Crake
Protestant Goodbot
No bio...
User ID: 1203
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
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
1yr ago
Does it change your mind that DradisPing already said the source of their claim was their recollection? To me that strikes me as enough of a final answer. The other relevant factor for me is that this fell under the election fraud penumbra which in my mind tends to have too many of these types of claims uncritically presented.
Those are both good points. I think you're right that you have justification for posting a top level post about DradisPing's response and are not breaking etiquette.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Yeah, it's pretending to be a nice polite AI. That follows as that is what is being selected for.
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.
Decision making and instrumental intelligence aren't connected for everybody. Most people don't make decisions based on thinking, they are followers of one kind or another. They follow traditional rules, or what the boss tells them, or their priest tells them, or they mimic what the people right next to them are doing. This is totally normal and probably essential for society or any kind of human organization to work.
But those people can still be smart. Even if they will never have an independent thought about what they should do, they could still be incredibly talented scientists or technicians. And we want those people. If you were the boss, you would want smart followers. It's stupid to say "why would we care if a bunch of instrumentally smart people died because they were told to walk off a bridge" - we should care because they have useful skills to put to work. We should try to stop their leaders from telling them to walk off bridges.
I don't think it would even be good to live in a world were everyone thought deeply about what they should do. Such a society would probably be incapable of cooperation at scale.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
You think Christianity is based? That it promotes good morals and is necessary to save Western Civilization? Too bad, you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in the literal truth of it.
This isn't how anyone but weirdos like us think about things though. The majority of good christians are just followers. For them, believing in the "literal truth" of it is not challenging, but it also isn't a profound intellectual thing. Most people don't analyze the truth claims of their religion like that. They just believe and repeat and thats it. No bigger implications.
Or you can just pretend, and sit in the pews with a Religious experience that is totally discordant with everyone else sitting around you.
In my experience, you can participate without believing in the miracles, and not have a Religious experience that is totally discordant with everyone else sitting around you. The collective effervescence is there for you whether you intellectually accept the physical reality of miracles or not. Why can't you accept it symbolically like the pagans you refer to?
The biggest flaw of Christianity ... is that Christianity requires a superstitious belief in the literal truth of claimed miracles. Is such a religion sustainable?
There are clear "game theory" advantages for social groups espousing wild shit. It represents a signal with a cost. A core selective challenge for social groups is to sort people who are actual team players from parasites. There is a minor cost associated with saying something crazy like "Jesus rose from the dead". It harms your credibility with every other group that doesn't claim that crazy thing. That cost acts as a clarifying pressure for people to either be all in on being truly members of christianity (who will cooperate with christians) as opposed to fakers who want to play both sides.
The biggest flaw of Christianity, which sets it apart from many other religions- including the pagan traditions of the fathers of their father, is that Christianity requires a superstitious belief in the literal truth of claimed miracles. Is such a religion sustainable?
I'm not at all convinced by this. Any social group with good mechanics to maintain cohesion over multiple generations is going to have systems to make signaling group identity somewhat costly. I think many groups require their members to claim that actively believe weird shit, that's not just christianity. There are plenty of miracles professed by other religions. There are other methods to make signaling group membership costly, like wearing stupid looking clothes, or ritual scarification, etc. But publicly espousing weird nonsense is a really common trait. And it looks adaptive to me.
I do feel you on it being uncomfortable because I am also a weirdo that cares about things like that. Thats part of what is so grating about modern american progressivism - that it requests me to say so much weird stuff, so I don't. But if I thought it was "based" and would lead to healthy outcomes for me and mine - I might not be as bothered.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Yeah but that only helps people with ideological dietary restrictions. It actually is bad for allergy sufferers because legumes are one of the more common allergies. Peanuts and soy being the obvious culprits, but legumes in general being fairly common.
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.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Why? If anything, I would argue that if you don't think your principles in at least some sense apply universally they're not really principles at all.
Well this becomes sort of circular. You ask if I don't think my principles apply universally, and I suppose they do, but as I said my principles are against proselytizing to aliens. I don't think there's anything inconsistent there.
I think my preferred ideology and policies, like almost everyone does, would improve people's lives
I think being allowed to live in a society free from aliens who do not share your worldview trying to actively indoctrinate you into their way of thinking would improve people's lives.
I am definitely not so incredibly confident in the content of my own cultural practices, that I think that everyone would benefit from following them.
Maybe? But I don't care. Homophobic political cultures are inferior to those which are not and if their political culture gets 'invaded' then hurrah.
Yeah, I'm not interested in conquering other countries in order to convert them, by war or otherwise. Ideally we could all live well enough alone. And it seems obvious to me that a culture that is as conquest hungry as you are (or the west is) should be regarded with suspicion. That's how this thread started I think. Why would anyone try to compromise with someone who you know has no respect for you and is only accepting it as a temporary tactical action. The only reason someone would make that compromise is if they have no other choice, which is probably the case in this specific example. But it's a compromise in bad faith.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
Maybe kind of a fun flaming bag as far as that goes. It seems to have drawn mainly polite and somewhat interesting responses.
I don't know the users history that lead to previous bans though. And it clearly is an intentionally radioactive post.
When an imperial power offers the option of joining its hegemony to a smaller state that directly borders an opposing empire that is egregiously antagonistic. Offering the option to join the American hegemony to anyone who wants to regardless of the effects that will have on the balance of power is obviously antagonistic.
That seems so clearly antagonistic to me that i'm not sure your statement is in good faith. Can you explain how you think that isn't antagonistic?
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
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
Russia is openly concerned about western hegemony expanding near its borders. Therefore western hegemony threatening to expand near its borders is antagonistic.
Offering entry into its hegemony to anyone who wants it regardless of context is universally antagonistic.
You can argue that it’s morally justified but it’s clearly antagonistic
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
I feel like this convo is way off the rails.
I do not disagree with you. Empires justify themselves by might anything else is irrelevant.
But that feels divorced from the context of my comment. my previous comment that you are responding to was questioning why is the west expanding its hegemony not antagonistic Russia expanding its “hegemony” Is antagonistic. I recognize that there is a profound difference between the two, in that the west is able to enforce its antagonism, but that doesn’t make one and antagonistic and the other not.
I feel like this conversation has gotten weird and I find myself arguing pure semantics, so I get that my position here is extremely unexciting, but that was the only point I was making.
The west offering access to Ukraine was antagonistic to Russia. I do not see how that is controversial. It also is thin.
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.
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.
can you antagonize an avowed enemy?
Yes. There are many situations where avowed enemies tiptoe around each other and do their best to avoid any escalation of conflict. Mutually Assured Destruction would be an example of a situation where two avowed enemies would actively try to not antagonize each other, because of the potential consequences. In fact I think that's a really good example of what I mean by antagonism. The kind of action you would avoid in such a situation.
Or, can you antagonize a guy in self defense?
No. If the enemy attacks you and you harm them in self defense, I could certainly imagine the enemy claiming that that was an act of antagonism (in fact that may be the default claim in such a case) but from an omniscient 3rd person perspective that would not be antagonism.
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".
But this happens even between the tightest of allies, the best of friends. The US-Britain alliance couldn’t stop the US from interfering in the Suez Crisis and US decolonization efforts against britain and france. Refusing an alliance from another power’s sphere without compensation is not the baseline, it would be insanely friendly behaviour. It’s essentially putting their interests above yours, self-sacrifice.
I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I'm not sure how that is an argument against my pedantic point. I'm continuing to argue my pedantic point at this juncture because you have requested it, to be clear.
Those actions may or may not be acts of antagonism. I think between allies I might be more likely to call it just rude, but there is little difference. If the US did something it thought would really truly cross the line in offending its ally, then that would clearly be antagonism.
What I meant is that 'avoiding war' sounds good, when really it erases the agency of the other party who declares war, the moral responsibility of the war in the france case in fact rests entirely on her shoulders. You say you expect ‘the conflict’ to escalate, but the conflict doesn’t do anything, it’s an inanimate object. Russia, like France, will escalate if they don’t get what they want. You say Martha's vineyard is important to the US, and ukraine is not, but it is the same moral calculation whether the opponent extorts a trillion or 2 dollars.
I feel like you are being intentionally obtuse in interpreting my position on this. The united states can have an aggressive warlike posture with russia, or a neutral posture, or a friendly posture, or a conciliatory posture. Do you disagree with that?
I don't think that Ukraine is not important to the US. Ukraine may very well be important to the US tactically, but I would like to have a neutral posture with russia. Ideally even a friendly posture with russia. I think everyone would benefit from us finding a path of cooperation between America and Russia, and I see inviting Ukraine into the Western hegemony as indicative of an aggressive posture. A move that may be tactically essential in the case we go to full war with russia, but tactically not relevant if we can find a path towards my preferred future in which we cooperate with russia.
I would like to let Russia have Ukraine in the pursuit of cooperation between West and Russia, something that I think is not an insane position but I think you write off out of hand for moral reasons that are not part of the pedantic component of this argument.
I do not see embracing Ukraine as an act of glorious liberation. I think you do. Beyond the pedantic argument I think this may be the fundamental disagreement. That is fair.
Finally:
To me, antagonizing is not justified by definition
I really don't get this. Why would it be definitely unjustified in all cases? You think it always wrong to intentionally annoy or bully your enemy? On what grounds?
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
I think a large contingent of people at the parties I go to drink that much at parties but don’t drink much at all other times. It’s definitely binge drinking but I don’t think it’s that unusual. Alcohol use disorder sure, but it’s common at parties in my experience
Yes, you definitely are off. Maybe some white liberals only support policies that hurt them in order to fit in, but in my experience a substantial, probably majority, group of white liberals believe in progressive policies with a religious energy.
They genuinely want to implement policies that would harm them unfairly. They would happily support something that will harm their own quality of life (even something that would do so in a more overt way than college admissions) in order to make a sacrifice to the good of the oppressed. Like a tithe
More options
Context Copy link