CaveJohnson

Karma: 664

CaveJohnson Apr 8, 2012, 12:24 PM
5 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: George Orwell’s Prelude on Politics Is The Mind Killer
We are living in dreamtime.

CaveJohnson Apr 2, 2012, 5:26 AM
1 point
in reply to: Multiheaded’s comment on: George Orwell’s Prelude on Politics Is The Mind Killer

(I’m actually integrating a sinister-yet-rationalist one world government based on these fears in my science fantasy novel—instead of a generic villainous empire I started out with—except that in my story it was formed by voices of moderation in high places after the Axis victory in WW2 and the ensuing cold war, not as the radical elitist movement that I can phantom it as in the real world.)

That is a very interesting concept! I’d love to read more about it, if you are writing in English and have any drafts you would like someone to read or will eventually publish, please make a post on LW!

CaveJohnson Apr 1, 2012, 2:51 PM
15 points
in reply to: Multiheaded’s comment on: George Orwell’s Prelude on Politics Is The Mind Killer

Even today you see the more extreme elements of the Right scouring the net in what can be described as a search for ammunition, their bottom-line being already as entrenched as that of the Left extremists.

Why does right wing extremism scare you so much more than left wing extremism when the former is utterly despised as the definition of evil by most Westerners while the latter is only ever lukewarmly condemned?

Do extreme right wingers have some particular super power that I’m not aware of? The right wing are the guys who have been on a losing streak since Stalingrad and if you listen to Moldbug for a century before that too. I need some actual evidence that I should worry about them getting power anywhere in the West without being bombed into the stone age by the US five minutes later (bombing European right wing extremists, especially racist ones is the stuff of victory, moral superiority and war fantasies for them—check out American video games, adventure novels and action movie villains), than say of me personally being struck by lightning when I’m walking my dog on a rainy Saturday evening.

Reading some of your comments I can’t shake the feeling that you for some reason see their intellectual ammunition as so much more formidable than what is usually consumed by intellectuals that it despite the massive incentives against it threatens to one day quite suddenly break out and become popular among the smart fraction. Is this a correct reading?

CaveJohnson Mar 22, 2012, 11:17 AM
1 point
in reply to: Vladimir_Nesov’s comment on: I’ve had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions
Naturally, I don’t see how I implied they wouldn’t be. I just said that we are under no automatic obligation to signal our preferences for cryonics when we put up our rationalist hats. Even if one is convinced that cryonics would be an excellent policy according to one’s values one can still judge the cost of agitating for it or advertising it to be too high.

Quietly agreeing that cryonics is the best course of action without making main posts about how awesome it is and everyone should do it might be better for our community than doing so.

CaveJohnson Mar 22, 2012, 8:53 AM
0 points
in reply to: Multiheaded’s comment on: I’ve had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions
Sam0345 is sometimes right.

Also eloquent rational reactionary thought is bad and unwelcome on LW? Why? I though rationality dosen’t come with a political package. If we are worried about signalling ditching our support for Cryonics would probably help more.

CaveJohnson Mar 21, 2012, 7:54 PM
1 point
in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Rationality Quotes February 2012
That democracy can reliably be used as an applause light is a sign that we as a society agree it is indeed a good thing.

CaveJohnson Mar 21, 2012, 7:51 PM
1 point
in reply to: Logos01’s comment on: How would you take over Rome?

Silphium was reputed to have birth controlling properties because its seeds were heart-shaped. I was talking about something a little more… reliable… such as, say, Premarin.

You got it wrong. It is the other way around.

There has been some speculation about the connection between silphium and the traditional heart shape (♥). The symbol is remarkably similar to the Egyptian “heart soul” (ib). The sexual nature of that concept, combined with the widespread use of silphium in ancient Egypt for birth control, and the fact that silphium seeds were heart-shaped, leads to speculation that the character for ib may have been derived from the shape of the silphium seed.

CaveJohnson Mar 16, 2012, 6:41 AM
1 point
in reply to: Logos01’s comment on: How would you take over Rome?

Years six through ten depend on unforseen variables for whether there will be protracted suppression of luddites and conservatives, or if my reputation precedes me sufficiently that Rome begs me to induct her into my Constitutional Republic of Aligned City-States.

Through a careful management of new agricultural, medical, economic, industrial, and military technologies as above, conquering Rome would be easily achievable within 5-10 years at the absolute most.

Silly Logos01. Do you think you will get any of this done in a Constitutional Republic? In practice the Rome of the first century AD would be more a Republic than what you would need to get this done

If this worked you would de facto be God Emperor of Hispania or the state would be a plutocracy with you as the wealthiest man in the world. Once you die good luck trying to set up a workable republican culture, or people following anything but the forms of your proposed system of government. Social engineering is hard.

But in any case that isn’t the goal here and I wouldn’t be too upset in any case. Long live the Leviathan!

CaveJohnson Mar 16, 2012, 6:37 AM
1 point
in reply to: Logos01’s comment on: How would you take over Rome?

These include factories, vacuum tubes (and through them early-tech varieties of computers), birth control and other forms of concerns for quality-of-life, and various forms of chemistry and so on.

Are you sure this is a good idea considering modern Western civilization hasn’t yet demonstrated the survivability of such technology? Let alone an upstart society in underpopulated Roman Spain. In any case the ancients did know means of birth control and it at various points sapped the power of the Roman state.

CaveJohnson Feb 12, 2012, 5:38 PM
9 points
in reply to: Sly’s comment on: Rationality Quotes February 2012
Obviously you are right on that. I should have said:

Also [ we as a society ] agree democracy is a good thing this isn’t even very political.

What I really meant by this is that Democracy is something very well entrenched and accepted in Western society and even LessWrong. Dissent from democracy isn’t threatening heresy it is the mark of an eccentric.
What links here?
- [deleted]'s comment on Open Thread, March 1-15, 2012 by OpenThreadGuy (Mar 4, 2012, 10:47 PM; 16 points)

CaveJohnson Feb 11, 2012, 12:00 PM
4 points
in reply to: Eugine_Nier’s comment on: Rationality Quotes February 2012
Yes I fully agree. But it shouldn’t be underestimated that when it comes to non-democratic forms of government what kind of people are in power genuinely does have a big impact on how the country is run.

Wanting a philosopher king isn’t a bad idea if you aren’t mistaken about the philosopher king in question.

CaveJohnson Feb 8, 2012, 5:51 PM
19 points
on: Rationality Quotes February 2012

When people talk about the importance of democracy, it is never democracy as it has ever actually functioned, with the politicians that have actually been elected, and the policies that have actually been implemented. It is always democracy as people imagine it will operate once they succeed in electing “the right people” — by which they mean, people who agree almost completely with their own views, and who are consistent and incorruptible in their implementation of the resulting policies.

--Ben O’Neill, here

Considering the above quote can be used to criticize nearly any popular political position I don’t think it is inherently mind-killing. Also since we all agree democracy is a good thing this isn’t even very political. The original article and context obviously does make it somewhat political.

CaveJohnson Feb 6, 2012, 11:29 PM
9 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: The problem with too many rational memes
Crazy idea. Maybe Mike was likley to agree with any line of reasoning, true or false, simply because he found himself in a situation where his opinion was utterly out of sync with that of his peer group.

I don’t know why but I can imagine the exact same situation 200 years earlier where Mikey was the only one in the group who voted for that snake Lincoln and after some rational thought realized his reasons where wrong and we had a happy evening discussing whether the union will hold rather than calling him a traitor.

CaveJohnson Feb 6, 2012, 3:55 PM
6 points
in reply to: Strange7’s comment on: I’ve had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions
It seems very likley that that would be illegal in such a society.

CaveJohnson Jan 29, 2012, 3:19 PM
2 points
in reply to: Multiheaded’s comment on: I’ve had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions
Well kept gardens die by pacifism.

CaveJohnson Jan 29, 2012, 2:52 PM
9 points
in reply to: Multiheaded’s comment on: I’ve had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions

Oh? Go right ahead, I’ve got karma to spare.

This is the wrong way to take down votes.

CaveJohnson Jan 28, 2012, 11:28 PM
4 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: I’ve had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions
Ok from now on I won’t modify comments after posting for this debate.

Edit: Starting after this one!

CaveJohnson Jan 28, 2012, 11:21 PM
4 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: I’ve had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions
I don’t ever modify them after reading someone else’s statements. It is just that I often post and then reread my comment and find a point is in need of clarification and immediately hit edit and start fixing it. Most of the time no one notices since responses come 5 or 15 or 200 minutes later.

But if you’d like to keep this more real-timeish, I have no problem from with waiting longer before hitting “comment” and then leaving them unchanged. Sorry for any inconvenience. In any case weren’t the above two comments last modified before you posted yours?

CaveJohnson Jan 28, 2012, 11:16 PM
2 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: I’ve had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions

If people don’t want to buy it, sucks to be you!

From what kind of a position are people choosing to buy? The veil of ignorance? Lol.

You can’t choose to buy or not buy a spot somewhere in mind-space without already being somewhere in mind-space.

CaveJohnson Jan 28, 2012, 11:12 PM
5 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: I’ve had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions
The above holds for either. Erratio’s formulation was:

It sounds very much like you’re saying that no one would choose to be part of a minority culture if they weren’t forced into it by non-acceptance.

I think it would be trivial by a superinteligence to design a culture that no one would choose any other culture over, yet wouldn’t be a very pleasant place to live. And if superinteligence can do this, why could something like this arise due to memetic evolution? Religious and ideological memeplexes are already examples of weaker but dangerous beasts of this kind.