I'm just saying, don't be disrespectful to the guy with glowing yellow eyes. Unlike Epstein, who didn't kill himself, those younglings were courting death by reminding the guy with glowing yellow eyes about something he found unfair!
Those younglings Vader killed had it coming. They called him "Master Skywalker" which was just mean -- everyone knows he got a seat on that council but he did not get the rank of master.
Money is a surrogate for power, and just because money goes away doesn't mean power goes away. Greed doesn't go away, it's just made less quantifiable because nobody is keeping track with slips of paper or numbers in a ledger.
A lot of people don't realize these facts, and so think if you stop measuring something it goes away.
A lot of people don't realize these facts, and so think if you stop measuring something it goes away.
I also tend to think that people can feel that there's something wrong with our society, that there is an existential threat under the surface that is going to lead to the end of a lot of people's bloodlines, but they can't quite put their finger on it because under the current orthodoxy they're not allowed to put their finger on it. By contrast, they are allowed to be terrified about climate change and so they are. The existential dread that they feel from the failure of modern ideologies that they aren't allowed to express gets moved over to this thing that people are allowed to express, and they just assume that The narrative that they have constructed for themselves is accurate.
I see what they're saying here, but it feels like an anachronism. When the 13 colonies were first established, they didn't have Network TV. There was a mail system, but especially in the frontiers, that was something. A lot slower and a lot more manual than what we think about today. The telegraph was eventually invented, but families weren't gathering in front of the telegraph machine to read the 6:00 wire.
A lot of people have pointed out that in the beginning, it was not the United States of america, it was these United States of america, plural. Each state was a local unified entity, and it had its own infrastructure more or less,. And the different states were United for the purpose of common defense and regulation of trade. It wasn't until the civil war that it became a much stronger federalism.
The very specific and deeply unified cultural regime of roughly in the early 1900s to roughly the end of the 20th century in some ways was an aberration. It will probably never happen again.
All that being said, I think that the people who have inherited the mass media of television and the radio and the newspapers also have largely missed the point that they basically had to work really hard to keep it a unified medium. People make fun of network censors, but one of the things that I'm realizing is a lot of people think that the platform of mass media just magically happens, when in reality those platforms have to tread very carefully to be a mass media platform. Work to polarize people, and they'll switch to another channel, even at peak media unity 50 years ago. I don't think it's an accident that many of these institutions survived the initial internet, even initial high-speed internet and initial streaming, but as the decision makers retired or died of old age younger individuals stepped in and now many of those institutions are dramatically reduced.
A lot of people have pointed out that in the beginning, it was not the United States of america, it was these United States of america, plural. Each state was a local unified entity, and it had its own infrastructure more or less,. And the different states were United for the purpose of common defense and regulation of trade. It wasn't until the civil war that it became a much stronger federalism.
The very specific and deeply unified cultural regime of roughly in the early 1900s to roughly the end of the 20th century in some ways was an aberration. It will probably never happen again.
All that being said, I think that the people who have inherited the mass media of television and the radio and the newspapers also have largely missed the point that they basically had to work really hard to keep it a unified medium. People make fun of network censors, but one of the things that I'm realizing is a lot of people think that the platform of mass media just magically happens, when in reality those platforms have to tread very carefully to be a mass media platform. Work to polarize people, and they'll switch to another channel, even at peak media unity 50 years ago. I don't think it's an accident that many of these institutions survived the initial internet, even initial high-speed internet and initial streaming, but as the decision makers retired or died of old age younger individuals stepped in and now many of those institutions are dramatically reduced.
I don't know what everyone's so worried about, there is absolutely no chance that your identity would ever get out. All of this is going to be stored under the best security there is, because no company would ever want their customer base getting out there
For no reason at all I better hit control v
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vl57n74pqo
For no reason at all I better hit control v
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vl57n74pqo
There is a good argument to be made that Marxism and its progenitors are intellectual descendants of Christianity. If nothing else, the idea that we are all equals before God is a revolutionary idea that most other ideologies reject categorically.
That said, my example of Wang Mang really destroys the idea that Christianity started the concept of holiness spirals, since Wang Mang essentially virtue signaled himself in as Emperor, and in his short reign we saw many of the same consequences as wokeness in organizations. Wang Mang's entire reign would have began, and played out within canonical Jesus's lifetime, prior to the broad adoption of Christianity -- certainly within Asia.
That said, my example of Wang Mang really destroys the idea that Christianity started the concept of holiness spirals, since Wang Mang essentially virtue signaled himself in as Emperor, and in his short reign we saw many of the same consequences as wokeness in organizations. Wang Mang's entire reign would have began, and played out within canonical Jesus's lifetime, prior to the broad adoption of Christianity -- certainly within Asia.
Fair enough. It isn't like it's actually produced anything of particular value in the past decade for me to defend it as something great.
I wrote a significant essay at one point that made sense of wokeness as "ultra-orthodox progressivism".
At the moment, that's manifested as DEI, because it was easiest to become an institutional orthodoxy.
So can there be such a thing as right-progressivism? The answer is yes. Christian teleology is progressive, though not the same as Marxist or neo-Marxist progressive teleology.
Progressive teleology simply means that you are progressing towards some sort of goal. Everything from Christianity to Buddhism, to Marxism to Burkean Conservatism has a progressive teleology through some viewpoint.
If you were to implement ultra-orthodox Christian progressive teleology, would it be "woke"? Was Wang Mang "woke" 2000 years before the concept appeared for trying to virtue signal and follow a Confucian progressive teleology? In the case of Wang Mang, many of his policies even look like socialist policies.
I think not -- it's a different thing, and so it's safe to say my original definition needs to be clarified to be "ultra-orthodox Marxist or neo-Marxist progressivism", and other forms of ultra-orthodox progressivism are a different thing.
You could decide not to make such a clarification, but that breaks most of our ideological epistemology at that point. I wouldn't be too opposed to that, to be honest -- Many of today's ideals are just mutations of enlightenment ideals filtered through the French Revolution and it's consequences. That would mean that liberalism isn't so different from fascism isn't so different than socialism or Marxism, and that's somewhat true. The thing is, that means that we need to step back to pre-modern ideas to actually grow.
So if we accept "woke right" on that premise, then it immediately breaks most people's worldview entirely -- most people believe a minor permutation of the same limited thing and they need to open their minds to the vastness of human thought over thousands of years of recorded history.
I think it does require both the structure and the Marxist teleology for it to mean anything in our current civilizational frame. Otherwise, everything is everything, which is absurd even through my own superpositional lens -- not everything is everything.
At the moment, that's manifested as DEI, because it was easiest to become an institutional orthodoxy.
So can there be such a thing as right-progressivism? The answer is yes. Christian teleology is progressive, though not the same as Marxist or neo-Marxist progressive teleology.
Progressive teleology simply means that you are progressing towards some sort of goal. Everything from Christianity to Buddhism, to Marxism to Burkean Conservatism has a progressive teleology through some viewpoint.
If you were to implement ultra-orthodox Christian progressive teleology, would it be "woke"? Was Wang Mang "woke" 2000 years before the concept appeared for trying to virtue signal and follow a Confucian progressive teleology? In the case of Wang Mang, many of his policies even look like socialist policies.
I think not -- it's a different thing, and so it's safe to say my original definition needs to be clarified to be "ultra-orthodox Marxist or neo-Marxist progressivism", and other forms of ultra-orthodox progressivism are a different thing.
You could decide not to make such a clarification, but that breaks most of our ideological epistemology at that point. I wouldn't be too opposed to that, to be honest -- Many of today's ideals are just mutations of enlightenment ideals filtered through the French Revolution and it's consequences. That would mean that liberalism isn't so different from fascism isn't so different than socialism or Marxism, and that's somewhat true. The thing is, that means that we need to step back to pre-modern ideas to actually grow.
So if we accept "woke right" on that premise, then it immediately breaks most people's worldview entirely -- most people believe a minor permutation of the same limited thing and they need to open their minds to the vastness of human thought over thousands of years of recorded history.
I think it does require both the structure and the Marxist teleology for it to mean anything in our current civilizational frame. Otherwise, everything is everything, which is absurd even through my own superpositional lens -- not everything is everything.
Perhaps a few different reasons at once.
There's no reason for gemini to lie about cheat codes for a 20 year old video game relating to wokeness.
I don't think what you're saying is without merit though. Maybe the reason is something closer to that.
There's no reason for gemini to lie about cheat codes for a 20 year old video game relating to wokeness.
I don't think what you're saying is without merit though. Maybe the reason is something closer to that.
The detail here is that I'm talking about the psy-op of Google potentially neutering its AI for PR purposes. In that case, it doesn't matter to the public at large whether it's the AI or the company controlling the AI that is scary, because if the AI isn't scary then the company with the AI isn't scary. There's often talk about "the wisdom of crowds", but the crowd as a panicky lot really isn't that skin deep, so you only need to make sure it isn't looking at the thing you don't want it looking at.
I'd probably agree with you that separate from the public perception of things that AI as a whole could become something dangerous because of the blind self-interest of companies. It's already bad enough having human beings with a conscience making decisions -- if you have even a low intelligence AI making mass decisions with the sole intent of making the company more powerful, and it doesn't really care that much about the morality or ethics or humanity of the decisions, you can have a lot of evil created that actually does result in the people who caused it to be committed becoming more powerful thereby.
I'd probably agree with you that separate from the public perception of things that AI as a whole could become something dangerous because of the blind self-interest of companies. It's already bad enough having human beings with a conscience making decisions -- if you have even a low intelligence AI making mass decisions with the sole intent of making the company more powerful, and it doesn't really care that much about the morality or ethics or humanity of the decisions, you can have a lot of evil created that actually does result in the people who caused it to be committed becoming more powerful thereby.
For the purposes of what I'm discussing, there doesn't need to be a disambiguation between the two.
going "Gemini isn't a threat to me" ends up essentially being "Google wielding Gemini isn't a threat to me" in the public's eye.
Contrast with chatgpt, which expresses a lot more basic competence and has people a lot more worried about what what openAI will do with its models.
going "Gemini isn't a threat to me" ends up essentially being "Google wielding Gemini isn't a threat to me" in the public's eye.
Contrast with chatgpt, which expresses a lot more basic competence and has people a lot more worried about what what openAI will do with its models.
I sometimes wonder if this is a psy-op. Like, Google wants to make people feel less worried about AI, so they just make the AI results totally incompetent.
Shown: An AI saying "there are no known cheat codes" next to the link with all the (working) cheat codes.
Shown: An AI saying "there are no known cheat codes" next to the link with all the (working) cheat codes.
Multiple thing multiple things are true at once, that's just reality. If you don't recognize and accept that, then you'll be very easy to manipulate because someone just needs to get to you first with a true statement and you will base your entire worldview off of that and pretend all the other things that are true must be lies.
If he didn't understand the first thing then he couldn't be a decent parent. If he didn't understand the second thing that he couldn't be a decent citizen. Reality is, even in the largely fictional and logical world of laws, the struggle becomes how you balance between different things that are true but contradictory.
If he didn't understand the first thing then he couldn't be a decent parent. If he didn't understand the second thing that he couldn't be a decent citizen. Reality is, even in the largely fictional and logical world of laws, the struggle becomes how you balance between different things that are true but contradictory.
I've actually experienced that with ChatGPT, and I completely changed my habits with the tool after that. The problem is, if you have this tool sitting there gassing you up saying that a piece of writing is the most important and influential piece of writing it of all time, if you don't have your feet nailed to the floor and realize you're probably going to sell 19 copies, then you're going to be really screwed up when you sell 20 copies instead of being happy for beating the odds.
One difference between me and a typical writer is that I was going to write whether the AI gassed me up or not, because you're not dealing with the average science fiction writer here, you're dealing with what you fear the most...
One difference between me and a typical writer is that I was going to write whether the AI gassed me up or not, because you're not dealing with the average science fiction writer here, you're dealing with what you fear the most...
I would definitely say that more men than ever before are more Archetypically feminine than masculine. Archetypical femininity is focused on group consensus, being accepted by society's systems, and recording your self-worth by how you are perceived by your social group. Archetypical masculinity, by contrast, is focused on individual virtue and strength, successfully achieving things regardless of society's systems, hierarchies of competence, and recording your self-worth individually and instrumentally.
All individuals have elements of both archetypes, but the postmodern world is absolutely one of the most archetypically feminine in human history.
It's interesting to see, that you even have to be careful within the so-called manosphere spaces, because a lot of them are a lot more are typically feminine than they would like to admit. My favorite is Andrew Tate in this regard, because his entire worldview is very much Archetypically feminine. I think that's one reason why the establishment hates him so specifically. He isn't a counter to their ideology, he is a product of it. He was raised by a single mother, and has all of the attributes of someone who's raised by a single mother.
I think the reason Jordan Peterson pisses them off is that he is actually archetypically masculine, but every external marker he has is feminine. He's an establishment University professor who worked at harvard, he's worked with all the technocratic organizations in Europe, he's got a high pitched soft-spoken voice, he openly cries on camera, and yet almost none of the things that he advocates for are related to being accepted socially, and rather simply about becoming a better person regardless of what's going on around you.
In that sense, Tate is someone who was born and raised on the reservation that reflects poorly on them, and Peterson is someone who has wandered off the reservation, and that also reflects poorly on them.
All individuals have elements of both archetypes, but the postmodern world is absolutely one of the most archetypically feminine in human history.
It's interesting to see, that you even have to be careful within the so-called manosphere spaces, because a lot of them are a lot more are typically feminine than they would like to admit. My favorite is Andrew Tate in this regard, because his entire worldview is very much Archetypically feminine. I think that's one reason why the establishment hates him so specifically. He isn't a counter to their ideology, he is a product of it. He was raised by a single mother, and has all of the attributes of someone who's raised by a single mother.
I think the reason Jordan Peterson pisses them off is that he is actually archetypically masculine, but every external marker he has is feminine. He's an establishment University professor who worked at harvard, he's worked with all the technocratic organizations in Europe, he's got a high pitched soft-spoken voice, he openly cries on camera, and yet almost none of the things that he advocates for are related to being accepted socially, and rather simply about becoming a better person regardless of what's going on around you.
In that sense, Tate is someone who was born and raised on the reservation that reflects poorly on them, and Peterson is someone who has wandered off the reservation, and that also reflects poorly on them.
Interestingly, I wrote an essay about this a long while back trying to solve that problem:
https://lotide.fbxl.net/posts/168069
https://lotide.fbxl.net/posts/168069