I read just parts of it. Can you link or explain what you mean here? I do not understand the connection to intolerance.

It's linked right above in this chain. I am not going to discuss why killing people is intolerant. That's just silly even for hn standards.

You edited your post after I commented and there was nothing about killing there before. (Just something about haters)

Indeed not HN standards. And if Joshua said killing people is good, I am interested in a full quote.

also interested in the source. read a compilation of mails and this was not in there.

If you are going to defend someone you have no or very distant association with like you stated in another reply. Maybe just maybe read what everyone else is talking about, in this chain it would be his email exchange with epstein. Thanks for making ME read that pseudo intellectual shit again so YOU don't have to.

"too many people, so many mass executions of the elderly and infirm make sense is the fundamental fact that everyone dies at some time .make it imporrisbole to ask so why not earilier. if the brain discards unused neurons, why shold socieity keep their equivalent."

https://www.jmail.world/thread/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026413?view=i...

EDIT: There was no comment before I edited mine. @dang can probably timestamp it if you want to make a fuss about.

"EDIT: There was no comment before I edited mine. @dang can probably timestamp it if you want to make a fuss about."

Dang would just flag us both if we make a fuss here.

And what you apparently mean is, that when you started to edit your comment, my answer wasn't there. But it was already, after you edited.

Anyway, I am fine with calling this part a missunderstanding.

Maybe present the full quote?

"too many people, so many mass executions of the elderly and infirm make sense is the fundamental fact that everyone dies at some time .make it imporrisbole to ask so why not earilier. if the brain discards unused neurons, why shold socieity keep their equivalent

The radical idea of treating individuals in a society as cells and the society itself as a well-organized organism is fascism, or course. Probably the most efficient and rationally stringent way of governance, if someone could pull it off in a sustainable way; and if it is aggressive and expansive, its efficiency makes it a virus that everybody will want to stomp out. Fascism makes romantic doo-gooders like me very uncomfortable"

He dares to explore radical taboo ideas and concludes that it would be fascism, which he is not comfortable with.

So .. I see nothing where he is intolerant of anything. But you seem not tolerant for people daring to explore certain thoughts in general? Even if they reach the conclusion this is not the way to go. (And maybe even an attempt at dissuading the other person of those concepts)

That's why I didn't want to quote anything because it's just deteriorating into a debate club about hypotheticals.

To extend your "full" quote: "The radical idea of treating individuals in a society as cells and the society itself as a well-Organized organism is fascism, or course. Probably the most efficient and rationally stringent way of governance, if someone could pull it off in a sustainable way… I rather like the treatment Fascism gets in the Amazon Series ‘The Man in the High Castle’, which explores what would have happened if the Germans and Japanese had won the war: A society that tries to function as a brutal and ruthlessly efficient machine, eliminating all social and evolutionary slack. It is very dark, but not a flat caricature of pointless evil for its own sake."

Let's stay away from killing people how about the misogyny?:

"You cannot learn what does not attract your attention. Women tend to find abstract systems, conflicts and mechanisms intrinsically boring."

"Let's stay away from killing people how about the misogyny?:

"You cannot learn what does not attract your attention. Women tend to find abstract systems, conflicts and mechanisms intrinsically boring.""

I am not an expert, but that is not misogyny in my book. Not sure about the part about conflicts, but in general it matches my observation as well, women tend to find abstract things boring. That does not say ALL women are like this, or ALL men like abstract things, but on average this is the trend. And when you compare the ratio of men / women who go into in the abstract scientific field, it seems backed up by real world data (also when accounting for existing sexism in the field).

In general, Joshua is indeed a weird guy, the main thing I remember from him as a guest from a alternativlos podcast is:

He always was exited for AGI to finally have someone smart enough to talk to.

Well, I don't subscribe to that, nor his openness for certain other positions, but he is definitely not a fascist. And I believe I am sort of an expert here, as I exposed and confronted quite some of those who tried to infiltrate alternative groups I am part of. (Also I live in saxony. I know cryptonazi talk.) So yes, I do see some signs that are worth debating. Giving him a chance to clarify and reconsider.

But canceling and blocking him will just push him to that side for good. And that would be a shame.

Zero trust, bravo.

oh, did not read that one...