this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
55 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

989 readers
2 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I somehow missed this one until now. Apparently it was once mentioned in the comments on the old sneerclub but I don't think it got a proper post, and I think it deserves one.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] acb@mastodon.social 51 points 11 months ago

As the old adage goes, a libertarian is someone who knows the price of everything, the value of nothing, and the age of consent in every jurisdiction

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 35 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Feynman had a story about trying to read somebody's paper before a grand interdisciplinary symposium. As he told it, he couldn't get through the jargon, until he stopped and tried to translate just one sentence. He landed on a line like, "The individual member of the social community often receives information through visual, symbolic channels." And after a lot of crossing-out, he reduced that to "People read."

Yud, who idolizes Feynman above all others:

I also remark that the human equivalent of a utility function, not that we actually have one, often revolves around desires whose frustration produces pain.

Ah. People don't like to hurt.

[–] sc_griffith@awful.systems 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

tbh I don't think that's a good rephrasing by feynman.

I also don't think yud intended to claim that people don't like to hurt. I'm pretty sure what he meant is that people have a strong desire not to desire things fruitlessly, one that can outweigh EV considerations. still gibberish unless you have enough rationalist brain poisoning to take the assumptions behind "can outweigh EV considerations" seriously, which I don't

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago

It's definitely a bad rephrasing. It's like trying to simplify E = MC² to "big boom". Like technically yes, matter can be converted into energy but that loses a lot in the rephrasing. It just sounds like he didn't understand the subject.

[–] sinedpick@awful.systems 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

More like "People want things and hurt if they don't get them. Also, look at me saying things like utility function! Function is math! Math is smart. I am smart! Isn't that so cool?"

[–] Irishred88@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

I too wish academics, and those at least pretending, would do away with the rhetorical peacocking. Nobody learns from it and it makes the writing inaccessible. It's deliberate gatekeeping confused for professional writing.

[–] self@awful.systems 30 points 11 months ago (3 children)

holy fuck the number of people telling on themselves in that thread

No, he terminally values being attracted to children. He could still assign a strongly negative value to actually having sex with children. Good fantasy, bad reality.

So the said forces of normatively dimensioned magic transformed the second pedophile's body into that of a little girl, delivered to the first pedophile along with the equivalent of an explanatory placard. Problem solved.

please stop disguising your weird fucking sexual roleplay (at best, but let’s be honest, these weird fuckers need to imagine a world in which pedophilia is morally justified) as intellectual debate

The problem is solved by pairing those who wish to live longer at personal cost to themselves with virtuous pedophiles. The pedophiles get to have consensual intercourse with children capable of giving informed consent, and people willing to get turned into a child and get molested by a pedophile in return for being younger get that.

this one gets worse the longer you think about it! try it! there’s so much wrong!

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 27 points 11 months ago

virtuous pedophiles

That's it, we're done, we've found the worst band name

[–] sc_griffith@awful.systems 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

it's incredible how thin the pretense is. "I was just casually fantasizing about a scenario in which it would be justified to attack and molest a child" bruh. what

[–] Illuminatus@mstdn.social 7 points 11 months ago

@sc_griffith @self
-Yudkowsky: "It was a thought experiment!"
-The FBI guy operating the wiretap: "Yeah, mate, sure it was."

[–] dashdsrdash@awful.systems 6 points 11 months ago

My friend's father -- coincidentally named Feinman, not Feynman - used to say "They always advertise what they haven't got."

"Less Wrong".

[–] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 22 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

"Child sexual abuse is at the same time an appropriate reward for a virtuous person, and an appropriate punishment for an evil person." — Eliezer Yudkowsky, our best hope for solving ethics

edit: what the fuck is that thought experiment he's responding to, even. are those terminal morons unquestioningly assuming a harmful and immoral fetish could validly be considered a "terminal value"? jesus christ

[–] acb@mastodon.social 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The Just World Fallacy is doing a lot of load-bearing duty there

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 11 points 11 months ago

And also some unconscious ideas on what you should do with criminals. But im certain that Eliezer "master of noticing your biasses" Yudkowsky was fully aware of that. Right? Right!?

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 21 points 11 months ago

It's gotta be a rule that nothing earns you more clout with internet weirdos than defending pedophiles/ephlehebbleleoflphiles

[–] sailor_sega_saturn@awful.systems 18 points 11 months ago

Problem solved

Uggh this is some seriously fucked up creepy shit. I had more to say but I can't put it into words or joke about this without seeing red. Just gah, I'm gonna go take a shower.

[–] NAXLAB@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

"As always, pedophilia is not the same as ephebophilia."

That's correct, but as we all know, people don't say things that are true just because they are true. Otherwise we would be walking around quoting Wikipedia at random for most of the day.

We actually say things because we want to do something.

Edit: Ok now I actually read what he wrote and it makes no sense

[–] Evinceo@awful.systems 5 points 11 months ago

Ok now I actually read what he wrote and it makes no sense

Welcome to Yudkowsky.

[–] AcausalRobotGod@awful.systems 15 points 11 months ago

Another reminder that he is a libertarian.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

My personal belief is that most pedophiles can be put into two groups:

Those developmentally stunted, who can't see themselves as adults and therefore lust for people of their own 'mental age'.

And those who have a thing for power, and having an erection over controlling a minor, guiding them through everything and having full control over them.

There may be a third option - these people who try hard to argue that pedophilia and ephebophilia aren't the same thing, but I just write them off as idiots.

[–] GorillasAreForEating@awful.systems 11 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Yudkowsky is pretty open about being a sexual sadist

[–] jonhendry@iosdev.space 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

@GorillasAreForEating @andrew_bidlaw

Yes, but, having now put that image into our minds, what does that make *you*?

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 8 points 11 months ago

the basilisk

[–] saucerwizard@awful.systems 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Did you know brent dill is back on twitter?

[–] GorillasAreForEating@awful.systems 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I did not. Got any details?

Also FWIW I discovered this yesterday: https://archive.ph/SFCwS

No idea if it's true, but even if so I don't think it would exonerate him (though it would put Aella in a worse light)

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

first of us to give in and get an Urbit account clearly gets the best dirt

[–] self@awful.systems 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I made one out of morbid curiosity years ago but this was way before they decided to start crypto grifting for cash, so I’ve got no doubt my blah blah self-sovereign something something decentralized mumble mumble digital property has been liquidated by the king for not paying taxes

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 4 points 11 months ago (21 children)

but @self, HOT ABYSSES IN YOUR AREA

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sc_griffith@awful.systems 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

idk, people who are otherwise totally unremarkable seem to be pedos. it really seems more like any other variation in human sexuality except that it's profoundly harmful

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It is a registered anomaly, a disorder, that deserves counseling. It just so seems we don't hear much from people legitly strugling from it, but from rich people not knowing what to do with their free time besides fucking kids.

[–] m@blat.at 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

@andrew_bidlaw For most people who suffer from paedophilia in the ICD-11 sense (which is a mental health disorder) and undergo years of treatment and therapy while living in terror that they might one day give in to their own instincts and do something unspeakable… it’s not surprising they prefer to not give interviews.

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago

Wat

Then entire weirdness of this all aside, the older a person gets the more likely they'll be seen as attractive by the general population. You don't suddenly become sexually attractive once you reach the age of consent.

load more comments
view more: next ›