posted on February 03, 2018 07:03 PM by
u/completely-ineffable
24
u/YotzYotz31 pointsat 1517693892.000000
By Freya’s breasts, that thread is just chock-full of pompous
clueless stupidity. A few highlights:
The Northeast Asian peoples tend to have low libido, work very hard,
hate adultery, love long-term planning and prefer wealth to sexual
sensation.
Women pairbond more strongly (in general) as a result of sex than
men. Women who sleep around are more likely to have a weak pairbonding
mechanism.
I sometimes express my preference (accidentally) and I’m accused of
being a slut shamer. /../ This repeated experience leads me to think the
shame is internal to the person who is offended rather than any effort
by the ‘slut shamer’ to shame them.
I can’t stand either Reds or Blues because they are way too high phi
for me. I want phi to be as low as possible to improve innovation and
STEM provided that the society doesn’t get conquered or plagued by
crime.
However when you live in a cold region, gets heavily taxed, does
intensive farming and/or have a state that crack down on promiscuity you
probably can’t afford to be promiscuous.
If a woman is of high desirability, then she can take a slow pace in
a relationship with an equally high value partner. If a woman, however,
offers up quick, non-exclusive physical intimacy, then she is signaling
that her desirability is too low to make relational demands of the
partner.
Women want to be considered desirable. This is in part based on their
own personal attributes, but is primarily based on their position
relative to other women. That is, they can increase their own status and
thereby options for dating by knocking other women down a few pegs.
“Prudes” are a cartel selling a luxury product, and they want to keep
the price high. “Sluts” undercut the cartel by selling a cheap,
lower-end substitute, and it turns out a lot of consumers are eager to
trade quality for cost savings.
Hence there is nothing special about the Chinese other than the fact
that they are Betas in a Betaless society.
A sufficiently rational, well-informed and intelligent person is
likely to be able to see through all the pro-social nonsense that keeps
a society together, be it morality, ethnic nationalism, collectivism,
tradition, whatever. Whether such an enlightened person continues to be
pro-social after realizing that nonsense is nonsense is up to them.
Don't miss:
> I can't stand either Reds or Blues because they are way too high phi for me. I want phi to be as low as possible to improve innovation and STEM provided that the society doesn't get conquered or plagued by crime.
> ...
> Reds hate Alan Turing while Blues hate James Watson. I love both and want zealots from both tribes to stop.
Wait, Reds hate Turing? Why? Because he helped defeat Nazis?
This whole "gray tribe" thing is so obviously just an identity for young right-wing Americans who don't want to be called right-wing because they're not religious or homophobic. (Ask about academia's politics or transgender people, though, and some of them sound just like their parents' version of conservatives.) Like "alt-right" but without that label's own set of unfashionable connotations either. Because everyone always behaves more rationally when you [turn opinions into tribes](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/7szldi/in_which_scott_alexander_is_amazed_to_have/), after all.
I sort of sympathize: I lean more to the other side, but I still think society would be well served by having a right wing that's more committed to facts and reality than the one that's been cultivated in the US for the past few decades. Unfortunately I don't see that in evidence here.
The Slate Star Codex survey shows the readership leans [unambiguously center left](http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/03/ssc-survey-results-2018/). Whether that's true on the reddit, I'm not sure.
Although anecdotal observation seems to show a world where the commenters are more likely than by their relative proportion to comment. One theory for this is that it's an area that is relatively protected (perhaps... a safe space?) where they can share and experiment with unfashionable or unpalatable ideas.
I'm really not inclined to defend every post ever made that falls into this category, but I like being able to experiment with ideas that I could never have discussed in my grad program. One cost to that is you have these often younger guys (it's always guys) who get carried away with this freedom to try out new ideas. You really won't find a bigger SSC fan than me, but even I roll my eyes when I see the millionth post on steelmanning 'slut shaming' or '' post. To the extent that I'm able, I'll try to push them in another more productive direction. On the other hand, lots of these arguments can't exist in a public space or attached to a real name, so you can see why they all end up here. That's the eternal trade-off, the mods on ssc and reddit try to prevent the clearly maladaptive comments when they can, but it's hard. I won't suggest any of you go to /r/ssc and try to convince people of this, since it probably won't be fun for you.
I would predict though that ssc prevents lots of young guys from falling into the clutches of the alt-right. That's just my prediction though. It's also why I think Jordan Peterson prevents younger guys from falling to the alt right. We need some type of intellectual field that exists center right, and can catch disenfranchised young men as they are pulled towards less thoughtful and more radical ideas. For the left, traditionally this role has been played by the Political Science and Econ depts in the academy.
> It's also why I think Jordan Peterson prevents younger guys from falling to the alt right.
I don't think that's necessarily the analogy you want to make since it's pretty transparent that Peterson's role is to legitimize white supremacist talking points in the guise of self-help. "Purge the (((cultural marxists))) from your schools" is not generally considered a centrist idea.
> it's pretty transparent that Peterson's role is to legitimize white supremacist talking points in the guise of self-help.
It is? If it's that transparent, there should be loads of examples of this, right?
there are- he's constantly pushing the white supremacist conspiracy theory that western culture is in decline due to the deliberate and concerted effort of the Frankfurt school, I mean at one point he famously tried to make a website to automatically classify professors he didn't like as (((cultural marxists))) in the hopes that they'd be fired or harassed by his fanbase. I don't know if he personally believes that stuff because he just comes off as a grifter trying to get some sweet sweet neetbux, but I'm not sure how else you'd interpret stuff like that.
I guess I don't believe that resentment toward postmodernism and the [cultural turn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_turn) is exclusively the province of white supremacists (or even that it originated there).
If you're objecting to "cultural marxism" as a dog-whistle, then I guess I somewhat agree with that. The problem is there's no other widely-used term that names the same phenomenon, because it's only the right-wing that's been upset about it. The far-left denies it's happening entirely ("conspiracy theory"), and the liberal-left has a mishmash of different terms ("crybullies", "intersectionality", "critical theory", ["victim culture"](http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/)) none of which have enjoyed widespread currency.
Honestly, I haven't paid that much attention to Peterson because I don't need my self-help pabulum dressed up with a glossy intellectual veneer, but I could imagine he's using "cultural marxism" simply as the most widely-recognized signifier for this phenomenon, rather than as alt-right shibboleth.
Lol "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory because, in addition to being a minor reworking of a nazi accusation about how Jews invented communism to rule the world, it's almost the exact opposite of what the dominant current of the frankfurt school was advocating. Adorno and pals saw mass culture as being so inherently paralyzing and soporific that very idea of shaping hollywood films to be more progressive would have struck them as about as likely to make a difference as writing "peace, love and understanding" would have made on the side of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But I dunno, maybe there's a footnote about bringing about the triumph of communism via having a woman be a jedi in the new Star Wars movies, they wrote some dense books, maybe everybody missed it until recently.
> maybe there's a footnote about bringing about the triumph of communism via having a woman be a jedi in the new Star Wars movies,
This is a pretty laughable misreading. The whole point is that it's *not* about communism anymore. The accusation is that cultural theorists have taken Marxist analysis, removed all the economic content, and replaced "capitalists" and "proletariat" with "oppressors" (straight/white/cis/male) and "oppressed" (queer/nonwhite/trans/female).
This way, rich people can still feel edgy and revolutionary. (Ok, that's just me being snarky)
But anyway, the people who whine about "cultural Marxism" aren't afraid of a communist revolution where their property will be repossessed by the proletariat.
"But anyway, the people who whine about "cultural Marxism" aren't afraid of a communist revolution where their property will be repossessed by the proletariat."
Maybe we're operating in different spheres but I have 100% seen people worry about how we're heading towards a communist oligarchy
HOW they think this is a likely future I don't know, but they somehow do
I'm fairly sure he doesn't just use it as some widely-recognized signifier given that he explicitly presents it as the deliberate work of what is in his terms a "Neo-Marxist cabal" rather than trying to explain some historical shift, also given that he signal-boosts Identity Evropa jackasses whenever they talk about it
**Cultural turn**
The cultural turn is a movement beginning in the early 1970s among scholars in the humanities and social sciences to make culture the focus of contemporary debates; it also describes a shift in emphasis toward meaning and away from a positivist epistemology. The cultural turn is described in 2005 by Lynette Spillman and Mark D. Jacobs as "one of the most influential trends in the humanities and social sciences in the last generation". A prominent historiographer argues that the cultural turn involved a "wide array of new theoretical impulses coming from fields formerly peripheral to the social sciences", especially post-structuralism, cultural studies, literary criticism, and various forms of linguistic analysis, which emphasized "the causal and socially constitutive role of cultural processes and systems of signification".
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^| [^Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/donate) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
> I don't think that's necessarily the analogy you want to make since it's pretty transparent that Peterson's role is to legitimize white supremacist talking points in the guise of self-help. "Purge the (((cultural marxists))) from your schools" is not generally considered a centrist idea.
Yup, that hot garbage he's spewing is straight out of a William Lind fever dream.
Our university system has a very rich history, going back to the Bolshevik revolution, of the generally categorized conservatives having a bone to pick with the generally categorized elitist/communist professors. Disliking leftist elite/communist/marxist/cultural-marxists has been common among the right for a long time.
Perhaps I'm not as astute as you to pick up on his white-supremacy and (((anti-semitism))), but in reading his latest book and his other writing, I have never received that impression.
there's a difference between disliking elitists or leftists and explicitly endorsing white supremacist conspiracy theories about how the Frankfurt school has a concerted plan to infiltrate and demolish western society and the only way to prevent this is to remove all "cultural marxists" from the academy and society at large
If you don't know how the "cultural marxist" meme was used and propagated I'm gonna say you don't really understand academia (much less left academia) *or* alt-right types.
> The Slate Star Codex survey shows the readership leans unambiguously center left.
I'm proposing that this is only by a traditional American Baby Boomer-defined political spectrum, which is the wrong scale to apply here. Although the survey data are presented confusingly, it looks like the vast majority of respondents are under 40. ["Millennial" Americans are vastly more likely to identify as "liberal" than "conservative".](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/09/democratic-voters-increasingly-embrace-liberal-label/) (I don't know how non-Americans tried to answer this question but I assume many tried to imagine themselves on the American spectrum because the political questions, like all of Scott's political musings, clearly weren't meant for them.) So within this generation, what's reasonable to call the "right" is what people in the general American public consider "center-left". Perhaps they align well with what's already considered the right wing in the rest of the West, though fascism is having a resurgence in some NATO member states too.
You can see quite a bit more division in SSC's responses to questions that are actually divisive among this generation: immigration, minimum wage, feminism, race realism. As all the opponents of marriage equality and proponents of climate catastrophe die off, these are going to be the issues that separate left and right. (Which they already do and have for a long time, but the American right was on a roll for several decades defining itself by the holy-roller stuff and that might finally be over.)
> You really won't find a bigger SSC fan than me, but even I roll my eyes when I see the millionth post on steelmanning 'slut shaming' or '' post.
According to the survey, SSC is 88% white and 90% male (even before you cross it with Reddit), so no one except the abundant racists and misogynists can possibly go into that forum with an honest hope of having a productive discussion about race or gender. But pretty much all the "culture war" stuff is race, gender, or dogwhistles about same. So the most productive direction is to bail the fuck out of there and let the snowflakes have their safe space for their white-male identity politics.
> I would predict though that ssc prevents lots of young guys from falling into the clutches of the alt-right.
Because it safely steers them into the alt-light, neoreaction, men's rights, Gamergate, white nationalism, or [literal neo-Nazism](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/7dewkv/remember_that_time_when_literally_advocating_the/) instead?
I'm trying to respond, but it's hard, since I think our prior views on the state of slate star codex, and politics in general, are too far apart to bridge through some comments.
You're fair to point out that on some of these newer political dimensions the differences stand out more. I've been actively reading/posting for a few years now on ssc and /r/ssc, and can't relate to your claim on dog whistles. I have also consistently read a lot of left wing views as well. I guess, to me, I don't see the white identity politics as being a common latent factor among posters, although they certainly exist. That may be because I do read a lot written by the actual white identity politics crowd, to see what they are up too. The alt-right concept of white identity politics is pretty up and front about it. Whereas ssc tends to be more anti-identity politics.
Although it's also not really a cohesive group either. It's more of a cantina on Tatooine, or some Firefly style libertarian space-bar,. where everyone stops by to comment, but the commonality is the posters tend to not feel welcome elsewhere.
I also really have to point out you're not understanding that link you shared on literal neo-Nazism. Upvotes tend to be less correlated with agreement and more correlated with good-faith effort to communicate. That's the general vibe, I can't comment on each upvoters belief. I know it may be unfathomable to you why people might want to communicate with and understand someone who believes these things -- but people are occupy a large spectrum of interests and personality types. What causes an anxious disgust response in you, may not in me. As a result, it's not really reflective of reality to point to unsavory comments with upvotes and say "This is what SSC readers actually believe!."
I frequently read alt-right blogs of people that would like to see me and my family deported, since I want to know what they think. And I don't like being told what people think through secondary sources. Whenever I have done research I almost always drop secondary sources, and pick up the old books or read the old newspapers. It's my style.
I think HBD-type and White Nationalist posts on r/SSC have about the same amount of support pro-East Asian posts have, which is 10-20 net upvotes on average. The crowds heavily overlap since HBDers and NRxers tend to like Northeast Asians and the current breed of WNs generally at least ostensibly respect them to some extant. Jared Taylor does that. Richard Spencer does that. Even Andrew Anglin does that to some extant partly because his site is literally protected by a Chinese guy or it won't even be online.
It is hard for pro-Middle Eastern or pro-black posts to be that popular though. I'm basically the only one advocating for Middle Easterners on r/SSC and these posts get less than 10 net upvotes.
Abrahamic fundamentalism is dying in the West. I just hope that this dangerous and irrational ideology disappear from the rest of the world ASAP.
Anti-LGBT sentiments are just mostly irrational and absurd. OK someone is gay. How the hell does that harm you? If you are not a male homosexual don't ask him to be your partner. Problem solved.
Active r/SSC posters are actually not that white though. For example almost every sufficiently long pro-East Asian post in the Culture War thread I have ever made (there are tons of them) earn me about 10-20 upvotes. It is not true that these are simply the consequence of pro-East Asian whites upvoting them. Northeast Asian Americans are likely overrepresented in the rationalsphere. However whites are overrepresented even more. On the other hand my frequent pro-Middle Easterner posts are not very popular. I still get some upvotes but I'm clearly sticking out against the consensus by saying good things about Iranians and Arabs. There are also lots of people opposing my views. I also get some downvotes. I support Middle Easterners any way regardless of how unpopular this idea is because we need to stand for the truth. The Middle East has an interesting history and some modern scientists and entrepreneurs. They aren't simply "sand people" as their haters call them.
As for literal neo-Nazism (Iron March, Atomwaffen Division, etc) I'm not aware of any SSCer supporting it.
Exactly. SSC is just like a graduate lounge. In fact it is actually often filled with the same people you will see in a grad lounge. However it allows all kinds of opinions. We have people from Marxists to neoreactionaries and I truly enjoy interacting with them all.
The main problem I have with the Blue Tribe is that it is increasingly moralistic just like the Red one. The Blue Tribe practices moral censorship of rational discussions just like the Red one. On the other hand I prefer to leave all the opinions in the Overton Window no matter how extreme they are. It's true that we should reject awful ideas. However I prefer that we discuss them first for the sake of rationality and avoiding crimestops in our minds. Awful ideas do not become more awful after discussions. We are not inclined to morally accept them in the first place anyway so why not talk about them more when it is beneficial?
For example nobody here has quoted my amoral arguments against genocide. They are redundant for most people. Instead this is aimed at sociopaths who would never care about any moral prohibition.
My ideas can be wrong because I'm anything but a sociologist. However I doubt that I'm worse than the average blogger who writes on the issues I write about.
Sure. The Reds and Islamists are always even worse. However even Blue levels of conformism are already unbearable.
What I really hope is that people of whichever tribe listen more, think more and get angry less. Then we can figure out how to solve issues facing us humans. In the struggle against hostile aliens or UFAI we are all on the same side.
My ideals are not fundamentally incompatible with yours. However I tend to move in baby steps and make lots of compromises.
I think the red v. blue distinction is a shallow facile one based on broad stereotypes and guesswork, and I'm not sure what Islamism has to do with the joke I just made, but you do you
Well I'm an autist so I actually took your post seriously as an analogy (i.e. we Blues are a bit irrational while Reds are much worse so you shouldn't lump us together with them) instead of a joke.
To me Redism and Islamism are pests of the same kind, namely Abrahamic irrationalism. I consider this ideology a serious threat because it tends to be accompanied by extremely high fertility rates and extreme collectivism. Islamism is objectively worse because it is currently more militant. However their difference is that of degree, not that of kind.
NK is fairly awful to North Korean citizens. That's why I strongly oppose it. That's the same reason why I oppose the Saudi regime that mistreats women.
No, it is not awful to NK citizens. Please stop being irrational. Perhaps you should actually research NK and their system of governance instead of believing US tribal propaganda. Have you ever read North Korean sources or are you just uncharitably repeating what you heard from capitalist ideologues?
Interesting.
I think I will bring this topic to r/SSC while we continue to discuss here.
It is clear that the living standards of NK was higher than that of SK until 1970s. Before that there were actually South Koreans defecting to North Korea for a better life according to Wikipedia. The opposite trend began when SK has become richer than NK.
Yes, retract your opposition to North Korea if you wish to remain rational.
/r/SSC is brainwashed by capitalist ideology so I doubt you will encounter a productive discussion there.
I suggest that you write a list of axioms first. Why do you support Stalinism? Do you think it can make people richer if properly implemented?
I don't think Communism is possible to properly implement before human 2.0s because humans are simply way too selfish for it to work.
You have to deal with two issues:
1. How to motivate laborers to do their best?
2. How to prevent cadres from becoming corrupt or oppressive?
You're just spinning your wheels saying more and more illogical things. I already showed you that your opposition to North Korea was based on irrationality. You should show your support for North Korea before I embarrass you further. I doubt you even know what communism is, let alone have any sort of logical reasoning as to why it supposedly can't be implemented.
What is "Stalinism" and why is it related to our discussion of North Korea?
>I in fact do know what Communism is. That's precisely why I'm not a Communist.
Wrong. I already showed that you have zero idea about North Korean ideology or history. Hence your irrational stance of opposing them, which I showed immediately to be based on nothing but US propaganda and shoddy "reasoning".
Reverse your irrational stance of opposing North Korea now. Our discussion will not be productive until you acknowledge that I exposed your fallacious reasoning.
> You then followed up by describing SSC as "brainwashed by capitalist ideology", which is just absurd.
That's not absurd at all and it's the reason for your little fact-free freakout here.
Trying to spin Dresnok as anything other than a defector is some pathetic shit dude. I pity how brainwashed you are.
edit: Ahahaha, you're a mod at rSSC? Yeah America can do no wrong, Dresnok was merely moving, as is his right as an American citizen. lmao.
Dresnok left the US army just after the Korean war in order to live in North Korea and even appeared in North Korean government films. What exactly would you consider him if not a defector? Even his wikipedia page says he defected. If you can find another source that says he simply moved I'd be very interested. You appear severely delusional by the way, even accusing me of downvoting you with no evidence.
edit: **Find me a single source that says Dresnok simply emigrated to North Korea and therefore does not count as a defector and gives the legal reasoning why**. Your wikipedia definition is pathetic and doesn't cover Dresnok's case (a US soldier who deserted his duties and co-operated with a US enemy). I support Dresnok but you're doing some serious mental acrobatics trying to spin what he did as a simple emigration lol.
Jesus Christ every time a rSSC mod comes here and you all can't hide behind deleting or banning what I say I severely embarrass you all.
> I mean, I've never heard of the guy before, but obviously both NK and the US are different countries now vs. just after the war.
Countries being "different" (different how?) does not retro-actively change the factual categorization of what Dresnok did. **Find me a single source that says Dresnok simply emigrated to North Korea and therefore does not count as a defector and gives the legal reasoning why.** This is the argument you have made, and if you are an honest debater (rather than a brainwashed capitalist stooge), then this is the evidence you will find to back up your argument.
My position on North Korea may seem extreme, but it is simply the result of actually studying the issue.
I brought the matter up to /u/AutisticThinker because he had irrationally supported the destruction of North Korea previously in rSSC. While he was in a forum in which I will not be arbitrarily censored I pressed him on the issue.
>This is not "delusional"; it is Bayesian.
lol accusing others with nothing except extremely flimsy circumstantial evidence is certainly delusional. You realise that we are discussing this in a public forum and anybody could have downvoted your rambling, inane, fact-free post, right? Given the negative quality of your post I would even postulate that's the most likely scenario.
>I mean, I've never heard of the guy before
A SSC fanboy pretending that they have authoritative knowledge of an issue they've never even heard of before today? I'm so shocked...
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/sneerclub] [SSC mod claims James Dresnok didn't defect to North Korea](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/7vay76/ssc_mod_claims_james_dresnok_didnt_defect_to/)
*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
Hm, it's not just "an American propaganda". Russian producer from a state agency visited DPRK to film a Russian-Korean documentary about North Korea. His impression lined up with "American propaganda" pretty accurately.
https://meduza.io/feature/2016/10/28/magaziny-detsad-gostinitsa-kak-zhivut-v-severnoy-koree
Your thinking reminds me of flat earth theorists — there is a huge conspiracy for an uncertain reason (why would Russians lie?)
Unfortunately many Russians have also swallowed US capitalist propagada. I don't speak the language but I ran the article through google translate and it doesn't put forth any good points as far as I can tell. He's mad because he can't buy as much different kinds of foods in the shop? I don't care lol.
It's "illogical" to dismiss any criticism of your views based on this non-falsified position "if someone criticizes DPRK — he is an American shill; all refugees who fled from there are American shills; recent event near North-South border is a mystification; everything that is not aligned with my views is either mystification produced by the US or misinterpretation". Do you see now how it's similar to flat earth theory?
The Russian guy mostly talks about propaganda coming from the NK government. For example, as a proof of their prosperity, they present this one shop from Pyongyang, but you can't buy anything from it, access for regular people is denied, and most goods from it are fake anyway. Obviously, they won't show him labor camps but even that is enough to suspect that something is not right. It's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village
And this example is not an isolated case. The guy spent there months and began to notice the pattern.
He didn't provide any proof that the goods were "fake" as far as I can tell. All he said was that he couldn't buy them. Let's take his word for a second (no actual reason to, but I'll humour you), this is not especially surprising considering North Korea is a communist country and not everything is for sale. Communist countries often produce goods to satisfy needs, not for market exchange. Again, I'm working from google translate so you can tell me if he provided some proof (real proof, not hearsay) that the goods were fake.
He writes
>Но в нашу последнюю поездку, когда у меня уже получилось расширить границы допустимого, я просто ворвался в небольшой магазин. За мной, конечно, заскочили сопровождающие. Торговый зал — метров 80, в нем группа людей — 8-9 человек и продавец, а весь прилавок в пачках томатного сока, которые выставлены в шахматном порядке: пачка, пустое место, пачка, пустое место. От пола до потолка — только томатный сок, и был ли это томатный сок или просто пачки — я так до конца и не понял.
which roughly translates as "I barged into this mall despite protests of my attendants and saw that the whole shopboard was filled with tomato juice packs placed into a checkboard pattern (there wasn't anything else); I didn't learn whether it was a real juice or just packs". I mean, come on. You are pulling Herriot on me, who claimed that there wasn't any famine in Soviet Ukraine (inb4 "Holodomor is a hoax").
>is a communist country and not everything is for sale
First of all, DPRK isn't "communist". I shouldn't teach a tankie like you :-) that there is a difference between "communism" and "socialism". They themselves refer to it as "Songun", militarized socialism. In communist societies, there is no need for currency even (yet DPRK has one). In the Soviet Union, say, all goods were sold and bought by people with actual cash, it's just the supply was determined by Gosplan, a planning agency.
I'm not sure how something being filled with tomato juice packs is evidence of anything. That there is a currency does not mean that everything can be bought with it or that a local shopkeeper should be compelled to sell something to a tourist.
I know the difference between communism and socialism, I am merely using shorthand.
1) Already said it wasn't an individual case, he described numerous similar cases (not exclusively in this article), you can be charitable one, two, three times.
2) By your words, DPRK is dysfunctional even by measurement of other "communist" societies. In the Soviet Union, you could enter any shop and buy anything you like (though the possible selection would be limited and the quality of products would be subpar). And there wasn't any problem of visiting USSR through Intourist, you could just stroll through Moscow without any problem (though you would be under surveillance);
3) Ask any person without ideological blinders what would they make out of this.
I don't want to keep this conversation; you believe what you want to believe.
I'm not sure what these "similar cases" are supposed to prove even if they're true. He provides no evidence either way, nor does he ever explain why having a lot of tomato juice is supposed to be a bad thing. I'm seriously unsure what his point is supposed to be here.
A person being refused service is not an unusual thing, either in capitalist countries or communist ones. I don't know what the situation is here - the Russian may have been rude to the shopkeeper. We simply don't know and there doesn't appear to be footage to back up any of these random claims. DPRK is certainly not dysfunctional here, I know many people in the West have been refused service at stores for all kinds of reasons - some logical (i.e prior evidence of shoplifting), some not so much (i.e. homophobia, racial biases, etc). Again, we simply don't know the circumstances surrounding this event.
You're the one with ideological blinders. I'm simply asking what proof there is, and even if we take a random Russian at their word, why is a random shop having a lot of tomato juice supposed to be some damning indictment?
Being autistic doesn't necessarily make you unable to understand sarcasm. I know some people do struggle with it though, so I am sorry if I caused offense, as it wasn't my intention.
Signed, someone who would know.
Don't worry about it. :-)
Generally I need a statement to be completely absurd (e.g. Trump is a rabbit.) or accompanied by literal lols, smileys etc in order to recognize sarcasm. In particular whenever I'm joking I always use these symbols or write complete nonsense that can not be interpreted literally.
This is why most people don't get why I like to use completely absurd statements. "The desk has eaten America!" and "Do you know that Trump is really a rabbit?" are very funny to me.
What fucking graduate lounges are you hanging out in? The average SSC commenter would get fucking skewered in one. I'm talking merciless unrelenting mockery here.
Well, to begin with, you're introducing a new premise, now, according to you, discussion happens amongst
>a bunch of people who dislike it
The reason to reject this extra premise is that there is no reason to assume that through discussion those who dislike it will continue to do so.
More importantly, an even better reason to reject this extra premise is that ideas are plastic, and there is no absolutely no reason to assume that those who dislike an idea, but for God knows what reason decide to discuss it at length, especially if completely reprehensible, will not, through discussion, come up with a better version of it which they decide to like.
This is a common theme in the whole HBD debate. Online fora that place an emphasis on debating "Human Bio-Diversity" for the purposes of refuting it have a strange habit of coming up with stronger and stronger versions of it, even while ignoring the best arguments against it.
I can't count the number of times I've seen people fail to demonstrate even correlation between the actual genetic traits shared within one so-called "race" (always on the old 19th century categories, or versions of them fudged with rather crass auxiliary hypotheses) and those which are supposed to be connected with their measured differences in IQ, for example.
This is unsurprising, because self-styled intellectuals who are nonetheless amateurs, tyros, autodidacts, and overconfident bloviators, do not have the tools to hand to assess this sort of thing.
It's alright to say "I don't know", unless of course you're trying to make your way up the rationality ladder
I'm not talking about fact-related claims. Instead I'm talking about morality-related claims.
For example I explained why a sociopath should not simply commit genocide using whatever new WMD they can find for profits because it breaks a global human norm the disappearance or enforcement of which can lead to the death of the perpetrators. Furthermore the world is not a zero-sum game and we *benefit* from each other's existence. I think this addresses a particular extreme sect of the far-right that actually wants to kill a lot of people and redistribute their lands. No matter how much we bash Nazism new technologies such as ethnic bioweapons will make atrocities even Nazis did not dream of much easier in the future. Ancient perpetrators had to murder people by hand. Nazis invented the idea of mass gassing people which grossly sped up massacres. The development of ethnic bioweapons will further make a genocide so easy to commit (release an agent) that random genocides without easily identifiable perpetrators can be commited. There will always be sociopaths who are willing to kill a million people just to get a farm or mine in Africa before transhumanism. Hence we need amoral arguments (because moral appealing does not work on sociopaths) against genocide which is exactly what I provided.
Ok, I'm getting bored now, but here we go:
That doesn't mean that other people will interpret you as saying something like that. Make yourself clear and don't assume everybody's already with you. I'm done with this anyway.
Fine. My point is that as long as some people believe that they can benefit from somethng evil and are sufficiently amoral to carry it out they are going to carry it out. Moral shaming merely reduces the number of such people but can never make it zero.
In the case of UFAI and new technology-based mass murders we have to literally reduce the number of violators to zero. This is why a pure moralistic approach does not work.
You want to stop an unfriendly AI from destroying all human life by...debate? You think that keeping all moral options on the table is the only way to stop an unfriendly AI from destroying all human life? I'm afraid I literally cannot follow this line of thinking
It is good for the police to think about how criminals may commit crimes to prevent them. Similarly it is good for us to think about UFAI and genocidal freaks. Most people are not supporters of UFAI or genocides. Hence the better known these crazy ideas are the better. If we don't let the public know them real genocide plotters if existing will know what we talk about anyway because this is what they have been plotting.
I don't see anybody in the US democratic party arguing that police should not consider the motivations for committing a crime, nor do I see how telling people that some views are unacceptable in political discourse stops one from considering moral motivation
I don't agree with the gender roles proposal and some other nuances such as the so-called JQ. However I do believe that we should always take psychopathic interests into account before making decisions.
On the so-called Jewish Question: I don't believe that it exists at all. JQ was mostly made up by Abrahamic idiots or people who can't compete with Jews. This is why we never see any native form of JQ arising in China, a nation that used to host many Kaifeng Jews in the past. The so-called JQ is just bullshit made up against market dominant minorities in general and hence it does not exist. Yeah there are also Southeast Asians complaining about the successful Chinese minority and their BS isn't that different from antisemitic BS.
Precisely determining the IQ of the underclass is necessary and must be coupled with a free nootropics campaign if their IQ is indeed below average. A normal nation such as Poland and China has a working class but not an underclass. The problem of the underclass must be solved by rehabilitating every single member of it into either the middle class or the working class. All ghettos must be transformed into safe middle class and working class neighborhoods *without changing its demographics*. I think this will improve the lives of Americans of all races. Imagine a new, safe and beautiful city populated mostly by educated blacks wearing suits called Detroit where the infrastructure is better than that of Tokyo, (mostly black) people do STEM, start businesses and live happily without fear. That's what I want. Solving the problem of racial disparity is very important for the future of humanity because for the sake of our species I prefer that every tribe is at least reasonably developed and does not have resentment towards each other. This will boost our cooperation in a war against UFAI or hostile aliens.
The classic gender roles are economically way too costly and collectivist to be allowed to return. It is something of the pre-industry age and hence we should leave it behind just like we leave slavery in history. Instead I propose that sex bots should be mass produced as soon as possible to solve the problem of incel. Before that voluntary adult prostitution should be legalized.
A two-child/three-child policy is necessary to frustrate a fundamentalist demographic takeover of either Christian or Muslim variant. Secular education should be mandatory, including the teaching of evolution and climate change. I'm really tired of fundamentalists because they tend to care about what are not even issues. They absurdly consider anti-LGBTism a "tradition", ignoring how gay Greece and Rome were. Unlike selfists we can't even negotiate with these people. Hence we have to destroy their ability to poison the next generation and wait for these freaks to be phased out. Most Blues are way too soft on fundies.
As for demographics I believe it should be up to the majority of the populace. If they really don't want even more non-white immigration let's start a new community somewhere else (seasteading? move to Antarctica?) After all multiracial places have to exist. Otherwise where the hell are scientists from Japan, India, Germany and America supposed to meet each other and do research together? If collectivists and ethnic nationalists do not want that they can stay in their homelands and never leave them. I'm going to move to the new multiracial areas where STEM is done and startups are common anyway. Historically the most prosperous areas are generally somewhat diverse and I love prosperity.
States that abuse women and enforce the patriarchy must be overthrown (yes, I'm serious.). I don't believe in radical feminism. However I do want at least some feminism. I just don't want more potential Emmy Noethers to be reduced to housewives. Period. Any government that tries to tie a woman to a family needs to go to hell. And..I do mean it. Islamist governments simply should never be allowed to exist anywhere on this planet. There should be women's shelters in Riyadh protected by foreign troops if necessary. If something is a human right then it must be protected everywhere on this planet.
BTW I believe in individual rights but not collective ones because any so-called collective right tends to include restrictions on its members. (Just like multicellular organisms controlling and sometimes even killing their cells.) You can't defend cannibalism and slavery by "hey it is our ethnic tradition." Nor can you defend wife-beating or other authoritarian or collectivist practices by "it is our tradition". I'm sure that for every collectivist tradition there are people born into it who want to escape from its shackles.
>Okay, but your premise was that not only do awful ideas become more awful after discussion
Well this is obviously false (frankly: for fucks sake). I said that it was ridiculous to believe that "ideas do not become awful after discussions", i.e. I contested the notion that discussion cannot make things worse.
And if you think that Scott Alexander has the merest measure of self-doubt as compared with the average person you're committed more than you know
This notion about me arguing the "exact opposite" is, on the other hand, entirely a mystery to me.
"This is the exact opposite of reality. Scott himself "made his way up the rationality ladder" explicitly by doubting himself constantly."
Literally everyone thinks they do this
> We have people from Marxists to neoreactionaries and I truly enjoy interacting with them all.
except that scott *just recently* made a post about how he has mostly failed to attract marxists.
Since you guys are quoting me I'm going to respond here.
Reds hate Alan Turing because he was homosexual. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality or transgenderism because they do not cause any harm. On the other hand, moralists of whatever kind frequently cause harm due to moral zealotry.
My own ideology of rationality is completely amoral. I'm a true libertine. That means I truly hate anyone who ever tries to bring up morality, conservatives and liberals alike. As I said before, moral zealots frequently cause a lot more harm compared to selfists. When Nazis murdered Jews they believed they were righteous. When Stalinists starved peasants to death they believed that they were righteous. When Crusades and jihads happen zealots believe that they were/are righteous. I would rather want a selfish world with no moral zealots compared to a moralistic one for the body count of moral zealots is so high. I don't really hate morality. However I'm really tired of zealots. There has already been too much harm done in the name of morality.
I disagree with economic leftism in methods but not in goals. I want everyone to be well fed just like you guys. However I just don't believe that the current form of economic leftism actually works.
I support at least some form of feminism and strongly oppose the patriarchy for two reasons:
1. There are people doing important jobs who happen to be women. A blanket ban on women working is completely absurd. I just don't want Marie Curies and Emmy Noethers to be reduced to housewives. Period.
2. I'm an absolute individualist. The patriarchy is by definition collectivist and hence I hate it.
Some facts about me:
1.I score lower than both liberals and conservatives on all moral aspects other than help/harm.
2.I got 4.7/5 on help/harm which is higher than both liberals and conservatives.
3.My moral foundation is entirely based on help/harm and the untested liberty/oppression. That means I don't really care about fairness if everyone lives reasonably well. Moreover I don't care about respecting any authority, maintaining any purity or loyalty. Generally I couldn't care less about them.
4.I don't want anything banned because it is disgusting or emotionally unappealing. Only reasoning can convince me to morally support or oppose anything.
5.I'm pretty open-minded. :-) I'm also a radical contrarian. That means the less popular a statement is the more likely that I will read it. Nothing irritates me more than crowds of conformists.
@Downvoters Please refute me instead of merely downvoting me. If I said something factually wrong I want to make it right.
Well, yes. The main moral zealots I hate are either deontology-based extremists who follow certain rules no matter what or virtue extremists who increase their virtue points while causing harm.
hmm ok, so how do you resolve what looks to me like the cognitive dissonance between
> My own ideology of rationality is completely amoral. I'm a true libertine. I truly hate anyone who ever tries to bring up morality
and
>well, yes i do have a moral position.
would you like to rephrase the first quote? or can you reconcile those 2 ideas?
I usually tend to claim absolute amorality in order to shut up moral zealots who tend to use morality to shut up my attempt to discuss reality.
I don't truly believe in amorality. However epistemology and ethics are completely separate in my mind because I'm a moral non-cognitivist. Ethics are relevant in actual actions but are rarely relevant in theoretical discussions.
ah yeah, moral zealots are the worst. People playing social power games (which is mostly what moral judgements are about) when Im trying to talk about abstract ideas. Straight up lying is risky because it can be a massive turn off for the people I actually want to engage with. I deal with the moral zealots but ignoring, avoiding and being very hostile to them.
The main problem about zealotry is that through enforcing a moral principle one frequently ignores the other ones. Hence a moral zealot is in some sense quasi-Clippy-like. Some of them are sincere. Others are simply playing the social power game as you said. All are harmful.
No matter how great your ideal is please don't go Clippy about it. A Clippy version of even the most precious ideal is likely to be a disaster.
Moral zealotry is just "get in line, buddy". If you get hung up on its logical value you're going to consistently lose.
"Defer to me." *"Please will you hear me out?"* You've already lost as soon as you engage on those terms.
>All are harmful.
You're playing their game. Don't indulge, you won't beat them, especially if you're autistic. Your best bet is to do what 48832983098247 recommended. Signal that you don't play and be hostile if people try to draw you in.
> Reds hate Alan Turing because he was homosexual.
Yeah, that was the joke, but can you cite an example of a Red expressing this opinion within the past 20 years? (Not a rhetorical question; I could believe it, but don't yet.)
EDIT: in defense of Reds, one of the leaders of the campaign to posthumously pardon Turing was the Tory MP Iain Stewart, who is openly gay (how much longer will that even be a phrase?).
I am Red tribe and hate Alan Turing for exactly this reason. Look up the details of exactly how he got caught-- motherfucker deserved to be #MeTooed for his fondness for teenage prostitutes.
It's hilarious to me that you appear to be holding a sub explicitly dedicated to mockery to such a higher standard than you do a sub allegedly dedicated to rationality.
Of course it will. In Communist and feudal societies the conflict is between the people and the political elite.
I don't deny that capitalism has its issues. However any Marxist-Leninist state in practice is even worse. Entrepreneurs are replaced by the state which always enforces everything through violence. Workers instead of experiencing freedom experience even worse oppression. Capitalism is the least bad system because it channels some sociopaths into businesses and out of the military and the government where they would have been even worse.
The political elite actually earn their position in communism. It's called hard work. And violence is not necessarily a bad thing, depends how and why it happens, who it's aimed at, etc. I have no issue with violence being used against slaveowners for example.
Why were Yagoda, Yezhov, Kosior, Chubar, Tukhachevsky etc purged? Because they weren't better Communists?
Seriously no matter how much problem I have with Communism I would still have a cup of coffee with Trotsky if I were born 100 years ago and got the opportunity to do so because he was an intellectual. I like to chat with intellectuals including those I disagree with. Stalin? Nope.
>This whole "gray tribe" thing is so obviously just an identity for young right-wing Americans who don't want to be called right-wing because they're not religious or homophobic.
I would identify as "grey tribe" are you saying I am right wing? Some of my politics:
Anti minimum wage
Pro basic income
Anti open borders
Pro LGBQT+ rights, I have a really hard time with the implication that we are transphobic when there are so many trans people in our community far more than one would typically expect
Anti "SJW"
Pro gamergate, in the sense that I probably believe gamergate to be different than what what you do
Believe HBD to be true
Pro Damore
Pro EA
Pro Choice
Pro "real life" feminism, anti "internet" feminism
Pro more healthcare
Pro drug liberalization
Voted for Hillary but would have preferred Sanders
All of this seems pretty typical of of the SSC community. Yet this makes me right wing? I mean you say:
>immigration, minimum wage, feminism, race realism. As all the opponents of marriage equality and proponents of climate catastrophe die off, these are going to be the issues that separate left and right.
Then I guess in that sense I am right wing. But I have a hard time calling my self that when my end game is a state with a large amount of social welfare where people don't have to worry about providing for their well being.
The people I actually consider to be right wing are against both minimum wage and basic income. They are against feminism in that they want to shut down planned parenthood. My disagreements with feminism amount to "untitled" levels of stuff. They are against immigration in that they believe most (especially illegal) immigrants are bad people (lazy, criminals etc...) I'm against immigration in that I don't see how it is compatible with a looser immigration policy. It doesn't seem accurate to group me with the people I consider to be right wing.
>Pro gamergate, in the sense that I probably believe gamergate to be different than what what you do
>Pro Damore
>Pro EA
Truly the touchstone political issues of our time.
When your right wing explicitly supports a gay welfare state where everyone gets drugs, healthcare, and votes Democrat, you do not have a coherent idea of right wing.
/u/UpstairsConference may be many things, but right-wing is not one of them.
I think it has to do with how Americans view "right-wing" compared to Europeans, and is relevant to the point epistaxis made.
As a European, I find issues like single-payer/universal healthcare pretty much as a basic human right, and they are also seen that way by nearly all political parties in several European countries. I think America is sort of an odd case because of the popularity libertarianism has.
That, and you think that the various stated positions above are compatible with the right.
The most obnoxious quality of the woke progressive is a belief that nothing except woke politics counts as left -- and this ruins their ability to comprehend the right.
Dude, Angela Merkel leads a predominantly right wing coalition in Germany which is explicit about being right-wing. This is like claiming the Tories are left-wing
The European right and the American right are not the same thing at all, as you well know; hell, the European left and the American left aren't the same, either, as the European left is comfortable with many awful things no side of America is.
Angela Merkel is not right-wing. She is arguably a left-leaning centrist.
You are speaking on a US-centric website discussing primarily US people on a predominantly US forum.
Yes, US values are the relevant ones here, you potato.
Ostensibly though those things are only for wealthy white people born within the borders who don't dare complain that thing actually aren't that great for everybody. That's feels like a pretty right wing position to me. You don't gain points because you reject one or two indefensible policies that are now unanimously out of vogue.
Pro LGBT. Pro basic income. Pro widespread healthcare. Pro legalization of vice. Pro women's rights to abortion. Pro Democrat.
Come on, man. Unless your definition of left is *strictly* A Feminist That Is Super Woke With Progressive Views On Race, you got nothing.
And if that is your definition, it's a bad one. There is more to liberalism by far than feminism and hating whitey.
Pro-HBD
Pro-gamergate (fucking seriously?)
pro-Damore's garbage level EvoPsych nonsense
Closed borders
anti-SJW (a buzzword that just means a basic understanding of race and gender relations)
There's no proper concept of leftism that is compatible with those positions. Those are fundamentally reactionary stances.
It seems to me that /r/SSC is largely composed of reactionaries who don't like the church and believe the American paradigm that right=religion so they don't think they're right wing, but they also don't really want to do anything to address power disparities and social inequalities, buy into the weak right wing positions of extreme individualism and biodeterminism, and are at least smart enough to endorse some obviously good policies like healthcare and gay marriage (there's some issues with trans identities and with black/brown LGBT individuals so I don't accept that that's truly pro LGBT across the board).
It's like libertarianism part two, but this time science is used to only extend freedom to white dudes born within your borders (this was always libertarianism, but it's a bit more explicit now it seems).
> Pro-HBD
Acknowledment of genetic differences is right, I'll grant you.
>Pro-gamergate (fucking seriously?)
Gamergate is/was overwhelmingly left.
>pro-Damore's garbage level EvoPsych nonsense
Damore was correct and spot-on, and not right-wing.
>Closed borders
The legitimacy of borders is a _progressive_ thing, not a left/liberal.
You did your best, but it was terrible.
> Acknowledment of genetic differences is right, I'll grant you.
It's mostly fabrication of genetic differences.
>Gamergate is/was overwhelmingly left.
This is only true, if you accept your convoluted definition of leftist. Gamergate was very reactionary and continually puts itself at odds with racial and gender equality and trans rights. A huge chunk of gators made a seamless transition into the alt-right.
>Damore was correct and spot-on, and not right-wing.
He was not, his presentation of the science was questionable and his conclusions/implications made from the science he presented was even worse. There was no engagement with Janet Hyde's work, no discussion of the ontological status of psychometric constructs like The Big Five, and no clear connection between the most banal data he produced and the conclusions he attempted to draw. That's not even touching his god-awful political polemic nested within. The only thing I can give him credit for is that he is correct that just hiring women won't solve the problem, but there are much better critiques of this kind from the actual left.
> It's mostly fabrication of genetic differences.
Nah.
>This is only true, if you accept your convoluted definition of leftist. Gamergate was very reactionary and continually puts itself at odds with racial and gender equality and trans rights. A huge chunk of gators made a seamless transition into the alt-right.
This comes back to the weird progressive idea that Woke Progressivism is the only thing on the left.
>He was not, his presentation of the science was questionable and his conclusions/implications made from the science he presented was even worse.
You did not read the memo, I suspect. He had the most mild and well-founded conclusions one could.
> Nah.
Look, if you want a lesson I typically ask for a stipend when I TA.
>This comes back to the weird progressive idea that Woke Progressivism is the only thing on the left.
No, it's the unequestionable fact that leftist politics have to genuinely engage with racial and gender inequality. If they don't you're basically the same perverse system of inequality that is the bedrock of right-wing ideology. Giving other white dudes within your borders a few more trinkets isn't leftism it's just a slight repositioning of right-wing capitalism.
>You did not read the memo, I suspect. He had the most mild and well-founded conclusions one could.
I did read it, half-baked biological determinism and gender essentialism is not "well-founded"
> Look, if you want a lesson I typically ask for a stipend when I TA.
I'm not interested in what you think is correct or not; I'm sure you have very good and entirely uncompelling reasons for it.
>No, it's the unequestionable fact that leftist politics have to genuinely engage with racial and gender inequality. If they don't you're basically the same perverse system of inequality that is the bedrock of right-wing ideology. Giving other white dudes within your borders a few more trinkets isn't leftism it's just a slight repositioning of right-wing capitalism.
This is literally just rephrasing "Woke Progressivism is the only thing on the left".
>I did read it, half-baked biological determinism and gender essentialism is not "well-founded"
Acknowledging documented trends and repeatedly shown group differences is, indeed, well-founded. Which is all he was talking about: group differences, and how to address them to bring more women to Google.
> I'm not interested in what you think is correct or not; I'm sure you have very good and entirely uncompelling reasons for it.
Only if you find actual genetics "uncompelling"
>This is literally just rephrasing "Woke Progressivism is the only thing on the left".
No, at the very least I demonstrated it's a necessary, but not sufficient aspect of leftist politics. Having woman ICE agents is obviously not leftist, and neither is Hillary Clinton.
>Acknowledging documented trends and repeatedly shown group differences is
It was a biased portrayal and a misattribution of causality. There are actual leftist critiques that are much more reasoned than Damore. He wrote what might be the most famous C- EvoBio term paper the world has ever seen
> Only if you find actual genetics "uncompelling"
*Everyone* justifies their beliefs with "actual X". I do not have any reason to find your take on the science more compelling than anyone else's.
>No, at the very least I demonstrated it's a necessary, but not sufficient aspect of leftist politics. Having woman ICE agents is obviously not leftist, and neither is Hillary Clinton.
Woke Progressivism is opposed to ICE entirely, so duh. But no, man, you're not saying anything else.
>It was a biased portrayal and a misattribution of causality. There are actual leftist critiques that are much more reasoned than Damore. He wrote what might be the most famous C- EvoBio term paper the world has ever seen
It was none of those things, and leftist critique is largely worthless.
> Everyone justifies their beliefs with "actual X". I do not have any reason to find your take on the science more compelling than anyone else's.
I like to think my graduate level education and published research is sufficient to take me on my science.
>Woke Progressivism is opposed to ICE entirely, so duh. But no, man, you're not saying anything else.
You could literally replace woman ICE agent with woman CEO and it'd be just as true. "Anti-SJW" politics are about maintaining current
>It was none of those things, and leftist critique is largely worthless.
Again without presenting the very robust findings of people like Janet Hyde, or the psychometric critique of taking a realist position of things like Big Five there's bias in the portrayal. The evidence he presented also was not sufficient to support a biodeterminist position. Leftist critiques are extremely valuable. They allow for more practical and effective ways to achieve morally desirable ends.
> I like to think my graduate level education and published research is sufficient to take me on my science.
I have no reason to believe anonymously asserted qualifications; however, even granting I trusted you, it is wholly possible you're wrong, a bad researcher (and you'll no doubt say much of the research people quote for HBD is bad, so you understand it exists), etc.
Like I said: I'm not interested in debating what's right or wrong with you.
>You could literally replace woman ICE agent with woman CEO and it'd be just as true. "Anti-SJW" politics are about maintaining current
I'm assuming you meant status quo. In which case, that is wrong, but it's wrong in a way typical of Woke Progressivism.
>Again without presenting the very robust findings of people like Janet Hyde, or the psychometric critique of taking a realist position of things like Big Five there's bias in the portrayal. The evidence he presented also was not sufficient to support a biodeterminist position. Leftist critiques are extremely valuable. They allow for more practical and effective ways to achieve morally desirable ends.
None of this was necessary for the memo. It made very weak claims, with very mild suggestions, and its evidence for those things was sufficient.
> Pro LGBT. Pro basic income. Pro widespread healthcare. Pro legalization of vice. Pro women's rights to abortion. Pro Democrat. Come on, man.
These objections are hilariously unconvincing for a quite rudimentary reason.
One of the most elementary and conspicuous (to those with the acuity to spot it) tricks that craven apologists for concentrated power employ is to freely acknowledge, even with brazen alacrity, that which they no longer have the option to deny, pretending to lead the consensus of the literate public rather than being dragged behind it kicking and screaming. Indeed, any skilled propagandist will perforce make pseudo-concessions that don't actually cost him anything, for no other reason than to act as a rhetorical counterweight and to appear more "balanced", "non-partisan" or "nuanced".
And there's nothing more obtuse than a *bien pensant* that fancies himself a rebel.
> One of the most elementary and conspicuous (to those with the acuity to spot it) tricks that craven apologists for concentrated power employ is to freely acknowledge, even with brazen alacrity, that which they no longer have the option to deny, pretending to lead the consensus of the literate public rather than being dragged behind it kicking and screaming. Indeed, any skilled propagandist will perforce make pseudo-concessions that don't actually cost him anything, for no other reason than to act as a rhetorical counterweight and to appear more "balanced", "non-partisan" or "nuanced".
This is utter, trashy nonsense. Many of the things listed are not, by any means, publicly accepted or inevitable.
You simply don't want to acknowledge a left that encompasses more than feminism and wok af soc jus.
eh, dude comes off as a (moderate?) third-positionist. "social democracy and welfare but only for the superior race/True Citizens(tm)" is only a left-wing position if you think, say, Strasserists, Front National, or Terza Posizione were left-wing groups.
> "social democracy and welfare but only for the superior race/True Citizens(tm)" is only a left-wing position if you think, say, Strasserists, Front National, or Terza Posizione were left-wing groups.
He did not include race-based exemptions to welfare, drug legalization, abortion rights, etc., etc.
That is untrue. The races are different, and we should limit immigration much more than we do; that *does not* mean we should create second-class citizens who do not share in the same legal protections and benefits others do.
sorry, but how are we saying the combination of "we should limit immigration" and "some races are inferior" doesn't lead to immigration policy that only permits whatever races you deem superior to live in your chosen land, and what do you think happens to the members of those races who are already in your country when you start enforcing those policies with the police state necessary to do so?
also, no we absolutely don't need to limit immigration, immigration restrictions are a means of preventing the creation of international labor laws, allow for the construction of a labor aristocracy, and undermine workers' movements. "strong borders" and nationalism are primarily a means to fragment the working class and prevent them from organizing.
> sorry, but how are we saying the combination of "we should limit immigration" and "some races are inferior" doesn't lead to immigration policy that only permits whatever races you deem superior to live in your chosen land, and what do you think happens to the members of those races who are already in your country when you start enforcing those policies with the police state necessary to do so?
Changes to immigration law do not change those who are already in the country. The law must apply equally to all; you don't -- and should not -- get to say that, nope, sorry, drugs, abortion, etc., are only legal for preferred citizens.
>also, no we absolutely don't need to limit immigration, immigration restrictions are a means of preventing the creation of international labor laws, allow for the construction of a labor aristocracy, and undermine workers' movements. "strong borders" and nationalism are primarily a means to fragment the working class and prevent them from organizing.
I'm wholly apathetic to your opinion on immigration and borders, so :thumbs_up:
> Changes to immigration law do not change those who are already in the country
that's empirically not true? why do you think DACA is in the news cycle right now? what do you think happens in the US right now to people whose legal status is removed when immigration law changes or people who are living here and are in the process of being naturalized when the law changes to exclude them?
> The law must apply equally to all; you don't -- and should not -- get to say that, nope, sorry, drugs, abortion, etc., are only legal for preferred citizens.
I hate to break it to you but this is empirically what happens in ethnonationalist societies. even in ones that just have racist immigration policies and enforcement that's not true. just look at how many legal US citizens, naturalized or by birth, have been detained illegally or deported "accidentally", disproportionately on the grounds of their race?
> I'm wholly apathetic to your opinion on immigration and borders, so :thumbs_up:
and I yours, but you should at least acknowledge that you're at best on the right and at worst a social fascist instead of pretending you care about what's good for humanity
> that's empirically not true? why do you think DACA is in the news cycle right now? what do you think happens in the US right now to people whose legal status is removed when immigration law changes or people who are living here and are in the process of being naturalized when the law changes to exclude them?
Illegals are not immigrants.
>I hate to break it to you but this is empirically what happens in ethnonationalist societies. even in ones that just have racist immigration policies and enforcement that's not true. just look at how many legal US citizens, naturalized or by birth, have been detained illegally or deported "accidentally", disproportionately on the grounds of their race?
Not very many.
>and I yours, but you should at least acknowledge that you're at best on the right and at worst a social fascist instead of pretending you care about what's good for humanity
I am explicitly fascist. I've never suggested *I* wasn't on the right. I said someone else wasn't.
> I am explicitly fascist. I've never suggested I wasn't on the right. I said someone else wasn't.
then I'm done here, go drink bleach, the world is better without you and your fellow travelers
> The races are different, and we should limit immigration much more than we do
^ ...this...
> we should create second-class citizens who do not share in the same legal protections and benefits others do.
...invariably leads to this.
> I have a really hard time with the implication that we are transphobic when there are so many trans people in our community far more than one would typically expect
Regardless of how many trans people participate in /r/SSC, virulent transphobia shows up regularly, and often to upvotes. In other words, "I have a trans friend!" isn't a real defense.
Yeah these are mostly Abrahamics. If I were a mod I would purge the Abrahamics.
I'm willing to negotiate with all kinds of sociopaths and other obnoxious people but not them because they simply refuse to budge.
> Anti minimum wage
Anti-labor. Right-wing.
> Anti open borders
Authoritarian. Right-wing. Probably racist.
> Anti "SJW"
Against social justice.
> Pro gamergate, in the sense that I probably believe gamergate to be different than what what you do
More culture war bullshit. Right-wing.
> Believe HBD to be true
Scientific racism? That's right-wing.
> Pro Damore
Even more right-wing culture warrior bullshit.
> Pro EA
Who the fuck actually likes Electronic Arts?
> Pro "real life" feminism, anti "internet" feminism
No idea what this even means.
> Voted for Hillary but would have preferred Sanders
You have very opposite politics to Bernie Sanders on labor issues and cultural stuff, so...*why*?
---
You have typical Redditor politics but you want a cookie for not being even more of an asshole.
Because pro-sociality was historically promoted through lies and unverifiable statements.
I'm not sure why this happened. However it causes a situation where morality and critical thinking are negatively correlated.
@Downvoters Could you please respond if you think I'm wrong? I would like to see *why* you think I'm wrong. Thanks!
Facts are literally obtained, organized, and meaningfully interpreted through a social process. Social trust, discipline, adherence to normative (and thus "unverifiable") standards of inquiry, and the authoritarian relation between teacher and student necessarily underlie all forms of science.
I believe some form of reality exists regardless of whether we can understand it.
No matter how much human consensus changes, what is objectively correct remains correct and what is objectively incorrect remains incorrect.
Which ultimately has no bearing on the extent to which we can understand that reality. Again, scientific inquiry is a social process governed by norms, authority, and trust, not a direct line to God through which you can transcend subjectivity and view absolute Truth directly. Facts and theories are constructed through this social process.
I mostly agree with you except for on "facts". I would use "perceived facts" instead of "facts" here. Maybe we are all deluded rabbits who don't realize that we are in fact rabbits. I don't consider this a useful or likely hypothesis. However it is certainly possible for this to be factually accurate no matter how unlikely this scenario is.
This is a sad (perceived) fact but we have to accept it.
> That's because you need facts before you can reliably do anything, including being pro-social.
No you don’t. Most of what we do is based on heuristics, not strict facts.
Maybe by “reliably do” you mean something more narrow than merely “do”. I think you’re still wrong, unless by “facts” you mean something very contingent on situations. Most of what we do is based on completely flawed and wrong models and assumed facts [1] of the world. We might naively interact with the world by assuming that things are held together by mechanistic principles, although that was disproven hundreds of years ago by Newton.
Further, most of what we do is not conceptualized properly, and so facts (as in mental constructions) don’t really enter into it. You know how to turn a doorknob, but you probably have not conceptualized that action in a model of the world where you can talk about the facts surrounding the doorknob and your turning of it. Simply because you could never hope to do that for even a fraction of the things that you do.
[1] And the assumed “fact” of mechanistic interaction (which I go into in the next sentence) is an after-the-fact rationalization, not something we do prior to interacting with physical objects.
> The Northeast Asian peoples tend to have low libido
Where do they get this stuff? Even more hilarious because Western countries have to import foreigners to battle population decline.
Probably Rushton's idea that there's a trade-off between penis size and brain-power. [THIS IS WHAT HBDERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14992214)
bro you shoe-horn autism into every conversation you have. Anyone who thought you've touched a boob is delusional.
It's easy to tell you haven't had sex because you're unlikable.
I don't think you really debate things. You have a few pet issues you champion all the time, but for the most part you have such a blatant lack of understanding wrt the human condition that communicating with you is fruitless for both you and whoever attempts it.
Well I do talk to neurotypicals. However I generally only get verbal information but little nonverbal information.
I think theoretically it is possible for autists to understand neurotypicals. However in practice we need good inputs.
I've been a little mean to you, but here's some honest advice:
Don't hang out in the rationalist community. It refines your autism, it does not diminish it. If you want to understand normal people, you need to actually interact with them more than anyone else.
> Well I'm an autist.
May I ask if you have ever been diagnosed with autism by somebody who is qualified to do so?
I can't help but notice that a lot of the "neurodiverse" people who make autism their identity and user "autistic" interchangeably with "nerd" are self-diagnosed.
I think I was the one who started the “can you steelman x?” meme when
I asked if anyone had steelmanned holocaust denial and antisemitism a
few months ago. I love that the reaction to it from the mods has been
“this is basically a way of sneaking conversations about haram topics in
and we want it to stop” given that scott used it for exactly that
function, to talk about/flirt with neoreaction among other things while
maintaining plausible deniability that he was a leftie. I
semiunintentionally created great satire.
>Don't be ridiculous
oh sorry my mistake. There I go acting like its fine to be ridiclous on the internet, lucky you were here to keep me in line.
I didnt read any of the rest of your reply but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it was very insightful and witty.
Thanks and sorry again sir, promise it wont happen again. Now you can go back to r/SSC where you belong.
haha, in a subreddit consistently described as (sic) its regulars as a place to mock and not to be charitable you expected some amount of charity and not to be mocked. Youre not a mod here, if you talk like a pompous dick youll get treated like one.
Beyond that… why on earth should we expect people to put off
vaccination? The point is to make sure they get the vaccine before they
have a significant chance of being exposed to the virus – not just
before it’s probable that they’ll be exposed. We don’t wait until the
middle of flu season to get a flu shot, or insinuate that people who get
the shot before flu season are morally flawed.
By Freya’s breasts, that thread is just chock-full of pompous clueless stupidity. A few highlights:
These are obviously very wise and learned men.
These guys so obviously do not fuck
I think I was the one who started the “can you steelman x?” meme when I asked if anyone had steelmanned holocaust denial and antisemitism a few months ago. I love that the reaction to it from the mods has been “this is basically a way of sneaking conversations about haram topics in and we want it to stop” given that scott used it for exactly that function, to talk about/flirt with neoreaction among other things while maintaining plausible deniability that he was a leftie. I semiunintentionally created great satire.
A thin ray of sense.
Bloomberg lol