click on youtube video

see random guy talking into webcam for 8 minutes

immediately close youtube video

Tags: about me

slatestarscratchpad:

DSM-V has replaced various gradations of addiction with a single Substance Use Disorder.

I would like to briefly comment on this name.

A “substance” is pretty much any matter or more broadly anything that exists.

"Use" is a generic term for doing something with something.

I think it is neatly poetic that, at least in a purely linguistic sense, doing anything with anything that exists is now a diagnosable mental disorder.

catbountry:

yes-it-means-i-am-bread:

does anyone remember law4kids

like this kids’ website that had these shitty webcomics and animations telling them all about DA LAW

i mean this shit was hilarious even by itself

image

image

BUT THEN PEOPLE STARTED MAKING PARODIES

image

image

AND THEY JUST KEPT COMING

image

image

This one was always my favorite:

image

These are excellent.

(Source: captaintightpanties, via rubegoldbergsaciddreams)

moriya-sama:

Where’d you hear the falling rent being bad part from?

NIMBYs. Many of them talk about wanting to help poor people, but don’t want housing to become more affordable, so they oppose development.

(Source: eccentric-opinion)

Tags: moriya-sama

When rich people leave a neighborhood, it’s white flight. When they move into a neighborhood, it’s gentrification.

Falling rents are bad because they attract low-rent people. Rising rents are bad because they make life more difficult for us.

There’s no pleasing some people.

"How often do you think babies think about money? The answer is never. They expect life to hand them everything. The baby, like the communist, loves to leech the life off the free man, then plots to destroy the host; but, alas, fails to realize that when the host dies the baby, too, well perish without his precious bottle of milk. Futile will be baby’s cries of “goo goo gah gah” in the end."

— Murray Rothbard, On Why Babies Suck (1949)

(Source: luchadoreofliberty, via ordnungsokonomik)

Anonymous said: could you explain what a transhumanist is (if you haven't before)

cyborgbutterflies:

A transhumanist is a person who accepts the ideological values and goals described as transhumanist. This doesn’t explain much by itself so let me explain those (sort of summarizing this here).

Life over Death/Health over Disease: Although some “clever” people try to argue for it, it is easy to see that death - even “natural” death - is very bad. It forever annihilates everything a person is and brings great sadness and grief to others.

Transhumanists consider death as an enemy in general, and hope to achieve a radical extension of human lifespans and healthspans through technology.

Even if physical limits or the like ultimately it impossible to have actual deathlessness, it does not mean we can live much longer than we do now. And we want to be healthy and happy at an old age, too. Not decaying in a hospital bed. We hold such a change in the current situation to be desirable.

Now, for some reason this kind of reasoning has been culturally coded as villainous, but the arguments about that are for another post, I’m using this one to just explain what transhumanism is.

Have a quote I posted a while ago on this topic:

“There is no glory, no beauty in death. Only loss. It does not have meaning. I will never see my loved ones again. They are permanently lost to the void. If this is the natural order of things, then I reject that order. I burn here my hopelessness, I burn here my constraints. By my hand, death shall fall. And if I fail, another shall take my place … and another, and another, until this wound in the world is healed at last.”

Overcoming human limitations: All humans could theoretically be improved in some ways. We grow old, we forget things, we are physically unimpressive relative to other animals, our minds are extremely prone to bias…

Transhumanists also hope to use technology to grant the possibility to improve our conditions and be happier. There are a few ways in which this is already happening, even.

Morphological Freedom: This one is important. We believe that in general people should have the freedom to do what they wish with their bodies. Individuals can think very differently and have different goals.

For example, one person could want to use technology to look like an elf, another could want to use it to become smarter, a third could want to remain as they are. Under this principle, all of them deserve the freedom to follow their individual goals.

This value is even important enough to overrule the first. We may consider death to be bad, but transhumanists in general seem to be in favor of letting people have the freedom to end their lives if they really really want to.

This is important, because one of the uninformed criticisms people make to those who wish for immortality is “But what if you get bored and just want to die some day?”

Then one can answer “That won’t be for a very long time, but if I succeed in spreading my values, it won’t be an issue since I can just do that once I want to.”

Wide Access: If human enhancement technology appears but is restricted to a tiny elite, that is not the preferred outcome. Transhumanists want to give access to everyone who wants it.

We don’t want to just avoid death, we want to deny it to everyone who does not wish for it. We truly want people to stop suffering and dying involuntarily.

I notice that a lot of the people who criticize transhumanism as some sort of rich libertarian thing don’t seem to be aware that we actually want this sort of arrangement, which is pretty odd since it is also one of those big things you notice from reading pretty much any of the influential transhumanists…

We do want everyone to be able to improve themselves, be healthy, and have longer lives. It is more fair, it increases the chances that our loved ones and us will benefit, it reduces global suffering much more than limiting to an elite would…

We also do think that, unless great efforts are made against this, human enhancement will eventually reach everyone. If history teaches us anything, it is that new technology usually does start out as nice toys for the rich, but then the price drops and everyone can enjoy it. It has happened many times before.

Hope for the future: Another trend we notice through history is that, in general, things have been getting much better over time.

This is the hope that the trend continues. But hope is a lousy defense.

We also try to promote work based on this hope. Work to prevent global catastrophe and improve people’s lives.

The future is to be protected before it can be enjoyed. The present does not treat everyone nicely, so we want to help those who need it. Nature does not care about us, but we do.

Do my transhumanist followers have more to add?

slatestarscratchpad:

2020: “There’s still too much pressure to say only carefully thought-out, responsible things on Tumblr. I’ll switch to that new blogging platform which is just people posting ‘FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK’ in giant blinking letters all the time.”

But you’re already on Twitter.

Tags: twitter

"A subtler problem with banning ‘political’ discussions on a blog or at a meet-up is that it’s hard to do fairly, because our snap judgments about what counts as ‘political’ may themselves be affected by partisan divides. In many cases the status quo is thought of as apolitical, even though objections to the status quo are ‘political’."

— RobbBB, Politics is Hard Mode

moriya-sama:

I’ve heard some people talk about a link between transhumanism and racism, or ableism, or other forms of discrimination based on mental or physical qualities and identity and I don’t get it. Like, I’ve seen some of the discussion that has triggered this association for certain people but it’s always seemed those who have these ideas are opposing the fundamental ideals and practical results of the philosophy in the first place?

I think the association comes from them thinking that since transhumanists think that enhancement is good, they’re assumed to also think that enhanced people are better because they’re more capable, and by the same logic non-disabled people are thought to be better than disabled people.

This makes the mistake of conflating “better” in the sense of “would rather be” with “better” in the sense of “has more worth”.

I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me - no, that’s too much to ask of anyone - if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because - well, because I am seemingly so simple.

Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me.

One of the greatest movies of all time.

(Source: kane52630, via chroniclesofrettek)

MRAs who think that trying to get children to not be disruptive at school is a “War on Boys” are sexist against men.

Finished The Righteous Mind. I would probably have been more impressed by it if I hadn’t been introduced to its ideas via osmosis from other sources.

It will also contribute to me referring to humans as “they”, because it describes impulses that humans supposedly have that I not only lack, but find repulsive.