zbyte64

We will see if the letter even counts as a threat. The guy didn't make any explicit threats but did wish harm for the recipient.

This Marine Park fellow sounds like one bad hombre.

"So anyways I built a new language luan and you are a bad person if you don't appreciate it"

Depends, if it's a bunch of Sinemas and Fettermans that win then nothing would change and people will ask why they even bother voting. Leadership needs to be primaried and changed or else it's a wasted shot.

The comparison to a Nazi flag is absurd. A better comparison would be if an agent had a straight price flag on their desk. And no, the agent would not have lost their job under this regime for such a display.

So the hope is that things are bad enough that voters finally learn their lesson but not bad enough that their votes don't matter....

More like food is expensive as hell and so I can't really afford to loose my pay check. Which is why organizing often starts as mutual aide.

Rumor has it he has a Grindr account

I mean there are so many options to write ironic things on bullet casings for a man like that. Second brain worm, the final jab, the cure, the list just goes on....

This might be worse with context. He was comparing rape and murder to attacking pedophiles.

Laws don't bind the in-group

Eliezer, given the immense capacity of the human mind for self-delusion, it is entirely possible for someone to genuinely believe they're being 100% altruistic even when it's not the case. Since you know this, how then can you be so sure that you're being entirely altruistic?

Because I didn't wake up one morning and decide "Gee, I'm entirely altruistic", or follow any of the other patterns that are the straightforward and knowable paths into delusive self-overestimation, nor do I currently exhibit any of the straightforward external signs which are the distinguishing marks of such a pattern. I know a lot about the way that the human mind tends to overestimate its own altruism.

Fun to unpack this here. First is the argument that we should be dismissive of any professed act of altruism unless someone is perfectly knowable. There is an interesting point here completely missed: even if the person knows themselves well enough to make the claim, others cannot possibly know another well enough to make the claim of another. Instead what we get is "trust me bro" because being contrarian is evidence of being on the correct path 🙄. We went from "we can't possibly know another well enough to say they are altruist" to "I know when people are not altruist because they are predictable, but I am unpredictable therefore I am altruist". I think this touches on the manipulation present in the community: you are either being manipulated and therefore cannot be an altruist because your motives are not your own (are you even selfish at this point?), OR you are contrarian enough to show you are in control of your own motives (nevermind we still can't say whether your motives are altruistic). This is a very surface level read, I can't bring myself to read all that slop. Parts are so redundant it feels like it was written by AI.