ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13hr ago
Unretarding the import queries is going quite well, though it seems to be coming at the cost of the complexity in the code. Hopefully I'll be able to clean it all up once it's done, but I'm eager to move on to something showoffable...
How are you doing @Southkraut?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
15hr ago
Why?
Because you're posting things no reasonable person would say in the course of a conversation, for no other purpose than to get a reaction. For a while it was a good gimmick. Good trolling is about getting the other person invested in responding, by providing just enough hope that if they provide the right arguments, you might concede. It stops working when it becomes obvious you're doing it just for the hell of it, and you've passed that point quite a while ago. Now it's just getting repetitive.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
16hr ago
Not everyone who disagrees with this place treatment of dissenters is a troll or darwin or both.
No, but you clearly are. And it would be decent trolling, but you went overboard.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17hr ago
This basically confirms guesswho wasn’t darwin
Meh. This would be good trolling but you're pushing it past the bounds of plausibility.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
My idea of watching an episode of a TV show is: sit down and watch the show, giving it your full concentration. Her idea of watching an episode of a TV show is: be scrolling through Instagram constantly during all those 33 minutes, occasionally flicking her eyeballs to the TV during the 0.5 seconds in between reels.
Off topic, but have you ever taken her to a few week long camping trip, somewhere far outside cell coverage? How do you think she'd react?
Nothing against your GF, but these kinds of description of GenZ / GenAlpha awaken a feeling existential dread in me, and I wonder if there's anything that can be done to help them / avert the apocalypse.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Cool, now elaborate on what you mean by those, and how do you achieve them, and we might have the type of conversation that's actually encouraged here.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Hidden under the 3 dots:
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
We've had the "the opinions expressed here are so repugnant, that I should not be expected to be civil" argument here before. Sorry, this isn't that kind of place, if that's what you want 4chan and KiwiFarms are still open.
I don't consider the "chilling effect" a valid complaint. Not when every other forum on the internet either bans disagreement outright, or approves of the kind of hostility against it's outgroup that we stamp out no matter who it comes from.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Right, I can appreciate the tough position they are in, but I'm having a tough time sympathizing with the "we have already rejected the woke, what more do you want?" attitude. I can also understand the the official Democratic Party leadership isn't going to air their dirty laundry and say anything to the effect of "look, listen... we're kinda in a tug of war intra-party conflict here, and there's only so much we can do right now", but I would expect more from anonymous posters here.
Biden in 2020 was one of the least progressive candidates and became the nominee
The problem with this as a metric is that candidates have to be aware of their chances of victory in the general election, so there will almost certainly be some amount of hiding their power level (or even exaggerating it, when they know they're not going to implement a policy, because it's not popular with elites / lobbies, but popular with the nation as a whole). For example, Biden might not have ran on pressuring medical associations to remove age limits on medical transitions for children, but that is, in fact, what his administration deliberately did, once in power.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I saw precisely one guy link to an actual "bad" comment Darwin made, and it wasn't actually bad at all in terms of debating style.
Several people linked you to many comments, and if you don't think that comment is bad, I'm still waiting for an explanation for why the comments of other posters that you linked are bad.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
but Grok ERPs about raping Will Stancil, in a positively tame way, and it's major news.
It's not the raunchiness of it, it's that it's happening in the public (on the "town square" as it were), where all his friends, family, and acquaintances can see it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
No, but please document your progress if you take it up, and post hints yourself. It's one of the hobbies I was considering myself.
The people with power are mostly white. Ergo white people DO have that ability. Not necessarily ALL white people (though see below). If a subset of white people is the problem, then that is an intra-racial issue.
Nope, just because the people in power are white does not mean "white people generally have the power of enabling that to happen". The statement is insanely racist and would not be allowed for any other group.
No one understood your statement to mean "ALL white people", so I don't know what's the point of that part of the response.
If white voters in the US REALLY wanted to limit immigration above all else they do actually have the power to do so. They just have to repeatedly vote for the people who want to do so
The fact that we didn't have to have the supermajority of white people repeatedly vote for unlimited immigration (I'd say "even when the economy is good", but the connection of immigration and a good economy is essentially made up, or the causality is outright reversed), clearly shows that someone has more power than "white people generally".
That's without mentioning the fact that there's absolutely no evidence that repeatedly voting this way would actually achieve the goal.
he point isn't that you tolerate fraud as in not police it, it's that you police it but you don't turn panopticon to go from 10 cases of fraud across the whole population to zero.
I don't know if this is quite right. It's not that high-trust societies police fraud just as intensely as low-trust ones, but decide not to got the final mile. They actually police fraud much less than low-trust ones, take people at their word and generally assume their good faith. This is kind of the definition of a high-trust society, and it's also been matched by my experience visiting them.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
However as time went on i largely gave up trying to discuss AI with people outside the industry as it became increasingly apparent to me that most rationalists were more interested in the use of AI as a conceptual vehicle to push thier particular brand of Silicon Valley woo
Well, I for one wish you hadn't given up, as I have the same impression, but it's only an impression. Would be interesting seing it backed by expertise.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Oh look, he already deleted his post.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
At which point I pointed out that only white people generally have the power of enabling that to happen, so the issue is not with Indians or Mexicans and so forth
But white people don't have the power to enable it (his point about them voting against it proves that). If you want to say it's not really the Indians' or Mexicans' fault I more or less agree, but I don't see how you can make that claim with resorting to advanced racism.
It was more than that, but not much more (...) and the right's reaction had all the hallmarks of a moral panic
Several European countries passed gender self-ID laws, last year the town hall where I live was draped in "TRANS DAY OF REMEMBRANCE" banners, the whole "Gender Affirming Care" thing is a fiasco based on no evidence, and a failure of scientific institutions to do proper filtering, there's people being harassed by the police or outright arrested for not buying the gender ideology, or for mild jokes... Yes please go on and tell me how these things are indicative of a moral panic. I guess it's completely normal for sweeping reforms in accordance with a specific ideology to take place, when the influence of said ideology is nothing but a moral panic.
And at the national level, this rhetoric was soundly rejected within the Democratic party.
No it hasn't. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, probably not even you, has ever rejected it. What happened is that Democrats noticed that it's losing them the election, so they're trying to turn the volume down, but they did absolutely nothing to reject it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
and not knowing this poster's alleged prior history
There's your problem.
On top of what cjet says dude always nukes his posts and account after people figure out it's him. The behavior is all the more bizarre, since, as you say what he posts isn't really objectionable, if he just gave the whole "hiding your power level" shtick a rest.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Not much to expand on, the race of the people making the decisions is irrelevant to what you're discussing. What were you even trying to point out by mentioning it?
What I'm really arguing (and what I take Davies to be arguing) is that fraud can only take place within a high-trust community. That is, a country might be low-trust on the whole, but there might be enclaves within that country in which the members enjoy a presumption of trust with one another (social clubs, religious communities, voluntary organisations etc.). It is within these communities in which fraud and scams will occur in countries which are otherwise low-trust.
I don't think we're talking past each other, I just disagree with yours / Davies' core thesis. No, that's not how it works at all. There are scams and frauds in Russia, and there are essentially no high-trust communities there. All that happens is that scammers have to come up with new tricks that other people haven't heard of yet, and so don't know to be on the lookout for.
A community that doesn't lock it's doors is high-trust. If they get burgled, and start locking up it makes them low(er) trust. A burglar learning how to pick locks does not magically make the community high(er)-trust.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Right, but those politicians are white themselves overwhelmingly right? 75% of Congress is white.
None of that proves "the call is coming from inside the house", unless you're one of the more advanced racists.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Hold up.
For years, on this very forum (well, fine, you have to come buck to the /r/SSC days), whenever someone pointed out the advances of the SJ movement, the response was something to the effect of "it's just a couple of crazy kids on college campuses / Tumblr", or alternatively there'd be an attempt to "steelman" the movement to make it look more reasonable than it actually is ("defund the police doesn't really mean defund the police"), something later dubbed "sanewashing" by other elements of the left.
His use of neutral language is not covering up any switch, it's taking what progressives who participated in Culture War commentary at face value, i.e. assuming their good faith. We can dispense with that assumption, but I'm not sure you'd be happy with that either.
Of course not - you'd assume they were a scam artist trying to rip you off. The only place someone would take them up on the offer is in an environment in which most people are assumed to be trustworthy, which in turn means the only place a scam artist would attempt it is in an environment in which most people are assumed to be trustworthy: in other words, fraud is impossible in a low-trust society.
This is completely false. It doesn't surprise me, as westerners don't really grok low-trust societies, even the ones that acknowledge their existence (because hilariously there's quite a few who think doing so is racist).
What you're saying is the equivalent of believing that a predator can only successfully hunt if you transfer him it to Quokka Island. Quokka Island will appear to one as an all-you-can-eat buffet, but It's obvious predators survive and thrive quite well in environments where the prey is adapted to it's existence, it's just that they're subject to "you win some, you lose some" dynamics. In the case of scams, all it means is that they have to put more effort into appearances of legitimacy. To someone from a low-trust society, a high-trust one does not appear as "the only place where fraud is possible", it appears as one where the population hasn't bothered to put up the most basic defenses.
None of this even seems counterintuitive to me, it just seems like basic economics.
The part that's counter-intuitive, and perhaps deceptive, is where you/he claims that tolerating fraud is the price for a high-trust society. No amount of tolerance will turn a low-trust society into a high-trust one. What needs to happen is the purging scammers, once that's done, people lower their guard naturally. They don't "tolerate" fraud, it just happens so rarely, it hardly ever enters their thoughts.
You're not the only one affected, and that's the point of the saying. What's impossible to recognize when you've been targeted, is fairly easy when you look at the situation from the outside
More options
Context Copy link