Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[silverspawn]

I don't think it conflicts with your view at all, you seem pretty moderate on the topic. I posted it in response to faust asking for evidence. (Should have clarifies that it wasn't part of our current conversation.)

[silverspawn]

@strategic point: well the outside view certainly suggests that you know this better than I do, but I still don't see the object level knockdown of my model

I disagree with your framing. Not so much with the literal claim but with the application. The point of my phrasing of the matter is to make the issue into one of personal freedom. I think saying that people suffer and this is the thing that helps, so shouldn't they be allowed to do that is an effective framing. I've rarely seen an outright rejection of this kind of thing based on the reference to studies. Maybe a personal example would be more effective (I'll even grant that this is the so in most cases), but the data isn't doing the emotional lifting there, the appeal to personal autonomy is.

I really don't think the conversation is unrealistic, at all. How do you think a conservative would respond?

[Awaclus]

I don't think it conflicts with your view at all, you seem pretty moderate on the topic. I posted it in response to faust asking for evidence. (Should have clarifies that it wasn't part of our current conversation.)

I mean, I want to abolish the legal concept of gender completely (which, in Finland, implies conscription for women fwiw), fund medically necessary transitioning with taxpayer money and have no age limits on transitioning or puberty blockers if both the person in question and medical professionals agree it's necessary, allow transitioning for all adults who want it for any reason, and ban conversion therapy for young people and require its providers to clearly state to all of their adult customers that it has not been found to work. We should also ban intersex and male infant genital cutting while we're at it, which are somewhat of a separate but related issue, since they have to do with genders and genital modifications.

I bet you can find individuals who are more radical than I am, but not very many, and even then the biggest differences are going to be about aesthetics and vibes such as whether it was ever defensible for people to say "die cis scum" or whether it's acceptable for researchers to publish papers about autogynephilia, not about any concrete policy suggestions. There isn't a more gender radical political party in Finland than I am (the Pirate Party is basically on my level, all the other ones are behind, including the Feminist Party).

[Awaclus]

@strategic point: well the outside view certainly suggests that you know this better than I do, but I still don't see the object level knockdown of my model

I disagree with your framing. Not so much with the literal claim but with the application. The point of my phrasing of the matter is to make the issue into one of personal freedom. I think saying that people suffer and this is the thing that helps, so shouldn't they be allowed to do that is an effective framing. I've rarely seen an outright rejection of this kind of thing based on the reference to studies. Maybe a personal example would be more effective (I'll even grant that this is the so in most cases), but the data isn't doing the emotional lifting there, the appeal to personal autonomy is.

If you want to frame it as an issue of personal freedom, that's fine and a decent strategy, but then it's irrelevant what the studies say, and very important that you bring up personal freedom explicitly. The point of personal freedom is that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights, you don't have to earn the right to do something in particular by first proving that it's good for you. Conservatives don't always agree with this, but it's not a hard concept for them to understand. (This strategy is also a lot more likely to work if you don't want to restrict personal freedoms that conservatives think are important, like gun rights.)

I really don't think the conversation is unrealistic, at all. How do you think a conservative would respond?

Online, I'd expect them to stop responding after your first comment, and AFK where they can't do that, they might say something along the lines of "well that's your opinion, my opinion is that men are men and women are women" or otherwise weasel out of actually having to consider anything you said.

[silverspawn]

I mean, I want to abolish the legal concept of gender completely (which, in Finland, implies conscription for women fwiw), fund medically necessary transitioning with taxpayer money and have no age limits on transitioning or puberty blockers if both the person in question and medical professionals agree it's necessary, allow transitioning for all adults who want it for any reason, and ban conversion therapy for young people and require its providers to clearly state to all of their adult customers that it has not been found to work. We should also ban intersex and male infant genital cutting while we're at it, which are somewhat of a separate but related issue, since they have to do with genders and genital modifications.

Well, I agree with all of this, modulo some education on what exactly the legal concept of gender entails. I don't think any of that is inconsistent with being against the inclusivity narrative. If that makes you not moderate than I guess I'm not moderate either, or maybe the concepts just aren't granular enough.

[silverspawn]

If you want to frame it as an issue of personal freedom, that's fine and a decent strategy, but then it's irrelevant what the studies say, and very important that you bring up personal freedom explicitly. The point of personal freedom is that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights, you don't have to earn the right to do something in particular by first proving that it's good for you. Conservatives don't always agree with this, but it's not a hard concept for them to understand. (This strategy is also a lot more likely to work if you don't want to restrict personal freedoms that conservatives think are important, like gun rights.)

This is uh not a very flattering model of conservatives but fair enough

[Awaclus]

If you want to frame it as an issue of personal freedom, that's fine and a decent strategy, but then it's irrelevant what the studies say, and very important that you bring up personal freedom explicitly. The point of personal freedom is that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights, you don't have to earn the right to do something in particular by first proving that it's good for you. Conservatives don't always agree with this, but it's not a hard concept for them to understand. (This strategy is also a lot more likely to work if you don't want to restrict personal freedoms that conservatives think are important, like gun rights.)

This is uh not a very flattering model of conservatives but fair enough

Well, it's just a fact that conservatives are typically not very good at abstract or analytical thinking. They might be intelligent, but their intelligence is optimized for a different kind of thinking that is more useful in a lot of very practical applications than in philosophy.

[silverspawn]

Thanks Mike Pence!

[silverspawn]

[Awaclus]

[faust]

Longstanding maths problems are finally being settled!

[silverspawn]

It's a major failure of game theory not to have a name for the 2x2 game in which both players have a dominant strategy that also leads to the best outcome for both (i.e., the game with only one nash equilibrium that's also the only pareto optimal result). This game is ubiquitous in real life, and it also describes the situation that the state should strive to achieve in basically every context. But no, we only have games where the situation is suboptimal and game theory has something to analyze.

[faust]

It's a major failure of game theory not to have a name for the 2x2 game in which both players have a dominant strategy that also leads to the best outcome for both (i.e., the game with only one nash equilibrium that's also the only pareto optimal result). This game is ubiquitous in real life, and it also describes the situation that the state should strive to achieve in basically every context. But no, we only have games where the situation is suboptimal and game theory has something to analyze.

May I suggest the technical term "lame game"?

[faust]

Though I feel like the term "win-win", while not describing this thing exactly, does enough for discussing it in an everyday or political context.

[silverspawn]

Yeah win win is pretty good

[silverspawn]

If Trump truly has dementia, he'll have it very strongly. We've never seen anything like it in this country, and it's true. He's has dementia like we've never seen before. Lots of people are saying it. Lots of great people saying that this is a dementia like we've never seen before. And it's a beautiful thing. But we've never seen anything like this before. It's a big beautiful dementia right there in the cereberellum.

[silverspawn]

I think I already conceded being wrong about Musk at least once, but the sheer extent to which he's become a middle of the road used right wing reactionary/idiot is pretty astounding.

If there is a lesson that's not about Elon then it's just the sheer extent to which Social Media can be a mind virus if improperly used. Nvm Elon buying twitter, the fact that he was ever on twitter was arguably the real tragedy. I bet that if he hadn't, he'd be a Biden supporter now.

[faust]

Well to be fair, when I originally challenged you on Musk, it's not like I expected the path he went down since then. I may have thought he was a bit full of himself and self-serving, but more bad on the level that someone like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos is bad rather than pushing Neonazi talking points bad.

It would be really cool to have a good breakdown of how he got radicalized. It's such a public case, and it reflects lots of issues that happen with less public people all the time, and if we understood how it happened and how to prevent it, we might get something positive out of it at least.

[silverspawn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg0SmgoSMg4

This is uh very funny

[silverspawn]

Unfortunately the rest of the videos are pretty lame, I guess this was an outlier

[silverspawn]

... really?

[Awaclus]

... really?

No, only in fiction.

[silverspawn]

apparently not

[silverspawn]

I visited the automata section of the casino for the first time yesterday and

holy shit

it looks so small from the outside but it's huge, larger than the other section

and it was very well attended, tons and tons of people were playing. And they play very quickly, over and over again

It's pretty crazy. I mean w poker most people play at a loss but at least there you can imagine that you have some influence. But this? Man.

[silverspawn]

Alright back at +600.

If it could not go down below 0 this time, that would be swell. Up to +1200 instead would be nice.