As AI is inherently a weapons technology I would suggest that the point of no return predates our species, either to the first tool use by an ancestor species, or in the first expression of intraspecies violence in the same. We've just been honing that first weapon for a very long time.
I often see people worrying about an AI takeover when we're perfectly capable of killing ourselves with human directed AI that isn't even remotely what we'd recognise as sentient, let alone AGI. We haven't solved our own alignment problems.
If your concerns for social norms outweigh all other factors then its a social club. There's nothing wrong with that, but there are only so many ways I can say that I am here for my goals and not yours.
You can certainly evolve ideas without discourse, but the question is how much that absence will compromise your progress. When the only impediment to me continuing as I am is your public claims of offence then it's hard to see reason to alter anything. As you also offer nothing genuine as a reward for compliance there's no reason to alter on the front either. Neither your carrot nor your stick are particularly of interest to me, so what else have you got?
You seem to make no firm distinction between speech and action. I do. That difference in worldview is going to result in significant and irreconcilable differences in many areas between us. I have no good alternative to that but to accept it.
Black people are better than white people and we have the 100m sprint times to prove it. Of course, if we're talking the 100m freestyle then they suck. Evolution exists, phenotypes are representative of genetic differences, and better is a human value judgement that is no substitute for fitness in that theory. The difference between you and I is that I have no fear of being denounced as a racist for saying things like that and I will pursue my thinking no matter where it takes me. Purity testing is just another (poisonous) social norm I don't care about.
Lexical traps are boring to me. Just go ahead and assume I'm Satan so we can just get on with the discussion. I don't accept that who a person is makes everything they say wrong or a lie. That is reductive to the point of stupidity.
All your examples feature irrelevant concerns based around emotions. Thinking someone is ugly is irrelevant to their ideas, and I'm only interested in their ideas. Wanting to fuck someone is irrelevant to their ideas, and I'm only interested in their ideas. If I am working then I am interested in my goals in that context, and as all forms of sexual interaction in the workplace open the workplace to legal risk there is no place for that in professional conduct. A house of God is still a house, and I don't walk onto other people's property uninvited to give them my opinions. Besides, my opinions are mine alone. I'm not a preacher and I don't care about conversion. I keep saying that I'm interested in my goals, and spreading ideology isn't one of them. I wish to evolve my thinking solely for my own benefit. If others choose to get something out of that then that's a nice secondary benefit but wholly incidental.
We are different people. Fundamentally different. We want different things and we have different ways of getting them.
Blame and responsibility are not synonyms. Fixing a problem starts not with blame but with responsibility.
Black people are a demographic and an identity group. As a demographic the label black is irrelevant. We could call them Group X and all the statistics about them would be equally valid. Black as an identity group is a wholly different matter. There are a lot of messed up attitudes attached to identity politics. For example, you suggest that blaming black people is something that is being done too much, as if black people cannot and should not be held responsible for the crimes they voluntarily commit. You also suggest White Man's Burden as if the black identity grouping is more important than individual circumstances.
Here's my thinking: we stand or fall as a society. Whenever we allow distinctions to outweigh our unity then we invite discord. If you make people pick sides, they will, and that has logical consequences, some of which are very bad. Demography is useful, indentitarianism isn't. Demography allows us to identify areas to concentrate our efforts for maximum returns, it is nothing more than statistics. Identitarianism encourages all sorts of flawed thinking, not least of which is victimhood, which is one of the most toxic attitudes possible. The idea that people like Thomas Sowell and Cornel West need my help just because they're black and I'm white is beyond stupid. At some point we have to make the world we want to live in, and the world I want to live in is the world where skin colour is about as important as handedness. I have skin in that game because there's a ton of non-white and mixed race in my family. Depending on how deep you are into identitarianism you could argue that I'm not white either - I'd fail a lot of the tests they used in South Africa to assess racial purity. I have a ton of adaptations that don't suit my environment at all because immigration exists and people don't know how to keep their legs shut. I shouldn't be punished nor advantaged for what my ancestors did in the bedroom, and neither should anyone else.
As for compulsions, they're often not rational. I know that certain groups are more valued than others. I know that taboos and social expectations exist. I know all the sacred cows and what you are expected to think and say of them. Yet I choose time and time again to say "fuck it" and wade right in knowing that it makes no difference to others and brings pointless ire down on me. I don't understand why I'm doing what I am, I wish I did. Believe me, if I knew how I was busted in the head I could go about addressing that (or at least accepting it).
I can see ways in which denying reality for social reasons has caused harm here. Refusing to have an equal expectation of lawfulness for the black community results in levels of violence that are totally unacceptable. If the people you live amongst suddenly started shooting their neighbours and there were bullets wizzing through the air wouldn't you have a problem with that? Wouldn't you expect everyone else to have a problem with that? More importantly, wouldn't you have a problem with people that just shrugged and said "It's because they're whatever skin colour" and just went on with their lives like nothing was happening? Would you have a problem with people that demand genuflection to you and your neighbourhood whilst either doing nothing to help you or actively working against you? I have lots of problems with all of that.
Conduct is mostly a product of social expectations. It's hilariously reductive, but if you want people to be responsible for their own choices then you have to expect them to be and back that up with reward and censure. So many of the problems in society can be traced directly back to identity groups either not being expected to be responsible for their own choices or identity groups being expected to be responsible for the choices of others. Whenever agency and consequence are decoupled there will be problems.
This place isn't a social club to me and I don't see how it ever could be. Nobody here is going to interact with me for anything other than what I can say of my thinking. I am valueless in all other respects.
You control your own thoughts and emotional responses (or at the very least have the ability to accept them). Your annoyance is not a harm that I control, nor do I see how it is a tangible harm.
I don't see how a person can evolve their thinking if they are exhorted to be silent. You strongly imply that I should conceal my thoughts and opinions for social reasons, yet somehow also be open to changing those those opinions without discourse, again for social reasons. As stated, this isn't a social club for me. I'm not going to fault anyone else for that goal but I'm also not going to be driven by the goals of others without possibility of reaching my own.
When I say I can't be anyone but myself consider that a stand in for "I have no intention of lying for social gain". As I have stated elsewhere that is something of a compulsion for me, but compulsions can be tempered, so ultimately it is a choice. That is a choice that brings costs (what choice doesn't?) but those costs are mine alone. My conduct reflects only on me, it affects only my reputation.
Has this compulsion ever made you wade into situations where black people are being treated unjustly by white people? How about (it's not directly relevant here, I'm just curious) situations where women are being treated unjustly by men? Or is it only one sort of injustice that you feel this way about?
Not often, but occasionally. Mostly in the past.
I'd say the two biggest reasons I don't intervene is that I live in a country that has anti-discrimination laws (so discrimination is a business and personal risk and heavily self modulated for that reason. All the expected results of prohibition apply) and that I don't mix with many people at all. I'm not involved in ethnic communities anymore, and I don't associate with women beyond a superficial level either. I don't intervene in any situation without good cause, and the not my problem attitude takes precedence over most of these issues.
That being said, I've got my biases just like everyone else does. I've got plenty of things that I consider to be unjust, and I think the more important consideration in that is that my ranking of what's more of an injustice varies from others and what is widely considered acceptable.
If you have a disinclination to discuss a subject that is perfectly fine. If you voluntarily open a dialogue (about what you wanted to say) as you did then what do you expect? If you don't like what I have to say and/or do not wish to talk about it/or to me then don't talk about it with me by choice.
If you don't like my tone that's your privilege.
If you don't ask then the answer is automatically no. I can ask for whatever I want, in any manner I choose, it doesn't mean I'm going to get it. Since the cost of asking is so low it pays to ask frequently (and often in ways that people may not like).
The people that frequent this site have their own set of biases, just like everyone does. Just like everywhere else I go, fairness isn't a huge factor. Thanks to Silicon Valley those that hate 'fairness' in speech have all the tools they need to silence whomever they want (and that is exercised exactly how you'd expect). So short of the digital equivalent of running me out of town I will continue doing as I am to extract whatever value I can.
What I seek from every place I go is what's there. I don't care if I'm liked, and I don't care if what I say is liked. I care about what comes up in reply to what I say. If I learn something new then that's a win. If my existing views are reinforced then that's a win. Nowhere exists that isn't going to have some degree of shit to wade through, but you do that to get at the good stuff.
Finally, I can't be anyone but myself. I have biases, I have beliefs, opinions, and preferences. I can go wherever I like but I'm never getting away from my own viewpoint and worldview.
That is certainly possible.
I'm not a gambler so forgive me if these questions are stupid:
How are these odds being calculated in the first place? I think we all remember the odds of 2016 versus the outcome. What were the various pundits being touted this time saying back then?
Why would bookies be offering odds that they know they're likely to lose out with? What are their profit margins? I know that casinos are a business that depends on extremely high volumes of bets, are bookies the same?
Is it possible to bet on the results of voting by state? That seems safer to me (well, as safe as any prediction of the future can be).
Can I bet on how long it takes before Biden is retired by Harris/the Dems?
I know that it is possible to hedge your bets and place bets on both outcomes (that take advantage of different odds). Is anyone suggesting a strategy like that?
I know the election is flashy and topical but if we are talking gambling for profit then are there better bets in general for other things? It seems silly to bet on something just because it's there.
The election presumably will have an effect on the stock market. Given that you can already 'bet' on stocks, directly, in futures, and in hedging, then is gambling better or worse than that?