Crake
Protestant Goodbot
No bio...
User ID: 1203
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
If accepting a sovereign country into your alliance counts as antagonistic, the word has been hollowed of meaning.
That is so wild to me. If you and I were playing a war game, and I, your stated opponent, started forming military alliances with a bunch of entities that are in a good position to fuck you up, of course you are going to find that concerning. That's antagonistic! What is your definition of antagonistic?
The US and EU are not responsible for maintaining russia's unofficial sphere of interest to their own detriment and that of the people in that sphere
Of course not! I absolutely do not expect the united states to avoid antagonizing its weaker opponents. I expect any world power to play their cards for all they're worth. I assume that they will use their leverage to fuck over their opponents. But when we look at the actions taken by a specific entity in world politics, "antagonistic" refers to an action taken by a an entity that is likely to appear knowingly threatening to another entity. It's not a moral judgement. Its just a question of, when party A does this, is that something that will make party B uncomfortable, and is it also something that party A knows will make party B uncomfortable. If so, then it is antagonistic. I'm not saying party A shouldn't do antagonistic things. It just seems clear cut to me that doing things that make russia uncomfortable is antagonistic - and I don't see how that means that "the word has been hollowed of meaning".
The US and EU are not responsible for maintaining russia's unofficial sphere of interest to their own detriment and that of the people in that sphere. Out of what, the goodness of their heart, sportsmanlike respect for a worthy adversary who's fallen on hard times?
I don't expect the USG to avoid antagonizing russia. I expect them to act predatorily whenever possible, but I don't agree that avoiding conflict with russia actually would be to their own detriment or to the detriment of the people of that sphere. Again, I know that america will act aggressively, but as far as I can tell it would be to everyones benefit is they did allow russia to shore up its position. You act like my position is totally unheard of but the concept of "balance of powers" is not alien. I don't expect america to pursue a balance, but I would prefer a balance exist, as an unbalance seems to increase the chance of a real war breaking out. I think a balance would be to everyones benefit.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
What they were supposed to do? One option would be helping Russia to keep occupied areas after USSR has fallen but I am not convinced that it would end better in any aspect.
Simply not meddle with regions directly bordering other empires.
Ideally try to maintain polite diplomatic relationships and worldwide power balance between the big dogs.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
You describing this as poor etiquette potentially has some merit and I would be curious to hear more. From my perspective, I would not consider it poor etiquette if I was on the receiving end of the above post, as the scenario seems trivially easy to clear up (e.g. "Yep, looks like I was wrong on that point. My bad!"). I don't see making a mistake as indication of a personal failing so it shouldn't be something to be embarrassed by. To the extent that anyone who makes a mistake refuses to admit error, or to the extent a topic generates a pattern of errors skewing in the same direction, I think there is utility to shining a spotlight on it.
I agree with BadCivilization - it feels like bad etiquette to make a top post calling someone out this fast. I agree that people who make big claims as top level posts should respond to criticism. And I'm in favor of shining on light on people when they fail to respond. But this is too fast to accuse someone of intentionally ignoring your post. Give the person 24 hours, no?
I like arguing on the motte but I don't have notifications set up or anything. I don't think going dark during an argument always means I'm avoiding a strong point. I see this as a nonsynchronous medium. I would like to have a grace period.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
5mo ago
I am not familiar with the term longhouse in this context, and can't easily find an explanation for the term connected to AI or space exploration. Is it a transhumananist term? Is it a rat term?
Can you explain what it means in this context?
Your interpretation of my position is not correct though. And it is not based on what I have actually said. You've made big assumptions.
"Maybe I (@Crake) don't have a trivial knock-down argument against moral realism that doesn't do significant philosophical damage in other domains."
I don't think that. I recognize that my position on morality complicates other areas. I am happy to go there and discuss those areas and the damage done. You are not. I recognize that my position creates difficulties and problems in other areas, I think they are meaningful problems that are worth exploring. I don't think this is trivial.
It's the same sense of triviality that I've seen from all sorts of adjacent folks in the past who think that the material world obviously just is, trivially
I really really don't think that the material world just is, trivially. That was part of my point. I tried to make it clear that my vision of the reality of the material world is thin. I think that this is a profoundly not trivial question. I thought I had done a good enough job making that clear.
You're confusing "there is a material world" with "science has something to do with 'usefulness' (however ill-defined)". Your first section was a bit about the so-called "material world":
I did not say "there is a material world". I said the material world is something that is just inferred. I said there is something out there that we appear to be able to interact with in an apparently consistent way. my qualifiers were not accidental.
my description of science as a practice that, to our best perception, appears to allow us to effectively interact with something that exists beyond our imperfect lens should make it clear that I am not holding science or the material world up as the most real most important and reliable thing. It is just useful. It is not deifying science, it is the opposite.
that "science" just magically settles all questions, trivially. Yes, I'm aware this is the school of thought people were steeped in; just do the thing, say the words, and don't worry about the presuppositions or foundations; it's useful!
Where the hell are you getting that from?! I have not said anything remotely like that. Science doesn't and cannot solve moral problems because it is such a limited tool. That was one of my central points that I have repeated throughout this thread.
If anything I was trying to diminish the value of science. It cannot help us solve the greater mysteries. It is a notably limited tool that appears to work in a limited scope. And its value is incredibly contingent. The important stuff, like morality, is outside the scope of science. That is my point: morality is insoluble to science. Even you admitted that that was my position earlier.
Is there any way for me to say that I am not privileging science which will make you actually deal with that position? Somehow I suspect that even if I convince you that this is my position you'll find it just as odious.
It appears to be a system or substrate that follows mostly consistent rules that we, whatever we are, exist within or on.
Stop here. Someone could probably write something very similar about the moral world. Nothing about hazily-defined "useful" or "result" needed.
Yes. Someone could do that and it would be an actually meaningful and interesting argument. That is the kind of thing I was hoping this discussion would eventually lead to. I would love to hear you make that argument. Please do.
But instead of that you insist on guerrilla warfare tactics. Instead of actually arguing with my position honestly, you needle at my position while exposing no surface of your own position for me to argue back against.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
any more than if you had a family business and none of the children wanted to take it over as they got older.
Well unfortunately I don't have a family business to pass on to them, but if I did I would also be pretty upset if they didn't want to take it over as they got older. And I wish my parents had a family business to pass to me - ideally one that they would be mad if I didn't take over lol
IMO children are a burden, not a blessing,
Well they're definitely a burden, but can't they be both? I tend to think most valuable things are obligations.
To be honest, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can want children, but that's just something I have to accept as "different people are wired differently".
Fair enough. Clearly wiring has a lot to do with it. I'm probably wired to have a strong desire to have children.
But I also have good feeling about family that aren't just based on wiring. My fondest memories are oriented around family. I have incredibly positive memories that are focused on older and younger family. So I have in my brain a positive association with being the older family member getting to introduce the younger to the world and play with them. And also a desire to fill that positive roll that older family members filled for me. There are burdens involved but my general feeling around family is very warm. Those were always fulfilling relationships for me.
I think most of the good things in life are warm, fulfilling burdens. What do you think is valuable to do that is not a burden?
I don't buy this. It only makes sense if Putin is on the absolute knife's edge of losing power already, and if that is the case, I don't think he'd have the power to secretly bomb the pipe without that being stopped or leaked.
Putin is in a precarious position but I think he still has control of many of the levers of power. The pipe existing gives him future options. He can turn it on or keep it off. That gives him leverage. I can't imagine that he would want to shrink his options is he still has the power to make that decision. And again, if he has enough power to blow it up, then he must still have quite a bit of power.
Protectionism applied to different areas of the economy is going to have different results. It's probably always going to lead to a reduction in total economic growth, but that doesn't mean it won't have other effects. They will have different externalities.
If your goal is something other than total economic growth or strict economic fairness - then I don't see how it's hypocritical to want to put your thumb on some areas and not others. He hasn't stated that his driving principle is maximum economic freedom for everyone.
Pure economic growth and strict fairness are pretty thin "neoliberal" goals. I think there are better things to set your political compass towards.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
9mo ago
I thought I knew the acronyms around here but apparently I don't because people say pmc all the time and I don't recognize it. What does pmc stand for?
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
11mo ago
Totally fair.
You may not value this as highly, in which case you would prefer stricter gender roles.
I don't, and so yes, I do.
But there's more to said about it. I, like everyone born in America, was raised to believe that freedom and self-actualization were great things to have. My default starting point agreed with you exactly. It's only over time that I've come to question it. I said:
Why though? How has the reduction of the strictness of roles that modernity has brought on improved things for people?
I think that my question already kind of accepts that we have more freedom to determine the course of our lives. I just question how much that is actually worth. I live in a wealthy blue bubble. The people I have known in my life have more freedom and ability to self determine than almost anyone on the planet, and yet most of them are not very happy. Happy isn't the be all end all, but I'm not sure they are very fulfilled either, and that is the end all.
Now I think that the good life would be to live in a small village, raised by a shoemaker to make shoes, and to make shoes for people who need those shoes. That sounds more fulfilling. I know that comes from a place of incredible privilege to be able to want that, but I do.
A yearning for the meaning provided by being someone raised to make shoes for a town that needs shoes is probably behind the obsession to make and purchase expensive artisanal good that all of the hipsters in my circles have. But it can't be the same because the artisanal shoes aren't needed the same way, and also you have to be essentially independently wealthy to afford the lifestyle of making shoes for hipsters or of buying those shoes.
But putting away the shoe fantasy. The reality is that suicide is up, sadness is up. The people I know don't seem to enjoy their freedom all that much. With all of this freedom and actualization around me, why do I end up spending so much time with people who complain about everything? Everyone seems to know the answer. It sucks living in an atomized, commercialized society. We want to be part of something. Or, from a more leftist perspective "late capitalism is bad". Fair enough that seems to be true.
I'm not sure that end result can be avoided if liberty/self determination are put as highest goals. I recognize this is probable well mined already on the motte.
What are your thoughts? If liberty/self determination are making you feel really fulfilled and happy and super interested to hear about it. I don't feel like I hear that very often here, or in my real life, honestly.
You'd have to be more hostile than an expected baseline. What the west is doing is normal. Competing powers do not turn down free real estate for nothing.
I've been clear that I agree with that. I don't expect the west to behave any differently than it is.
You didn't answer my question, what if they decide that the press criticizing russia is antagonizing, does that fly? It's not up to them to define what is antagonizingI
I suppose it is antagonistic on the part of the newspaper but that doesn't seem very relevant. It isn't USG or the west being antagonistic its the press, and I would expect a state to ignore that for the most part.
A schizo may find it antagonizing that you breathe in his presence, it doesn't make it so.
Ok. I said that "antagonizing" was choosing to do something that with the knowledge that it would bother the other party, not just bothering the other party. But I think your point is fair. I can see the argument that the western hegemony trying to expand and take "free real estate" is as natural to an ascendant hegemony as breathing, and therefore, Russia being annoyed by it is fully schizo. I don't really agree, but I follow your argument.
We're getting bogged down:
Yeah we are. Cards on the table I think I've found myself defending an increasingly pedantic argument.
I think antagonizing can be morally condemned,
I still don't totally get this position. Antagonizing is never justified?
But if you want to call the west's behaviour antagonizing, yet do not recognize any moral value to antagonizing, then antagonizing is fine, so we've both agreed on not condemning the west's behaviour and all that remains are semantics. Or do you wish to attach some other form of condemnation to the term?
I largely agree with this. It is sometimes ok to antagonize. I don't think this situation does justify the west antagonizing Russia, so I do have a moral judgement against it. But that's not because all antagonism is wrong. Specifically this antagonism is wrong. I have unfortunately mired myself in the semantic weeds here. I shouldn't have started an argument about the definition of antagonism. I should have said that what the west is doing in ukraine is simply wrong. It is certainly antagonistc, and also it is wrong. It also is unavoidable.
Btw, 'to fuck over' has moral value, no?
Fair enough. Instead of "I assume that they will use their leverage to fuck over their opponents" how about "I assume they will use their leverage to further increase their postion and weaken the position of their opponents".
What does it mean morally to 'avoid conflict'? If France said they will declare war unless the US hands over Martha's vineyard, you can avoid conflict. Russia's little demands have to be justified by more than their strong feelings and their threats.
I think you know where I stand on this. My stance on americas stake in ukraine is that if we stayed out of it, that would lower the chance of escalating conflicts between america and russia. I don't see what we gain from accepting ukraine into the western hegemony - it seems only useful in terms of strengthening our position in the grand conflict between america and russia, which is something I would prefer we fully navigated around. I don't want to prepare to win in a war with russia, I would like to avoid that war, and I don't see what we get from accepting Ukraine besides weakening russia. I fully expect conflict between america and russia to escalate, but I wish it wouldn't.
The question of France demanding Martha's vineyard doesn't seem like a good equivalent example.
To have a balance of power, you need the rival powers to be balanced, and they are not. Russia is very weak compared to the EU, and completely outclassed by the US. Russia is about as strong as their former colonies put together, and you can't pretend to rule a sphere that is as strong as you and hates you. That would really be unstable.
Prior to the war in Ukraine I would have disagreed, but it's hard for me to make that case now. I guess you're right. That seems like a very bad thing.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Why is America/the west entitled to be an empire and behave like an empire but Russia is not.
And I don’t want Russia to try to expand its hegemony either, but America attempting to expand its hegemony near Russia is antagonistic.
Even if you are arguing that Russia is bad and the west is good, therefore an expansion of western hegemony is not immoral - that’s irrelevant to the argument.
I didn’t say is was immoral for the west to expand its hegemony into Ukraine - all I said was that it is antagonistic. Something can be both morally justified, or even morally obligated, but still antagonistic.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Do you see some creepy aspect in the story about American Evangelicals spreading their views on homosexuality in Ghana? Or is your only problem with it that you disagree with them?
The second one. I think evangelicals spreading their views in Ghana is bad, because I think the views being spread are bad. I have no particular issue with people trying to convince others of their viewpoints more generally.
I am with Arjin. My values are such that all proselytizing is suspect to me. Anyone who is proselytizing to those who are far away is very suspect. It's gross to try and impress your ideology on people far away.
Can you explain why you strongly disagree with that? Successful proselytizing is hegemonic, borderline colonial. It's clearly an invasive action by one culture on another. Especially in the case that theres a strong power difference between the two groups involved. Clearly that does apply in the case of western institutions trying to cause change to singapore, right?
How would you even stop this? Should Singapore not be allowed to participate in the global internet, because maybe they'd see things that would change their views on LGBT people? Does the Singaporean internet need to be censored to ensure their present social values are maintained forever and ever? Is it bad to show people ads depicting LGBT people as normal people if such ads convince people that bans on sodomy are wrong?
I don't think this conversation is only about government policy. Cultures and institutions within those cultures are clearly going to attempt to spread their ideologies. But I can say that that is morally bad, even if I don't want to ban communication between cultures which would be impossible. Cultures and institutions that are more aggressive about proselytizing are dangerous, immoral, and not to be trusted. For the obvious reason that they are going to try and covert me, or my people. Definitionally that is something I wouldn't want. It is hostile.
Africa was never really affected much by COVID, lockdown or no. It's a disease that hits the old and fat hardest, it targets wealthy countries.
Elias point isn't that Africa would be harmed by COVID without massive lockdowns, he was disputing the implications of your game theory claim. And I agree, I think your argument doesn't work at all.
You called aggressive lockdowns the cooperative move, which implies that aggressive lockdowns would lead to a better outcome if everyone who could make that move did. But this is not true. The only way widespread aggressive lockdowns could lead to a better outcomes is if it resulted in COVID being entirely eliminated.
Elias' point is that there are many players (countries) in the game who are not capable of making the move you call cooperation. Even if every country capable of long lasting China style lockdowns actually did implement them, the virus would have plenty of reservoirs outside of those powerful countries. Many regions on Earth simply could not maintain strict lockdowns, so the virus would remain there. As you point out, those regions would not have particularly bad outcomes, as they are generally young, but that doesn't stop the virus from spreading there, it only lowers its death toll. So eventually, the powerful countries capable of strict lockdowns would remove those lockdowns and the virus would quickly return, spread from the reservoirs in poorer countries. Exactly what happens to China when it lowers it's guard would happen everywhere else, COVID would rip through the population, a population that is notably now more vulnerable to the virus because the strict lockdowns they've endured have prevented anyone in the population from developing natural resistance from surviving an infection.
The game as you are describing has these features:
-The cost of "cooperating" is extremely high.
-The benefit of cooperation only occurs if almost all players cooperate.
-A large portion of the players in the game are not capable of choosing to cooperate.
That is a game where choosing to do what you call "cooperate" is strictly the wrong choice. And in a situation where the cost of choosing to cooperate is borne by vast numbers of real people, it is not at all a benevolent choice as cooperation usually implies.
As the virus cannot be eradicated by strict lockdowns, all that can be achieved is delaying the inevitable deaths from the virus - this a fact clearly illustrated by exactly what happens to China when they reduce their anti covid protocols. Maybe you could argue that at least for the period that strong powers are maintaining strict lockdowns there will be a lower potential for the virus to evolve, but this is still simply delaying the inevitable. Eventually the lockdowns will have to be loosened, the virus will rip through the mostly unexposed populations, and we will be back to the exact same place we started. At which point the virus will start evolving and spreading as normal.
The only case in which strict widespread lockdowns would make sense is if the major world powers decided to essentially invade the entire world and impose lockdowns on the countries that couldn't otherwise afford to implement them. Something that would be unthinkably expensive and difficult, and also would be incredibly bloody and evil.
Covid lockdowns have a place, and that is when a local area's hospitals are overwhelmed. At that point, strict localized lockdowns make sense in order to buy time for the hospitals to deal with their current patient load and maybe accumulate more resources for the future. But strict wide lockdowns do not make sense for covid, and viewing them as a benevolent move doesn't make sense when a large portion of player simply cannot choose to cooperate.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
It's pretty unusual for anti jaywalking laws to be enforced in America, even if it is technically illegal in some cities. Usually you'd have to be being intentionally disruptive before the cops would give you a hard time. The only city I've seen try to enforce it was DC.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Can anyone here recommend a specific translation of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics? I read it in college and want to reread it, but when I look at the different editions, I don't know how to pick. Any suggestions from someone with a more extensive philosophy background?
Thanks!
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
5mo ago
I'm interested, I replied to spookykou, can you tell me if I am misinterpreting you? https://www.themotte.org/post/780/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/168128?context=8#context
Then, if what you are saying is true, when the conflict is over, the jews will once again control isreal and re-install an apartheid state.
But the problem is more fundamental. Any situation in which both jews and Palestinians cohabitate in isreal under a democracy will end with one group incredibly cruelly oppressing the other, or become unstable and turn to violence after which it will resolve back an apartheid state.
Unless you want to remove the requirement of democracy, the two groups will not live peacefully together.
A fair democracy will reflect the sincere beliefs of its constituents. The sincere beliefs of both the jews and the Palestinians are that the other group should be oppressed at best. That makes sharing a peaceful democratic state fundamentally impossible.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
8mo ago
Doesn’t seem like whether it is an empire or hegemony matters for this option. Won’t both an empire an a hegemon both find themselves in a dangerous situation if they abandon their dominance?
Can you define what the difference is? Are you saying that an empire is more unipolar?
Do you see anything else worth responding to in my post?
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Yeah it's pretty nice on the inside but why build a beach house in San Diego (assuming you're super rich)?. San Diego is beautiful, but California makes it illegal to own the beach itself. If I had unlimited money I'd want to put my beachfront property in places where I can keep the riffraff off my sand. How am I supposed to enjoy the beach and the surf if the paparazzi (or just randos) can legally come onto my beach.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
I think you make an interesting point about things having a dual nature, but I can't think of anything where I'd characterize it as a burden. For example, marriage entails certain obligations on both parties: I have to take care of my wife, I can't go chasing other women, things like that. But none of those things is a burden to me. At most, when we argue I am frustrated in the moment and put it aside for love. And of course there are lots and lots of upsides to marriage. We take care of each other in times of weakness, having a companion is really good, having sex is fun, all that.
I think that's mostly a semantic difference in defining burden. I was trying to interpret burden in a more positive way, essentially the same as obligation, which is why I introduced that word.
If by burden you just mean a bad obligation, then by definition that is bad. I was thinking more like a backpack full of supplies on a hike - a heavy load. Something you have to expend energy to carry, but probably for a good reason not a bad one. Doing hard things for rewarding reasons is the best thing in life.
But the rest of what you said shows that it REALLY is a wiring difference between us. So there isn't really any interesting convo to have with me arguing that kids are a good investment. Your feelings about kids truly are fundamentally different from me on a base level.
Conversely, I find the difficult parts of dealing with children to be far worse in magnitude. Like, just the sound of hearing a child throwing a temper tantrum is like fingernails on chalkboard to me
Even when kids are throwing tantrums it doesn't bother me that much. I enjoy working with kids even when they are being very difficult. If it fundamentally makes you that uncomfortable, you're right, kids would be a huge net negative.
What about the family business concept? Businesses don't throw tantrums but you imply you'd resent having that thrust on you as well.
I would be pretty upset if my kids were childfree. I wouldn't try to coerce them away from that decision, but I would feel like I had failed on some level, or that society had failed them. Family formation is a pretty core value for me. Is that wrong?
More options
Context Copy link