Randomness thread, part two.

[OngBonga]

You do realize the land was 95% Palestinians before WW2?

We're going round in circles here.

You do realise it was [enter defeated colonisers here] before [enter victorious colonisers here] took control?

What's your point? That because before WWII it was mostly inhabited by Palestinians, that they are justified in a policy of "death to Israel" 75 years later? I don't agree.

The only way to reverse the wrongs of 1948 is to ethnically cleanse the region of Jews. That isn't a policy I can get behind. So it literally doesn't matter to me who lived there before WWII. They don't live there now. Jews do. So you're either in favour of those Jews fucking off (ethnic cleansing), or you're in favour of the status quo. Take your pick. I have. My moral position is it's better to accept the reality of the current situation than it is to fight for decades and centuries.

[CoccoBill]

We're going round in circles here.

One of us is, even after me twice clarifying what I meant.

You do realise it was [enter defeated colonisers here] before [enter victorious colonisers here] took control?

Nice, is a third time needed?

What's your point? That because before WWII it was mostly inhabited by Palestinians, that they are justified in a policy of "death to Israel" 75 years later? I don't agree.

The only way to reverse the wrongs of 1948 is to ethnically cleanse the region of Jews. That isn't a policy I can get behind. So it literally doesn't matter to me who lived there before WWII. They don't live there now. Jews do. So you're either in favour of those Jews fucking off (ethnic cleansing), or you're in favour of the status quo. Take your pick. I have. My moral position is it's better to accept the reality of the current situation than it is to fight for decades and centuries.

I literally just answered this. "Once a country is established and recognised, then history has had its say and we move on", right? Well the '67 borders are the legit ones, right? How come those aren't the actual borders now? Stop with the lame strawmen, absolutely no one has said anything about terrorism being justified.

You can be really fuckin frustrating to talk to man.

[Poopadoop]

Personally I think if we adopted Cocco's solution of giving Israel over to Canadians things would be a lot more peaceful, eh?

[OngBonga]

Well the '67 borders are the legit ones, right? How come those aren't the actual borders now?

Have I not made that obvious? What happened in 1967 that changed the landscape? The Six-Day War happened. That was an Arab coalition invading Israel, getting beaten back, and then losing territory in the Israeli counteroffensive.

This is what happens when you go to war and lose. Whether that's right or wrong is an entirely different debate, but wrong has many scales, and outright genocide is pretty much the wrongest of wrongs. Which is exactly what Hamas wants to do to Jewish people. They proved it earlier this month. If they had the dominance the Nazis had, they would behave like Nazis. Of that I'm in no doubt. This is the kind of people we're dealing with.

Mojo pointed out that Nazis were essentially radicalised by the unfair reparations that the victors of WWI imposed on Germany. That's a fair observation, but we're not going to sit here and say that in any way justifies what followed, are we? idk why the sanctions were so harsh, history tends to be written by the victors of war so it's not going to be easy to find true unbiased accounts from a century ago. Who knows if it was necessary to economically stifle Germany for a significant period of time? That's the point of it really, isn't it? To stop them being a power in the short to mid-term future. Is that a reasonable post-war strategy? That's not an easy question to answer, especially when we're a century in the past.

[CoccoBill]

Have I not made that obvious? What happened in 1967 that changed the landscape? The Six-Day War happened. That was an Arab coalition invading Israel, getting beaten back, and then losing territory in the Israeli counteroffensive.

God almighty. Yes, WHICH LED TO THOSE '67 BORDERS, yet those are not the borders today.

[OngBonga]

Aside from a few dirty settlements (some of which have since been dismantled) the borders have hardly changed since the 1967 war. Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula for over a decade, they returned that after Egypt realised that hostility towards Israel is not the best long term strategy, so they chose a path of tolerance and, importantly, recognition. Israel gave them back their occupied territory.

The international community does not recognise Israel's claim to Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the territories gained in 1967 and still occupied. I know that's a shit measure of legitimacy but recognition is the only international measure, and at least the world isn't just letting Israel claim what it likes. They are going to have to return these territories eventually, but they won't do so until the enemies they face recognise their right to exist. I think that's a reasonable demand.

[CoccoBill]

I wouldn't call 160 settlements with 600000-700000 Israeli occupants a few dirty settlements, West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights being the big ones.

The current status is that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian lands, and that is a legit explanation for radicalization of Palestinians. No need for Islam, and I'd say Islam has nothing to do with it, other than a post-hoc justification.

[OngBonga]

No need for Islam, and I'd say Islam has nothing to do with it

It's just a coincidence that Islamic coalitions have invaded them then? What radicalised Egypt in 1967?

Religion is a critical motivating factor for both of them. Why else would anyone actually want to live in a waterless hellhole? Because that's what most of the Levant is. Jews want to live in the "Promised Land" while Muslims want to liberate the "Holy Lands".

Religion is a huge factor in this conflict, the biggest factor, for both sides.

[OngBonga]

Some interesting reading on the topic...
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...uence-and-cure

The issue of West Bank settlements, too, has a religious aspect. It concerns the physical restoration of the biblical land of Israel before the return of the Messiah, something central to the beliefs of some orthodox Jews. They continue to settle the West Bank to fulfill this prophecy, clashing with the local Palestinians.
On the other hand, according to fundamentalist schools of Islam, at the end of days, the whole land of Israel and Palestine should be under Islamic rule. Prophecies surrounding this issue are deeply rooted in some versions of the Hadith (traditional sayings of the Prophet), although only implied in the Qur’an.

Religion is the most important factor at play here. By far.

[Poopadoop]

Only Ong could read phrases like "some orthodox Jews," and "fundamentalist schools of Islam," and assume they represent the majority of the population of jews and muslims, respectively.

Reductio ad excesso-extrapolato.

[CoccoBill]

It seems like if one or more parties of a conflict recognize a religion that's enough to announce it as the sole reason.

All of the Arab-Israeli wars have been fought over the land. Do you seriously think the wars had broken if Israel wasn't granted the land? Do you seriously think Palestinians and Arabs would have been cool with it even if it didn't include Jerusalem? Just because there's religious aspects intertwined and religion comes up in the rhetoric of the leaders doesn't mean it's the main point here. The same conflicts would be there regardless of the religions of either party.

[OngBonga]

Only Ong could read phrases like "some orthodox Jews," and "fundamentalist schools of Islam," and assume they represent the majority of the population of jews and muslims, respectively.

Reductio ad excesso-extrapolato.

It doesn't mean the "majority" but it does mean those in power, certainly when it comes to Israel and Palestine.

[OngBonga]

The same conflicts would be there regardless of the religions of either party.

You're missing such an important point.

The Jews moved there in the first place because of their religion.

The Muslims want it back because of their religion.

I can't believe you actually think religion is just a minor factor at play here. It's the core problem. Both their religions are fucking nuts and are destined for conflict with one another because they both lay claim to the same territory based on divine promise, and their religious texts use pretty fucking apocalyptic language to describe these events and prophecies.

If Jews weren't Jewish, they wouldn't want to live in the Levant. If Muslims weren't Muslims they'd have stopped caring about a waterless desert by now. There is nothing in these lands except massive religious significance.

If you want to dismiss the religious aspect of this, that's you being ignorant to what's happening.

[CoccoBill]

So you're absolutely certain that if only they were atheists, they'd both live happily ever after. Yeah you nabbed some land from us, oh again a bit, bygones? I feel you're just blinded by your dislike of religions and Islam in particular, and use it as a convenient scapegoat. Religion is clearly an important part of why those places are important to them on a national level, but most people tend to get pissed off when their home is taken away, religious or not.

[OngBonga]

So you're absolutely certain that if only they were atheists, they'd both live happily ever after.

Yes. Because there would be no Jews there.

[OngBonga]

I feel you're just blinded by your dislike of religions and Islam in particular, and use it as a convenient scapegoat.

I feel like you give religion, Islam in particular, a free pass because you think to oppose religion is to be a bigot.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm pretty much aligning with cocco, here. Yes, religion is an easy path for a charismatic leader to use as a power grab. But people, religious or otherwise, aren't just always susceptible to being driven to violence, regardless of their religion.


Opposing religion is one thing.
Opposing the religious is a totally different thing.

Opposing *people* based solely on their religion is bigotry.
It's not a fuzzy line.

Using language that blames religion is dehumanizing to the vast majority of people in that religion being advocates for peace.


Religion is definitely not something to be left out of trying to understand the roots and speculate at solutions of the conflict in Israel, but it's not the primary cause. Push any group from their homes, and they're going to be pissed off. Do so violently and with disregard to human dignity, and they're going to be generationally pissed off. I don't think the religion of the persecutor is altogether relevant to the root of the violence. It just offers an easy handle for a power grab.

[OngBonga]

Opposing religion is one thing.Opposing the religious is a totally different thing.

I don't "oppose" the religious in the sense I'm not telling people what they can and can't believe in. And I don't blame individuals for being brainwashed. I blame the system that controls people in this way.

Using language that blames religion is dehumanizing to the vast majority of people in that religion being advocates for peace.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. This word "dehumanizing" is hyperbole or being taken grossly out of context.

Telling people that what they believe in is fucking nuts is not the same as saying "you are a lower form of life than I am", which is how I interpret the word "dehumanizing". It's to say I believe they are lesser creatures than I am.

It's perfectly acceptable to "blame religion" for the problems of the world, because it's entirely to fucking blame. Shielding religion from this degree of criticism out of fear of upsetting the sensitivities of the indoctrinated isn't cutting it for me. Criticism os religion is not criticism of individuals. But those individuals might still be acting in ways I find problematic, due to their religion. ANd that doesn't just apply to Islam.

The only people I'll dehumanize are genociders, people who commit the most brutal acts against other humans. These kind of people are animals. And they come in all creeds and colours.

Let me be clear... Islamic people are humans, just like I am, and each individual Muslim is born with exactly the same right to a peaceful existence as I am. This isn't racism or bigotry, this is me having a problem with religion, with Islam being the worst in widespread use, and blaming religion for the ills of the world today. These are reasonable observations that do not need to be the result of any discriminatory feelings.

[CoccoBill]

It's perfectly acceptable to "blame religion" for the problems of the world, because it's entirely to fucking blame.

Right, because all atheists are incapable of being a dick. It's not at all that people just can be dicks, especially if dickery is going on in both sides. No, it's just the religion that's to blame.

And we've goddamn gone over this a dozen times. No one here thinks criticizing religions is bigotry, I'm quite happy to criticize all of them since there's a lot wrong with every single one of them. That doesn't mean I blame everything wrong with the world on them, they're just another excuse for people to act like dicks, just a rather persistent and widespread one. It does more and more sound like you're not listening to anything anyone else here says, just blindly spewing your opinions over and over with no intention of challenging them.

[OngBonga]

Right, because all atheists are incapable of being a dick.

Fine. Most of the world's problems, not all.

That doesn't mean I blame everything wrong with the world on them

I appreciate sometimes it's difficult to filter out the hyperbole from the literal in my posts, but I don't blame ALL of the world's problems on religion... just most. If it's not religion it's a different cult-like ideology like the Nazis. Many of the problems are also caused by ethnic tensions without religion playing a role, although it often plays at least a minor role and in some cases, such as the situation in the Middle East, a critical role. And it's been the root cause of conflict in the area throughout history.

It does more and more sound like you're not listening to anything anyone else here says, just blindly spewing your opinions over and over with no intention of challenging them.

My opinion is that religion is the problem, and that Islam is a larger problem than Judaism and other religions, because it's more culturally consuming across the demographic than other religions. You're not going to challenge that by arguing that the conflict in the Levant is purely about territory, without religion being a significant factor. It's THE factor that makes this territory important. That isn't my opinion, that's a hard fact. And you're not going to challenge my views on an oppressive, antisemitic, homophobic misogynistic cult-like religion with an appeal to empathy. These are problematic traits for a massive religion with massive influence and control of its adherents.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's dehumanizing in the sense that you're boiling down a person's entire personality into their choice of religion - a choice that isn't even a choice for most people. Most people adopt religion of those around them, in general.

It's dehumanizing because you're boiling down that central ideology to see only the darkest parts of what some of its adherents claim to. It's blaming those dark actions on the religion, and not the people. Blaming the religion is a failure to respect the humanity of the vast majority of those people practicing the religion.

It's dehumanizing because it ignores the vast amount of good / humanitarian work that is done world-wide in the name of religions.


Furthermore, blaming the religion gives a scapegoat to the terrorists appropriating that religion. If the religion truly is at fault, then the choices of people "brainwashed" under that religion are not their fault. It was the religious brainwashing all along. Hogwash. I believe in humanity, in human agency, and in being responsible for the consequences of your actions. Some tiny fraction of a percent will be actually mentally ill people who are susceptible to brainwashing, but that's like claiming the mentally challenged kids represent all children.


Even using the word brainwashed is dehumanizing. I know a lot of religious people. Not many (if any) would say they are brainwashed by their faith. They know what brainwashing is. They know how insidious ideologies can be. They're not stupid, or heartless, or naive. They're just normal people.

The vast majority of normal people are religious. We, the people who are not so drawn into religion are not better than they are. We're not smarter than they are. We're not less prone to violence or anger or bigotry. That's just ego tripping.

Religion is a scapegoat when used to perpetuate violence. It's the icing on the cake that conceals the actual substance of underlying reasons those people were susceptible to even being driven to violence in the first place.

[OngBonga]

It's dehumanizing in the sense that you're boiling down a person's entire personality into their choice of religion - a choice that isn't even a choice for most people.

A person's personality is not defined by their religion, and I never said it is. You've made the assumption that I think this. Their culture is defined by their religion though. When we're talking about a large group of people, culture matters more than individual personality.

I'm not talking about individuals and haven't at any point in this discussion.

It's dehumanizing because you're boiling down that central ideology to see only the darkest parts of what some of its adherents claim to.

I feel like you're just making up your own definition for "dehumanizing" here. This isn't a good thing that people do, take extremely powerful words and dilute them.

Let's just clear this up so you can stop abusing this word. Here's the brief wiki definition.

Dehumanization is the denial of full humanity in others along with the cruelty and suffering that accompany it.

To say "your religion is fucking nuts", which is what I am doing, is not to "deny humanity", nor is it "cruel", nor is it causing "suffering".

Further...

Behaviorally, dehumanization describes a disposition towards others that debases the others' individuality by either portraying it as an "individual" species or by portraying it as an "individual" object (e.g., someone who acts inhumanely towards humans).

I am not in any way suggesting that Islamic people are not humans, do not behave like humans, that they behave like animals, and you shouldn't make these assumptions because you're basically assuming I'm a dreadful person.

To criticise a batshit religion is not to dehumanise its followers. The only people I will dehumanise are those who commit atrocities like genocide. They a more animal than human. I have never once said that all Muslims want to commit atrocities. I'm not banging on about a race war kicking off the world over. That's what I would think if I thought all Muslims were genociders. I'd expect them to rise up against all non-Muslims. If and when that happens, then I'll dehumanise all followers of a religion. Until then, it's the religion that's the problem, and the followers are at different degrees of brainwashed (as with all religion), and that is not their individual fault.

So I am not judging the individual. Please stop making the assumption that I am.

It's dehumanizing because it ignores the vast amount of good / humanitarian work that is done world-wide in the name of religions.

Religion didn't do this. Humanity did. Religion gives a lot of people structure, a moral framework to live by, and that isn't a bad thing. But the people who seek this in life, they want to be good people, that's why religion is appealing in the first place. It's their humanity that is the force for good, religion is just a conduit.

If the religion truly is at fault, then the choices of people "brainwashed" under that religion are not their fault.

Correct.

I believe in humanity, in human agency, and in being responsible for the consequences of your actions.

Then you're underestimating the power of religion to control people.

People are still accountable for their actions. Just like religion is a conduit for good people to do good things, it's also a conduit for bad people to do bad things. If an individual is so inclined to interpret their religion such that genocide is acceptable, then they are a fucking terrible person and can be judged accordingly. You don't blame religion for them being a bad person, you blame the individual.

The terrorists are still making choices that their fellow brainwashed cult mates are not making. These are human choices.

Even using the word brainwashed is dehumanizing.

Nonsense. We'd use that word quite happily to refer to Scientologists, and I don't think anyone thinks they are subhuman. They are just dumb fuckers.

The word "brainwashed" has meaning.

Back to wiki...

Brainwashing is the concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques. Brainwashing is said to reduce its subject's ability to think critically or independently, to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into their minds,[1] as well as to change their attitudes, values, and beliefs

When that brainwashing starts from infancy, it's extremely powerful.

I know a lot of religious people. Not many (if any) would say they are brainwashed by their faith.

Of course they wouldn't. Nobody wants to admit they are brainwashed. And when it's all you've known all your life, then it's even harder to see the coercive control.

They know what brainwashing is.

I'm not sure they do. You don't.

We're talking here about a system that imposes a moral framework on all of its followers, and it does this primarily by means of fear, fear of judgement, from your peers, from God, fear of eternal doom. This is a psychological technique to control the mind of a person. It's brainwashing.

The vast majority of normal people are religious.

The vast majority of normal people are brainwashed.

Ergo, it's not a term of dehumanisation.

[MadMojoMonkey]

you shouldn't make these assumptions because you're basically assuming I'm a dreadful person.

First and foremost, I want to quell this right away.

I think you're an awesome person. One I gladly paid thousands of USD dollars money to visit. One I terrified myself learning to drive on your skinny little roads both on the wrong side of the road and the car for. One for whom I'd gladly do so again.

You're awesome, in my book. So grain of salt on any judgement you may feel coming from my way. There is none. Just a conversation between good friends with a lot of love and respect between them... and also a lot of thousands of miles.


I don't think I see the difference you're making vis-a-vis dehumanization. You show a definition and I'm like... "exactly what I've just been saying," and you're like, "exactly the opposite of what you're saying."


FWIW, I may be just picking a semantic nit. I didn't mean to suggest you intended to dehumanize people by saying their (all) religion(s) are forces of evil. I did intend to say that regardless of your intent, that is often the result. You don't intend harm in your analysis, but it causes harm to people who are oppressed on account of their religion. You saying their vehicle of maintaining fortitude and a moral compass amid the chaos of the world is "bad" is one thing. But when you're repeating a sentiment that is used by people who vilify them and deliver active cruelty upon them is where I find problem.


And I'm kinda also like... I know you... and I know your heart is in the right place, but sometimes you use language that seems to give the opposite impression, and ... maybe that's not my place to "correct" or discuss.

[OngBonga]

I think you're an awesome person.

Thanks, I think I'm awesome too. I wouldn't think that about myself if I were sat here thinking that there exist people in the world who are less human than I am purely because of their belief (not actions).

I don't feel lie you're judging me. I feel like you're using powerful words incorrectly. I was making the point that the word "dehumanize" is so powerful that if you truly believe it about a person, you don't be friends with that person. That's how bad it is to dehumanise someone for no good reason, and for me the only good reason is to judge those who commit terrible atrocities, such as Nazis and Hamas extremists, genociders and the like.

You don't intend harm in your analysis, but it causes harm to people who are oppressed on account of their religion.

No, the oppression causes harm, not an observer criticising the religion.

But when you're repeating a sentiment that is used by people who vilify them and deliver active cruelty upon them is where I find problem.

What sentiment is that? Brainwashed? I use that term to describe anyone of any religion.

And I'm kinda also like... I know you... and I know your heart is in the right place, but sometimes you use language that seems to give the opposite impression

I try to avoid using actual discriminatory language. "Brainwashed" and "batshit" are not strong enough for me to consider offensive, which are presumably the words you take issue with. I don't reserve those words for some people but not others, it can apply to anyone. These are not terms which are considered derogatory to a particular religion, they are not politically charged like some words are.

You show a definition and I'm like... "exactly what I've just been saying," and you're like, "exactly the opposite of what you're saying."

Well you're arguing that to harshly criticise someone's religion amounts to dehumanisation of the individual. At the point I start saying stuff like "Muslims are animals" then yes I'm dehumanising an entire religion. When I say it's a batshit religion and the followers are brainwashed, that's based on my observations of religion in general and of Islam. I could use different words, like "cult-like" and "crazy" but they mean the same thing so if the former are dehumanising terms then so are the latter.

[OngBonga]

I don't consider "brainwashed" to be a dehumanising term because it doesn't imply someone is less human, or less worthy of human rights. It just means under psychological control. Any human can be subject to psychological control, myself included.

[OngBonga]

fwiw, I do believe Israel are guilty of dehumanising Palestinians, at least the ones inside Israel. They do this by employing a system that is basically indistinguishable from apartheid. To treat one group of citizens differently from another based on their ethnicity or religion, that is to dehumanise them, that is to deny them the basic human rights you recognise and respect for the other group.

Criticism isn't dehumanising. Even mockery isn't either. Hurting someone's feelings, even with the intent to just be mean, is not "harm", at least not to the standard required to dehumanise.

Denying people human rights, denying their right to exist, that is dehumanisation. I have never suggested that Islam needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. I don't believe one religion should disappear but not others. I'd love to be alive to see the day that religion is cast into the bin of history, but I won't be. And that doesn't mean I'd like to see it happen by means of force. I needs to happen by means of cultural and intellectual, even spiritual, evolution.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Given the US Congress' response to funding a 2nd international war, it's not beyond tin foil hatting that Putin or someone in Russia encouraged Hamas to attack at this time.

The US political divide over funding the war in Ukraine has a couple of nay-sayers in Congress. Not a majority, and there are plenty of supporters in both parties in the US that it hasn't been a real concern.

But take the money leaving the US to support foreign wars and divide it to 2 destinations... and things get more heated and difficult.


To wit, Congress is trying to push through a bill that gives funding to Israel, but nothing for Ukraine. The given reason being that these are 2 separate events that should be analyzed and voted on separately. Which is a good reason, IMO. But it opens the door for people to prefer funding Israel over Ukraine, which can divert funds... which helps Putin's war.

[CoccoBill]

Senate will likely vote against it. Russia is building their military industry up full speed right now, not suprised if they try some sort of full or limited mobilization. If the supports starts to wane, RU will win. Very few people not named Xi will benefit from that.

[Poopadoop]

Been without water in my house since Saturday. Storm came in and local treatment plant went down. About 10k people affected. The water co. keeps giving promises it will be fixed "soon." Yeah, great.

Meanwhile, they set up **three** stations where you can go and collect bottled water. So basically one per 3333 people who have no water. I went to one on Sunday and the queue was about three hours long. I said "so long, suckers!" and drove to a supermarket 15 minutes away in a nearby town, bought £10 of water and am living large.

Pretty gross experience though really. No way to take a proper shower and I have meetings at work tomorrow.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sorry to hear.

I've been w/o water for a few days before. Some city repair that shut down my block. Pretty sure I still have a few gallons of water somewhere in a cabinet from that.

Sucks, especially for bathroom stuff... toilet and showering. Cold wipedown doesn't feel at all as refreshing or thorough.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, they've just posted an update that "more than half" of the affected houses have had water restored (which obv. doesn't include the part I'm in, surprise surprise), and the rest would have water by the morning. They said yesterday it would all be solved by today, so i'm taking their promise with a grain of salt.

[Poopadoop]

Funny thing is, they're also keeping all the bottled water stations open tomorrow. Seems a bit odd if everything's supposed to be fixed by then. Hmmmm.

[Poopadoop]

Water's back on now. I can shower again. Woohoo!

[MadMojoMonkey]

Nice.

Funny how much civilization is easy to take for granted until it's suddenly gone for a while.

I'm often fascinated that as problematic as people tend to be... we've actually got clean running water, and electrical power safely in our homes. The sheer cost of implementing a city-wide network of roads, traffic lights, etc. astounds me.

We have rockets that go to space on the reg. We have many airplanes in the air at all times. We have global communications and GPS.


It's often hard for me to reconcile the gap between the average Joe Public and these amazing feats all around me.

And it's nothing new. I'm sure someone tens of thousands of years ago was like... We have fucking walls and doors, now!? Amazing. We have pottery?!? Fucking hell... I'm surrounded by Oogaboogas... how can we have amazing things like this?!?


The human experience is truly a fucking weird one.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Also, Liz's reaction to herself saying Pork Markets looks like a comedian who's particularly chuffed at how their joke landed.

[Poopadoop]

Funny how much civilization is easy to take for granted until it's suddenly gone for a while.

True. I don't think I've ever had to go without water services before. The logest without electricity was definitely less than a few hours. In 55 years, that's pretty good overall I'd say.

[Poopadoop]

Also, Liz's reaction to herself saying Pork Markets looks like a comedian who's particularly chuffed at how their joke landed.

Ah Liz. Just when the country thought we couldn't sink any lower than Boris Johnson, she showed us what true cocaine-fueled blind ambition could achieve.

[MadMojoMonkey]

True. I don't think I've ever had to go without water services before. The logest without electricity was definitely less than a few hours. In 55 years, that's pretty good overall I'd say.

Over a decade ago, there was a bad snowstorm that damaged tons of the city electrical grid.
At the time I was living in what turned out to be a very small electrical island in a big sea of larger islands.
When all that damage happened, the city, naturally, prioritized fixing the problems that affected the most people first.

Which meant that while every building around me had power, mine was out for 5 days in the middle of winter.
Unfortunately, that meant that my heating was out, too.

I ended up living in my tiny bathroom with candles for warmth and reading a book as my only passtime.

[Poopadoop]

My heating conked out for a couple of days in winter once. I was heating the house with the stove. At least it happened here and not in Canada or I would have been like one of those cartoons where the person is frozen in a block of ice.

[The Bean Counter]

Nice.

Funny how much civilization is easy to take for granted until it's suddenly gone for a while.

I'm often fascinated that as problematic as people tend to be... we've actually got clean running water, and electrical power safely in our homes. The sheer cost of implementing a city-wide network of roads, traffic lights, etc. astounds me.

We have rockets that go to space on the reg. We have many airplanes in the air at all times. We have global communications and GPS.


It's often hard for me to reconcile the gap between the average Joe Public and these amazing feats all around me.

And it's nothing new. I'm sure someone tens of thousands of years ago was like... We have fucking walls and doors, now!? Amazing. We have pottery?!? Fucking hell... I'm surrounded by Oogaboogas... how can we have amazing things like this?!?


The human experience is truly a fucking weird one.

Definitely this. I did a lot of this kind of thinking when we were out of water 3-4 times in the space of a few months fairly recently. I'd never thought about how fantastic it is to have clean, running water in my home until I didn't have it. From what I understand, the network uses gravity to do a lot of the work for them in towns, meaning those that live towards the top of a hill (hi) are the first ones to lose supply.

As much as I don't enjoy flying, I can watch planes takeoff and land all day long. There's something majestic about seeing something so huge and heavy move through the sky like that.

One of the things I enjoy about being a dad of a toddler is seeing the joy on that boy's face when he discovers something new. The "oooh" sound that accompanies something as simple as being able to open a new door, or when he presses a button on the TV remote and something happens is really something.

[CoccoBill]

We are always about 48h away from total collapse of civilization. Cut power, water, heating and logistics and every nation will be pillaging on the streets.

[MadMojoMonkey]

One of the things I enjoy about being a dad of a toddler is seeing the joy on that boy's face when he discovers something new. The "oooh" sound that accompanies something as simple as being able to open a new door, or when he presses a button on the TV remote and something happens is really something.

The cuteness overload came through in text. Wonderful.

We are always about 48h away from total collapse of civilization. Cut power, water, heating and logistics and every nation will be pillaging on the streets.

It's not a common thought, but I do have a sketch of a plan for what to do in the event of zombie apocalypse type shit going down.

[MadMojoMonkey]

In totally separate news:

Allison (my partner) just got an amazing job offer with Amnesty International USA. She started the application process back in July, and has been steadily moving forward in the interviews and background checks until this morning. The final phone call happened and they offered her the position of Member Center Specialist.

The pay is life changing for us. Big step up.


Raise a glass for Allison!

[The Bean Counter]

In totally separate news:

Allison (my partner) just got an amazing job offer with Amnesty International USA. She started the application process back in July, and has been steadily moving forward in the interviews and background checks until this morning. The final phone call happened and they offered her the position of Member Center Specialist.

The pay is life changing for us. Big step up.


Raise a glass for Allison!

Fantastic news! Will you need to relocate?

[Poopadoop]

Fantastic news! Will you need to relocate?

The UN might send her here the way things are going...

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fantastic news! Will you need to relocate?

No, we're staying in St Louis for the short-mid term.

IDK how much of her work will be from home and how much at an office.

We have a 4 week vacation coming up to go see her family in Las Vegas and Hawaii which kinda throws a wrench in her starting date. They aren't ready to onboard her until December, but they don't want to go through all that new employee stuff just to have her leave and not put any of it into practice for another month.

There was talk about her working from vacation, but they didn't want to do training that way, which makes sense.

So she'll officially be starting early next year, but the good news is in.

[OngBonga]

In totally separate news:

Allison (my partner) just got an amazing job offer with Amnesty International USA. She started the application process back in July, and has been steadily moving forward in the interviews and background checks until this morning. The final phone call happened and they offered her the position of Member Center Specialist.

The pay is life changing for us. Big step up.


Raise a glass for Allison!

Awesome! She must really have made an impression if they're willing to wait out her vacation before getting stuck in with the training.

Send her my congratulations!

[oskar]

In totally separate news:

Allison (my partner) just got an amazing job offer with Amnesty International USA. She started the application process back in July, and has been steadily moving forward in the interviews and background checks until this morning. The final phone call happened and they offered her the position of Member Center Specialist.

The pay is life changing for us. Big step up.


Raise a glass for Allison!

Very antisemitic organization. Congrats nevertheless!

Speaking of antisemitism. What fools we were to condemn the bombing of children! Look at what they found in the rubble (definitely not fresh off amazon!)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...president.html
When your propaganda is so dumb, even bluechecks see through it, you're losing the plot: https://x.com/Israel/status/1723664047692763459?s=20

[MadMojoMonkey]

The new job is working from home with an expectation for evening hours and some travel to Amnesty events, like the national conference.

35hr weeks w/ 3 weeks vacation per year starting, plus more after a couple years. Sick time AND personal time (which is separate from vacation time). 12 paid holidays and the day before any holiday is a half-day. Also all Fridays during summer are half-days.

Along with the fact that her new salary will be 65% more than she was making a mere 2 years ago. It sounds good when I say it that way.
Still a 15% raise over what she was making at her last job.

[CoccoBill]

[MadMojoMonkey]

I could only sit through 10 minutes of that.

Dude is like, "I know nothing about how any of this works, but I'mma read a press release and react, anyway."
IDK if he's actually knowledgeable about programming, hardware and AI specifically, but the tone of presentation seemed like he's just a layman looking for something to hyperventilate about.

I hope I haven't ad hominem'd my way out of a good perspective, but there it is.


FWIW, an AI being fed "good" data, as confirmed by a human, then drawing good conclusions is great and all.
But it's not what humans do. We take in loads of data, good and bad, and have to decide for ourselves whether or not those data are good or bad.

An AI open to all human communication has yet to show it can make those kinds of moral distinctions.


But one of my favorite skateboarding YouTubers recently demonstrated an AI camera drone that will automatically follow them around and takes off and lands on their outstretched palm... so I'm excited about the robot overlords being wildly useful to us, and less concerned about them dominating humans.

Anything that can be unplugged to stop it seems like a problem that we can handle.

[OngBonga]

Anything that can be unplugged to stop it seems like a problem that we can handle.

This is going to depend on if we can unplug them before they learn to self replicate, build or grow. You can't just unplug a trillion solar powered nanobots. And if the AI brain is buried somewhere under the earth's surface, with "roots" tapping directly into earth's energy reserves, then we'll have a hard time unplugging that, too. Of course this kind of AI is well beyond our lifetime, so nothing for us to worry about. Our lives will merely see useful AI bots. The scary sci-fi stuff isn't going to become close to reality for a very long time.

Unless AI invades from outer space. That seems like a more likely scenario in the next century or ten. An AI species that has eliminated its parent real-life species, consumed its host planet's resources, and has identified earth as a suitable colony, with humans and all carbon-based life being a minor problem they need to deal with. Real life is unlikely to survive the journey to earth, with it at least being so dangerous and time consuming that it's not worth the risk, but a machine has no such problems.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Unless AI invades from outer space. That seems like a more likely scenario in the next century or ten. An AI species that has eliminated its parent real-life species, consumed its host planet's resources, and has identified earth as a suitable colony, with humans and all carbon-based life being a minor problem they need to deal with. Real life is unlikely to survive the journey to earth, with it at least being so dangerous and time consuming that it's not worth the risk, but a machine has no such problems.

The evidence doesn't look good so far.

Harnessing energy and using it to do stuff still follows the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Even a perfect Dyson swarm, collecting 100% of its star's light still gives off as much energy in the form of heat (infrared light). Assuming it's in thermal equilibrium, which it must be on long time scales. Humans have been looking for this since Dyson said it was theoretically possible, and we just aren't seeing it.

So that doesn't mean it's not out there, or even that's what we should be looking for, but it gives insight into how weird it would be to have aliens (AI or otherwise) show up at Earth.

The use of energy gives off signatures. Using the amounts of energy needed to travel between stars means you're giving off a lot of signatures at the origin star... enough to indicate the energy required to create interstellar ships. And this is assuming some "magical" shielding that blocks radio and other light signatures... assumes only what is the minimal limit imposed by Entropy.

So it'd be weird if some intelligent life just beelined for us w/o any indication of their existence near us, or of them approaching for decades or centuries. I mean... it all depends on how close to c they're able and willing to travel, really.

But still weird. Why come here? Our resources are not unique or special among solar systems. Much easier pickings out there if you're looking for resources. We're less than ants to you with your big brain interstellar ships, but we may put up a fight. Why risk it?

Isaac Arthur (YouTube) does intelligent speculation about these kinds of things, and if you're into sci-fi speculation under the assumption of current technology, but infinite cooperation among humans to do space things... he's awesome.

[OngBonga]

I don't see the energy requirements being prohibitive for a machine species that has, in theory, infinite time to make the journey. It doesn't need to be a large mothership with a large amount of mass. It could be the seeds of AI life hiding in a meteor-like object. They could harness solar energy and gravitational energy along their journey to make small adjustments to their trajectory, assuming they are incapable of a perfect trajectory.

A machine is surely more capable of reaching speeds close to c than a lifeform. More so a small-mass machine like a nanobot. They could also take a trajectory that makes them extremely difficult to see, for example arriving in our solar system behind the sun and passing by close enough to hide in the glare. Or they could just be too small for us to detect.

Why earth? That's a better objection really. I guess we could be unlucky and be the only suitable planet within their energy range that does meet their requirements. Or maybe they require a semi-intelligent native lifeform to enslave. Perhaps they want to "evolve" into part-machine part-life species, and see humans as a suitable host lifeform.

I feel like the debate about whether AI can travel the vast distances of space is a completely different debate to whether a lifeform can. They have all the time they need, and the invading force could be an army of nanobots hidden in small meteor, completely invisible to future humans.

I imagine that, if an AI species were to exist sometime in the future in our galaxy, we'd be pretty easy to find.

The question really is at what point in the history of the universe is such an AI species a realistic prospect. Will it happen before entropy tears the universe apart?

[CoccoBill]

No respectable AI researcher thinks some malevolent skynet is gonna pop up. Rather, think about software development in general. How many pieces of software, of any kind, are you aware of that never had bugs, especially at first? I'm not worried that it escapes and starts building a nanobot army, but that it starts doing what we told it to do, but not exactly how we wanted. If it's smarter than us (or if able to improve itself, maybe smarter than all humans combined very quickly), it ain't gonna be easy to stop it. We can try to build all kinds of sandboxing and firewalls around it, tight rules and boundaries within which it needs to operate etc, but we possibly only get one chance to get it right. That's why it would make sense to slow down the development now, since we still have no clue what those firewalls and boundaries should even be.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't see the energy requirements being prohibitive for a machine species that has, in theory, infinite time to make the journey. It doesn't need to be a large mothership with a large amount of mass. It could be the seeds of AI life hiding in a meteor-like object. They could harness solar energy and gravitational energy along their journey to make small adjustments to their trajectory, assuming they are incapable of a perfect trajectory.

The thing is this:
Traveling between stars takes a fucking long time. Even with higher accelerations than a human could withstand, it takes a lot of energy to get going really fast. Even tiny things pick up mass as they speed up. Einstein's relativity says that if something has a relativistic gamma factor of 7 (moving ~99% of c), then its mass is 7 times greater than if it is at rest. Obv. this is all from an outside reference frame. It is not moving in its own reference frame, and its mass is the same as it "should" be in it's rest frame.

The point is that in order to accelerate even the tiniest thing with mass up to large fractions of c, it takes LOTS of energy.
And as much to slow it down again.

So given the cost to move between stars, it doesn't make much economic sense to do so until you've exhausted your current stellar system of resources.

And then if you're going to be hopping to a new star, pick one that's close and has similar properties to your parent star, probably. For economic reasons. Assuming what's motivating your expansion is economics.


Kinda hard to come in "from behind the sun" given the planets revolve around it. But a ship could get shockingly close to us w/o being detected if it was well shielded and was willing to accelerate quite slowly on human scales.

Detecting an incoming ship is prob. practically impossible if that ship doesn't want to be detected. But the star system that produced that ship would be detectable from Earth, assuming it's "close by" in our galaxy. And if it's not "close by" in our galaxy, then the number of suitable places in between here and there goes up exponentially.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No respectable AI researcher thinks [...]

Sure, but there are examples of people who *were* respectable until they made a public statement about their concerns about AI becoming self-aware.

So the statement about who is respectable in this regard is more about the wider field rejecting fringe ideas than the collection of experts all agree.


And I don't know anyone working in AI who doesn't believe that self-aware AI is inevitable. Perfectly unavoidable.
It's only a matter of the nuance of how close they think we currently are and how long until we're all the way there.

[OngBonga]

And then if you're going to be hopping to a new star, pick one that's close and has similar properties to your parent star, probably. For economic reasons. Assuming what's motivating your expansion is economics.

"Economics" seems vague in this context. It's not like we're talking about value, about getting more for your money. Their motivation is likely to take them in the direction of several potential host planets, which they will colonise one after another. Chances are, if such an invading force were to arrive, we aren't their first victims. We may see them hop from one planet to another so they can mine the fuel they need for onward journey to a more suitable planet for long-term colonisation. They could already be at the nearest planetary system and we'd have no idea. I don't imagine this being prohibitive for AI that has "a very long time", and while mass might increase by a factor of 7 at .99c in relative terms, it's still not huge when we're talking about nanobots.

You argue we'd be able to see their civilisation. That's not a given at all. The nearest star is Proxima Centauri, and we don't even know how many planets that has. If somewhere in the vast distance the AI has a large Dyson swarm, we might not even know their star exists because it's hidden and too far for us to detect gravitationally. So aside from picking up some unusual radiowaves, which tell us nothing except there's something out there, then the first we might know of their existence is after they're already here.

Basically, if the only limitations are energy and time, then I don't think humans are remotely qualified to form coherent opinions. You're speculating as much as I am.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean economics in the absolutely most general sense.

There is a cost to inter-stellar travel. There is a benefit to inter-stellar travel.
There is a cost/benefit analysis to be done based purely on the physics of the energy required to travel those distances compared to the energy acquired for making the journey.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If there was something harnessing energy at Proxima Centauri on the scales to prepare for an inter-stellar journey,
And if they are expecting to do so on roughly human time scales (a couple centuries or less),

Then they are using up a lot of low entropy stuffs and creating a lot of high entropy stuffs. I.e. absorbing white light from the sun and giving off heat - photosynthesis is an example. Indeed, the great thing the sun provides the Earth isn't warmth, it's a constant flood of low-entropy photons that we can use to do work, and release high entropy photons (heat).

So the emission spectrum we would see coming from Proxima Centauri (it's 2 stars, so either / or both) would be affected.
There would be an attenuation of the "low" entropy light and an amplification of the "high" entropy light. Low and high in quotes because what is low and high to us may not be the same as them. But the fact remains. We have a prediction of what the spectrum should be, given certain knowledge about how stars work. If what we see when we look at those stars is not that prediction... then what's up..?

The way around the prediction is if they're working on such long time scales that they are fine spending many thousands of years gathering up the required low entropy stuff and emitting high entropy stuff so slowly that it's below the uncertainty on our Earth-based instruments.

[OngBonga]

The way around the prediction is if they're working on such long time scales that they are fine spending many thousands of years...

Well this is what AI has but biological life presumably doesn't have. Time.

I'm not saying it's a likely scenario by any means, but the idea that an AI might eliminate biological life on its host planet, consume any available resources, and then colonise new planets for the resources they need to continue existing, this isn't anti-science. It's surely possible within the laws of physics. One imagines that there is an abundance of resources for anything that is capable of interstellar travel, so assuming you're essentially picking a planet out of a hat, it seems ridiculously unlikely Earth would be a victim, and more so if the AI makes moral decisions regarding life. But if Earth has something other planets don't, if there's something special about this planet, then that might make us a target. Clearly Earth is special, because it supports life. Whether it's special to an AI species, I haven't a clue.

[Poopadoop]

I've heard Napoleon is really shit. Has anyone seen it?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I haven't seen it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well this is what AI has but biological life presumably doesn't have. Time.

I'm not saying it's a likely scenario by any means, but the idea that an AI might eliminate biological life on its host planet, consume any available resources, and then colonise new planets for the resources they need to continue existing, this isn't anti-science. It's surely possible within the laws of physics. One imagines that there is an abundance of resources for anything that is capable of interstellar travel, so assuming you're essentially picking a planet out of a hat, it seems ridiculously unlikely Earth would be a victim, and more so if the AI makes moral decisions regarding life. But if Earth has something other planets don't, if there's something special about this planet, then that might make us a target. Clearly Earth is special, because it supports life. Whether it's special to an AI species, I haven't a clue.

True.

I'm only making the point that there are ways we would be able to identify a large, space-faring civilization that is harnessing the energy from host star systems enough that they need to branch out / are / have branched out.

The scenario where Earth is the first place they go is plausible, but hard to say it's likely, given the vastness of the Milky Way. And if they have the need to leave a star system, then we should be able to see that when we look at the star that's being so thoroughly and efficiently used... if it's anywhere near us.

[OngBonga]

If their home star is anywhere near us then yeah we should probably know something is up, but the probability that their star is close enough to observe properly is practically zero, even assuming they come from just within the Milky Way. If they can travel between galaxies, which is just a matter of time (no more energy required once up to speed, assuming accurate trajectory), that probability is even closer to zero.

It requires zero energy to continue moving in a straight line at a constant speed through space. Accelerating is where energy is used. So it kind of gets to the point where travelling 100 light years requires a similar amount of energy as travelling 1000 light years. It would be precisely the same energy if the max speed is identical and there are no corrections to their trajectory. So I'm struggling to see energy being the issue. It's time.

[OngBonga]

Time is actually the most interesting aspect of this discussion.

Let's assume this AI species exists and is observing us. They can identify Earth as a suitable planet for colonisation, but by the time they reach us the conditions will have changed. If they observe us from their home planet 1000 light years away, then travel at an average of 0.99c, the Earth will age a great deal more than 1000 years in the time it takes them to get here due to relativistic effects.

Any alien species, AI or biological, needs to hurry up and get here if they don't want to face a technologically competent species capable of defending their solar system.

[Jack Sawyer]

In totally separate news:

Allison (my partner) just got an amazing job offer with Amnesty International USA. She started the application process back in July, and has been steadily moving forward in the interviews and background checks until this morning. The final phone call happened and they offered her the position of Member Center Specialist.

The pay is life changing for us. Big step up.


Raise a glass for Allison!

Congrats!

[MadMojoMonkey]

Thanks, Jack.

We already had a big vacation lined up for this month to Vegas and Hawaii to see her family. The new job wanted to start her this week, but due to the fact that we'll be gone for 4 weeks starting soon, they pushed off her actual start date to early January.

We have an awesome trip to Maui in the first week of Jan. We booked a day trip to go rappelling down a waterfall - one of the scenes from Jurassic Park was filmed there. When we got the good news about her new job, we extended the trip to 3 nights. One of her uncles works for a hotel chain and we texted him to see if he had any recommendations for us on Maui. A couple hours later, he'd booked us 3 nights at a beach resort in our own studio apt.

Such an amazing gift! I'm now in the difficult, but enjoyable, position of trying to figure out how to say thank you in a way that actually expresses how much gratitude I feel.


But enough about me.

How've you been?
Anything you're looking forward to?

[MadMojoMonkey]

According to some mathematician on YouTube, in the original game of chess, the rules said you have to roll dice to determine which piece you're allowed to move.

Also, it's hard to tell which came first, but it may have been a 4-player game.

But then the local gov't was like... dice = gambling. Knock it off. And chess became a pure strategy game.

Fascinating if true.

[Poopadoop]

Never heard of gambling chess. Sounds like ... fun?





I have heard that you only used to be able to move your pawn one square, even from the second rank.

[OngBonga]

I find it hard to believe that dice were part of the original rules. It's much more likely in my opinion that dice were added to the game rules by people who wanted to bring an element of luck into the game so they could gamble, since chess without dice is 100% intellectual skill, and a competent player will easily dominate bad players. People will be less inclined to gamble if they know they are inferior, so bringing dice into the equation is rather like turning chess into poker - still a competent player will dominate, but the incompetent can be fooled into thinking the playing field has been levelled. Just my opinion though. There doesn't seem to be conclusive proof out there to support the dice claim.

[OngBonga]

I have heard that you only used to be able to move your pawn one square, even from the second rank.

I'm pretty sure this is true. The rules of chess have certainly evolved over time, and pawns having the option to move two on the first move was a rule added to speed up openings. Not long after, the en passant move was added too, to ensure that a pawn moving two squares isn't able to pass an advanced enemy pawn without risk of capture, such that the advanced pawn maintains positional dominance over the unmoved pawn. Also, castling was not an original rule.

[OngBonga]

In other news...

Some South African musician has caused a stir because she identifies as "coloured", which is apparently very offensive in USA (due to this term being used by Jim Crow's apartheid-style legislation). It's also an officially recognised term in SA to describe someone of mixed ethnicity.

It's amusing really because you've got woke Americans who are scared stiff of being labelled racist telling someone they are not free to choose their own identity, and in doing so are insulting that person's culture. Basically, they're being more racist refusing to use that word than they are by accepting it.

Hilarious.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-67505674

[OngBonga]

Like, imagine saying to someone "I find that word you use to describe your culture to be offensive and you shouldn't use it in my country".

Imagine being that fucking dumb.

[OngBonga]

And in the spirit of randomness...

Is there anything more satisfying than the returning confidence to fart with gusto after a period of the squits?