ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
No bio...
User ID: 822
But maybe going to this type of system really would result in less competitive elections than the classic Dem vs Rep framing?
The purpose of doing this is to eliminate any transparency in opposing what one of the two parties want, and an attack on the opposition's ability to attract human capital.
There is no 'your donations will go towards opposing progressive-stupid' if the only candidates that can win are those who caucus with progressive-stupid in the first place. So your donations, if you don't win in an inter-party struggle of what to implement, have still gone directly into progressive pockets even if the progressive-stupid elements lose.
And there is no 'rival political organization that could take over if things got bad enough' if there is only one party institutionally capable of governing (as that's where the mid-to-good human capital tends to migrate, since it's the only one whose candidates matter).
The ruse is pretending that "sure, an R candidate could get there". But MA Ds believe themselves, and perhaps correctly, to be able to field 'Turbo Jay Jones' and 'Jay Jones Lite' (where R is very clearly 'not Jay Jones'. Having clear opposition to back means 'Turbo Jay Jones' doesn't get any resources if she loses, and means 'Jay Jones Lite' is in a worse position even though she might win 100% of the time).
What I believe you should do depends on why you believe D issued the statement (Rs have a different incentive)- was it the moderate wing that forced them to say no, or the progressive wing?
Ender's Game has a tweenage protagonist because it's a book intended for any tweenager for whom Ender would be an appropriate self-insert.
I don't think the book would be any good for young adults (it is not very subtle): read it when you're 9-12, or don't read it at all. (If you're not capable of reading it at that age, it's probably not for you.) I believe it's too easy/simple/unsubtle for a teenager or adult, especially one for whom the book's themes would have resonated had they read it at the appropriate time in their life.
10 year old me found the level of violence in the story rather low. When explicit, none of it was particularly gratuitous (the weirdest instance being both virtual and somewhat cathartic helps in that regard). The fights happen because they need to happen; kids aren't being constantly beaten to a pulp for no reason.
10 year old me found the level of sex in the story age-appropriate. (The enemy race was a sexual epithet for a reason, and the best one that could have been used [and definitely a term at home at a boarding school anyway], though its significance was lost on me at initial reading. Would have worked better in the '80s. The movie did technically censor it, but in fairness Ender discovering the nature of the enemy was also cut for time, so the obfuscation was superfluous and was OK to edit.)
10 year old me was also very well aware that parental/authority figures in the book are either completely useless or actively hostile (their machinations are made explicit at the beginning of every relevant chapter- tweenagers need that actively explained, adults don't). [It's made very clear that his similarly-capable sister is the only one capable of reaching him.] Again, realistic (for the reader for whom Ender is a self-insert), but is something parents who are as useless and outmatched as Ender's are very likely to have problems with (and any parent who thinks vetting books for their 10 year old is reasonable is in this class).
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
So you will sometimes find people with the seemingly contradictory behavior of working very hard with a lot of attention on one thing, even if normies find that thing unpleasant, but who are also unwilling to do basic "easy" things that would make less work for themselves.
I always found it very strange with respect to certain things that require me to stay still or do something ridiculous, but as soon as it comes to "you could automate this data task but you can't, or it's more efficient to do this task by hand", it is physically painful to the point that, were that my entire life, I would not survive.
The other is the guy who sometimes writes inspired code, but for some reason refuses to complete a 15-minute training module HR requires to release his paycheck.
Which will also at times bleed over to "you could write this code in an hour, but writing that code is going to take you a week for literally zero reason". (Also why AI is uniquely destructive to these individuals in particular- for now that it exists, writing code itself might prompt the "I think I would rather die" reflex. Might also have to do with why most people who hyperfixate on politics, interpersonal dynamics, and communication do it out of sexual frustration, since at least it's a problem existentially worth thinking about, and I do include myself within that class.)
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
2d ago
and I can see only one instance that is on the use side
Well, you're not looking hard enough- I did it too, I just used the plural so it won't show up in a simple search. As a bonus, it was a reply to a meta thread.
I used it, I meant it specifically in the offensive way, and it was absolutely necessary for it to be in the offensive mode to do that to make the point. (There are a few expressions like this, actually.)
Also, my username is offensive in a religious sense, and is intended to be.
Same thing with "gay" and "trans" for that matter- if I can't say that, or call something that, then I lose the ability to explain certain things about sex/uality. I believe there's a reasonable chance I'm going to need to do that with "trannies" specifically because the fact it's offensive, and the fact it means what it means, is required.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
2d ago
The same thing would work for hobbyist posts in general. I've been annoyed lately by users spamming a bunch of useless junk into chats where they didn't even bother to answer the question, and an AI system that removes them all because they're not answering the question would improve the quality of responses substantially.
(Of course, that also leads to "the clearing price of talking on the Internet in any productive manner has gone up again".)
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
2d ago
How convenient that (especially in a society that no longer draws that distinction) equating that with "men candy-vanning children" is not only trivial, but encouraged.
There are even some countries that treat them the same way with their alert systems.
The net effect is no different from an act of terrorism. It inflicts terror and serves as a stark reminder to men that the systems is biased against them.
Which is why I now argue for approaches that glorify the same sex when it addresses the methods of terrorism common to that sex (and condemn the same sex when it fails to be perceived to do its utmost).
Right now, that's beginning to happen for mass shootings; more men carry guns, so more men can step in (indeed, even if they are not armed, they're more willing to do this now than they used to be).
Fantasies on both sides for "if a mass shooter came in, I'd stop them even if it might mean death" and "if I knew of a sexual predator, I'd expose them even if it might mean rape" already exist.
Indeed, I submit that men doing the pedo-hunting thing are actually highly destructive specifically because it's not in their gender role to address it.
Speculation: it's transgender behavior, and I think it explains the (very over-simplified) meme of why so many male 'pedo-hunters' (and the Chris Hansen cosplayers are almost always male) seem to be so predisposed to molestation themselves: they're either trying to atone for that fact, or they are doing it because they want to exercise the kind of power over another man that is 'reserved' for women. [And naturally, they target outlaws, just as any other kind of thief would: no recourse.]
Another thing to keep in mind is that as the saying goes, terrorism is the froth on a very nasty brew. In other words, for every terrorist there hundreds or even thousands of people who publicly or privately support the terrorist; want more things like that to happen; and would support much broader activities along similar lines.
Going full Nazi and murdering a bunch of children "because that's just the way we do things, fuck you" is very popular among both women and men.
(Actually, the Gaza thing's a great microcosm of that- women are more Jew-hating than Hitler, and men are more genocidal than Hitler. A society in full cooperation would have sent an expeditionary force, like the US did back in the early '90s to the Balkans. A society in full defection cannot.)
The upshot is that for a society to function at all, men and women can't ever be seen to be doing this.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
3d ago
Perhaps, but you and I are both at least literate and capable of noticing patterns.
But I will remind you that, specifically in a nation that uses the word "femicide", that such a State inherently has a non-negative and non-zero incentive to remind you, in one of the more disruptive ways available to it, to imply that a man (perhaps happenstance they're mostly men, but convenient) is abducting random children to set on fire.
The alarm fatigue serves to reinforce "this is the new normal, here's yet another abduction or 'climate emergency' [even though the tidal waves have even less to do with that]" for those citizens who are so inclined to see them that way.
Kissing is just cowardice.
And yet we have an example on this very forum of a man who claims that a woman did indeed retroactively decide a kiss was literally rape, and state it in those terms.
How could she think to perpetrate such a slander to all women who might hear? To claim it was "rape" is to claim it was a crime, and a crime has a victim for whom justice must be done, so implicit in the claim is that Something Should Be Done.
The reason she might claim that- be it true or false- is because she knows that, once she does, women (and their simps defenders of female virtue) will take it very seriously and act violently towards him rather than reject her claims until they may be clear and certain that any accusation is correct before repeating the call for physical violence against him. SWATting is a crime for a reason.
I agree that it is cowardice- on the part of women- that prevents the kissing. A guard that stands his post may be many things, but a coward he is not. (In the same way, is it cowardice for a streamer to inform police that this may happen to him, if the only alternative required him to fight the police who have come expecting a violent criminal?)
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
3d ago
I'm saying that when cultures and their personnel deny the inherent human dignity of "being physically and mentally capable of doing something" with the justification that "it's too dangerous for our society", those cultures, and those upholding them, come one step closer to experiencing an outcome that is neither safe nor dignified.
Usually that's death, but it can be some variety of subjugation, too. It comes either from without (by a rival tribe) or within (by the young of your own tribe).
There is ultimately a limit to how safe you can be, and the closer you approach total safety, the closer you are to losing it. Perhaps best to allow a little dignity.
The vast, vast majority of people will never be caught up in a mass shooting.
The sheer number of women destroying (through law) part of the male gender role (men as the martial gender) as collective punishment for a very small number of men abusing that power are indicators that a significant amount of women believe otherwise.
In the same way, the sheer number of men destroying (through inaction) part of the female gender role (women as the gender men fight for) as collective punishment for a very small number of women abusing that power are indicators that a significant amount of men believe otherwise. [They don't have legal power, and men and women are different; so they protect themselves in ways that are mirrored, but not fully symmetric.]
What does historical data show me I gain as a responsible man by taking the high road? Well, I suffer more from female misbehavior ("it is for the good of society that the thing you use to attract women- property- isn't something for you to protect, now let's never prosecute any wrongdoing involving that ever") and destructive women chanting "teach them not to rape" [translation: "it's not our gender's job to fix it, #yesAllMen"] when we take issue with being falsely accused.
What does historical data show women they gain by taking the high road? Well, they suffer more from male misbehavior ("it is for the good of society that the thing you use to attract men- sexual access- isn't something for you to protect, now let's never prosecute any wrongdoing involving that ever") than women who attack at the first provocation as per their legal right and destructive men chanting "fix mental health" [translation: "it's not our gender's job to fix it, #yesAllWomen"] when they take issue with being shot up.
It is unreasonable to expect men, or women, to solve for peace alone. One side can stop defending, but the other will continue attacking, and each has documented evidence of this that goes back a long time. Both are prisoners of the dilemma.
If you wanted to get out of it (and assuming those were the only two grievances, which they are not), perhaps one might consider this approach instead:
When a man does evil with his physical violence, we celebrate the male virtue of those who resisted all instincts of physical self-preservation, and for that reason physically deleted him.
They face the threat their own gender creates through its inherent physical power, and it is dispatched with power and fury as expected of a man working correctly.
The failure of men, and those that are to be prosecuted alongside this one, is they which did not do their utmost in the moment of honor to resist that violence. Those men who, hearing the raping and killing, encouraged it by running away, not subduing it such that it might be brought to justice. [This would be, for example, Uvalde cops- we can check cell phone location records, we know who they are.]
The casualties of this bad man are those that have paid the price demanded by purposefully refusing to lock all men away, such that women may continue to uphold male virtue. For a civil war, against female virtue (of life itself), was waged here, and it was male virtue that paid the price to defend it.
Alternately:
When a woman does evil with her social violence, we celebrate the female virtue of those who resisted all instincts of social self-preservation, and for that reason socially deleted her [basically, a woman who falsely claims a sex crime in this fashion is treated as any other sex offender is now- that will ultimately come down to 'did she scream?', where 'knowingly and intentionally destroyed her ability to do so' is always 'did not scream'.].
They face the threat their own gender creates through its inherent social power, and she is dispatched with power and fury as expected of a woman working correctly.
The failure of women, and those that are to be prosecuted alongside this one, is they which did not do their utmost in the moment of honor to resist that violence. Those women who, hearing the gossip and slander, encouraged it by repeating it, not building a case against it such that it might be brought to justice. [This would be, for example, those who were collaborated with to perpetrate the sexual falsehood, and news organizations that printed the unproven accusation- we can check browser histories and accounts, we know who they are.]
The casualties of this bad woman are those that have paid the price demanded by purposefully refusing to silence all women, such that men may continue to uphold female virtue. For a civil war, against male virtue (of action itself), was waged here, and it was female virtue that paid the price to defend it.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
3d ago
You can assert what you want. It's not going back to that way.
Many of those who profit handsomely by claiming life was too dangerous for anyone to be permitted to live it said these exact words.
What was the next thing that usually happened to them, and in what measure do you think that reply was deserved?
Which we used to have, but now we can't.
It was destroyed by a legal mechanism permitting mommy and daddy (and you) to bully staff on your behalf to an unlimited degree ex post facto. And I'm not saying all of the BSA rape cases weren't false (nor were the rape cases at other child concentration camps, famously boarding schools, by both administrators and pupils [Eton was famous for this and... to a degree still is, and this is permitted mainly because everyone with the authority to destroy it went there]).
But "accepting that some participants are going to get fucked" is the direct cost of "being real about a lot of facts of life that family and schools can't" (including that some people are out to fuck you), much as it is the direct cost of families and schools more generally.
Indeed, mid-20th century progressive projects were generally heavily focused on abolishing these things as well for that exact reason, and have enjoyed significant success in both; in addition to the destruction above, it's why schools have very few male teachers and why you will be arrested if you let your kids out to play. I explained the mechanism for that in a separate comment.
If you are unwilling, or physically unable, to stare down those consequences, you can't do this.
This reaches the point of unreasonable neurosis.
News of obviously false rape claims appear in national media about as frequently as mass shootings do. The perpetrators are from the same social class, look the same, and are just as unpunishable.
If fear of mass shootings is not considered "unreasonable neurosis", fear of false rape claims can't be either.
Standing down from one can't be done unilaterally- this has been tried, and all that resulted is more unreasonable neurosis. Men and women must realize that and agree to stand down together.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
3d ago
So they come on your telescreen (by law), are intentionally loud enough to wake everyone up, and 99.99% of the messages translate to "Emmanuel Goldstein is personally raping a child right now, and you can't do anything about it, have a nice day".
I don't think it's confusing as to why a State would prefer that approach at all.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
3d ago
And, conversely, women tend to be attracted to men who can carry said heavy objects; this expectation creates that opportunity for both sides, not just the one.
(Yes, this was intentionally confused by bad-faith actors; kind of the female equivalent to "no low-cut tops, they're too distracting to men".)
All the more for me, I guess? I dunno.
I guess appreciating those aspects really is rocket science or something. And in their defense it's biologically contraindicated for them to do that, but then again it's also biologically contraindicated for me to do that.
I dunno, it seems to me that marrying far older kind of removes any reason for them to bother to actually adapt, and if you have a sufficient frame of reference you can pretty clearly see where they're headed (occasionally in such measure that you'd want it now). Compared to 'known quantity, take it or leave it, for better or worse'. Which is ironically probably more attractive a quality in women than it is in men, or at least it is from my point of view, when it comes to something that predicts they'll get along with me better.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
4d ago
and I personally wasn't driving hard anywhere since I respected their inexperience enough I didn't particularly want to escalate to sex unless I really liked the girl and the girl in question didn't really drive to anywhere out of a combination of timidity and not really understanding how to drop the proverbial handkerchief.
Then your parents needed to make sure you respected women in the appropriate measure (rather than respect women enough to disqualify yourself) and in not doing so I honestly think they failed you as hard as 1950-1970s traditionalist fathers did their daughters by encouraging them to be housewives in the face of... absurd unprecedented opportunity to do literally anything else.
It's not like they knew any better, for the same reason parents in the 1960s didn't know any better. And yet.
that complexity generally allows for the support of more human lives.
It allows a larger number of human beings to exist.
It does not allow for the support of more full human lives.
in our environment
Of course, the thing we're debating is whether it's proper for assumptions about your environment to prevent someone else's environment from being suitable for developing such a human being.
I assert that once the physical capacity for this exists, it is incompatible with the dignity of that human being to treat it as if the mental one does not, even if that was the case for most of them.
Because the sociopathic ultimately cares about his power, success, status, reputation.
And this is... unique to the sociopath, somehow?
If you have two different Centers for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too, one run by a sociopath and one run by a relatively reasonable person with sincere love for the pupils, what superseding benefit should we expect from the former?
Well, for it to not go out of business, for one. The purpose of a business is to make money, just as the purpose of life is to reproduce. Whether "going out of business in an environment where such a school is marginally or completely unprofitable" is a moral good or not, I leave to you.
I would expect to see a lot of waste which benefits the owner’s pockets or reputation.
You see waste, I see a price paid to stop him from deciding to do literally anything else. Maybe it's a little, maybe it's a lot, depends on how the market is and his other objectives.
He’ll probably do a lot of worthless assemblies and meetings where he gets to feel powerful, maybe he’ll send flyers to make the town sad about how little they care for the stupid in a bid to bring in private donations, maybe he’ll overstate how much money the school needs so he can pull a bigger salary, maybe he’ll do a whole redesign of the school that doesn’t matter simply because it makes him feel cooler.
In order: 'feeling power' is part of the compensation package, that's called 'an effective marketing strategy' (is it really his fault most people are literally hard-wired to respond to it?), that's called 'negotiating appropriately with government entities' (that either aren't paying attention or don't care), and as for the last one... it's his money, he can do what he wants with it.
Or maybe there’s some “test” that gives him a national ranking so he ignores the holistic needs of the pupils to focus on min-maxxing that one metric, so he can be boastful among his peers.
I thought that was just called "standardized testing". In this case, the metric does not match reality, and so Goodhart-ing is the rational response. And sure, if you actually care, you're going to focus on the other stuff too [because it is good to focus on those things- when non-sociopaths say "give back to the community", this is what they mean- compare car companies sponsoring racing teams, it's not just "drive up demand for the product", these people sometimes like what they're doing if indeed a sociopath is capable of liking anything], but if push comes to shove and the school is not sufficiently profitable otherwise, then yes, I'd expect maximization on the metric.
The 60iq should be trained to fulfill the duties appropriate for his iq, and he should be trained in how to pursue a happy life likewise.
You might have heard this one before.
Let's say you have 3 servants. Let's call them A, B, and C.
You have 800 dollars to distribute between them, so that they will invest those dollars and make you more money.
How should you distribute those dollars to maximize your return on investment, including what those employees cost?
If you give servant A X dollars, and he returns with 2X dollars, should he be honored more, less, or the same amount than the servant B, who you gave X-3 dollars, but returns 2*(X-3)?
How about the servant C, who does nothing?
If he justifies not doing anything by claiming the oppression inherent within the system was too much for him to handle (a point on which he is correct), how would you respond?
Ideally, each person would have the same amount of wellbeing (high), sacrificing his own for another in need
if anyone is to receive an overabundance in wellbeing
Your examples are all instrumental: "an overabundance" is seed money. Seed money for someone who isn't going to work as hard is wasted; it should have gone to the man who could have used it.
If you want to be a wellbeing-maximalist we therefore agree that the transfer goes both ways- that's what the "to each according to their need" part means (otherwise you're paying the guy who is more capable than you less just because he is more capable, and it's fundamentally destructive to do this to the guy who is [in a sense] holding your world up lest he exercise his right to display indifference to that task).
The dirty little secret of Marx and Rand is that, assuming all parties [both the "sociopath" who can see things clearly and the others who are less able] are Christ-like, they reach the same conclusion. The requirements for someone barely capable of anything, capable of some, and capable of much to be Christ-like are all different, and when we decide that "no, actually, they're all the same", we have cheated whoever that reflects least.
I think cheating is bad.
If you need me to bring further receipts for the claim, I can take the time to do that; I feel as if I've been running a little hotter in that respect than usual lately.
However, as far as "no pushback against law that states female abuse doesn't happen", this one is honestly pretty clear. So's the "male statutory rape victim forced to pay child support" one. So was the UK rape law that, for quite some time, was written so that only men could even be guilty of the crime (it requires anatomy women do not possess). Canada, too- "we'll change the law so men accused of rape can't as easily gather evidence of the women collaborating to frame the guy" actually happened, again with zero pushback.
I think men are obsessed with Protecting Women; I think women are happy to say "thank you very much" and pocket the resulting political power differential while at best simply looking the other way when women abuse men (from women's perspective). The female jurors are, as I recall from previous threads on the subject, literally on record stating that Protect Women is why they voted that way.
These have largely replaced long effortposts when people would at least bother to pretend the capability to consider the thoughts being thought by people who are not them.
I've tried, I just get downvoted without engagement. And yes, I'm frustrated by the fact nobody wants to bother to ask then, what's in your head?; it is present here, it is present there, it is present everywhere.
(Perhaps the men and women getting married are doing so simply because they are, on average, the only human beings on the planet capable of asking at least their life partner that question merely at a higher than average base rate. Education predicts that much, at least.)
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
4d ago
But if you let the sociopathic guide the low IQ
You seem to be under the impression that this is not a natural process, and you have control over if it happens or not.
But it is natural, and you are not in control of it. So you best hope you treat them well, lest they remember you.
Seems to be infinite ways for him to ignore the Important Thing to act selfishly.
Why would you think the moral requirements for an idiot and a savant are the same? (Are you a communist?) The system includes both of them, but the moral requirements are not. (Requires prerequisite: 'equality of effort'.)
Every sociopath will eventually be tempted to do what you have described (and indeed, their work will on occasion look like this to some degree); it is their responsibility not to do that (or they suffer one of the worst fates, that being not getting to exercise that ability any more- it's kind of like being locked in, Mr. House style, until they are dead).
And it is incorrect to expect sociopaths to not benefit themselves. That's how they are paid for that unique ability. (See also: US politicians. They're not paid directly, but indirectly through the power to pass policies that will enrich themselves far beyond that measly six-figure salary.)
Their burden is choosing between "right" and "more right", not "wrong" and "right".
That is not the job of the idiot. It is the job of the idiot to contribute, because that is all he can do. Maybe he knows that, maybe he doesn't, but that is irrelevant to what is required of him.
Their burden is simply choosing between "wrong" and "right". It takes just as much effort for them to do the right thing as it takes the sociopath to do the more right thing.
Equality of effort, not equality of outcome. Some people are better than others and thus deserve more than you do, just as Abel was (effortlessly, and in the exact ways you initially described "selecting a sociopath"- he bore a greater offering from natural alignment, Cain brought a lesser sacrifice for personal gain).
Cain, famously, had extreme difficulty accepting this concept. He found the rock easier to grasp.
I'm having quite a bit of trouble figuring out whether you actually understand me. If you did, your syntax errors (like the above) had intentionality, I'm just not sure what that intention is.
I got the full picture on the first read as originally stated (though I do understand why most people do not). My opinion didn't change on the second read several years later, nor has my opinion on the matter more generally changed over similar timeframes.
Looking back on it, this book really ain't that complicated (especially if you're already familiar with Christianity, the concept of loving one's enemy leading to deliverance from that enemy, which this is a pretty good expansion thereupon- I don't know if that background is necessary, but I can't confirm that experimentally). It's a very cartoon-y way to write a book, I found (see the manipulations of the authorities at chapter start/end, see how that's dealt with right afterwards, repeat until out of Battle School).
Certainly more than can be said for anyone else in the story (other than I guess Petra, but that's different- pretty sure that was her name, anyway [and I guess Bean, but again, different ways]), with the exception near the end for Ender's mentor (who is a similar fully-integrated human being, just a little older).
Ever
readplayed the Mass Effect series, by any chance? One of the characters has some particularly interesting parallels specifically because he is written assuming that "child" and "fully-formed person" are not mutually exclusive [in the same way that those are not mutually exclusive for Ender]. I'll leave it as an exercise as to which one that is (and maybe I'll talk more about that if it's answered), but...No. Based on empirical evidence, they do not.
More options
Context Copy link