Randoms

– The dark enlightenment’s best commenter is now blogging. His first post is here. (Follow-up here).

Scharlach: “There will always be sovereignty. There will always be someone to serve, someone or some group who has some element of control over certain elements of other peoples’ lives. This is a necessary condition for civilization.” (More here).

Nydwracu: “The single most important error of liberalism is that it either has forgotten or actively desires to avoid knowing that there are prerequisites to civilization, and that these prerequisites, like most traits, are most likely about 50% genetic.”

– Economists have now discovered that increasing supply can increase the clearing price and that increasing competition drives prices up. No word yet on whether or not they’ve finally discovered that economics is just a series of just-so stories that “prove” the a priori view of “economists,” but this finding surely can’t be far behind.

In related news, someone actually had to explain the following to an economist: “There is no society of Einsteins.” In other words, we’re not all many standard deviations above average. God save us from economists.

– Detroit figured out a way to solve its murder problem.

– Some worthwhile thoughts from Frost.

Progress

America deserves collapse.

Related, from Nick Land:

This is the phase of historical progression in which neoreaction necessarily emerges, its diagnoses dramatized by everything that now occurs, undisguised.

Also related.

The zombie apocalypse already happened. The social collapse which beckons will only be a symptom. You’re already a survivor. We cannot save the system, it is gone. There is hope, however, in rebuilding.

– Again, women are not moral agents.

Das racis. Detect a pattern?

Advertisements

24 Responses to Randoms

  1. asdf says:

    Our friend Tyler Cowen does economist proud in his recent op-ed in the NYTimes. Here is the excerpt he for some reason decided to put on his website:

    ———-

    Who Will Prosper in the New World?

    Your smartphone will record data on your life and, when asked, will tell you what to do, drawing on data from your home or from your spouse and friends if need be. “You’ve thrown out that bread the last three times you’ve bought it, give it a pass” will be a text message of the future. How about “Now is not the time to start another argument with your wife”? The GPS is just the beginning of computer-guided instruction. Take your smartphone on a date, and it might vibrate in your pocket to indicate “Kiss her now.” If you hesitate for fear of being seen as pushy, it may write: “Who cares if you look bad? You are sampling optimally in the quest for a lifetime companion.” Those who won’t listen, or who rebel out of spite, will be missing out on glittering prizes. Those of us who listen, while often envied, may feel more like puppets with deflated pride.

    ———

    Commentator RZ0 already takes the cake:

    I already have something in my pocket that vibrates to indicate “Kiss her now.”

    • Handle says:

      It’s pretty shallow since it’s only one step down the rabbit hole. If we’re all going to have a shift from natural talent and training to technologically-augmented performance, behaviors and decisions, we should expect a whole arms race – just like in Sports.

      People who will prosper will be able to get an edge on software not generally available, or, more likely, hack or otherwise diminish the effectiveness of the other guy’s apps. That’s going to be especially useful when most beta schlubs become reliant and dependent upon their devices instead of developing their game and can’t function without it.

      2nd or 3rd generation hacking is above disabling or defacement, but making the software appear to work normally, but really undermine your desires. So, maybe you can hack the devices to make a guy try to kiss too early (creepy), or not kiss at all (friend zone).

      If reactionary models of the world are true, then you should be able to make some money from them. So if there were ‘kiss her now’ devices out there, there should be an enormous demand for the ‘shit test app’ which could either detect assisted-behavior, or somehow plug into foursquare geotagging to know whether you’ve got a device on you.

      The shit-test app could be hacked too, “He’s the real deal! Tingle, tingle!” or tell her that the true alpha is actually a geeky herb, but I tend to think most women’s wetware backup shit-test intuition systems will tend to neutralize these software manipulations.

      So reactionary programmers will prosper.

  2. dearieme says:

    Tell me, are you really going to launch another bloody war in the Middle East?

  3. Samson J. says:

    women are not moral agents

    There’s been a great kerfuffle here in Canadia about “revenge porn”, triggered by the suicide of a high school girl after naked photos of herself were shared by some guys she went to “hang out” with. As a result, even the Prime Minister has come out in favour “revenge porn” laws

    I read about the affair fairly avidly (because it actually involved people I knew, distantly), and not once, in any article whatsoever, did I see it suggested that perhaps the girl should not have been going to boys’ houses alone in the first place. Women are not to be considered moral agents, you see.

    And naturally, if you follow the Business Insider link, you end up here:

    “When we teach women not to walk alone in public after dark, not to wear particular kinds of clothing, not to engage in consensual acts like taking nude photos or making sex tapes, we’re saying that women can expect to be victims because they are women, and that it is more important to limit a victim’s participation in public life than it is to remedy the systemic injustices that lead to victimization in the first place. Revenge porn is merely a high tech piece of rape culture, and sadly it doesn’t say anything about our culture that we didn’t already know.”

    Natch.

    • Handle says:

      You can still be sensible about differences in men and women, reasonable on traditional and common-sense recommendations to restrain female behavior that are likely to keep them safe and out of predatory trouble, and even hold them to be moral agents responsible for the consequences of their decisions, and still think it prudent to penalize this kind of behavior.

      The devil is in the details of enforcement, and drawing reasonable lines of what kinds of pictures of others you can share without explicit permission. But giving people a kind of right to confidentiality in their own image is not much of a stretch of current law.

      To the surprise of no one here, I tend to see this question from a legal instead of moral perspective. I’d prefer it be handled via the civil tort system instead of through criminal statute, but if the civil judgments are insufficient to deter the activity then a case can be made to escalate the violation to a misdemeanor.

      We should add to the list of torts when the vast majority of the population recognizes some new way that someone can be seriously and foreseeably wronged or harmed by the action of others.

      When you give someone some intimate pictures of yourself with the reasonably-implied understanding that there be no further unauthorized dissemination, and such publication occurs with damage, then the recipient and subsequent publisher can be held liable without doing violence to the structure of our law. It’s some combination of defamation, right to privacy, right to publicity, and infliction of emotional distress.

      There’ll always be some debate, depending on cultural views, about whether suicide resulting from public embarrassment constitutes a predictable consequence or an intervening and superseding willful act. I think the Japanese would come to different conclusion than the Jamaicans.

      But it’s also predictable that nearly all the time, when some young girl has committed suicide because some guy spread around her nude pictures, the jury’s going to find the guy guilty and max out whatever penalty the law allows. That’s the flip-side of the coin of ‘rape-culture’ – the men get legally raped too sometimes.

      • Samson J. says:

        When you give someone some intimate pictures of yourself with the reasonably-implied understanding that there be no further unauthorized dissemination

        I don’t agree, at all, that this understanding is implied; in fact I would say literally the reverse: if you’re willing to send naked pictures of yourself around, you’re implying that you don’t care who sees your naked body.

        But it’s also predictable that nearly all the time, when some young girl has committed suicide because some guy spread around her nude pictures, the jury’s going to find the guy guilty and max out whatever penalty the law allows.

        You don’t think that’s culturally relative too? You think if the same story played out in Saudi Arabia (young woman sends nude photos to a guy, guy shares them, she commits Hara Kiri), that the locals wouldn’t say, “Well, she deserved it!”?

        Anyway, my only real point (admittedly not a very original one anymore) is that nowhere is it ever suggested that if women don’t want these pictures getting into the wrong hands, then they shouldn’t be taking them in the first place.

  4. Jason Simms says:

    Samson:

    When technology advances to the point that a camera can build a 3D reconstruction of a person’s body by observing how their clothes move around them, fill in the gaps using visible skin, and some teen uses that technology to make a realistic-enough “revenge porn” about a girl, what will you be saying? “She should have known better than to walk around in public with exposed skin for the devices to see.”?

    There is room for the law to improve upon technology unrestrained.

    • Samson J. says:

      what will you be saying? “She should have known better than to walk around in public with exposed skin for the devices to see.”?

      In your scenario, I would not say that. But we aren’t talking about that scenario; there are fundamental differences; and this is why I don’t like reasoning by analogy.

  5. Jason Simms says:

    Foseti: I take “women are not moral agents” directed to that news story to imply that you view the proposed law as excessively coddling women. If so, make the case.

    The proposed law is not specific to women. It’s short; have you read it? http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_255_bill_20130821_amended_asm_v95.pdf.

    If you want something women-related to get worked up over, try page 30 of http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/WOSB%20Compliance%20Guide_April2011.pdf:
    “A woman is presumed economically disadvantaged if she has a personal net worth of less than $750,000, her adjusted gross yearly income averaged over the three years preceding the certification does not exceed $350,000, and the fair market value of all her assets (including her primary residence and the value of the business concern) does not exceed $6 million.”

    Here’s a litmus test: “If I had a daughter, generally considered to be attractive, would I want this law on the books?”. In this light, you may find some laws, e.g. workplace sexual harassment ones, are just an extension of your parental protective instinct. If they make your life as a man a little harder, well, be a man and deal with it.

    I’m challenging you here because I often enjoy your blog, and this corner of the internet, and would hate to see them wither due to weak content.

    • Foseti says:

      People have noted that posting pictures online, having them tagged on friends Facebook pages, etc was a bad idea since I was in college (10+ years ago).

      Only when girls started sending out naked pics to (sometimes multiple) guys they are attracted to does this apparently need to be criminalized. And it’s the guys who are the criminals.

      If you prefer it aphoristically:

      Men are forced to act like gentlemen, so women can be relieved of the consequences of acting like whores.

      (Of course the law isn’t written specifically to target men, but we’re not idiots – we know how this stuff always plays out).

      • Jason Simms says:

        > (Of course the law isn’t written specifically to target men, but we’re not idiots – we know how this stuff always plays out).

        You’re concerned about the disparate impact?

        > If you prefer it aphoristically:
        >
        > Men are forced to act like gentlemen, so women can be relieved of the consequences of acting like whores.

        I prefer precision, because that quip could be construed as implying “she was asking for it, by wearing that dress”; if that is in fact your position, then we lack the common ground to have a fruitful discussion.

        > Only when girls started sending out naked pics to (sometimes multiple) guys they are attracted to does this apparently need to be criminalized. And it’s the guys who are the criminals.

        I remain unconvinced that the content of the proposed law is bad. If your contention is that women being the trigger for the proposal taints it, then we simply disagree about what counts in the law.

        To be charitable: maybe you’re concerned with the direction case law would take. If so, paint the nightmare scenario; I don’t see it.

        I’d actually go a step further than this proposed law: I would prefer to live in a society in which Anthony Weiner is free to send explicit photos of himself to whomever he likes, knowing that the law has his back if someone publishes one against his will.

      • Foseti says:

        It’s amazing how many people will tell you you’re crazy for walking through a bad neighborhood at night, while simultaneously thinking that it’s beyond the pale to suggest that there’s any possible way a woman could possibly be asking for it.

      • Samson J. says:

        I would prefer to live in a society in which Anthony Weiner is free to send explicit photos of himself to whomever he likes, knowing that the law has his back if someone publishes one against his will.

        I would like to destroy that hypothetical society, and replace it with one in which Anthony Weiner declines to send explicit photos of himself to anyone for fear of shame if he was found out.

        Similarly, in our actual modern society, I would like for young women to decline to send naked pictures of themselves to anyone for fear of shame if they were found out.

    • asdf says:

      “Here’s a litmus test: “If I had a daughter, generally considered to be attractive, would I want this law on the books?”….If they make your life as a man a little harder, well, be a man and deal with it.”

      It’s incumbent on a father to control his daughter, not leave that up to the state. A lot of feminism came about because of people asking the “is this good for my daughter” question, but the net effect of it all ended up being negative for everyone including the daughters of the world.

      All of this comes back to how you view the world. Are people naturally good and the world corrupts them or are they fundamentally sinful creatures that need self control against bad impulses (like sending naked pics). If the latter, and if we are to consider women moral agents, then the exercise of that agency need be expected in cases like this.

      • Jason Simms says:

        Too vague.

        If you see no line between the SBA definition of “economically disadvantaged” and the proposed law protecting people from “revenge porn”, there’s no point in us arguing.

      • Samson J. says:

        It may be worth adding that as a general principle I agree with Jim: women cannot, and should not, be held responsible for their (mis)behaviour. But in the absence of male patriarchs who can discipline women properly, it seems likely that the main effect of “revenge porn” laws will be to legitimize and promote poor behaviour by women.

  6. SMERSH says:

    Post Snowden, iIf you share a nude picture via electronic means then the implication is that you do not mind your NSA minder seeing the naked picture and passing it around to his buddies at the office.

    So it’s not quite right to say that the picture is just between two people.

  7. […] at Foseti’s there was some slight discussion of the new fad for anti ‘revenge-porn’ laws, or some […]

  8. […] (eventual) subject.  I’m going to talk about and mathematically explore the whole ‘society of Einsteins‘ […]

  9. […] pretty provocative and reckless things and not be criticized for a lack of prudent precaution.  As Foseti has put […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: