promethea.incorporated

brave and steely-eyed and morally pure and a bit terrifying… /testimonials /evil /leet .ask? .ask_long?


jebiwonkenobi:

It seems like the first rule of magic, or at least the first limitation mentioned, is usually ‘you can’t bring back the dead.’

And I know it makes sense from a writing standpoint, but I also wonder if it comes from somewhere else. If that’s just the first, most common human response to hearing that magic is possible.

Maybe the first question was, ‘Are the dead still going to stay dead?’ for so long that people stopped needing to say it, that it just got answered right away. Yes, the world will still hurt. Chin up, you can make fire from your fingertips. Maybe you can hurt it back.

Make life take the lemons back. Burn life’s house down with the lemons.

Wipe away all the bloodsuckers with my Gene Driver.

(via metagorgon)

2 months ago · tagged #fuck the natural order #it me #yes i do find such silly things profound quite often #in which promethea's brain takes ideas very seriously #death cw · 12,319 notes · source: jebiwonkenobi · .permalink


shuffling-blogs:

nostalgebraist:

multiheaded1793:

I am all for basic income, I think it’s a great thing, the “non-reformist reform” that leftists ought to embrace. But.

I’ve been hanging out mostly with techno-libertarian types for a good while now - all wonderful folks, yes, I mean you, y’all just great -

- and I increasingly cannot shake the impression that propping up empty talk of ~basic income~ to every instance of economic oppression and misery is a lot like the internet bolshevik staple of ~we won’t have this problem after the Revolution~. And meanwhile, in the here and now, it is very easy to use it to brush aside lesser, economically Bad suggestions, dismiss ongoing workers’ struggles as misguided, etc, etc.

Like, tell me I’m just being uncharitable and gloomy and ideologically obsessed here. But seeing one post after another ending with “maybe, some indeterminate time in the blissful future, We shall be able to dole out enough for everyone to survive on - after scrapping every current social program everywhere and attaining efficiency and getting rid of Crony Capitalism” - well, it’s enough to see a pattern. I don’t know what it means, but it’s vaguely alarming.

And also… there is never a roadmap or even the most vague sense of how to get from here to there. How to deal with elite resistance to redistribution and capital flight, how to square it with another professed (and likewise worthy) techno-libertarian goal of open borders, etc, etc. There’s rarely anything at all written on this. Again, this is why ~basic income~ alarmingly resembles a hand-wave more than a goal.

@theunitofcaring @tropylium @socialjusticemunchkin 

I just remembered this post out of the blue and spent a while looking for it on your blog just so I could reblog it, it is a really good insight IMO

There really does seems to be some symmetry between communists who are like “don’t vote, don’t work to oppose short-term political changes that may directly screw over poor people, because only a revolution can really change everything” and libertarians who are like “don’t worry about what effect these policies would have without a basic income, because they’ll work great once we have a basic income”

It’s just really strange to me when people act like “caring about what happens in the short term” directly trades off against “wanting an ambitious, sweeping change in the long term.”  This at least makes sense when it’s actual accelerationism (”make the short term worse, to encourage ambitious sweeping change”), although I disagree with that, but if it’s not accelerationism I don’t know what the logic is supposed to be.

I think the issue, similar to the internet bolsheviks multi mentioned, is that the current choices involve unpleasant tradeoffs. It’s not like there aren’t better or worse options in these cases, but it’s a bit grim to only consider “should we go for the poverty trap, the other poverty trap, the answer that fucks over a different subset of people, the bureaucracy that seems like it was designed to foster corruption, or ignore the problem entirely.”

Like, the vast majority of answers here aren’t good. Someone or another is getting fucked over with means-tested welfare, with minimum wages, with various health and safety regulations, with politically tenable but regressive taxes, etc. That doesn’t mean they’re not better than nothing at all, for now, but they’re crude and do fuck people over and often the benefit is ambiguous.

The thing is, basic income isn’t as politically untenable as it looked even just a few years ago. The major centre-left party in my country is discussing it, I would be surprised if in another couple of election cycles it wasn’t official policy for at least the Greens (and possibly the Worst Libertarian Party) here. It’s because everyone’s harping on about it every time it becomes even the slightest bit relevant, and because it’s something you can talk about in front of people across the political spectrum without setting off outgroup alarms, that we’re getting closer. Like, I’m usually not one for “awareness” being a huge thing, but basic income is a much clearer and simpler policy than many other welfare systems that have been enacted in the past, and it’s becoming a big part of the global conversation on welfare now.

My issue is that more people aren’t pushing a land value tax to fund it. That solves the capital flight issue wealth taxes have. And open borders for residency, with throttled naturalization processes for citizenship (which I think is what everyone expects) could help avoid sudden unaffordability of the basic income due to the incentives it produces.

This. A lot of the proposed ways to alleviate the problems only bite someone else (or even the intended beneficiaries) in the ass seriously, and with proper epistemic humility I wouldn’t call it unvirtuous to be like “I am not a turd-polishing master, if you give me only crappy options I can’t build a shiny utopia out of them, but this one less crappy option should really be paid a lot more attention to”.

The fuck do I know whether supporting the side of crony capitalists or the side of redwashed rentiers is the better option. When traditional left-right politics is a horrible destructive tug-of-war, pointing at the huge pile of utility on the ground that is not picked up because an icky chicago school economist also pointed at it decades ago, is not such a terrible idea.

Also, UBI is far less difficult to make happen than a revolution, because the money is already there, it’s just spent at shittier things. It doesn’t need massive new taxes when it’s allowed to replace existing benefits, with a side order of cutting corporate welfare because everything needs to come with a side order of cutting corporate welfare. In fact, for any rich western country I could institute a proper UBI *and* still downsize the state enough to make even conservatives uncomfortable.

And seconding on the land value tax too. And the rest.

2 months ago · 103 notes · source: multiheaded1793 · .permalink


sinesalvatorem:

socialjusticemunchkin:

sinesalvatorem:

inquisitivefeminist:

sinesalvatorem:

inquisitivefeminist:

sinesalvatorem:

socialjusticemunchkin:

sinesalvatorem:

inquisitivefeminist:

sinesalvatorem:

inquisitivefeminist:

There’s been a recent trend of How I Got A Rationalist Social Circle posts going around, and I’ve noticed that most of them begin with “I was too nervous to talk to anyone but then I talked to @sinesalvatorem and she was super nice, and then I made a bunch of other friends!”

I mean if we’re going to have an Official Rationalist Welcome Wagon Alison’s probably the right person for the job

I approve of being the official welcomer. Anyone who wants to be initiated should totally hit me up.

Actually, tbh, your talents are being underutilized.  Too bad The Rationalist Community isn’t the type of organization that has marketing pushes to Recruit More Girls.

We could put you in a sexy outfit and have you dart around the edges of the Blue Tribe, enticing young girls to follow you into the Forests of Rationalism like some kind of gay will-o-the-wisp.

What!? Why would I prey on innocent Blue Tribe girls and turn them into My People??? *nervous laughter as I close my OkCupid tabs*

…why wouldn’t we be the type of organization to have a marketing push to Recruit More Girls? The rationalist community is what we make of it, and I don’t see any reason not to make a girlsmoreofrecruitment drive of it. We don’t have a rationalist czar telling us _not_ to do it.

As someone who grudgingly matches the description “girl” (at least by people who don’t know that my brain wants to belong in the “totally made-up category” of “N E O T E N I C androgyny” instead) and who perfectly matches the description “I was too nervous to talk to anyone but then I talked to @sinesalvatorem and she was super nice, and then I made a bunch of other friends!” I wholeheartedly endorse this approach.

IDK. I’m kind of off-put by pushes to recruit members of $DEMOGRAPHIC. Social communities thrive based on shared interests and values, and efforts to attract more people of a given demographic usually trade off against that.

I am all for recruiting more people with rationalist interests and values. If they’re female, great! But targeting women specifically would almost certainly mean compromising some feature of the existing community dynamic.

I enjoying being around members of my demographic as much as the next person, but if aiming for women means less Tolkien in textbooks, or aiming for Caribbean people means raising the level of acceptable homophobia, then no thank you.

I mean, a lot of the reason pushes to include particular demographics exist is because there are lots of people who are part of the demographics in question who would totally love to be part of the rationalist community, but there are other factors preventing members of the demographic from joining.

For example, despite loving Luminosity I initially avoided the rationalist community because I had heard that a lot of members were unusually hostile towards women. This has, for the most part, not been my experience. If Rationalist Recruitment Teams were a thing it would have been very helpful if one of them had said to me, politely and not in a Gotcha You Evil Assumption-Making SJer way, “hey, actually, most of us don’t hate women over here, check out all these high-status women in our community”.

 the point of campaigns like this should be to find people who would totally belong in the community but are staying away because they’re worried about hostility

I am totally in favour of that! I would like people who are afraid that we’ll be hostile to feel welcome. I am personally willing to roll out the welcome wagon.

because like no ones suggesting you pull random women off the street and press-gang them into being nerds or rationalists or whatever

Um, we have obviously seen very very different recruitment campaigns. In my experience, as a black person who has been active in a bunch of disproportionately-white internet groups, the average campaign leans more toward grabbing random people off the street and trying to integrate them into your group than toward targeting actually interested people.

I mean, the things I saw ranged from patronising (“We’ll get more black people if we talk about hip hop a lot!”) to actively destructive (”Our comic forum is going to ban discussions of any comics that don’t have at least one black character”). Have you seen a bunch of white guys desperately screaming into the void about hip hop in the hopes that their black senpais will notice them before? It’s the saddest thing. Three-legged puppies with cancer are more cheerful.

As my OkCupid activity indicates, I’m perfectly happy proselytising to women. I do it a lot! I tell people about the gospel of bednets and transhumanism and glowfic automatically. I’d be happy to join black student groups at Stanford and encourage anyone who’s a good fit to join us. Just from the fact that I like being around other women and black people, I’ll probably do more than my share of converting women and blacks.

But the moment someone says “You know what would attract black people? If we stopped talking about [heresy of the month]”, I will be the first person to say “Fuck black people. We don’t need them anyway!”

Yeah by “no one is suggesting” I totally meant “I am not suggesting/no one in the rationalist community is suggesting”, I have definitely seen really terrible demographic-based outreach campaigns.  (My absolute favorite are the ones that are like “hey girls!  You don’t have to be an Icky Nerd to be a programmer!  You can totally be good at computers and ALSO perform femininity, you don’t have to be like those gross girls who DON’T perform femininity!  Empowerment!”).  

What I’m getting at here is that we shouldn’t decide not to do a thing entirely just because some people are terrible at doing it, especially if a well-executed version of the thing could do a lot of good.  And also that there should be more well-executed versions of the thing.

Good demographic-based outreach campaigns would be a great idea. I’m just not sure how to stop them from degenerating into really bad outreach campaigns. Most of the bad campaigns I’ve seen started off super reasonable, and then they collapsed in on themselves.

I don’t know how to do the thing in a way that I can be sure won’t end with egg on my face, so I’m hesitant to start now. If I learn more about what makes campaigns go sour first, then I might be less averse to trying.

Suggested datapoint for a good demographic-based outreach campaign: you doing the thing you are doing, exactly as you are doing. Sexy outfit optional but probably situationally useful sometimes.

Someone should run the data on this but I suspect that the best and reliablest way to fund a demographic-based outreach campaign for the community would be to pay your bills and arrange other things done so that you could fully focus on your comparative advantages of being an awesome person to talk to and introducing people to other awesome people.

Of course, it could be that my personal biases have simply led me to rationalize why we should let an Alison loose on the internets and meatspaces without being constrained by boring things, but out of all the things to rationalize I don’t think that one is anywhere near the worst.

This was actually basically my plan for working for Effective Altruism Outreach. Then that may or may not have fallen through.

But, like, if anyone wants to found Less Wrong Outreach and hire me, I’d definitely consider it.

Okay, I’m publicly committing to funding Degenerate N E O T E N I C Bonobo Rationalist Cuckfest Outreach once I make enough money that it’d be less expensive than my GWWC pledge, on the condition that I get to call it the Degenerate N E O T E N I C Bonobo Rationalist Cuckfest Outreach at least informally on tumblr. Additional funders to push that limit down are welcome.

2 months ago · tagged #future precariat billionaire · 110 notes · source: inquisitivefeminist · .permalink


ilzolende:

sinesalvatorem:

Me: But it’s not too bad, you see. This RadFem only said she hated Militant Transgenderism.

Person: What’s ‘Militant Transgenderism’?

Me: It’s the radical notion that people are women.

Uh, “militant transgenderism” clearly has something to do with your interests in being a space empress, dear.

(via ilzolende)

2 months ago · tagged #just one word: plastics · 89 notes · source: sinesalvatorem · .permalink


sinesalvatorem:

Me: I’ll be doing this “Netflix and chill” thing in a couple hours.

Person: Awesome! Enjoy getting laid!

Me: Does ‘Netflix and chill’ always end in sex?

Person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_and_chill

Me: Wow, OK, yes. She probably thinks I asked to have sex with her.

Me: I literally discussed us watching a movie together.

Me: Whoops.

Person: Oh my god you are precious.

Me: I mean, I’m not opposed to having sex with her, but this is slightly unexpected.

Me: Fucking Americans with your slang >.<

I am glad that I’m not the only one who didn’t expect that one to be a euphemism for sex. I did get the implications over time but I used to think it would’ve actually meant just that for far longer than I’ve been aware of the subtext.

And now I’m like “watching stuff together even without having sex is a completely legitimate activity and why can’t humanity have one expression for it that would actually mean it instead of being a transparent attempt to avoid saying the s-word like a silly prude.”

2 months ago · tagged #it me · 43 notes · source: sinesalvatorem · .permalink


"I wanted to … make [Rorschach] as like, ‘this is what Batman would be in the real world’. But I have forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans, ‘smelling’, ‘not having a girlfriend’, these are actually kind of heroic! So Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I made him to be a bad example. But I have people come up to me in the street and saying: ‘I AM Rorschach. That is MY story’. And I’d be thinking: ‘Yeah, great. Could you just, like, keep away from me, never come anywhere near me again as long as I live?’"

Alan Moore (via

class-snuggle

)

“I wanted to use the typical cliches to signal that this character is disgusting, but people sharing some characteristics saw a reflection of themselves, no matter how twisted (it’s not like trans women never recognized themselves in “evil” characters), and I just want to make it absolutely clear that I consider smelly people without girlfriends disgusting and worthless.”

– Alan Moore

(via veronicastraszh)

2 months ago · tagged #steel feminism #seriously this is some massive lack of awareness #oh wow there are people who can't find any better heroes for themselves than this one i accidentally made #better remind them that i think they don't actually deserve even that one #i really want a simple word to refer to this one oppression #failing-at-hegemonic-masculinity-ism is too unwieldy #but yeah #cw failing-at-hegemonic-masculinity-ism · 24,819 notes · .permalink


"I wonder how many of the more bonobo-ish Bay Area rationalists are just libertarian because sm0l governments are cute."

@ilzolende
(via sinesalvatorem)

(via sigmaleph)

2 months ago · tagged #it me #shitposting · 78 notes · source: sinesalvatorem · .permalink


metagorgon:

@osberend:

No, the subset of my tax dollars used for legitimate purposes are the price of my citizenship in society. The rest is stolen property, taken at gunpoint.

Please define ‘legitimate purposes’ in a way that doesn’t mean ‘only things that I approve of’.

An easy way to start would be “things that would not leave the world better off if the money was just burned instead of being spent on super-bad thing X” (my guess would be that a lot of super-long prison sentences for victimless crimes fail here).

If one wants to be more ambitious, “things that wouldn’t leave the world better off if the money was not collected in the first place” (this is the point where more ordinary ridiculous things such as spending all the money collected from corporate taxes on corporate welfare (Finland says hi!) become unjustifiable).

For a quite stringent category of legitimacy, try “things that wouldn’t leave the world better off if the money was just distributed evenly to the citizens as a UBI”, which leaves the properly beneficial stuff that doesn’t destroy value, such as effective, targeted programs for people that can be actually significantly helped by them (a very small subset of existing programs), and gives a reasonably good theory of justifiable governance when combined with the previous criterion.

(via metagorgon)

2 months ago · tagged #bitching about the country of birth #vulgar libertarianism · 168 notes · source: fierceawakening · .permalink


shlevy:

drethelin:

thegreatjackal:

raginrayguns:

sinesalvatorem:

Me: Is there anything you believe the US government does well?

@theunitofcaring: *looks at the roof and contemplates for about half a minute*

Me: …The longer the pause, the more libertarian the person.

M tells me the us government’s virtues is what it does poorly, which is put people’s ideas into action. People’s ideas are mostly bad, and if the government can’t carry them out, we’re protected from them

only problem is when the government carries out ideas in a way that’s even worse for us than what people want

Vaccination programs

Is that an answer to the original question? Because, like, universal polio vaccination in a country that hasn’t had any polio cases in nearly 40 years and a world in which there were 400 cases three years ago, all localized in three countries half a word away, seems a tad excessive, no?

TBH I’d rather have excessive than insufficient vaccination programs. If unnecessary polio vaccines even when it’s almost eradicated were the price of actually making progress against measles instead of having ideological hold-outs who stubbornly defend their right to expose others to lethal diseases, it’s a trade I’d gladly take.

2 months ago · 180 notes · source: sinesalvatorem · .permalink


The Irony of Transhumanism

theunmortalist:

inwardjake:

At the time of my birth the human population on planet Earth was just over 5 billion people.  By the time I had reached 12 years old, that number had risen to 6 billion.  By the time I had graduated high school, that number had risen to 7 billion.

There is no easy way to address an issue like overpopulation.  At the very root of the problem is the fundamental right of every human being to procreate and prosper, as guaranteed to them by their own birth.  Efforts such as eugenics, enforced contraception, and the withholding of medical technologies in the third world, while effective, violate this human right.

In the end, it boils down to the individual: You and I, and every other human being on this planet, must bear the burden of improving the collective quality of life.  The only means by which this can be attained is to find equilibrium with our environment.  Our species, like any apex predator left unchecked, is beginning to see the negative impact of our actions: In the food chain, in water quality, in global temperature patterns, and within the hearts and minds of our own children.

We seem to forget, that despite God given rights, we also carry the responsibility of controlling ourselves for the sake of others.  This control may manifest in myriad ways, not the least of which being satiety.  

We have reached a point in our history at which medical advances have made the arbitrary extension of life available to the general public.  It is understandable that every person is motivated to continue living as long as possible, but I ask a single favor, from one human to another:

Really think about the consequences of your actions, now, and in the future.

The collective quality of life (including that of every species within man’s dominion,) is objectively more important than the singular pursuit of immortality.  If we allow our fear of death to rule all of our actions, we will destroy that which has been handed to us.  Transcendence of these human shackles requires faith in a power greater than oneself.

For you see, gravity is not a purely physical force, it influences existence in realms beyond both the third and fourth dimension. We are now aware that light itself can be warped by the gravitational pull of a massive object; time, on the other hand, requires a significantly more powerful well.

We, as semi-conscious beings, often neglect the uncomfortable realization that minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years are constructs created and maintained by the human mind, for the purpose of regulation of ourselves and our fellows.

It would do one well to remember that time, as we know it, is merely a standardized division of the cycles of the moon and sun. On a galactic scale, this model holds true, but stretched across the current projection of the known universe, it becomes obvious that our understanding of the passage of moments is woefully inept.

My only trouble with this would be to point out that we can only put our trust and faith in ourselves, and even then not too much. Everything in the Universe is horrific and awe-inspiring. There are no guarantees, no promises here. The great variety of life is not maintained because the Universe respects it; past events reveal in the long run, every species is doomed to starvation, disease, and death until it goes extinct. What we perceive as balance in the ecosystem is actually a monumental, blind struggle against that sort of suffering and destruction. We’ve run the experiments. We know what happens when the environment allows overpopulation. No species controls itself. Except, it would seem, creatures smart enough to notice what’s changed… like ourselves.

Our population has increased because we’ve become better at keeping ourselves alive in nature. I expect our population will decrease because we will become better at living well in nature. Once no one needs five babies just to keep the family line going, there is really only one option: make one or two babies that absolutely will live the best lives possible. As a result, the population spikes we experience as a location gets industry and medicine gradually become more manageable even if the great crowds expecting good living conditions frighten the authoritarians. We’re now experiencing a new development here in the West (and a great many other places are doing it much better than we are). With the introduction of science, existentialism, and the practices of rational thought, we come to expect more than previous generations from life. This, too, will have an impact on our population growth.

As we make life better for everyone, the number of people that want many children will go down. As we increase lifespans and make college-level education available, more people will want fewer children because they mean to do well by them. Plans for children will become something that must be done someday, rather than something that must be done soon. For an increasing number of people, Someday will become Never as they realize that children are not what they actually want from life. Eventually, we will live so long and so well that planning about what we can do outside Earth won’t be dreaming. If overpopulation is still a problem then, we’ll have somewhere new to bring our home ecosystems, allowing us to thrive in spite of refusing to bow down before starvation, disease, and death.

We seem to forget, that despite God given rights, we also carry the responsibility of controlling ourselves for the sake of others.  This control may manifest in myriad ways, not the least of which being satiety.  

We have reached a point in our history at which medical advances have made the arbitrary extension of life available to the general public.  It is understandable that every person is motivated to continue living as long as possible, but I ask a single favor, from one human to another:

Really think about the consequences of your actions, now, and in the future.

This world is afraid of me…I have seen its true face. The crowds are unaugmented fools and the fools are full of pain and when the telomeres finally run out, all the sheeple will die. The accumulated harm of all their shortsightedness and ignorance will build up about their neurons and all the cishumanists and bioconservatives will look up and shout “Kill yourselves to satisfy our moralistic whims!”… and I’ll look down and whisper “No.” They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good people like my friends or Elon Musk. Decent people who believed in a lasting future for a lasting species. Instead they followed the droppings of preachers and bioethicists and didn’t realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don’t tell me they didn’t have a choice.

2 months ago · tagged #shitposting #in which promethea turns into an edgelord #you do pro-death advocacy where i can see it what the fuck are you expecting op #in which promethea's brain takes ideas very seriously #death cw #deathism cw #cishumanism cw · 27 notes · source: inwardjake · .permalink


.prev .next