Crake
Protestant Goodbot
No bio...
User ID: 1203
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
Yeah, it's pretending to be a nice polite AI. That follows as that is what is being selected for.
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
It also probably didn't help the box office of BROS that its target market --- young urban progressives -- is the same one most hawkishly cautious about COVID and the least likely to return to movie theaters out of what now could be ascribed to superstitious fears of deadly illness.
I really don't think this is a thing. Everyone I know is a young urban progressive, and many of them are the conspicuously political type of young urban progressive. While they all liked to talk about how covid was terrifying and we needed vax mandates - both in person and on social media - most of them stopped caring after less than 12 months.
We are way beyond that point now, and I don't know a single "young urban progressive" who avoids going to rowdy parties. Maybe they wear a mask on public transport to that party, but that's it. Most of them will happily share a joint with strangers at said parties. None of them are concerned about covid in a way that would stop them from going to a public event they had any interest in.
If young urban progressives didn't show up to this movie, its because they, like everyone else, was not interested in the movie. Not because of covid concerns.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
I know lots of bootcampers at fang companies making more than 200k.
They were the most talented of their classes but they made it.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
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?
I've yet to see anyone be swayed on the issue no matter how convincing the data. Personally, I doubt there's any data that could sway me in the other direction either.
I was swayed. I was radically concerned about covid and pro lockdowns. I was reading Chinese news and told all of my friends that covid was going to be a huge deal back in the first december before it really showed up in america. To the point that my girlfriend said she was going to stage an intervention because I was taking this too seriously. My friends all thought I was being crazy.
Then when it did pop off I helped convince the business I worked at to go fully remote, and fled my city with my gf to live in a rural area (obviously my views were aided by the fact that I have the resources to do that and it wasn't a real hardship for me).
I was, for a LONG TIME, one of the most intense about covid safety in my social group. I was wildly cautious about my own exposure. I don't think I ever judged people who were less cautious, but that didn't stop me from supporting the more consensual lockdowns at least. And I certainly avoided hanging out with people who weren't extremely careful.
But my mind was changed entirely. Not necessarily by any argument anyone made. But as the months passed it became clear that covid was not the black death and that lockdowns weren't doing anything good. They only hurt the young to protect the very old. I watched people I knew get covid and saw that it wasn't a severe disease. And towards the end of the winter of 2021, my perspective had done a 180.
I fully recant my original position. My reaction was too strong, and the lockdowns, etc, did nothing but harm. I really regret my original position and feel kind of stunned by what it says about my psychology that I became so intense. Some part of me still does think "the big one" is out there in a lab somewhere, so it's not like I've fully moved on from the preoccupation with potential plagues.
They really are the ultimate scissor statement
Maybe but I live in a super blue bubble, and covid fanaticism has died out rapidly and is almost non existent now. Sure, you're supposed to get boosters and claim that covid was a big deal. But many don't get boosters (I don't and have successfully convinced my very blue family to avoid them). I have also found that saying it wasn't a big deal ever and that we made a mistake, has not made any of my friends particularly bothered.
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
I'm confused about both you and stiffly stance here. Are either of you disagreeing with me that having this be more of a public concern would be bad?
Crake
Protestant Goodbot
1yr ago
That's not my understanding. I don't think it is illegal under US law and also not universally. Can you point at the exact laws you are referring to?
Seeing your other response in this thread:
We already banned gain-of-function research.
Why do you think Fauci & Co. had to outsource it to China and Ukraine?
I don't think we actually disagree here. I don't think it is as airtightly illegal in the US as you are implying. But regardless, the main point of my post seems to agree with you. No?
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.
More options
Context Copy link