I read a claim that the royal governor of Virginia, John Murray (4th Earl of Dunmore), striped George Washington of his (very valuable) lands in the Ohio Valley, which Washington had originally been awarded for his service in the French and Indian War.
It seems like there was some _plausible_ legal ground for that. Since maybe the land was only supposed to be allocated to regular royal soldiers, and colonial militiamen, technically, didn't count.
And Murray called him on this technicality.
If true, this is relevant because it might give a personal, financial, justification for supporting the revolutionary war.
Washington was a multi-millionaire in danger of losing his fortune because of English policy. Rebellion, though risky, would make the problem go away.
Does anyone know if this claim is true? The book I found the claim in has a useless footnote, and googling around hasn't help me much.
Failing that, how do you go about verifying this kind of claim?
I was reading something that suggested that trauma "tries" to spread itself. ie that the reason why intergenerational trauma is a thing is that the traumatized part in a parent will take action to recreate that trauma in the child.
This model puts the emphasis on the the parent's side: the trauma is actively "trying" to spread.
This is in contrast to my previous (hypothetical) model for IGT, which puts the emphasis on the child's side: kids are sponges that are absorbing huge amounts of info, including via very subtle channels. So they learn the unconscious reactions of the people around them.
My catch all thread for this discussion of AI risk in relation to Critical Rationalism, to summarize what's happened so far and how to go forward, from here.
I started by simply stating that I thought that the arguments that I had heard so far don't hold up, and seeing if anyone was interested in going into it in depth with me.
So far, a few people have engaged pretty extensively with me, for instance, scheduling video calls to talk about some of the stuff, or long private chats.
(Links to some of those that are public at the bottom of the thread.)
I am increasingly impressed with @robertskmiles's videos on AI safety topics.
They're a really fantastic resource, since they're well explained, and it is much easier to ask a person to watch a youtube video than it is to read a long series of blog posts, or even worse, a book.
(In a conversation, it is feasible to just sit down with a person and watch a 15 minute video together at 1.5 speed, and then dive back into discussion, in a way that is is a lot less feasible to say "read this", and sit there while they rush through a post or three.)
My understanding is that there was a 10 year period starting around 1868, in which South Carolina's legislature was mostly black, and when the universities were integrated (causing most white students to leave), before the Dixiecrats regained power.
I would like to find a relatively non-partisan account of this period.
My hope is that folks will read this document carefully, and leave comments, noting which specific claims of mine seem false, and, if you think some part of my story is wrong, outlining how it works instead.