domain:theintrinsicperspective.com?page=1?page=4
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
21hr ago
(Although I could see the case for dismissing charges against Adam if Bob had referred to Adam's ethnic group as 'cockroaches', or called Adam's disabled relative a 'useless eater' or a 'life unworthy of living', or accused Adam of some grave act of moral turpitude such as sexual assault against an infant; but anything short of that....)
So it's all who/whom after all. If Bob does something you find offensive, Adam is excused for hitting him.
TowardsPanna
21hr ago
Have any very good new history podcasts popped up in the last couple of years?
I used to enjoy stuff like History of Rome, history of byzantium, norman centuries.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
21hr ago
· Edited 21hr ago
everyone knew would spiral into a fight
And then the poltergeist shows up and plates start flying out of the cabinet!
Fights start when someone chooses to attack someone who has not attacked them. Society has an interest in getting them to make better choices.
You moron. Why would you do that?
is the approximate response of everyone from bouncers to cops.
And it is every bit as insensitive as asking a woman who has survived a sexual assault 'why she was dressed that way'.
The principle that Alex should not be obligated to follow the demands of Bob the Random Nobody merely because Bob happens to be stronger than Alex
That's not what we're talking about here though -- we're talking about Alex doing something dumb, which he knows will insult or otherwise rouse Bob's personal ire.
Which, if taken as licence for Bob to assault Alex, allows Bob to impose demands on Alex by becoming personally irate if his demands are not followed.
And doing so in a masculine environment.
Which is why 'masculine environments' are increasingly frowned upon by many of the institutions of society.
(interesting principle though -- does it also apply to the actions of crybullies who are much weaker than their victims, and yet still issue demands expecting compliance?)
Yes. We have a system for establishing a policy of "Do not do $THING or There Will Be Consequences." The Legislative Branch passes a law against $THING; the Executive Branch takes necessary action if someone does $THING anyway, and the Judicial Branch makes sure that $THING isn't something one has a right to do (such as 'voting while black' or 'printing a column questioning Professor What's-Xir-Face of the Department of Oppressed People Studies's opinion on the best way to oppose racism').
If the government votes that $THING should remain legal, or the courts find that $THING is a civil right, it is not generally appropriate to turn around attempt to impose Consequences for $THING on one's own initiative, especially if $THING, to quote Jefferson, "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", because that way lies madness.
People have spent thousands of years moving us up the entropy-slope, from a world in which the strong can do whatever they feel like and expect the weak to cater to their whims, towards a world where The Rules Are The Same For Everyone; they do not appreciate attempts to shove us back down into the abyss.
Civilisation began when the un-fittest decided that they would like to survive too.
--Jon Stewart
men fight each other over slights real and imaginary, whether you like it or not -- it dates well before and after the Bronze Age
Which is why we have laws against it. Seldom do people make laws against things that nobody does anyway.
and up until very recently if they punished everyone guilty of that there'd be nobody left to bring the grain in and whatnot.
In which case one approaches the problem by degrees -- prosecute the man who becomes violent over a tiny slight before the man responding to a more serious insult; prosecute the man who attacks someone smaller than himself before the man who picks on someone his own size, &c.
As the more egregious incidents decrease in frequency, one can establish stronger standards, and move the Overton Window in the direction of "use your words, not your fists.", or in some cases (things which don't affect anyone else) towards Tim Walz' Golden Rule.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
21hr ago
That's all well and good but the default is going to be what most people click on, not your specific niche preference.
You need to train the algorithm by not clicking on the political stuff if you don't want political discourse. But it's going to be there by default because most heavy twitter users use it for this (among other things).
Felagund
21hr ago
Maybe see if you can find out from Trace what the old questions were?
I'd be interested in knowing religious composition, and whether the person is a convert to that tradition.
If someone would consider themselves a rationalist, rat-adjacent, rat-adjacent-adjacent, etc.—how many degrees people are out.
Whether/how many people on here they've met.
What other social media people use.
What their social security and credit card numbers are.
Find a list of questions, and then instruct people to answer a bunch of questions in a section with the answer they think most likely to be the most popular option (so, a Keynesian beauty contest), or, if you prefer, choose a prolific user, and have people try to answer what that person would answer. But people would want to see their results for that one, might be tricky.
What's one old user they wish were began frequenting this place again or were unbanned.
Number of siblings (and where in order). Number of children.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
22hr ago
I missed that one, thanks for the link. Assuming you've read it, what did you think of his arguments?
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
22hr ago
Society has to pick and choose whose safety to prioritize in this instance
Prioritise the safety of who whoever is in more danger.
it should come down hard on the side that's doing what its supposed to do.
And where will you stand when the leopards eat your face? When someone bigger and stronger than you decides that something about your life, that contravenes no legal code in the jurisdiction, is 'not doing what you are supposed to do', and that he is entitled to suppress it by force?
Consider Thomas More:
And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – Man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
A transwoman, in existing publicly while appearing as the gender opposite that associated with her genitals at birth, has broken no law of Man (at least in North America or Western Europe); do not cut down Man's laws against assault, lest you call up that which you cannot put down.
jkf
22hr ago
Not so sure about that -- I know three couples like this, and in all cases the women are right there on the trigger.
Only one that will go out on her own though (not a tranny, but possibly naturally a bit high-T), so maybe switch it to 'hunts alone'?
jkf
22hr ago
which includes any instance in which the aggressor is substantially stronger, or arranges to have a half-dozen friends when the victim is alone.
Sure doesn't -- first-hand observation here. I'm talking about 'kicking a guy in the head just a cop happens to round the corner' or something -- I've seen both of your examples happen IRL (first one way more than once) and if anything there's even less sympathy for the 'victim' who did something (non-violent) that everyone knew would spiral into a fight with somebody way way bigger and tougher than him.
You moron. Why would you do that?
is the approximate response of everyone from bouncers to cops.
The principle¹ that Alex should not be obligated to follow the demands of Bob the Random Nobody merely because Bob happens to be stronger than Alex
That's not what we're talking about here though -- we're talking about Alex doing something dumb, which he knows will insult or otherwise rouse Bob's personal ire. And doing so in a masculine environment.
This has consequences -- every man knows it, whether or not he will admit it and/or try to hide behind other dudes with guns.
(interesting principle though -- does it also apply to the actions of crybullies who are much weaker than their victims, and yet still issue demands expecting compliance?)
A principle originally dating back to at least the Bronze Age, even if inconsistently applied.
I doubt it, actually -- men fight each other over slights real and imaginary, whether you like it or not -- it dates well before and after the Bronze Age, and up until very recently if they punished everyone guilty of that there'd be nobody left to bring the grain in and whatnot.
curious_straight_ca
22hr ago
You need an actual argument about magnitudes rather than just imagination.
My argument is we can see how huge and insane the supplement and alternative medicine industries are, and it's good they're not allowed to use medications that actually have effects, because then they'd actually hurt people instead of just being placebos.
mrvanillasky
22hr ago
You can't be a massive company in India, without massive bribery. Wonder why Adani is being specially targeted. Surely this kind of massive corruption is the norm in much of Africa & South Asia.
Adanis example is quite a bit extreme compared to others here though, he saw a nearly 1200 percent return for the 10 year period where Modi won.
I'm unsure if what really happeninng and why do all that in late November. It might be one of those times where they just needed an excuse to catch you. The kinda volatility Adani stocks have and the likelihood of them owning more than listed via shell companies is fairly damming.
Rov_Scam
22hr ago
At first I thought the Gaetz nomination was some kind of play to take the heat off some of the more controversial nominees he actually wanted to get in. GOP senators only have so much political capital to expend on blocking Trump picks, and if all of that capital and attention goes toward Gaetz then it can't be spent on other nominees. That requires him to actually stand for nomination, though. No one's going to waste a vote to keep Pam Bondi out of the cabinet, so the attention will now focus on Pete Hesgeth and Tulsi Gabbard. Gaetz's personal scandals have gotten more press in the past week than they did when they were current news, and it would only get worse when all the salacious details were revealed during confirmation hearings. Gaetz may be loyal, but asking him to endure that kind of humiliation with no shot of being confirmed is more than even Trump can ask. That's one possible explanation. The more likely explanation is that Trump has no political sense and just picks people he likes, regardless of their experience or policy positions.
As a further point, can we just leave it at 3D Chess? That was the original expression, and it's become cliche to try to put a further exclamation point on it by increasing the number or specifying that it's underwater or changing the game from chess to something else. There's no legitimate difference between 3D Chess and 7D Underwater Backgammon insofar as the point that's trying to be made. I always thought it was a dumb expression to begin with but it has its uses. Modifying it only serves to draw more attention to the expression than to what you're actually trying to describe. It's like people who think that adding the number of sheets to the wind signifies an additional degree of drunkenness. The only (and I repeat only) time this ever worked was in the title of the Tom Waits song Tom Traubert's Blues (Four Sheets to the Wind in Copenhagen).
curious_straight_ca
22hr ago
the thing that makes it difficult for you to not take medications that conflict with each other is that the doctor won't give you both of them at the same time, and this covers >90% of the potential problem cases
Rov_Scam
22hr ago
My understanding is that Gaetz discussed his nomination with the offices of four Senators—Collins, Murkowski, McConnell, and new Utah Senator John Curtis—and was basically told that there was absolutely no way any could be persuaded to vote for his confirmation. After discussing the matter with Trump, he was told to get out now, as Trump doesn't like losing.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
23hr ago
Why are they usually in those?
Probably because they cover New York City, which is the primary financial centre for the United States. ('Wall Street', home of the New York Stock Exchange, is often used as a metonym for U. S. investment activity.)
hydroacetylene
23hr ago
Your argument also begs the question² of whether transitioning is a bad decision
This question, on a fundamental level, resolves to postulates, and postulates are unfalsifiable so this turns into idiotic definitional debates.
even if it were, if the 'consequences of a bad decision' include extralegal violence, protecting people from it is one of the most fundamental functions of society
Transgenders larping as women should learn self-defense, I guess. Society has to pick and choose whose safety to prioritize in this instance and it should come down hard on the side that's doing what its supposed to do.
DirtyWaterHotDog
23hr ago
I'm confident the allegations have legs. I'm just surprised that a foreign entity breaking foreign laws can be prosecuted in the US.
South Asia is super corrupt
You can't be a massive company in India, without massive bribery. Wonder why Adani is being specially targeted. Surely this kind of massive corruption is the norm in much of Africa & South Asia.
Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), it is unlawful for a U.S. person or company to offer, pay, or promise to pay money or anything of value to any foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business.
The FCPA also covers foreign persons or companies that commit acts in furtherance of such bribery in the territory of the United States, as well as U.S. or foreign public companies listed on stock exchanges in the United States or which are required to file periodic reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Also covered by the FCPA is the authorization of any money, offer, gift, or promise authorizing the giving of anything of value to any person while knowing that all or a portion of it will be offered, given, or promised—directly or indirectly—to any foreign official for the purposes of assisting the U.S. person or company in obtaining or retaining business.
Adani group is run by Indian nationals, most of their assets are in India and they're listed on an Indian stock exchange (BSE). Still a little confused how it adds up to crime in the US.
So, American investors were victims of fraud because Adanis claimed that their business was above ground in investment rounds. Then used American investment dollars for bribes. That is a crime in the US ?
Do DOJ cases have anything to do with the outgoing Biden administration ? Or does it operate independently ? Modi is close to Trump, and I wonder if this is petty vindictiveness. I ask because a lot of recent anti-tech action and Ukraine military allocations seem to be angry 'fuck yous' from the out going administration.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
23hr ago
· Edited 23hr ago
You're welcome. Again, We Apologise For The Inconvenience¹; I usually connect to the Internet using a desktop browser with a mouse-and-keyboard interface, in which I can open a new tab by pressing the scroll wheel, and forgot that some people are using systems in which opening a link is less convenient.
(That was what the phrase 'check your privilege' started out as meaning [e. g. a dog forgetting that a gecko is less able to withstand cold] before it got twisted into "I am a member of the oppressed class, you are a member of the oppressor class, therefore ipso fatso I am right and you are wrong.")
I will try to explain things in footnotes in the future, so that you and anyone on a smartphone, non-tabbed browser, or otherwise unable to open links conveniently can still be part of today's lucky 10,000².
¹Spoiler for a 1980's sci-fi novel:
²From an xkcd comic making the point that if 'everyone' knows something, 10,000 people (in the U. S.) are first hearing about it today; therefore, one should not judge people for not knowing something.
hydroacetylene
23hr ago
Yes, but you're not male. Gays/transgenders larping as women come off as a bit gross to straight men, the sort of person who'd make you want to wash your hands after shaking theirs, but not scary.
It's ultra nerdy male. There's jockish spaces, normie spaces, etc that are just as male.
hunting
Most women hunters are not actually shooting. They're allowing their husbands/fathers/whatever to use their tags. This as participation in the sport is... debatable.
NewCharlesInCharge
23hr ago
Not eligible, but at least in my state of Washington they still get notices to appear. They're required to refuse due to their citizenship status, but that requires them to both read and fully understand the summons they've been sent.
Sometimes societies just do crazy things. Consider foot-binding in China. Enormous amounts of pain and life-long infirmity inflicted on young girls for basically no reason other than it being high-status to have these small feet. The origin was in some dancer who the emperor praised, nobody is quite sure. It makes zero sense. The process is actually sickening to read about, wikipedia casually adds that the death rate from gangrene could be as high as 10%. There were full-scale wars less deadly than this 'cosmetic procedure'.
But it took on a life of its own. Foot-binding became a kind of resistance movement to the Qing dynasty (who tried to ban it several times but failed). We can only assume it was ferociously popular, a way of marrying up in society, conforming to norms. There must've been very deep and powerful emotions behind it, if it subverts a basic parental conception of 'not torturing your child'. But today it just sounds completely retarded to us and to everyone, especially the Chinese.
I agree it would be kind of hot to be a very attractive girl. But that's not something that's realistically possible. I have heard horror stories no less disturbing than foot-binding about those who try and fail. We should strive to think reasonably and logically before falling into either a collective or individual social phenomenon like this.
TwiceHuman
23hr ago
I agree, but not many people realize that psychology is the way to go, and get stuck trying to solve life using logic. I think what I wrote above is quite important, since it may help some people take the "leap of faith". When the brain gets anxious it starts questioning and deconstructing things, as well at looking for holes or imperfections which is how we even come up with crazy ideas like "What if you're actually in a coma right and imagining all this?" or "What if you're the only conscious person?". Once the brain hits something unfalsifiable, we get stuck, and that's mainly how philosophy is created.
It's great once people realize that they're a human and that everything important is inside themselves, but to fully go this route, one needs to realize that the subjective is more important than the objective, or that objectivity is limited in the first place, which is difficult for many intelligent people to do
hydroacetylene
23hr ago
Gay men generally don't want to do things that would have a different impact on other people based on whether they are gay.
Is your argument that Gay men are generally concerned at making sure that the men they hit on are gay, or that they are scrupulous at avoiding statutory? Because that is... debatable.
This is like a self-confession: You have no theory of mind for Trump or Trump-supporters. If you really think Trump is totally arbitrary foppsical and whim: I don't know what to tell you. I think you have a unique theory of how Trump operates. Even the most liberal publications I consume have picked the theme: Trump is nominating people with grudges against the bureaucracies they will lead, or who plan to destroy those institutions. If you genuinely think Trump has no purpose or motive I guess I'd like an explanation for how Trump succeeded at anything. It would be extremely interesting.
More options
Context Copy link