It’s come to this

Yudkowsky’s case against Trump:

Scope is real. If you ever have to choose between voting a convicted serial abuser of children into the Presidential office — but this person otherwise seems stable and collected — versus a Presidential candidate who seems easy to provoke and who has ‘bad days’ and doesn’t listen to advisors and once said “Why do we have all these nukes if we can’t use them?”, it is deadly important that you vote for the pedophile. It isn’t physically possible to abuse enough children per day over 4 years to do as much damage as you can do with one wrong move in the National Security Decision-Making Game.

It seems the stars are right:

cthulhu00

October 12, 2016admin 68 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Collapse

TAGGED WITH : , ,

68 Responses to this entry

  • Erik Says:

    And here’s my case against Yudkowsky:

    Character is real.

    Clinton has a long and still-ongoing criminal history.

    Trump makes stupid remarks.

    It is fucking retarded to assume Trump will carry out all his worst throwaway remarks – that is not how you build a commercial empire, seriously, look at his track record – and double retarded to simultaneously assume Clinton will restrain herself from carrying out her remarks about how e.g. half the population is irredeemable monsters.

    (But seeing as Yudkowsky tells genocide jokes himself, he might have difficulty even seeing the problem with that last bit.)

    [Reply]

    Erik Reply:

    Further to that:

    If I were to try summarize very briefly why Trump’s remarks on NATO crossed a HOLY SHIT line, it’d be along the lines of: “If you read the history books, you realize that it is REALLY REALLY bad to have any ambiguity about which minor powers the major powers will defend; that is how World War I *and* World War II both started.”

    So how many REALLYs are in the badness of Hillary Clinton saying that she plans to violate the sovereignty of a minor power that a major power is backing? Are you just going to assume enough ambiguity there to pretend she doesn’t mean it?

    [Reply]

    anonymous Reply:

    “Character is real.”

    Pearls before swine. The clever silly in question is an avowed utilitarian.

    [Reply]

    Nathan Cook Reply:

    Well, Yudkowsky is arguing character as well; he just has a restricted conception of what Character is. He tries to make an a fortiori argument that even if we replace Clinton with a paedophile, that doesn’t matter because paedophilia does not pertain to avoiding a nuclear holocaust. This depends on character being a sort of bundle of dispositions, which we could enumerate: “inclination to abuse children”; “likelihood of launching a nuclear attack in a fit of pique”; “tendency to agree with credentialed advice”, etc.

    But that’s not how humans are constituted, not even psychopaths. The psychopath (it’s not a very big leap to conclude that an effective president-paedophile has to be a psychopath) may be excellent at playing the “National Security Decision-Making Game”. Probably the typical psychopathic genius is better at doing so*. The problem is relying on the psychopath actually to play the game – and from his perspective, it simply is a game, just like everything else. The incentive structure is completely different for him, because his character – how he is constituted as a personality – is completely, fundamentally different. We see then that ability to play the game isn’t the central issue.

    The question is what the fundamental difference in character is between Trump and Clinton. Settle that first, then determine the radiological impact. In Trump we see a highly intuitive personality, perhaps too loose to match the scope of his ambition; in Clinton a highly controlled one, to the point of wanting to be cued on when to smile during her speeches. This is typical of the sort of politician who believes that the key to success is in being good at the game of politics. It’s a strategy that has served Clinton well.

    The consequences are easier to determine in Clinton’s case. As with Obama, she will play the Game by the book. Her strategy will have no variance, her actions will be fully predictable. The effect against players like Putin, who are not averse to rolling the dice a little, will be a slow, incremental loss in all fields except nuclear deterrence, where she will succeed in deterring nuclear attack and preserve the existing stockpile (while being careful not to upset the apple cart by trying for outright superiority). Her actions, being fully aligned with the will of the bureaucracy, will generally find no difficulty in implementation. The world-system, then would continue to sicken, slowly, awaiting the unknown unknown to annihilate it.

    With Trump, one may speculate as to his ability to play, but it is safe to assume that his strategy will have some variance. He will of course be fiercely resisted by the bureaucratic structure. Does he want to play, though? Perhaps he really will upset the entire board if he has a “bad day”. Well he won’t – probably – and he would be prevented if he tried – probably – but his loose way of talking means that he can be relied upon occasionally to give the impression that he might. What Yudkowsky misses here is that this imposes costs on other players. The Russians, Chinese, etc., don’t want to nuke the planet either. Currently it’s very easy for them not to. In consequence they can move ballistic missiles where they want, militarise the South China Sea, etc. without much fear of a significant response; and so that’s just what they do. Similarly the bureaucracy can currently forget about managing upwards and concentrate on Progress. Their Progress. These players’ freedom of action would be much restrained if they even suspected, even at a low probability, that they could accidentally the whole world if they didn’t watch out. They would have to do their fair share in maintenance of the world order, which would, funnily enough, actually strengthen it. (One can see why admin isn’t so keen on Trump.) This is at the risk that Trump will both a) mess up the Game and b) not be prevented from doing so, as every other president who made a mis-step over the last 60 years has been.

    I mean really, “one wrong move”? If that were the real criterion for nuclear war we’d be dead five times over. Yudkowsky has spotted that variance in action leads to variance in outcome. OK. He doesn’t seem to have spotted that sometimes you have to play a mixed strategy if you don’t want to bleed to death. Never mind whatever knock-off of Eschaton some Rand Institute types cooked up after reading Infinite Jest – get that man to a poker table, stat!

    *Screwing kids as he plays with a real military-industrial complex. It’s a step up from “snorting boa-thick lines of pure administrative Bolivian as he plays SimCity with real peasants”, isn’t it?

    [Reply]

    Erik Reply:

    “Well, Yudkowsky is arguing character as well; he just has a restricted conception of what Character is. He tries to make an a fortiori argument that even if we replace Clinton with a paedophile, that doesn’t matter because paedophilia does not pertain to avoiding a nuclear holocaust. This depends on character being a sort of bundle of dispositions, which we could enumerate”

    And that is one of the many points where I think Yud has gone nuts. He’s talking like “paedophilia” is this neatly restricted attribute that will sit in its box and do nothing but molest children all day, for the convenient simplicity of the thought experiment, having no correlation to other dispositions.

    And speaking of ambiguity, here’s one: what’s a pedophile?

    If it means someone with merely improper lusts, maybe they’ll sit in the box, because they can restrain themselves. But then we wouldn’t know they were a pedophile, would we. So we wouldn’t see ourselves as voting for a pedophile.

    And if it means someone who was not restraining such improper lusts, and got caught doing it, so that it’s public knowledge that X is a kiddie fiddler… then it’s someone with some combination of low intelligence, low impulse control, and similar factors which make one unsuited to running a country. So we still shouldn’t be voting for (someone we see as) a pedophile.

    In short, as you say, that’s not how humans are constituted. Dispositions are not neatly separable and enumerable.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 3:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    You can tell Yudkowsky thinks for himself by the way all his opinions are entirely predictable based on the exosemantic associations of his other opinions.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 4:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Max Says:

    Yudkowsky is a Jew. Just throwing that out there.

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    Comment of the week, clearly.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 4:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Toddy Cat Says:

    If any further evidence was needed that Yudkowsky is a buffoon, here it is…

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 4:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    WAIT! That’s the case against Trump?!! Hillary is far more dangerous wielding military might than Trump.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 5:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • ossipago Says:

    EY’s confidence in the “National Security Bureaucracy” may be an actual example of “willful stupidity.” Isn’t he supposed an expert in decision theory? Doesn’t he worry at all about cognitive/social bias in the Thinktankagon? Preference falsification? And he thinks foreign policy expertise comes from “reading the Guns of August”?! (Maybe I’m assuming too much good faith here.)

    I do like how he chants “HOLY SHIT” over and over though. (Doesn’t add much to his argument, but it might work as some sort of invocation.)

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    His chosen candidate is a turd, and hence needs as much blessing as possible.

    ProTip: maybe the candidate-selection mechanism is broken….
    Just try it again. As Belgium showed, it’s not like you need a president to run a country or anything.

    [Reply]

    Frog Do Reply:

    Just goes to show, you can read all the Kahneman and Tetlock you like, but unless you actually practice what you preach, you’ve done precisely squat. Reading too many books is for losers.

    In his favor, he’s probably thinking about pitching this to stupid people, it is public writing on Facebook.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 5:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • August Hurtel Says:

    I don’t understand why they can’t do the math. Criminal political class versus this guy. Rich but profane, and egotistical enough not just to want to win, but he’s really going to want to succeed as President. He will have his own metric for success- seems to be wrapped up in making good deals- he will also probably act in his own best interests. Just so happens if he gets rid of estate taxes or something like that he’d also be helping the cause of humanity. Anything that got people planning inter-generationally again will.

    A rational look at the possibilities means a Trump presidency has a slight chance of being less horrible.

    He also might put the criminal political class in jail and/or actually fire people who otherwise can’t be fired. Some say he can’t do it, but you have to have a president try, and a president ought to be able to fire them anyway. Trump is used to slugging it out in the courts too, so he’s more likely to try.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 5:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Nick what do you think about the Yudkowsky piece? I think I found it moderately persuasive. Especially the part about how hard it is to get through four years without blowing up the planet.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I found it too amusing to process analytically. It’s blue tribe aesthetics unconvincingly masked as reason.

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    I’ve never met a “Rationalist” who didn’t entirely kowtow to the standard Cathedral expectations. Would rather be trapped on a desert island with one of them than Joe Prog or Joe Frog but–actually, I don’t know about that.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    No, you’re right. And if the “Rationalist” is half as smart as he thinks he is, you can just kick him in the ass to make a goddam raft.

    scientism Reply:

    I think there’s a solid argument in there.

    1. People somewhere in the establishment probably know what they’re doing, since things haven’t blown up

    2. Those same people think Hillary is business as usual but are freaking out over Trump

    3. Presumably this means Hillary is the safer candidate in terms of abnormal dangerous outcomes (even if she gets you all the bad stuff that goes along with ‘business as usual’)

    I suspect he’s sincere about this, even though he’s zealously liberal the rest of the time, since it fits his Bayesian autist thought patterns. There are probably experts in government; they’re okay with Hillary; Trump freaks out everybody; therefore someone in an uncertain positon (a voter who’s not an insider) should probably keep voting for the establishment.

    Hillary is using a lot of what looks like dangerous rhetoric against Russia, but warmongering is a standard part of the US election process, and presumably the ‘B level’ on both sides discount it (Russia’s talking smack in response but who are we to know the true significance of this). Meanwhile, Trump’s rhetoric is unprecedented and makes everybody uneasy. Maybe the entire establishment is against him just because they want more Mexicans and off-shoring, but maybe they’re genuinely concerned.

    [Reply]

    Anon Reply:

    Yeah but the first premise is bullshit. Large amounts of the planet are on fire due to elite policy. The elites have sacked several nations since 2001, and they’ve still obviously got a few to go. I’ve never understood this RANDian nerd-tier obsession that people like Yudkowsky have with nukes and their non-use as a measure of how bad things can get. Civil wars, car bombs, gang rapes, nightclub slaughters, and militias are ultra-violent and vicious. We may not see it first hand, but this type of anarchy is in large amounts of areas around the planet. With the added problem that the elites causing this anarchy also openly invite the same sorts of degenerates to visit our countries permanently, and turn a blind eye when they bring their garbage with them.

    [Reply]

    Butler Reply:

    Yudkowsky’s argument doesn’t even make sense from his own alleged ultra-long-term-utility-maximisation perspective. He seems to be forgetting Bostrom’s case in favour of nuclear war. A war that 0.1% of people survive is a hiccup, because you can rebuild from 0.1% in, what, a couple of thousand years? And if that 0.1% have really, really, REALLY learned their lesson that demotism is bad so they won’t try it again – which I suspect a nuclear war might actually do – then on the timescale of the cosmic endowment it’s a net gain.

    One step back so you can take three steps forwards, so to speak.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    I don’t buy the assumption that there are hyper-competent insiders who’re working around the clock to heroically stop imminent nuclear exchange.

    Let’s assume there’s a group of competent insiders that constantly prevent a nuclear exchange from happening.

    Two possibilities:

    1) Those same people, or people like them look after official foreign policy.

    This means that Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria were all intentional. Which necessarily means those competent people are trying to bankrupt America. This doesn’t make any sense.

    2) Competency is unique to the part of the US Gov that prevents a nuclear war.

    First of all, how do they function? Yudkowsky insinuates that they function by influencing foreign policy. But then why can’t they stop fuck-up after fuck-up (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, South China Sea, Crimea, Georgia) from happening? Do the foreign policy people consult these hyper-competent nuclear warfare wardens and make sure their fuck-ups won’t lead to a nuclear exchange before proceeding to fuck up in every other way imaginable? This is absurd.

    This is pretty elementary stuff. Yudkowsky is not dumb. I don’t buy for a second that he believes Trump is more likely to cause a nuclear war than Clinton is. He is blatantly lying.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 5:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • pyrrhus Says:

    @Nick B. Steves(((Yudkowsky)))’s argument that electing proven felons and maniacs, “we came, we saw, he died” rather than normal people with loose lips, while predictable based on ethnicity, is evidence for Harpending/Cochran’s finding that Ashkneazis are rapidly declining in intelligence.

    [Reply]

    Nathan Cook Reply:

    You’re claiming Yud has a low IQ? Boy, how bout those exosemantics…

    [Reply]

    Anon Reply:

    What I’ve observed from my own relatively wide social circle is that people who loudly and, with great histrionics, signal their moral outrage at Trump (this includes both outright Hillary supporters and people who like to take the Third Man position, “I’m sitting on the fence so I’m smarter than both of you, both candidates are dumb ugh”) tend to be younger (below 30), chronically jobless or in some low form of customer service or secretarial work, lower income bracket, largely innumerate, and lack any real kind of educational or technical qualifications.

    I am familiar with LessWrong and from what I know of Yudkowsky he doesn’t seem to be as smart as people would like to give him credit for. He’s a couch surfer who lives by the good graces of his friends and whose main artistic and intellectual (or I’m sure he’d like to think it is) contribution is shitty Harry Potter fanfiction. I’ll pass.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Talmudic rationalization is to IQ, what Windows is to Intel.

    [Reply]

    Savant Garde Reply:

    This. Very much this.

    anonymous Reply:

    I can’t seem to find that bit on the westhunter blog (or elsewhere). Can you help me out with a pointer?

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 5:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    Id have to say the clinton/ establishment scares me more. they keep trying to overthrow sovereign states, seem not to notice their diminished capacities, and the only way i can explain them is zealotry,and thats just the danger they pose through foreign affairs internally they are genocidal. that said rooting for trump who i still think is a long shot is kind of like playing chicken for real.i mean trump is obviously a moron i suspect his jews run his business.I suppose the hope is a coalition builds around him if he wins but thats piling more hope on hope.Ill say this if she wins shes shutting down free speech guns and all white rights. you can bank on that they could get away with it at this point and will do it. have we got a plan yet on how to communicate? oh well you wont have me to kick around any more at least lol

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 6:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Children can’t vote anyway.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 6:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • A.B. Prosper Says:

    This is a fancy way of saying Trump might upset our gravy train, nothing more.

    Same thing the Republican in general are saying .

    Another POV

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/game-theory-and-putins-gamble.html

    Game Theory and Putin’s Gamble

    TL:DR version, if it looks like Hillary might win WW3 breaks out.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 6:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Reformation Says:

    Trump is a salesman and a negotiator. You open up strong, then you lower your play as time and the reactions of others come in. It is called the perceptual contrast principle. Take his example of “a total shutdown of all *messenger* immigration.” To “extreme vetting.”

    Also, Trump uses ambiguity — another persuasion tactic. Of course, this has dangers, because other can misread you. Nevethless, I have watched Trump closely and he is a great actor. He is able to modulate his performance according to circumstances. There is a different person behind the public persona who is scheming for power.

    Broadly speaking, I’m getting worried. I’m getting *vibes* that maybe, just maybe! Trump is not going to concede if he loses. He has already set up confirmation bias of corruption and that it is rigged. Trump could come out on election night and say he’s not conceding because XYZ.

    My intuition is that many other republicans and conservatives would go along and contest the election.

    And guess what!? What is Trump? What did he bill himself as? (His ethos?) He is a negotiator. Hi-risk, hi-pressure, hi-stakes is what he lives for. I could see him threaten the regime with civil war unless……..

    The poster alrenous said (paraphrase) on his blog:

    If Trump wins, democracy is finished in America.
    If Trump loses because he was cheated, democracy is finished in America.
    If Trump loses, and if the voters *perceive* and decide that he was cheated, democracy is finished in America.

    Democracy is finished. I.e the perception, the faith, the belief, is finished.

    What do people here think about the prospects of civil war in America?

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    its been maybe three years since the Fairleigh Dickinson study showed something like 30 -40% of Americans felt civil war imminent
    http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/poll-29-registered-voters-believe-armed-revolution-might-be-necessary

    that was pretty shocking and its sure to be worse now.I dont see trump contesting a loss, although its fairly clear they are cheating. wikileaks today confirmed they gave clinton debate questions against bernie i had the distinct feeling the other night she was way to quick on the uptake.they do voter fraude all the time, immigration itself is a huge cheat trumps killing her by 10 point among whites.the entire cathedral is all out assault on him and behind her there must be twenty articles a day on drudge of collusion evidence, so maybe the better question is do you think its better to let them get away with this? I say absolutely anything that will slow them down may save mankind.so if this election is the only thing to start the war then lets dance

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 7:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Son_of_Olorus Says:

    http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/92631404

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 7:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • frank Says:

    Kek, Yudkowski confirmed crypto-accelerationist. This doesn’t help with the rumors that he’s the secret leader of the NRx.

    Did you really think the undisputed champion of decision making would seriously produce this contentless crap? Get on his level plebs.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 8:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Worm Says:

    Shocker: another Jew, this one named Yudkowsky, joins millions of other Jews who support the CrookedCunt.

    In other news, in the following one minute video a Terrified German Family investigates Refugee Mass Stabbing Aftermath in their Apartment Block.

    Very well filmed, there is blood everywhere

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z1oMwS8phI

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 8:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Worm Says:

    Abide Zeit’s sumonserving, rise afterfall

    The while we, we are waiting, we are waiting for. Hymn.

    Joyce, Finnegans Wake, pg 78 & 609

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 8:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • georgesdelatour Says:

    Yudkowsky’s historical arguments are, of course, bollocks.

    For instance, in the lead up to World War One, there was no real “ambiguity about which minor powers the major powers will defend”. The Central and Entente Powers honoured their treaty obligations in full. That’s why there was a terrible destructive war. Imagine if instead Germany had taken a Trump line with Austria: “Hey, I know we promised to support you unconditionally against Serbia. But we’d like to renegotiate that. We’ll only support you to the extent your demands on Serbia are reasonable and proportionate. If you insist on total humiliation of the Serb nation, we won’t back you”. That would have prevented war. (In Trumpian fashion, Bismarck once said “The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier”. He was right.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 9:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erik Says:

    A horrorist perspective, I think:

    Suppose one knew for a fact Trump would start WW3, and Hillary wouldn’t. And suppose one were a voter.

    It might then be incumbent on one to vote for Trump anyway.

    Because if the Cathedral thinks it can get Hillary by threatening “Hillary, or else it’s WW3”, then the Cathedral will do exactly that. And it will continue to get its way on every other issue with the same “or else it’s WW3” approach. Reparations, or it’s WW3 with the Black Liberation Army. I dunno, they’ll make shit up.

    You are permitted dissent from the Cathedral to the exact extent you will not knuckle under. If you will knuckle under for extreme circumstances like WW3, then one observes that you will knuckle under, and so you will not be permitted dissent, because the Cathedral will use -and generate- extreme circumstances.

    To paraphrase an old saw: millions dead for defense, not one president for tribute.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    actually the chant is always so and so or ww2

    [Reply]

    Ryan C Reply:

    The thing about Africans is that when they sack the country through leadership, they make sure to keep some money and are prepared to leave.

    Literally the rest of the world is smart enough to keep golden parachutes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 10:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ryan Says:

    Reading through this for some reason I was reminded of an article I read about an untouched tribe that killed a murderer not because they thought murder was wrong but because “he was acting like a god.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2016 at 10:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dark Reformation Says:

    @michael

    Thanks for that link.

    Here is one I saved:

    U.S Soldiers want a coup:
    http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/08/military-coup-wins-poll/

    A book I was reading recently was called The Roman Revolution. Many interesting similarities.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    I have a place up in the north idaho rockies i meet a lot of young vets so this doesnt surprise me they are almost all devout christians and alex jones schooled,
    then again years ago i used to argue AJ was nuts his theory that the wealthiest people in the world were conspiring with the global communists was absurd. doesnt seem so absurd any more does it.
    This poll is the type of thing I was suggesting the NRX altright look into after forming an intelligence service, apparently that too real for the internet superheroes rather larp about AI robots and monarchy

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    why would you know about an NRx secret agency?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    NRx Secret Agency: “Hey, has anyone checked that we’ve been keeping Michael up to speed on what we’ve been doing?”

    Anonymous Reply:

    Interesting video by the US army:

    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/pentagon-video-warns-of-unavoidable-dystopian-future-for-worlds-biggest-cities/

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 13th, 2016 at 12:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    My taste in saber-rattling tends to run in the direction of Admiral Fisher:

    “If you rub it in, both at home and abroad, that you are ready for instant war, with every unit of your strength in the first line and waiting to be first in, and hit your enemy in the belly and kick him when he is down, and boil your prisoners in oil (if you take any), and torture his women and children, then people will keep clear of you.”

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    they might even talk the saudis into letting you escape and give you safe passage to syria

    [Reply]

    Quint Essential Reply:

    An old cop told me something similar:

    “Stare at everyone in a dark alley, because only two kinds of people stare at everyone: cops and crazies, and no crook is gonna attack either of those.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 13th, 2016 at 1:22 am Reply | Quote
  • Steve Johnson Says:

    More from Yudkowsky:

    Yeah, see, *my* equivalent of making ominous noises about the Second Amendment is to hint vaguely that there are all these geneticists around, and gene sequencing is pretty cheap now, and there’s this thing called CRISPR, and they can probably figure out how to make a flu virus that cures Borderer culture by excising whatever genes are correlated with that and adding genes correlated with greater intelligence. Not that I’m saying anyone should try something like that if a certain person became US President. Just saying, you know, somebody might think of it.

    Now that doesn’t seem like someone motivated by ethnic animus at all. Nope. Total rationalist.

    https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10154619133004228

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    who does he mean by borderer culture?

    [Reply]

    Nathan Cook Reply:

    Scots-Irish, more or less.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    well he needs to die, but hes right everyone is worried someone going to do that. the question is who and to whom. odds are against us as more people who have that tech lean left than right. i always wonder what china would think.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    ▬ For more than fifty years, the battle flag has represented the resentments of a large group of Americans—referred to by David Hackett Fischer in Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America as the “Borderers,” descendants, spiritually and often in fact (as I am), of people from the Scottish lowlands who came to the American colonies in the eighteenth century, often after a generation or two in Ulster Plantation in Ireland.

    The Borderers were not received well by the “older” colonists, Fischer’s Quakers, Cavaliers and Puritans. They pushed west as soon as they were able, settling first in the Appalachian foothills where their resentments toward the wealthier, coastal colonists festered, exploding occasionally into violence, as it did during the War of the Regulation in the Carolina piedmont during the 1760s and, after the Revolution, during the Whiskey Rebellion. Contemporary attitudes toward the Borderers still reflects those inherited from colonial days, terms like “hillbilly” and “red neck” encompassing stereotypes now centuries old.

    The attitudes of those who saw the Borderer culture as backward, instead of demolishing Borderer attitudes, contributed to the culture’s revival in the late twentieth century and, eventually, to its political resurgence. Starting with the Reagan era, this revival has shifted the entire American political debate far to the right. Referring to people as “hillbillies” and “rednecks” because their beliefs do not conform to the dominant media pattern has now proven insufficient for dismissing the Borderers from the political realm. Instead, it turned them into an opposition to the social changes and the governmental policies that began under the New Deal and continued into the Civil Rights era. They were powerful, even in their days in the “wilderness” after the Barry Goldwater disaster.
    [End of quote.]

    https://onefleweast.net/2015/07/01/flags-and-borderer-culture/
    See also: http://miniver.blogspot.is/2013/10/the-secret-origin-of-white-people.html

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 13th, 2016 at 3:49 am Reply | Quote
  • FOAM Says:

    Dilbert Jumps Ship

    this may be over

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151737656851/the-era-of-women

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    yeah i think we all see that once they decided to destroy him it only took a week, you can seriously think you can overcome the cathedral politically.i mean if by some chance they fail with propaganda they will cheat the election. blackmail him, or assassinate him, they arent fucking around they have a plan for a, yup -new world order’ they are not going to be stopped by some clown, they stopped the pretense of rule of law with clinton1.its almost a relief he was sure to be a disappointment.Look what they do in europe they arrest the right candidates for hate speech. Hillary will imediately start the war on words we will have european hate speech laws the alt right reaction will be shut down.
    there is no voice no where to exit there is only war

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    Scott Adams is a joke. Read Taleb, this guy is a lucky attention whore, not a sage.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 13th, 2016 at 5:41 am Reply | Quote
  • R. J. Moore II Says:

    I think almost everyone vastly exaggerates the power and independence of the President. They get their information from the bureaucracy, they felt on the bureaucracy to implement their will and, unlike the bureaucracy, face fairly well enforced (if rarely implemented) checks on their power from Congress and the judicial branch. Any attempt to deport thirty million illegals will be hilariously ineffective, and the Supreme Court (along with state courts) would kick Trump’s ass all over the Mall if he tried.
    The true power is the Deep State, the bureaucracy-corporate oligarchy, to which the formally constituted government is little more than an appendage and a facade to take the blame for them.

    [Reply]

    Erik Reply:

    Certainly.

    But Trump, if elected, seems likely to expose and publicise that relation – imagine the first time Hurricane Trump attempts to “YOU’RE FIRED!” an intractable bureaucrat. The bureaucratic-corporate oligarchy can’t exactly come out and say “You can’t fire me”, can it? It’ll try to drop polite hints that mister president, this is not how we do things and Trump will insist.

    And I wouldn’t rule out the chance he’ll try something funny to work around the bureaucracy, like ordering the Army Corps of Engineers to Build The Wall.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    yes they can they will cite some tammany roosevely era laws that were to stop the complete change of bureaucracy every election they will use the courts, he will then have to be willing to arrest judges, does trump strike you as willing to go that far?

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    “But Trump, if elected, seems likely to expose and publicise that relation – imagine the first time Hurricane Trump attempts to “YOU’RE FIRED!” an intractable bureaucrat.”

    This is just out of hand. True-believers of Trump have gobbled their propaganda-feedbags empty and they’re gung-ho like born-agains. You think a billionaire is anything more than a greedy cheapskate? He’s not going to expose the oligarchy, he’s going to work with them to make even more money. He cares about the American people–in this case the poor, oppressed wites–as much as any owner cares about his employees, he doesn’t give a ****. He has dollar signs for eyes.

    [Reply]

    Erik Reply:

    I’m not a true-believer. I’m not even voting, because there is no salvation in democracy, only different kinds of popcorn. So kindly go take a long walk off a short pier.

    michael Reply:

    unfortunately the left already used their legal card to establish the president in fact has the immigration authority so thats one thing he could do but youre right they will use the courts for everything else they would likely impeach him since the republicans are in the tank. its probably best to let her win i doubt he was up up to the task.
    in every nation the people hold the whip hand because they have the most potential violence particularly in western nations that have not yet allowed total police state. but its not easy to get them to use this violence let alone use it decisively in one direction only.

    [Reply]

    R. J. Moore II Reply:

    The people have no idea shared interests, the oligarchy does. Only complete chaos is a reliable method of removing an entrenched oligarchy, and (unlike myself) Trump isn’t willing to start thats process by, say, executing the Department of Defense for treason and war crimes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 13th, 2016 at 10:04 am Reply | Quote
  • TheDividualist Says:

    … from the man who taught us humans aren’t rational animals, they are rationalizing animals.

    This is obviously a gigantic rationalization. Thing is Trump was culturally incompatible with Yud in the way, say, Sarah Palin is also culturally incompatible with Yud and in that case he’d just come up with some another rationalization.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 13th, 2016 at 1:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    Woman on the news today describing how Trump once groped her –
    “He was like an octopus”!!

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 13th, 2016 at 1:58 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment