Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 1st June 2025
Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
OT: just got a job interview and wanted to pass the good vibes on!
Noice!
Curtis Yarvin:
dr. caitlin m. green:
Seeing Yarvin mansplain eugenics really does make one wonder how he doesn't just get suckerpunched whenever he says anything at someone in public.
Not beating the sexism allegations.
sounds like he's posting from inside a dilapidated white panel van parked strategically just outside a legally-mandated exclusion radius surrounding a middle school
So, he's essentially Drake if he got into AI doom
The eigenrobot thread he's responding to is characteristically bizarre and gross. You'd think eigenrobot being anti-eugenics is a good thing but he still finds a way to make it suspect. (He believes being unable to make babies is worse than death?)
I think he means "mass sterilisation of a population" Vs "mass murder of the same population", which is genocide either way, and then he would opt for the faster method.
Or something. Feels extra creepy discussing which genocide is better with the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Re: extra creepy: and also with people their people in power.
I mean I guess you can argue that straight up murder has a certain honesty to it? At the same time that is mainly good because it makes it harder to justify what's happening compared to anti-miscegenation laws or restricting people to an open-air prison for a few generations. And we can see how that's working out in the current political climate.
A new LLM plays pokemon has started, with o3 this time. It plays moderately faster, and the twitch display UI is a little bit cleaner, so it is less tedious to watch. But in terms of actual ability, so far o3 has made many of the exact same errors as Claude and Gemini including: completely making things up/seeing things that aren't on the screen (items in Virdian Forest), confused attempts at navigation (it went back and forth on whether the exit to Virdian Forest was in the NE or NW corner), repeating mistakes to itself (both the items and the navigation issues I mentioned), confusing details from other generations of Pokemon (Nidoran learns double kick at level 12 in Fire Red and Leaf Green, but not the original Blue/Yellow), and it has signs of being prone to going on completely batshit tangents (it briefly started getting derailed about sneaking through the tree in Virdian Forest... i.e. moving through completely impassable tiles).
I don't know how anyone can watch any of the attempts at LLMs playing Pokemon and think (viable) LLM agents are just around the corner... well actually I do know: hopium, cope, cognitive bias, and deliberate deception. The whole LLM playing Pokemon thing is turning into less of a test of LLMs and more entertainment and advertising of the models, and the scaffold are extensive enough and different enough from each other that they really aren't showing the models' raw capabilities (which are even worse than I complained about) or comparing them meaningfully.
I like how all of the currently running attempts have been equipped with automatic navigation assistance, i.e. a pathfinding algorithm from the 60s. And that's the only part of the whole thing that actually works.
I wouldn't say even that part works so well, given how Mt. Moon is such a major challenge even with all the features like that.
The actual pathfinding algorithm (which is surely just A* search or similar) works just fine; the problem is the LLM which uses it.
Im sure this is fine https://infosec.exchange/@paco/114509218709929701
"Paco Hope #resist @[email protected]
OMG. #Microsoft #Copilot bypasses #Sharepoint #security so you don’t have to!
“CoPilot gets privileged access to SharePoint so it can index documents, but unlike the regular search feature, it doesn’t know about or respect any of the access controls you might have set up. You can get CoPilot to just dump out the contents of sensitive documents that it can see, with the bonus feature* that your access won’t show up in audit logs.”
The S in CoPilot stands for Security! https://pivotnine.com/the-crux/archive/remembering-f00fs-of-old/"
Veering semi-OT: the guy behind the godawful Windows 11 GUI has revealed himself:
Looking at his Twitter profile, its clear he's a general dumpster fire of a human being - most of his feed's just him retweeting AI garbage or fash garbage.
It's not healthy for me to have my biases confirmed like this.
But it lets you adjust your priors so pleasantly!
It also means you can update your priors about your own
biasespredictive instincts being good, allowing you to be more confident in literally everything you've ever believed or thought about for half a second. Superpredictors unite!this one is a joke, i think. he is definitely on the fashy bullshit though
@BlueMonday1984 lol @ "I try not to let [performance] considerations get in the way"
Also why do you even put a React Dev on that task 🤡
You could show me this without any context whatsoever and my first thought would've been "did a React dev say that"
Not advocating violence, but Achewood did demonstrate one possible set of reactions to discovering a Microsoft designer at large in public.
https://achewood.com/2007/07/05/title.html
I was trying out free github copilot to see what the buzz is all about:
It doesn't even know its own settings. This one little useful thing that isn't plagiarism, providing natural language interface to its own bloody settings, it couldn't do.
New piece from Iris Meredith: Keeping up appearances, about the cultural forces that gave us LLMs and how best to defeat them
Reminds me something F.D. Signifier said on a music podcast.
Progressives are losing the cultural war in a lot of ways, but they'll always need us because we're the ones pushing the boundaries on art, and it turns out, no matter how ghoulish people want to act, everyone has genuine love of fucking awesome art. The true loss condition is being captured by the tools of the master.
Rekindled a desire to maybe try my own blog ^^.
I think beyond "Keeping up appearances" it's also the stereotype of fascists—and by extension LLM lovers—having trouble (or pretending to) distinguishing signifying and signified.
this is ridiculously good
I'll keep that in mind....
Hey look, it's this meme for the n-th time
NEW ZITRON DROPPED
I don't get it, how is every one of the most touted people in the AI space among the least credible people in the industry.
Like literally every time its a person whose name I recognize from something else they've done, that something else is something I hate.
In the collection of links of what Ive has done in recent years, there's one to an article about a turntable redesign he worked on, and from that article:
I don't know, should I laugh, or should I scream, that it's Ive, of all people, saying that.
ED ZITRON
FROM THE TOP ROPE
Another critihype article from the BBC, with far too much credulousness at the idea behind supposed AI consciousness at the cost of covering the harms of AI as things stand, e.g. the privacy, environmental, data set bias problems:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0k3700zljjo
Tried to read it, ended up glazing over after the first or second paragraph, so I'll fire off a hot take and call it a day:
Artificial intelligence is a pseudoscience, and it should be treated as such.
Every AI winter, the label AI becomes unwanted and people go with other terms (expert systems, machine learning, etc.)... and I've come around to thinking this is a good thing, as it forces people to specify what it is they actually mean, instead of using a nebulous label with many science fiction connotations that lumps together decent approaches and paradigms with complete garbage and everything in between.
I'm gonna be polite, but your position is deeply sneerworthy; I don't really respect folks who don't read. The article has quite a few quotes from neuroscientist Anil Seth (not to be confused with AI booster Anil Dash) who says that consciousness can be explained via neuroscience as a sort of post-hoc rationalizing hallucination akin to the multiple-drafts model; his POV helps deflate the AI hype. Quote:
At the end of the article, another quote explains that Seth is broadly aligned with us about the dangers:
A pseudoscience has an illusory object of study. For example, parapsychology studies non-existent energy fields outside the Standard Model, and criminology asserts that not only do minds exist but some minds are criminal and some are not. Robotics/cybernetics/artificial intelligence studies control loops and systems with feedback, which do actually exist; further, the study of robots directly leads to improved safety in workplaces where robots can crush employees, so it's a useful science even if it turns out to be ill-founded. I think that your complaint would be better directed at specific AGI position papers published by techbros, but that would require reading. Still, I'll try to salvage your position:
Any field of study which presupposes that a mind is a discrete isolated event in spacetime is a pseudoscience. That is, fields oriented around neurology are scientific, but fields oriented around psychology are pseudoscientific. This position has no open evidence against it (because it's definitional!) and aligns with the expectations of Seth and others. It is compatible with definitions of mind given by Dennett and Hofstadter. It immediately forecloses the possibility that a computer can think or feel like humans; at best, maybe a computer could slowly poorly emulate a connectome.
No, I think BlueMonday is being reasonable. The article has some quotes from scientists with actually relevant expertise, but it uncritically mixes them with LLM hype and speculation in a typical both sides sort of thing that gives lay readers the (false) impression that both sides are equal. This sort of journalism may appear balanced, but it ultimately has contributed to all kinds of controversies (from Global Warming to Intelligent Design to medical pseudoscience) where the viewpoints of cranks and uninformed busybodies and autodidacts of questionable ability and deliberate fraudsters get presented equally with actually educated and researched viewpoints.
Having now read the thing myself, I agree that the BBC is serving up criti-hype and false balance.
I am not sure that having "an illusory object of study" is a standard that helps define pseudoscience in this context. Consider UFOlogy, for example. It arguably "studies" things that do exist — weather balloons, the planet Venus, etc. Pseudoarchaeology "studies" actual inscriptions and actual big piles of rocks. Wheat gluten and seed oils do have physical reality. It's the explanations put forth which are unscientific, while attempting to appeal to the status of science. The "research" now sold under the Artificial Intelligence banner has become like Intelligent Design "research": Computers exist, just like bacterial flagella exist, but the claims about them are untethered.
Scientists and philosophers have spilled a tanker truck of ink about the question of how to demarcate science from non-science or define pseudoscience rigorously. But we can bypass all that, because the basic issue is in fact very simple. One of the most fundamental parts of living a scientific life is admitting that you don't know what you don't know. Without that, it's well-nigh impossible to do the work. Meanwhile, the generative AI industry is built on doing exactly the opposite. By its very nature, it generates slop that sounds confident. It is, intrinsically and fundamentally, anti-science.
Now, on top of that, while being anti-science the AI industry also mimics the form of science. Look at all the shiny PDFs! They've got numbers in them and everything. Tables and plots and benchmarks! I think that any anti-science activity that steals the outward habits of science for its own purposes will qualify as pseudoscience, by any sensible definition of pseudoscience. In other words, wherever we draw the line or paint the gray area, modern "AI" will be on the bad side of it.
When a good man gazes into the palantir and sees L Ron Hubbard looking back
To be fair I also believe psychology is by and large pseudoscience, but the answer to it is sociology, not the MRI gang.
There are parts of the field that have major problems, like the sorts of studies that get done on 20 student volunteers and then get turned into a pop psychology factoid that gets tossed around and over-generalized while the original study fails to replicate, but there are parts that are actually good science.
Incomplete sneer, ten-yard penalty. First down, plus coach has to go read Chasing the Rainbow: The Non-conscious Nature of Being (Oakley & Halligan, 2017) to see what psychology thinks of itself once the evidence is rounded up in one place.
not sure Frontiers apologetics is it chief
Touting neuroscience as especially informed and scientific about minds is very brave.
you seem to have invented a definition of pseudoscience on the fly
it’s not pseudoscience unless it’s from the “literally studying ghosts” region of crankery, otherwise it’s just sparkling… actually I don’t know what your point is with all this
Some quality sneers in Extropic's latest presentation about their thermodynamics hardware. My favorite part was the Founder's mission slide "e/acc maximizes the watts per civilization while Extropic maximizes intelligence per watt".
I'm not going to watch more than a few seconds but I enjoyed how awkward Beff Jezos is coming across.
is Extropic now claiming to have actually done anything?
Apparently they are going to ship their development kits sometime later this year. He still sounds confusing AF to me and my BS indicator is going off all the time. He also makes incorrect statements (around 9 minutes in) such as
which makes 0 sense historically. According to Wikipedia, EBMs were first introduced in 2003.
OT: Welp. Think interview went well. Just waiting for them to check references (oh god) and I should know whats what by Monday.
Good luck! I'm rooting for you.
Tante has a couple of questions for Anthropic:
Am I the only person not impressed by veo3? Yeah there are more details yada yada, but the details are still wrong.
The view of the garbage fractal isn't improved by zooming deeper into the Bullshit-Mandlebrot Set.
I saw an ad for a local gin festival generated with veo3 and now I’ve sworn off gin
Sobering!
Holy hell all the examples I found made me seasick. I am apparently physically incapable of watching veo3 videos.
that is because you can both read and write. the average social media slobbyist does not care. clevage, beats, teeth and consumption....
let us talk about what the difference between animals and humans is. some say it is the art we create. and i wonder if birds have a lower quality output that let's say taylor swift or jk rowling. have doubts. maybe we are not so fucking special and 99% of media we consume is trash? did you ever check out spotify...they've proven ppl love slob by faking companies for jazz labels. and deezer has proven comsumer over 30 dont even access any new music. humans love slob. and your incapability tells me you think you were consuming prime rib before while it was just another industry slob.
Hard disagree, as much as I loathe JK Rowling's politcal ideas, and the at-times unecessary cruelty found in the HP novels, it still shaped a large part of the imaginary world of a generation. As beautiful as bird songs are (who the hell refers to birdsong as "output"), this simply cannot be compared.
Yes commercial for-profit shareholder-driven lackadaisical "art" is already an insult to life and creativity, but a fully-or-mostly automated slop machine is an infinitely worse one.
Even in the sloppiest of arts I have watched, the humanity still shines through, people still made choice, even subjected to crazy uninispired didacts from above, the hands that fashion books, movies, music, video-games, tv-shows still have—must have—room to bring a given vision together.
I think people DO care.
I don't know exactly what you wanted to say, if you wanted to express despair, cynisism, nihilishm or something else, but I would encourage you not to give up hope with humanity, people aren't that stupid, people aren't that void of meaning.
this is painfull. you compare lovecraft to rowling....sorry...no. she didnt come up with a backstory for most characters. hell no.
Oh no! I wasted my time on Troll. Typical.
just because your arguments dont stick doesnt make no one a troll. you hallucinate "this simply cannot be compared." and then overvalue humans again and again.
No. again you declare something art without the proof what makes this art. It is not art if someone is able to play a beat on old cans. It is a profession or skill. And that is all I ever saw from jkrowling,dua lipa and all that other human slob. please provide an argument where the sloppy art happend and what made it art. "Made by humans" != art
Dua lipa on the other hand is absolute slob - it made the existing art worse. Not only do all songs sound the same, they are also not original. Yet the fanarmy will use exactly your way of reasoning. pathetic. Do dua lipa fans care? so far they obviously havent...it is all old products from the industry revamped with studio1 and a human with zero personality. People DO care, right?
Looks like shit and it's mostly entirely static because anything with a little more movement would look like complete piss.
time amplifying the nonsense around saltman’s orb grift
features a helluva lot of words while at multiple points remaining entirely incurious about the claims it amplifies
Opening up the sack with your new favourite uwu news influencer giving a quick shout-out to our old pals, the NRx. Hoped that we wouldn’t get here, but here we are, regardless.
I didn't know that uwu news influencer was a thing. Kind of a clash between style and topic there, but hey whatever gets the word out.
It's probably a thing where if you start thinking about it, it's always been around, but we've just never had the right vocabulary to describe it.
Same, and also I'm still trying to process that "uwu" breached out of furry spaces and became a widely understood term. (Although I'm not entirely sure what way it took, it's also possible that it breached out of anime-related communities. Maybe some day cyber-archeologists can figure this out.)
I had so hoped that the rise of Trump (and his fall due to Biden) on the back of the more numerous and popular seeming Alt-Right had been the end of all this. Showing that NRx was a sort of weaker evolutionary dead end so to speak. But sadly no.
So far away we wait for the AGI
For the billions all wasted and gone
We feel the pain of compute time lost in few thousand days
Through the sneering and the flames we carry on
Got two major pieces to show which caught my attention:
Pretty good summary of why Alex Karp is as much a horrible fucking shithead as Thiel.
https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/alex-karp-palantir-tech-republic/tnamp/
New Bluesky post from Baldur Bjarnason:
Further evidence emerging that the effort to replace government employees with the Great Confabulatron are well at hand and the presumed first-order goal of getting a yes-man to sign off on whatever bullshit is going well.
Now we wait for the actual policy implications and the predictable second-order effects. Which is to say dead kids.
In an completely unprecedented turn of events, the word prediction machine has a hard time predicting numbers.
https://www.wired.com/story/google-ai-overviews-says-its-still-2024/
Hey, mentally some people are still in 2019/early 2020. /s
New webbed brief from Heydon
https://briefs.video/videos/introducing-webbed-sites/
Interesting (in a depressing way) thread by author Alex de Campi about the fuckery by Unbound/Boundless (crowdfunding for publishing, which segued into financial incompetence and stealing royalties), whose latest incarnation might be trying to AI their way out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves.
From the liquidator’s proposals:
(emphasis mine)
They don’t appear to actually own any intellectual property anymore (due to defaulting on contracts) so I can’t see this ending well.
Original thread, for those of you with bluesky accounts: https://bsky.app/profile/alexdecampi.bsky.social/post/3lqfmpme2722w
Loose Mission Impossible Spoilers
The latest Mission Impossible movie features a rogue AI as one of the main antagonists. But on the other hand, the AI's main powers are lies, fake news, and manipulation, and it only gets as far as it does because people allow fear to make themselves manipulable and it relies on human agents to do a lot of its work. So in terms of promoting the doomerism narrative, I think the movie could actually be taken as opposing the conventional doomer narrative in favor of a calm, moderate, internationally coordinated (the entire plot could have been derailed by governments agreeing on mutual nuclear disarmament before the AI subverted them) response against AI's that ultimately have only moderate power.
Adding to the post-LLM hype predictions: I think post LLM bubble popping, "Terminator" style rogue AI movie plots don't go away, but take on a different spin. Rogue AI's strength's are going to be narrower, their weaknesses are going to get more comical and absurd, and idiotic human actions are going to be more of a factor. For weaknesses it will be less "failed to comprehend love" or "cleverly constructed logic bomb breaks its reasoning" and more "forgets what it was doing after getting drawn into too long of a conversation". For human actions it will be less "its makers failed to anticipate a completely unprecedented sequence of bootstrapping and self improvement" and more "its makers disabled every safety and granted it every resource it asked for in the process of trying to make an extra dollar a little bit faster".
New artcle from Brian Merchant: An 'always on' OpenAI device is a massive backlash waiting to happen
Giving my personal thoughts on the upcoming OpenAI Device^tm^, I think Merchant's correct to expect mass-scale backlash against the Device^tm^ and public shaming/ostracisation of anyone who decides to use it - especially considering its an explicit repeat of the widely clowned on Humane AI Pin.
headlines of Device^tm^ wearers getting their asses beaten in the street to follow soon afterwards. As Brian's noted, a lot of people would see wearing an OpenAI Device^tm^ as an open show of contempt for others, and between AI's public image becoming utterly fouled by the bubble and Silicon Valley's reputation going into the toilet, I can see someone seeing a Device^tm^ wearer as an opportunity to take their well-justified anger at tech corps out on someone who openly and willingly bootlicks for them.
Part of me wonders if this is even supposed to be a profitable hardware product or if they're sufficiently hard-up for training data that "put always-on microphones in as many pockets as possible" seems like a good strategy.
It's not, both because it's kinda evil and because it's definitely stupid, but I can see it being used to solve the data problem more quickly than I can see anyone think this is actually a good or useful product to create.
What does solving the data problem supposed to look like exactly? A somewhat higher score in their already incredibly suspect benchmarks?
The data part of the whole hyperscaling thing seems predicated on the belief that the map will magically become the territory if only you map hard enough.
I fully agree, but as data availability is one of the primary limits that hyperscaling is running up against I can see the true believers looking for additional sources, particularly sources that aren't available to their competitors. Getting a new device in people's pockets with a microphone and an internet link would be one such advantage, and (assuming you believe the hyperscaling bullshit) would let OpenAI rebuild some kind of moat to keep themselves ahead of the competition.
I don't know, though. Especially after the failure of at least 2 extant versions of the AI companion product I just can't imagine anyone honestly believing there's enough of a market for this to justify even the most ludicrously optimistic estimate of the cost of bringing it to market. It's either a data thing or a straight-up con to try and retake the front page for another few news cycles. Even the AI bros can't be dumb enough for it to be a legit effort.
When I get a minute, I intend to do a back of the napkin calc to figure out how many words 100 million of these things would hear on an average day.
100 million sounds like a target that was naively pooped out by some other requirement, like "How much training data do we need to scale to GPT-5 before the money runs out, assuming the dumbest interpolation imaginable?"
I regret to inform you that, once again, aella (via this)
fucked that this is at least moderately honest
Cringe but my god the horde of buttmad nazis force me to be on weirdo & girl girl's side
Personally I have more questions about a Rationalist having an anarcho-communist flag tattoo.
anarcho-communist flag, username RatOrthodox, hangs out with eugenicist iq-anon types, somewhere on the longtermist scale. Has unblocked replies from a person who fell into all the alt-right signifiers and who is calling this 'Jewish' (anti-semitism and a holocaust joke, classy. If I sneer any harder I will start to look like Scott on that recent video).
It honestly reminds me of the stories you'd hear from like the 60s and 70s of people cult-hopping because the specifics of the ideology or the religion didn't matter as much as the sense of believing in something. Notably a fair number of those people ended up in evangelical churches and, presumably, maga.
See also how he finds it good that capitalism has no logo, but still desires a logo for capitalism. And suggests others want it too.
But hey, of all the cult leaders in the space, Aella is prob the least bad. At least her cult doesn't come with a lot of mandatory reading homework.
I see now he's also got a supply and demand tattoo*? I don't fucking know. Maybe he thinks red and black is the antifa flag. Maybe he got it for sexy humiliation purposes. Maybe it's faded blue ink.
*"If you want to celebrate [capitalism] with a symbol, you’ll have to get a law of nature tattooed on you."
Yeah okay. Boring!!! You suck!!!
I have so many questions, stuff like, do you know what laws of nature are? (also, see the weak link between supply and demand and capitalism, various non capitalist systems also have supply and demand curves. "im not economically illiterate, just ideologically"). And 13? Wtf is wrong with your parents that they allowed that? At least my earlier 'wtf why is he hanging out with neo-nazis' has been answered.
E: also note the dead plant in the tattoo in progress pics. (An orchid I think).
I don't know what it is with capitalists and needing to prove to themselves they're aligned with the natural order. I'm a marxist but I can't imagine calling the TRPF a "law of nature". It would be embarrassing! ::: spoiler * (I know there are, like, dozens of "scientific communist" diamat weirdos, but for the most part they have rightfully been tied to a tree and left in the 20th century.) :::
Yeah it fits a pattern, half of starship troopers is about how other societies had ideals not based on mathematical truths but theirs is (no proof is ever shown). Another reason why I think the book reads so much better as a parody. The Eternal Science of Marxism, but now for Warrior Libertarians (who cannot even fight a proper war, see the whole technodogs thing).
I think it comes down to a deflection of the inherent cruelty of the system. Part of the structure of capitalism is that some people are going to suffer unjustly because your ability to get the resources you need to survive is gated behind your ability to either hold capital or provide value to capitalists. You don't have to look far to find examples of people who are either physically unable to do so or who find that their proverbial cheese has been moved by economic forces beyond their control or understanding, and now the terms of their economic and social existence are wildly different and less favorable.
By comparison, evolution by natural selection relies on having more children than the environment can support and having a significant number of those children die before they can reproduce. This also creates a lot of suffering, but since it's a natural process rather than a social construct it's impossible to call any part of it out for cruelty. There is no exploiter, and so there can be no exploitation. We can feel bad for the slowest gazelle but we don't morally condemn the lion because the suffering it creates is part of the natural world.
Of course, free market capitalism is not a natural process, there are things that we could do to mitigate or eliminate the suffering it creates, and trying to prevent that from happening is morally reprehensible. This is particularly true if you're in a relatively privileged position like, say, a finance capitalist in a major startup hub or working in an industry that for various reasons has been given a significantly better deal than most working people. At that point you're either doing the exploiting or siding with the exploiters and actively perpetuating unnecessary suffering. But if that suffering was natural then it wouldn't be unnecessary and you wouldn't be doing anything inarguably wrong.
It's just Jordan Peterson and his goddamn lobsters again.
Ok I have to say, I despise aella but as a promiscuous woman I completely fail to see what's supposed to be the problem with this particular form of play. That people like having casual sex? That they have slut pride? What.
I probably passed the 100 mark myself several years ago, I've hooked up with girls with much more obvious slut tattoos too, and we're all antifascist anarchists. Is this community ok with sneering at public sexuality now?
The only thing I found vaguely mid in that X is using a tattoo gun rather than scarification, branding, or at least stick-and-poke. But I don't kink-shame people for being casuals.
Personally I like sex work and amateur tattooing better when they aren't part of some convoluted attempt at rationalist virtue signalling on social media. Honestly it's kind of weird that you landed on disapproval of promiscuity as the reason anyone here would find the happy couple sneerable.
Not strictly related to the OP but fuck kink-washing sfba rationalism, at the very least the attempted normalization of non-con sex play in a subculture as inundated with cult dynamics as them should be fair game.
I cannot understand the reason y'all find the couple sneerable, as I look at that tweet and see something I very much would have done to one of my partners if they asked, and the language used by the bottom as the same language my partners might have used to describe the activity. If anything it's very much on the tame side, for our standards. Promiscuity is me trying to understand what is it that's so sneerable in the first place. Is it just "lol sex thing weird"? Is it "you'll regret your tattoo when you get older"? Me and my girls have done so much more intensely weirder sex things and more risqué tattoos. I expect to be ridiculed for it by like, cishet right-wing men, but to find that type of attitude here was shocking.
Like, "virtue signalling" as in the thing that rats accuse us of doing every time we have a motivation they cannot comprehend such as basic empathy, right? As in the rationalist's stereotypically verbose euphemism for what previous generations of misogynistic male nerds used to call "attention whoring"? Is that the sneerable thing then, that people like showing off when they do an unusual sex thing? Because if so I have like, years of mastodon flirty banter y'all can go sneer at, if we're branching out from "nerdy fascism bad" to "kink on main bad".
The guy goes by the handle RatOrthodox, calls rationalism his religion in the replies, seems kind of a cult-brained ideologue anyway based on his other tattoos, and went out of his way to make boinking aella into a public achievement/trophy thing.
This is just from the OP, I bet I could find any number of additional absolutely ridiculous things about him if I bothered with his twitter feed (edit: someone else did). Basically he seems like sneer incarnate, and if rationalists ever stormed the capitol building I bet he'd be the one with the face paint and the horned fur hat giving interviews.
Virtue signaling is not really interchangeable with attention whoring, it's when you specifically (and usually clumsily) want people to notice that you are part of an ingroup, and in this case the ingroup definitely isn't just people who like amateur tattooing and horny post on main.
Maybe I should explicitly note that unless this turns out to be another aella publicity stunt she does seem pretty incidental to the whole thing and her only fault appears to be being attractive this type of weirdo in the first place, which I'm not blaming her for.
Think you are right, and tbh I didn't read this as a kink thing but more some weird glorifying Aella as some sort of important cult leader thing (and misread it and assumed it had to do with the flowchart event, and not this (which I should have noticed was wrong as there were less than 100 people involved in that, for which a 'I was nr 100' is quite odd to me (and fits into the whole cultleader vibe))). A reason why I only focused on the guy myself.
And you are totally correct that people sneer on Aella way to much just because she is {a woman, sex worker, a bit strange, unapologetic about being a sex worker, has sex the wrong way, {more weird reasons unrelated to her being part of the 'we should do eugenics!' crowd}} (pick any that apply). And have mentioned this before in other places. (oddly enough this caused somebody on bsky to just go full anti sex worker, so that was an easy block at least). But yes you are right to call us out on this.
My stance is that I hate Aella because she exploits her life experience to be a disgusting misogynist and it is morally correct to kinkshame unpleasant heterosexual men who associate with the rationalist sex cult. I'm not interested in other people's hangups beyond that.
are you aware of what discussion group you're posting this to
oh, no, to be clear: this isn't about the sex/sluttiness - I have no issue with that at all. in a more general sense (over the wider set of things aella), her positioning herself as a "sex researcher" but often using that to bash specific groups or put out a specific narrative, that is far more problematic
but regarding this specific thing, tho: the "forced a tattoo on me" bit specifically, and all the rationalists doing their weird quasi-intellectual arguing with everyone who asks questions. the "forced" wording feels ... intentionally bait&switch? presumably (..hopefully?) there's mutual consent here, so it's a fucking choice to go frame the event that way
That's very much the language my play partners use online, though? I totally post banter like "that submissive was so blanked out that I took advantage of them by doing X", to which they'll reply "implying I didn't evily manipulated you into doing that in the first place", and so on. This is so commonplace in my communities that I failed to even understand what could be the problem before you pointed it out. I mean, "I forced my famous domme to mark me as a trophy as her #100 simp"? How would you exactly force (non-kink sense) someone to tattoo you anyway, and if you did and were unwise enough to brag about it, presumably the microcelebrity in question wouldn't like and retweet it? I took it to mean "I was so into the idea of being marked, I'm glad she agreed to my pestering", and I would bet money if any of my people talked in that exact wording, that's what everyone would take it as. I mean, otherwise I would probably have been arrested for the frequency of times I say "bye everyone gonna tie someone up and do unspeakably cruel things to them" and whatnot
I think in this thread it’s not “this thing is gross because it involves sex stuff”, it’s “this sex stuff is made gross by the involvement of aella and co, who we understand to have fundamentally different and incorrect ideas about ethics both in general and specific to sex”
Basically anything Aella touches merits a sniff test.
I'm imagining the same statement from a different person, on a platform that is not Xitter, about a sex partner who is not Aella.
(thinks)
Pierre Menard, author of the Kink-ote
Gotta say, I’m not much of a JLB head, so I don’t fully understand this (would love an explainer!). At first glance I thought this was a Menards reference and super didn’t understand.
"Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" is a story about a man whose passion project is rewriting Don Quixote, that is, arriving at exactly the same text as Cervantes, but from his own experiences. The narrator quotes the same line from both and observes that the remark by Cervantes is empty rhetoric, while the statement by Menard alludes to a whole school of philosophy that did not exist in Cervantes' time. So, "Though they are verbally identical, Menard's is infinitely richer."
I wasn't going for a deep-lore reference, just a bit of silly wordplay about the title.
This is more on Aella Cult than on her tbh.
And didn't Aella and also Grimes have a come to jesus moment when they realized they hung out with a lot of bad people. Guess nothing came from that. (That part of them is always worse than these just a bit off antics they pull).
I would give this at least -9600 credibility points. neither of them are whoopsie-daisy'ing into these scenes and crowds, they both knew what and who
Sorry I was being a bit too vague because I didn't have any proof ready. But here it is. It is them covering their asses if there might be a fallout, a non-apology equivalent, as there has been no changes or dropping of names/extremist behavior since, it is all just vague vibes.
I hate I'm so terminally online I found out about the rumor that Musk and Stephen Miller's wife are bumping uglies through a horrorfic parody account
https://mastodon.social/@[email protected]/114593332907413196
Midnight Pals is pretty great.
currently reading https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.17570
this is PsiQuantum, who are hot prospects to build an actually-quantum computer
no, they have not yet factored 35
but they are seriously planning qubits on a wafer and they think they can make a chip with 1m noisy qubits
anyone know more about this? does that preprint (from last year) pass sniff tests?
(my interest is journalistic, and also the first of these companies to factor 35 gets all the VC money ever)
I unfortunately know jack shit about quantum computing, so I can't really weigh in, but I am rooting for them to pull it off, because PsiQuantum getting all the VC money ever means AI stops getting all the VC money ever
Hey, if we boil the oceans via quantum research, at least we might get some new physics out of it.
New Blood In The Machine: The "AI jobs apocalypse" is for the bosses