sam0345

• sam0345Nov 9, 2011, 1:14 AM

  −7 points

  in reply to: dlthomas’s comment on: Ra­tional Ro­man­tic Re­la­tion­ships, Part 1: Re­la­tion­ship Styles and At­trac­tion Basics

  Yet strangely, the MFA at “Occupy Wall Street” whose grant ran out long ago, and whose teaching job is extreme low pay, would not consider a better paid job that involved working out of doors.

  Indeed, he is reluctant even to consider jobs outside the virtue industry.

• sam0345Nov 8, 2011, 7:41 PM

  −12 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Ra­tional Ro­man­tic Re­la­tion­ships, Part 1: Re­la­tion­ship Styles and At­trac­tion Basics

  “Rednecks” are despised because they are poor and dysfunctional

  • High Status: Unemployed and unemployable MFA (Master of Fine Arts) who is unfortunately in between arts grants and low paid teaching jobs at the moment, and has been for some considerable time.

  • Lower Status: Artist who makes decent money by selling reproductions of his art to the despised bourgeoisie, but has no MFA, never gets grants, and never holds a job in academia, in part because the pay is low, but mostly because they would not hire such an inferior and low status person anyway.

  • Lowest Status: Wealthy farmer, who was a farmer’s son, and makes lots of money by feeding thousands of people, his neck turning red in the process as he works outdoors.

  Farmers who own a lot of land, and their sons (though strangely not their daughters) also “rednecks”, and hated and despised accordingly. They are discriminated against in university admissions. Are they poor and dysfunctional?

  The hatred of rednecks is a less extreme form of the “Occupy Wall Street” demands for jobs in the virtue and cultural uplift industries. The ruling class thinks that producing value is low status, and producing value by working outside is really low status, regardless of income.

  Just as an unemployed and severely dysfunctional Occupy Wall Street protestor, who has a Masters in Fine Arts and is therefore a genuine official artist, despises the mere peddler of kitsch, despite the fact that no one would pay for the MFA’s “art” with their own money, and right now his grant has run out, the lesser artist, though his status is inferior due to the fact that he got his money merely from members of la bourgeoisie buying his art, rather than grants, his status is nonetheless superior to that of the even wealthier farmer’s son, whose work is largely done outdoors, and whose neck is therefore red.

• sam0345Nov 8, 2011, 7:28 PM

  −2 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Ra­tional Ro­man­tic Re­la­tion­ships, Part 1: Re­la­tion­ship Styles and At­trac­tion Basics

  what people despise about American rednecks, when that term is used pejoratively, is their bigotry.

  The term for racist—and anyone that is less enlightened than the wonderful ruling class—is “racist”

  “redneck” literally means white guy who works outdoors, unlike their masters who work in offices, and when I see people use the term, it is clear that whatever they say they mean, that is what they do mean. For example: the discrimination of Ivy League universities against the sons of farmers. Does the Ivy League have reason to believe that the sons of farmers are more racist than others?

• sam0345Nov 7, 2011, 7:47 AM

  −4 points

  in reply to: sam0345’s comment on: Ra­tional Ro­man­tic Re­la­tion­ships, Part 1: Re­la­tion­ship Styles and At­trac­tion Basics

  And when I provide evidence that I provide evidence, you also vote that into oblivion

• sam0345Nov 7, 2011, 4:54 AM

  −3 points

  in reply to: Nisan’s comment on: Ra­tional Ro­man­tic Re­la­tion­ships, Part 1: Re­la­tion­ship Styles and At­trac­tion Basics

  and what can be done about it, without gratuitously offending people.

  The distinction between gratuitously offending people, and inadvertently offending people, does not seem to be widely noticed, whether on Less Wrong or other places. Less Wrong has established implicit rules for what may be said, so there is a narrow class of things that can be said on Less Wrong without getting into trouble, that cannot be said elsewhere without getting into trouble, but that class is narrow and subject to change, so narrow, twisty, complex, and obscure, that I do not find it interesting, though Vladimir does seem to find it interesting.

  To participate in consensus building on Occupy Wall Street, you need an Ivy League Education in political correctness. Less Wrong is not nearly as bad as that, but Less Wrongers that tread near forbidden topics as Vladimir does, are developing more expertise in what is permissible thought, and what means are permissible to express them, than they are developing expertise in forbidden topics.

• sam0345Nov 7, 2011, 4:41 AM

  −9 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Ra­tional Ro­man­tic Re­la­tion­ships, Part 1: Re­la­tion­ship Styles and At­trac­tion Basics

  Sam dosen’t do that. Sam trolls by stating his opinions fully. He then refuses to provide evidence.

  I provide ample evidence, which you guys vote into oblivion when you don’t like it:

  Examples:

  • What is the race of the overwhelming majority of people who make race hate attacks, people who physically attack people merely for being of race different from their own?

  • Who had greater freedom of speech: Modern novelists and scriptwriters, or Elizabethan novelists and playwrights?

  I provided plenty of evidence, and if you claim I did not, will provide it all over again, to be voted into oblivion all over again.

• sam0345Nov 7, 2011, 4:24 AM

  −12 points

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: Ra­tional Ro­man­tic Re­la­tion­ships, Part 1: Re­la­tion­ship Styles and At­trac­tion Basics

  but in that year I haven’t seen any actual fact presented in LessWrong that’s enflamed spirits one tenth as much as the obscure half-hints by trolls like sam and his “I can’t say things, because you politically correct morons will downvote me into oblivion, but be sure that my arguments would be crushing, if I was allowed to make them, which I’m not, therefore I’m not making them” style of debate.

  When I speak plainly, you do downvote them into oblivion, and you are unable to respond to them rationally or coherently

• sam0345Nov 6, 2011, 2:02 AM

  5 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Ra­tional Ro­man­tic Re­la­tion­ships, Part 1: Re­la­tion­ship Styles and At­trac­tion Basics

  While it would be scandalous for a Victorian gentleman, or Woman to write up a article offering advice on sexuality, and commenting that the original was modified to preserve decency, it would not be scandalous to note that certain things can not be discussed due to decency

  Many modern PC beliefs about women first showed up in Victorian times, which beliefs were I to mention them would be get me as down voted now as much as they would get a Victorian gentlemen in trouble.

  Before Victorian times, pretty much everyone agreed with the position taken by Chateau Heartiste—that the alarmingly powerful, reckless, irresponsible, and immoral sexual urges of women, unless restrained, would destroy civilization.

• sam0345Nov 1, 2011, 12:05 AM

  −22 points

  in reply to: tut’s comment on: Ra­tion­al­ity Quotes Oc­to­ber 2011

  Do not criticize blacks, women, homosexuals. Criticism of whites and of men is encouraged, as this confers a level of protection by signaling that you belong to the creed. Identify all manner of scum and human parasites, and praise them. Attack all manner of productive people, law abiding people.

  No enemies to the left, no friends to the right. Feel free to attack Palin, tea party, republicans and especially non left wing republicans. A level of protection is achieved by attacking non leftists.

  Criticize government for failing to be sufficiently all encompassing. Blame private enterprise for everything. Never suggest that government should cut back involvement with anything. If criticizing a regulation, make sure that the basis of criticism is that allows too much freedom.

  To illustrate this, let us have a thread on the causes of the financial crisis

  What links here?

  • sam0345's comment on Ra­tional Ro­man­tic Re­la­tion­ships, Part 1: Re­la­tion­ship Styles and At­trac­tion Basics by lukeprog (Nov 7, 2011, 4:24 AM; -12 points)

• sam0345Oct 31, 2011, 11:55 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: Vladimir_M’s comment on: Things you are sup­posed to like

  Mencius has issued a wonderful post on this topic, skewering a example of bureaucratically generated pseudo art.

• sam0345Oct 27, 2011, 1:58 AM

  −16 points

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: Ra­tion­al­ity Quotes Oc­to­ber 2011

  Well if you like I will restate my claim as: Every movie, and almost every book is propaganda for the improbable religious belief that all real world groups are equal in the sense of interchangeable.

  Thank you. Now we start making progress.

  You seem to have conceded that every movie, and almost every book is propaganda for the improbable religious belief that all real world groups are equal in the sense of interchangeable.

  You then seem to argue that that is a good thing. Even supposing it to be a good thing, it is evidence for the original proposition that writers and playwrights in Elizabethan times had more freedom of expression than they do now, that today’s England is in this sense more like a theocracy than Elizabethan England was.

  Similarly, Cromwell is remembered as a religious oppressor for attempting to ban Christmas, or at least the pagan elements of Christmas which are nearly all of it, but he let the Jews back into England, and under him there were one thousand varieties of Christianity contending on equal terms, passionately debating every contentious issue, including issues we would now think of as political, such as whether inequality reflected God’s will, and whether economic inequality was natural. Today the Jews are under considerable and increasing pressure to convert to progressivism, a belief system that is proving increasingly incompatible with remaining Jewish, and orthodox Jews depart England because of state and private persecution.

  Observe that Shakespeare lets Jack Cade argue in favor of economic equality between classes, and rather than Shakespeare asserting the then orthodox religious and political position that economic inequality between classes is divinely ordained, instead shows us that if everything is up for grabs, much grabbing will ensue, and the result will not be very equal at all. Jack Cade gets to make good arguments for economic equality of classes unopposed, even though the playwright in effect replies that human nature makes this impractical.

  Imagine a film today where a Nazi gets to make good arguments against equality of races unopposed, perhaps pointing to the fate of Detroit as compelling evidence of foolish and destructive it is to let n**s move into white neighborhoods. It is unthinkable that such a movie could be made. Even if the film subsequently presented some counter argument, the Nazi would not be allowed to make a single good and persuasive argument.

• sam0345Oct 26, 2011, 11:33 PM

  9 points

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: Ra­tion­al­ity Quotes Oc­to­ber 2011

  Just as the Jedis have no real-world counterparts, neither do Batman nor Doctor Manhattan have any real-world counterparts.

  And once again: irrelevant.

  Well if you like I will restate my claim as: Every movie, and almost every book is propaganda for the improbable religious belief that all real world groups are equal in the sense of interchangeable, whereas on the controversial questions of the day in Elizabethan times people cheerfully weighed in on both sides, and I retract my carelessly stated broader claim.

• sam0345Oct 26, 2011, 10:55 PM

  −8 points

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: Ra­tion­al­ity Quotes Oc­to­ber 2011

  You are changing the topic from “Does the movie support equality” to “does every single aspect of the movie support equality in every single way”.

  All real categories of humans in the movie are equal, as illustrated by Princess Leia strangling Jabba the hut. A small woman is supposedly just as strong as a big male—a delusion so widely believed that we are seeing a disturbingly large number of attacks on large males by small women, often with predictable consequences.

  The fact that nobility and royalty do not deserve to rule, though plausible enough, unlike Princes Leia strangling Jabba the Hut, produces a gigantic plot hole at the center of the movie.

  Further, the real category of nobility and royalty are also equal, since they do not deserve to rule, and good nobles do not get to rule.

  And people with midichlorians are unequal. If there were actual people with midichlorians, or if all people with midichlorians in the movie were white males, this would be politically unthinkable. Because there are no actual people with midichlorians, and because, quite implausibly, midichlorian possession is equally distributed among all races and species, it is permitted.

  Compare and contrast with Shakespeare, who was able to take the politically incorrect position on the biggest real issues of his day, such as the existence of purgatory.

• sam0345Oct 26, 2011, 4:54 AM

  −8 points

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: Ra­tion­al­ity Quotes Oc­to­ber 2011

  In the star wars universe, the Jedis do not rule—and when they do rule, it is a bad mistake—dark side, betrayal, and so forth.

  Luke is not born to be King, even though the story would make a lot more sense if he was. Indeed, the Star Wars universe is a particular example of the universal rule that you are, these days, not allowed to have a hero who is born to be King, unless, of course, like Pratchett’s Carrot, he wisely turns down the job.

  I suppose they might let you have a woman who is born to be a warrior queen, warrior queens being counterstereotypical, but no heroes born to be King.

  The lines you quote make sense in a society where the Jedi are a ruling aristocracy, or a powerful part of a ruling aristocracy, and Luke is born to be King. Since star wars is not set in such a society, they don’t make any sense.

  How can Princess Leia be a princess, unless her father, and Luke’s father, is or was emperor? It is a gaping great plot hole produced by the ideology of equality. If she is a princess, he must be a prince, in which case winning should set things to right by restoring his family’s just and rightful authority.

  At the very center of the Star Wars story is a gigantic plot hole produced by egalitarian doctrine.

  There is a Princess Leia, yet strangely and illogically, no Prince Luke, because if there was a Prince Luke, there would have to be a King Luke or Emperor Luke, and a parent or grandparent who was King something or Queen something or emperor something, and that is just totally and completely politically incorrect.

• sam0345Oct 25, 2011, 11:57 PM

  −17 points

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: Ra­tion­al­ity Quotes Oc­to­ber 2011

  I’ve already disproven a dozen so-called facts of yours -

  No you have not. You have made a dozen assertions, often quoting facts that directly disprove your own assertions, and no one calls you on it, knowing it is pointless, because your assertions are transparently absurd to any well informed person.

  Of your dozen supposed refutations, choose one, one where the truth is a matter of objective fact, rather than interpretation or debate about what words mean.. I will prove I am right on that issue, and claim therefore, since I am right on an issue of your choosing, I am likely right on every other issue.

  The fact that you can get away with such silliness is shows the futility of basing rationality on consensus.

  Choose one issue, one where one can in fact determine the truth of it, and I will debate it, even though I generally don’t debate loons who make obviously demented assertions.

• sam0345Oct 25, 2011, 10:31 PM

  −20 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Ra­tion­al­ity Quotes Oc­to­ber 2011

  Trying to argue with such a person is unwise

  You don’t want outside thoughts or empirical evidence contaminating the purity of Less Wrong’s rationality.

  I notice I get called a liar for stating easily verified facts that really should be common knowledge—but in Less Wrong circles, strangely, are not. Nor does a Less Wrongian in good standing feel any need to verify facts. That I am a liar is good enough. That I have failed to produce citations for the fact the sky is blue is proof that the sky is purple and I am a liar. Since Less Wrong knows everything by listening to itself, any unwanted facts do not excite the slightest curiosity.

  This is the typical incestuous death spiral of close minded doctrine. A group gets together, hears their own voice confirming their own beliefs and their own wisdom, and applies the principle of the Bellman “What I tell you three times must be true”. The elite of the larger society is suffering this death spiral, and in Less Wrong’s eagerness to emulate high status behaviors, Less Wong does the same, only more so.

  Consensus is the biggest mind killer. In the ancestral environment, where facts tended to immediately empirical, consensus was reliable, just as in the ancestral environment, eating the sweetest available food was good for you. In the modern environment, consensus, like sugar, is bad for you.

• sam0345Oct 24, 2011, 11:01 PM

  −16 points

  in reply to: bogus’s comment on: Ra­tion­al­ity Quotes Oc­to­ber 2011

  Consider racefail09, where sophisticated people with great skill in expressing themselves and intimate knowledge of our politics nonetheless found themselves in no end of trouble for violating obscure and difficult to detect taboos,

  Not at all.… Instead what we got from the folks on the author’s side was lots and lots of arguments about how minority people should have no say in the matter,

  PC bunkum so utterly ludicrous that the fact that it is tolerated discredits this forum.

• sam0345 24 Oct 2011 21:08 UTC

  −18 points

  in reply to: Vladimir_M’s comment on: Ra­tion­al­ity Quotes Oc­to­ber 2011

  Now of course, one could argue that the present system in the Western world is so stable that the probability of such trouble is infinitesimal, or that there is no known method for predicting such trouble with any accuracy.

  Careful there, someone might erroneously imagine that you are taking the mickey out of LW, which could result in being downvoted to oblivion for lèse majesté.

• sam0345 24 Oct 2011 20:30 UTC

  −13 points

  in reply to: pedanterrific’s comment on: Oc­cupy Wall Street: Pre­dic­tions, Speculations

  Also, incidentally, you might receive fewer downvotes if you avoided blanket statements like “It is always safe to love the left, and always safe to hate the right”. In particular, I live in an area of the country where the reverse is true.

  I find this hard to believe. Name this area: Does this area have a newspaper? If it does, please compare how that newspaper treated the former Rhodesia with how it treats North Korea, compare how it treats Sarah Palin with how it treats Governor Romney.

  How come I have to produce citations proving stuff that every educated person should know, but you do not have to produce citations proving stuff that no one can know?

  I predict that your newspaper will have told us that the famine in North Korea is caused by the umpteenth consecutive year of bad weather, run the notoriously doctored images of Arab Israeli conflict without retracting them when they were discovered to be doctored, and that every time Sarah Palin says something that differs from what gets taught in the schools, it implies that this is evidence she is an idiot, and does not tell us this is evidence that not everyone believes what is taught in the schools.

• sam0345 24 Oct 2011 20:18 UTC

  −7 points

  in reply to: ArisKatsaris’s comment on: [link] Rel­a­tive an­gels and ab­solute demons

  Also, to make proper comparisons with modern-day political correctness (i.e. following what is considered the limits of acceptable political discourse), you need to show where a Shakespearean play ever attacks Queen Elizabeth or her politics.

  Elizabethan England did not enforce a political view, in large part because in those days religion was politics., it enforced a religious view. Religious issues where what was controversial back then, were what people argued over, and frequently killed each other over. The divine right and natural right of Kings was like motherhood and apple pie, not an issue.

  Which official religious beliefs Shakespeare with great regularity doubted, and sometimes attacked—his plays imply the existence of purgatory, doubt the existence of an afterlife, and doubt the existence of a God that cares about humans, or pays much attention to them.

  Modern politics asserts several political views that have distinctly religious characteristics, such as that all humans are equal, and then enforces equality in the in sense of interchangeability. Modern films, plays, and books not merely refrain from doubting such views, but actively uphold them. Not one black who is a significant character is stereotypical, a quite improbable number of them are actively counterstereotypical. Almost all heroines and love interests are actively counter stereotypical, for example in that they quite improbably successfully beat up bad guys, the most notorious example being princess Leia improbably and unbelievably throttling Jabba the Hut.