-segregated spaces should exist, I'm open to the idea that full medical transition may make it viable to segregate by gender instead in some cases, if the data shows it can mostly close the physical gaps between cis and trans people. Segregation is also based partly on cultural/psychological differences between men and women, though, and anecdotally it does appear as if many transwomen retain some masculine cultural/psychological traits. To be clear I don't think transwomen are any more perverted compared to cis men or anything like that, possibly less due to oestrogen's effect, but if they retain aspects of male sexuality and the male gaze you can see how women might object to that in changing rooms and the like.
For what it's worth I think the more moderate trans agenda you mention was one society was broadly on board with, but whatever your personal views we're obviously past that paradigm now, which has spurred a backlash. From what I recall about a decade ago there was a bit more casual transphobia, i.e. people would casually refer to transwomen as men, but many people didn't care a great deal about the issue and were willing to be basically tolerant. I don't know if you'd consider that better or worse than what we have today, with greater trans visibility alongside a larger culture war around the issue.
Spez1alEd
2mo ago
I look like a duck, I quack like a duck, why not just call me a duck?
If we were to follow this logic to its ultimate conclusion, seemingly it would mean we should consider anyone who mimics the outward appearance and behavioural standards of a group to be a part of that group. Is that something you'd endorse?
Correct me if I'm wrong though, but mainstream progressives don't appear to accept this line of argument in regards to any social construct besides gender. When white college professors are exposed as having falsely claimed to be Amerindian despite lacking any Native DNA or cultural background, they're typically considered to have committed a grave act of cultural appropriation and transgressed against a marginalised group, even though evidently they quacked and looked enough like a duck to convincingly pass as one for several years in some cases.
If we were to apply the current trans self-ID paradigm to the situation, they needn't even have done that; just claiming to be Native should have been enough for them to be considered valid, even if they made no changes to their appearance or behaviour at all. Likewise, an American weeb who claims to be Japanese shouldn't be a valid target of mockery, but every bit as Japanese as an actual born-and-raised Japanese, who has no right to object.
If we're going to so strictly police the boundaries of every other social construct, and say that there is an actual essentialist element or at least one of lived experience required to qualify as part of it, why are we expected to make an exception for gender?
Maybe you think mainstream progressives just don't go far enough and follow their logic to its conclusion here, or maybe the idea is that there are good political reasons to police the boundaries of race; in practice a white man who self-IDs as black isn't going to be perceived as such and so won't be subject to the same struggles actual black people face. But people who object to trans ideology might say the same, that the struggles of a transwoman are not those of a cis woman and so this is a valid reason to police the boundaries of womanhood, too.
That said, personally I am sympathetic to the idea that it may ultimately not matter much if transwomen are granted access to women's changing rooms, sports and prisons, provided they've undergone full medical transition at least. But if this is the reasoning as to why trans self-ID is valid, then fundamentally there is no philosophical reason full ethnic self-ID shouldn't be valid too; it's simply politically inconvenient currently where trans self-ID isn't.
Ultimately though I think if we take this radical self-ID paradigm seriously, it implies people should be able to adopt absolutely any identity they like and be considered valid immediately, no questions asked. But socially constructed identities are an extremely helpful method used to distinguish between categories of people who have salient material differences from one another, so we can't just cease to police all their boundaries.
Spez1alEd
6mo ago
I don't think Rationalists would be worried about AI alignment if they thought that more intelligent = more better in every relevant way.
Isn't that exactly why they are worried about AI alignment? They don't necessarily consider intelligence to confer moral superiority, but many do consider it to be among the most important qualities in determining how competent/powerful an agent is. That's exactly why it's scary to think of what would happen if an extremely intelligent, hence powerful, agent that didn't share any of humanity's core values were to emerge.
Spez1alEd
7mo ago
If you care about the weak is it not better to do all you can to strengthen them, rather than to accommodate their weakness and encourage them to value it and make it part of their identity? Down that road lie self-destructive ideas like fat acceptance, or the opposition of some deaf people to a cure for their condition. Such ideas don't represent genuine compassion for those who are struggling but seek to keep them disempowered and dependent, while simultaneously assuaging the guilt of those stronger than them.
To be honest I'm sceptical that it's ever a good idea to rely on the goodwill of the strong to protect the weak. Following the Black Death in Europe, the resulting labour shortage left the remaining workers in a far better negotiating position than they had been in before, and using their additional leverage they were able to force the hand of their lords to grant them better conditions and relax some of the restrictions they'd had imposed on them as part of serfdom. This never would've occurred had their position not been strengthened (even if through an act of God rather than cultivation of personal virtue, in this case), no matter how many clerics might've appealed to the lords' sense of Christian charity.
I think it's the same today, relying on the benevolence of those in power is simply not a reliable way to win concessions compared to using leverage to force their hand. Of course, in some cases we can't strengthen people and so accommodating them is all we can do, but it should always be our second option after seeking to empower them.
Spez1alEd
7mo ago
I can't claim this is particularly rigorous, but I have noticed a broad pattern in which traditional or right-wing ideologies tend to include a strong belief in the power of individual agency to shape the world, whereas progressive or left-wing ones don't. If you look at arguably the most traditional belief system there is, Animism, it attributes agency to absolutely everything down to trees, rocks, rivers and clouds, which are perceived as conscious beings that act with deliberate intent. Even something as simple as it raining is thought of as the deliberate act of a god.
On the other hand, far-left ideologies such as Marxism tend to stress the role of socioeconomic forces larger than any one man in shaping history. It's believed communism's victory is inevitable because the material conditions will shift and make capitalism obsolete. Class conflict is portrayed as inevitable, with the capital class effectively incapable of not exploiting the labour class to the greatest extent they can due to the way the system is set up. I believe there's also a parallel here with progressive beliefs about how white people are incapable of not perpetuating racism due to their position in society.
Great Man Theory, too, is right-coded and stresses the role of individual agency in historical change, where leftists prefer to believe that structural forces play a larger role; conservatives speak of the importance of personal responsibility while progressives emphasise the effect of environmental influences on a person's choices, and consequently cons tend to believe strict punishment of criminals is just as they are ultimately responsible for their choices, where progs favour leniency as they believe a person may have had little choice but to turn to crime.
I would even argue that the reason rightists seem to be more likely to give credence to conspiracy theories is that they align with the idea of a small number of individual agents acting with deliberate intent to change the world, something more plausible to the right-wing worldview than the systemic explanations the left favour, which suppose people perpetuate systems of oppression without necessarily having conscious intent to.
On the other hand, it could be argued that belief in HBD or in certain individuals being chosen by God to rule is anti-agency, and some right-wing ideologies do seek to greatly restrict agency for certain classes of people (e.g. women) or sometimes the population at large, whereas left-wing ones can seek to greatly expand the agency of groups previously denied it (again, women). Perhaps that's not so counter-intuitive though; if you think individual agency is powerful you might logically seek to restrict who can wield it, whereas if you think it doesn't matter so much, why not let everyone have it?
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
Does the author believe that a woman being "mentally ill, disturbed or needy or unhappy or really drunk at a party" makes her unable to meaningfully consent? It's not totally clear from the text, but to me it reads like she acknowledges that not all of those conditions would remove a woman's ability to consent.
The last thing she needs is a penis. If she’s an upset, needy person and you [expletive] her and then the rumor starts going around school, she might need to, for the defense of her reputation, say, “He raped me.”
This quote suggests to me that the author thinks a woman who's upset and needy might simply regret any sex she had while in that state after the fact, not that it would be rape. But she goes on to say that if a woman in that position accuses a man she agreed to have sex with of rape "for the defence of her reputation" (so, not because it's actually true, but just because it would be less embarrassing for her if people thought that's what happened), well, it's basically his fault for being a jerk and a dumbass, even if he didn't actually rape her.
This seems to actually go beyond victim-blaming to the point of justifying false rape accusations so long as they're aimed at men who acted sufficiently sleazy and callous according to some vaguely-defined, subjective standard.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
Who is more likely to bring you shame when you bring him around, your racist and homophobic programmer friend, or your Marxist friend who reads French literature and watches art films in his free time?
Isn't the logic you're using here a little circular? If I'm reading you right, you're saying that the Marxist friend is cool thanks to qualities he possesses that are unrelated to his political beliefs (reading French literature and watching art films), and that his non-political coolness causes people to view his political beliefs in a more positive light. So we'd expect that the programmer friend's coolness or lack thereof, likewise, would be determined by his non-political qualities.
Only, besides his occupation you haven't described any of his non-political qualities. You've just told us he's racist and homophobic. So unless you just mean that being a programmer is inherently embarrassing, we can only assume that the reason he might bring shame to you is because he might make his political beliefs known by saying something racist or homophobic. So to me it sounds like you're saying that right-wing beliefs are unpopular because the people who hold them are uncool, and the reason people who hold them are uncool is because right-wing beliefs are unpopular.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
I don't know anything about the people involved. For me how we should assess this event basically comes down to the answers to a couple of questions:
- Did he offer the kiss in a way that gave her the opportunity to accept or decline, or just go ahead and do it without waiting for her permission?
- Had the two of them previously established that this level of physical intimacy was normal and accepted in their relationship?
- Did he have any sexual or romantic intentions, or was it a purely platonic gesture?
- Would he have done the same to a male player in the same position?
- Does he have any pre-existing record of sexual misconduct?
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
Given that the question states you have to choose between a red or a blue pill, presumably were this a scenario that was happening in real life with real life-or-death stakes, you would have to decide which option you were going to take by choosing one of the pills and swallowing it. There would be no misclicks in such a scenario.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
It seems clear to me he wasn't saying he believes in judging people as in "possessing the personality trait of being particularly judgemental." He just meant that when we assess someone's character, which everyone inevitably does, we should do so based on their actual individual character and not based on which identity groups they're a part of or on their immutable characteristics. At least I would be very surprised if he meant anything else.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
That example isn't of somebody being against homosexuality but not homophobic, though. It's not an example of them being against homosexuality at all, just against books with racy scenes being in schools.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
Am I missing something or is Ross under the mistaken impression that an AI will need to attain consciousness in order to be superintelligent? So far as I'm aware nothing is preventing an AI from becoming a superintelligent p-zombie that nonetheless decides to kill us all.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
I feel as though there is actually a relevant difference here, in that from what I understand Kaepernick refused to stand for the anthem as a form of political protest. He wanted to draw attention to himself and his beliefs with his refusal to stand. By contrast Reimer, I would imagine, refused to wear the jersey because it conflicted with his personal religious beliefs. He wasn't doing it to protest LGBT stuff or draw attention to himself, he just did it because he felt his conscience and beliefs compelled him to. If that's the case I would argue Kaepernick was inserting politics into sports where Reimer wasn't.
However, if Kaepernick wasn't using his refusal to stand for the anthem as a protest, but instead refused to stand because he felt his conscience wouldn't allow him to celebrate his country given certain critical flaws he perceived it to have or injustices he felt it was committing, then I would argue he wasn't inserting politics into sport either.
Ultimately it comes down to the question of whether the acts were done for external reasons, i.e. to promote a certain political agenda to others, or for internal ones i.e. simply to ensure one didn't betray their own values and beliefs.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
Am I wrong that it's the most convincing way to advocate for one's ideals?
Well, you could probably live pretty well as an owner of hundreds of slaves in ancient Rome, Medieval Arabia or the early US, but I don't think that would be great proof of your political, cultural or religious ideals being all that great. Especially considering that people from all these places would probably heavily disagree with each other on what society's values should be.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
The interesting thing about Bridget is that under the logic of gender being a social construct I think you could argue he was already trans, and when he adopted a female gender identity in the latest game, that was actually him detransitioning. In the backstory, although he was always male, he had also been raised as a girl pretty much since birth. So his sex was male, but the gender he was assigned at birth was female.
The fact he identified as a man in earlier games meant that he was rejecting the gender he was assigned at birth, making him a transman. By going back on that and identifying as a woman again, he's detransitioning in order to embrace the gender he was assigned at birth. Sure he's biologically male, but if gender is purely a social construct then that shouldn't make a difference, right? He's returning to his original gender identity, so he's detransitioning. Trans people largely didn't seem to see it that way though and accepted him as mtf.
Some people who didn't like the change also pointed out that by adopting a female gender identity, rather than bravely going against the grain he was conforming to the expectations of his parents, who raised him as a girl, and society at large which frequently perceived and gendered him as female due to his name and appearance even when he was identifying as male. If it was supposed to be positive trans representation then I think perhaps it wasn't thought out all that well.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number of blacks in the US bore resentment against whites, although that's based on a general feeling I get from media and pop culture rather than any hard evidence. Either way I just find it ill-advised to take "almost half of blacks disagree with a statement much of the mainstream media has continually claimed to be a coded message of support for white supremacy" to mean "almost half of blacks form a hate group against whites."
As for leftists, there is certainly a widespread acceptance of casual anti-white sentiments among the mainstream left, something that isn't mirrored on the mainstream right with anti-minority sentiments. That said, I think most far leftists do not hate white people to anywhere near the degree that many far rightists hate their disfavoured racial groups.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
The Rasmusen opinion poll in question found that 46% half of black people say that it's not OK to be white.
How was the question worded? Was it the one on this page?
1* Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “It’s OK to be white.”
Leftists have long claimed that the statement "It's OK to be white" doesn't mean only what it appears to based on a literal reading, but is in fact a white supremacist dog-whistle. Whether that's true or not, if the people answering the poll believe it, then I think Scott was a bit hasty to take their disagreement with it as a rejection of the literal meaning of the statement, rather than the white supremacist subtext they believe it to have.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
Maybe it's a weird thing to hone in on but it seems a little strange they didn't bother to capitalise neither white nor European, the names of the groups they're willing to kill and die for, but did capitalise Yoruba. Not to mention the fact they even bothered to bring up her being Yoruba as though white nationalists would care in the slightest what variety of black person she is, as others have mentioned.
I mean virtually everyone in the replies just believes it's genuine without question so if it is a forgery I guess you don't have to try very hard to make it convincing to people, at least people that are already on your side and want to believe it's real, but it's still a really strange mistake to make.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
Well TERF does stand for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist, and while to be charitable to them they don't all hate men, you will probably find more people openly identifying as misandrist among radical feminists than among any other cohort. I don't think Rowling really is a TERF though, she seems like more of a liberal rather than a radical feminist and as she does support people's right to wear whatever clothing they like, to medically transition and she uses their preferred pronouns, she doesn't really seem all that trans exclusionary either.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
We have had a political party actually put abolishing the concept of jail for women in their party manifesto here.
Really? Which one was that? It's the first I've heard of it. I'm not doubting you, I'm just really curious.
Spez1alEd
1yr ago
While I'm sure there are progressives who contradict themselves by making prison rape jokes, I don't think it's something sanctioned by progressive orthodoxy. They generally condemn any rape jokes, and I think they would further condemn jokes about men being raped in prison on the grounds that the jokes are misogynistic (because part of the punchline is that the man is having his masculinity undermined, which implicitly suggests that men must be masculine and it's shameful for them to be effeminate.)
It doesn't have to be that sinister. Rather than explicitly forgoing profits in an effort to "punish" incels, it could be that the screenwriters felt upset or embarrassed about creating a movie that was alleged to appeal to incels or to legitimise their frustrations, even if unintentionally. So they made a push to move as far away from that as possible in the sequel to refute those allegations, and didn't see this as conflicting with their pursuit of profits.
Incidentally is there any reason to believe incels even particularly liked the first film or ever identified with the Joker? I feel as if that association was entirely made up by people parodying them, unless maybe it was a riff off the "clown world" idea that was popular in right-wing circles for a while.
More options
Context Copy link