More music I enjoy

I wanted to post some of the music I've been listening to lately, in order to lower the pretentiousness of the blog-- not everything has to be political, or deranged, or whatever.

'You're being a Boomer / normie bro,' -> probably the reaction I'd get on just about every social media platform. (God forbid someone not be into garbage.)

I said this in a somewhat emo in a way in a previous post, but the bitter haters that make up most of the society / the Internet will try to cancel you, shame you, and laugh at you for anything, regardless of what you may or may not have done-- anything to score a W at someone's expense. And really, because of how warped today's society is, they'll target you harder for your good deeds, compared to deviant or evil behavior (which they overlook, or even encourage!). 

That's why I don't really mind being myself at this point, however against-the-grain not being into gay slop is-- why bother faking it? If you're going to be punished regardless, you might as stand up for yourself, and be honest about your personality.

AI, negative applications?

(I'm trying to go with a different approach, where I structure / edit / polish my posts less going forward. I think there's a certain point where being perfectionistic just restricts your output, while making you sound pretentious.)

I haven't talked much about AI, since I don't find it very interesting or useful, but a thought that has been in the back of my head is that to the extent that it is useful, it's more of a question of "negative" rather than "positive" applications.

Fundamentally, and despite trillions of dollars being thrown at it, it cannot create great art, introduce new scientific paradigms, or even really come up with interesting or insightful comments during a conversation (AI's speech sounds like a cross between an HR person and a used car salesman). It thus has no real positive contributions to make-- but I think can be used as a tool to reveal fakeness within the economy, as well as the broader society. 

Namely if a certain sector is vulnerable to what amounts to an industrial-scale Slop Machine, it means there wasn't much real work being done in the first place. AI can be used as a detector, to test for and reveal the presence of bullshit and fake work: if it successfully replaces human labor in this or that area, it's because the humans were not doing much in the first place.

So the fact that AI is having extraordinary success within academia should not be taken as a sign of its genius, but rather as an indication of the deep structural flaws and decline of academic culture. The fact that they are incapable of distinguishing between hallucinated meaningless gibberish and real honest / insightful work, reveals how low standards have fallen.

In that sense, AI is like a species, and academia is the environment. Its exponential growth within the niche reveals that the environment positively selects for garbage, which it can produce at a much faster rate than any human can (notwithstanding the valiant efforts of academics in recent decades). 

I say the same thing for everyday tasks: anything that you're doing which AI can do better, is not worth doing in the first place. Whatever it is can probably be consigned to meaningless / filler work, and cut out of your routine. 

So for example, I've heard that AI is great at writing emails-- what we can infer is that, obviously, most emails are a waste of time, and ultimately meaningless, and so perfectly suited for a machine that can only generate meaningless slop. 

Other insightful people have already noticed this, and it seems to be a general theme: instead of heading to a techno-dystopia, where the all-powerful machines subjugate humanity, what we're really headed for is a kind of absurdist Philip K Dick scenario, where the laughably incompetent machines break all kinds of things, and we all have to act like babysitters cleaning up after an immature, reckless, ADHD child. 

 

Tulsi Gabbard finally quits; more reflections on MAGA filth

Just a brief comment today, now that Tulsi Gabbard is finally out-- something she should've done sooner, in order to avoid contaminating herself and her political brand with the stench of Trump's horrendous neocon admin.

There is nothing surprising about this event, since it was 100% guaranteed from the outset that she would be ousted. No way an anti-establishment / pro-Iran figure would be tolerated for long, even if she was relatively muted and checked out and non-confrontational wrt to Trump's agendas. 

It was always very revealing to witness the level of seething disdain and hatred she brought out of the MAGAtards-- one of the few figures who could do that, and one that they never bothered to hype up or praise or include in their literally fake & gay social media circlejerks (unlike Vance, Cruz, Rubio, etc). 

An attractive, well-adjusted, confident, woman-- too much of a painful reminder of the endless normie women who rejected and ignored MAGAtards all throughout high school and college, which is why they hated her guts so badly. 

And too much of a relatable aloha all-American vibe in her persona, feelings which are totally incompatible with the seething hatred that defines this movement-- composed of foreign-born scammers / parasites and native-born social rejects-- whose sole goal is to sink America for good, as part of one final anti-social revenge fantasy against the normies who've always looked down in disgust at them.

Iran rant

Nothing new to say, just reposting some stuff I wrote previously but didn't upload: 

Trump has now reached Biden levels of senility-- he gets up in the morning and says one thing, and then in the evening he says the exact opposite, and his (equally brain-dead) supporters are then tasked with concocting 5D chess / 190 IQ explanations for why insanity is akshually genius, if you think about it carefully. The same is true of the broader war. It's just beyond pathetic, and hard to think of a sadder group.

America is of course an empire in severe decline, and everything that's going on must be understood in those terms-- it's not the Midcentury, when the elites could carefully implement their plans in ways that went undetected by the unaware / distracted normies. Rather, it's a case of the retarded leading the insane, so everyone in the broader society realizes that these plans (AI, green energy, another war in the M-E) are just totally doomed to fail disastrously, and so the propagandists are deluding themselves rather than fooling anyone else, and they enjoy no real influence or support outside of a handful of teeny echo-chambers (which are only becoming more and more irrelevant to the rest of society as time goes on, no different from the mainstream media).

'If you don't want endless inflation, just so America can lose another war in the M-E-- well you're just a CUCK and 3rd worldist!'

'It's called survival of the fittest, kid-- we lose, and other people win, and the harder we lose the better!'

Sure thing Boomer, whatever you say Boomer.

And as usual with losers, the MAGtards do nothing except whine and cry about the state of the world, and how cruel it is to them-- literally identical to the noises ANTIFA made after getting Rittenhouse'd-- now that their delusions of grandeur have been collided with the IRGC's missiles. Apparently Iran was supposed to 'just take a beating' or fight back 'in appropriate ways', rather than retaliate in a way that would allow them to win. And on top of that their missiles and drones 'crossed international lines!' and even hurt the innocent American soldiers!

Again, you'll basically never see a group of people spend more time sniveling about how cruel the world is to them than these so-called alpha males, Darwinian superiors, autistic ubermenschen... almost as if this is what happens when you spend your entire life constructing a narcissistic persona, because you're unable to cope with being a generic reject loser.

So many retarded faggots, and in so many powerful positions... it's hard to think of a nation more crawling with AIDS than America in the 21st century. 

Psychedelics, revisited

I thought I'd summarize and condense all of my thoughts in one post, to make it easier for people to find them. It's not that original, but it's more for anyone who finds the discourse surrounding these drugs very suspicious (a sign your BS-detector is working correctly)-- it's a look at the basic facts and arguments, which you can also use to push back at all the pretentious slop they're trying to inundate social media with.

Getting through to the drug addicts themselves is impossible, because they are members of a massive cult where all they do is jerk themselves off to fantastic tales of wonderful benefits and amazing superpowers and whatnot-- criticizing their preferred flavor of copium threatens to take way their crutch, so they will lash out in fury. But at least you can be aware of how scant the evidence is, and how dubious the reasoning is, and spread that knowledge to others.

1) The proper scientific name for all these substances is 'hallucinogen'-- 'psychedelic' is a literal sci-fi term, invented by the sci-fi writer Aldous Huxley. The former is a more accurate label because it tells you right away what the drugs do (they give you delusions, and make you hallucinate) whereas the latter doesn't and in fact misleads as to their nature. 

2) Hallucinogens causes psychosis, especially in people who have a mental-illness or are at risk for one. This is common knowledge. There is also a link to schizophrenia, which is not as simple as stating that they cause it (they may simply bring it out prematurely in those who are genetically predisposed; people with weird brains are also more likely to self-medicate with drugs to cope with their problems), but is there nonetheless. The point is that it's simply not true that they are 'risk free' and 'not harmful'. 

3) It is possible to get addicted to them. While hallucinogens themselves don't cause tolerance or withdrawal, people with addictive brains (like drug addicts) can still go through the process of addiction anyways. 

It's important to note that in many cases where people repeatedly announce that X or Y 'isn't addictive' they are usually not making a claim about reality or a rational argument or whatever, but are really in the process of beginning the cycle of addiction, and are simply trying to reduce cognitive dissonance by rationalizing their behavior.

You'll notice that this is especially common among users of hallucinogens (not surprising, given that the drugs make you delusional). They will often make verbal claims that are directly at odds with their real-world, observable behavior: they will tell you that the drugs are not addictive, as they withdraw from social relationships in the pursuit of greater and greater highs, or that they're not harmful, as they become more mentally unstable, or that they are not gateway drugs, while getting addicted to all kinds of other drugs. This discrepancy between their self-image and behavior just never occurs to them. 

4) Many of the terms confidently used by the hallucinogen enthusiasts don't mean anything, or describe processes that are poorly understood or unclear. In some cases they even imply things that go against basic scientific knowledge. 

The confidence with which they use the terms is unwarranted, given how limited the research is, but it is is fairly common among pseudoscientific fads: poorly-understood terms are used to impress laymen and silence their doubts by creating the illusion of total confidence, while the gatekeepers and gurus preen about their special esoteric knowledge (which often turns out to be fabricated).  

For example, many of them tout the birth of new neurons ('neurogenesis') that occurs during the drug trip, as if they were sprouting a second brain or enlarging their minds or discovering new things or whatever, when the reality is that this process-- the hippocampus birthing new neurons--  occurs in adulthood as a response to brain damage, such as following traumatic brain injury or a stroke. (This is not to mention that hallucinations themselves are almost always seen as signs of brain damage.)

Of course this is not definitive either, but the point is that the advocates are using poorly-researched terms to justify extraordinary claims, which they also usually present glibly (as if they were well-established facts), when they should require mountains of evidence to prove. 

5) Nobody who uses these drugs in the long run comes across as remotely sane, normal, or well-adjusted-- the exact opposite. They suffer from delusions of grandeur and main character syndrome (perhaps due to damaging the parts of their brain responsible for emotional regulation), and to the extent that they can distinguish between reality and their own private narcissistic fantasies, they seem to look down on reality A brief look at their state is a better argument than anything I could come up with.

6) Finally, regular users of hallucinogens are in denial as to who they actually are-- junkies.

This arguably the most damaging aspect of the whole cope, which is that it obscures the nature of what they are doing by presenting their retreat from reality, descent into addiction, and decision to self-medicate with poorly-understood substances as a heroic win, a triumph, a form of exploration, etc when fundamentally none of this is true.

At this point many of them will try to defend their lifestyles by pointing out the many well-known and obvious flaws of Big Pharma and the failures of SSRIs, but in many ways their decisions represent an intensification of the already-dangerous tendencies of the status quo-- they reject the traditional drugs, in favor of even harder versions of them (rather than trying to live a healthy or natural lifestyle) and they replace a flawed process with one that is guaranteed to fail (self-medicating). All in all the whole thing is a very harmful and disturbing trend.