FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
You have this habit of assuming people who violently disagree with each other are on the same time and then arguing against the people we disagree with instead of us.
Violent disagreement does not preclude fundamental commonality. Gambino soldiers and Luciano soldiers kill each other, and yet are both members of a single well-defined set. Stalin murdered Trotsky, yet I do not think any fundamental ideological difference existed between the two.
The proper way to draw ideological borders is a non-trivial question.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3mo ago
This might seem like a hot take, but people generally don't want their leaders to be convicted felons.
Better than felons who are unconvicted because a corrupt system protects them.
Note that we are talking about what ideas are available in libraries, which is not quite the same issue as what is taught in class.
It is exactly the same. Schools exist for a purpose: to educate, to shape, to indoctrinate children, preparing them to take on the mantle of adulthood within their communities. Classroom instruction and libraries are two methods of serving that same end. Differences in method are not differences in purpose, and it is the purpose I am pointing to.
The interest is an interest of *individual *parents, not "the parents" as a group.
It is categorically impossible to serve individual parents' individual interests through a public school system, and no part of the existing school system attempts to do so, ever has, or ever will. Public schooling is an industrial process, not an art. Every facet of every school program is aimed at general categories of students, and serves the needs of specific students to the exact extent that they fit the general model. If students receive additional, personalized attention, they receive it because teachers as individuals provide it to them on their individual initiative. The system neither requires nor enforces such attention, nor should it, nor can it. There is no way to codify interested care for another individual.
To the extent that such depersonalized methods can serve parents' interests, it is because parents share interests as a group. To the extent that values-drift results in fewer shared interests, public schools make a lot less sense than they used to. It is hard to imagine how you could think otherwise. Do you likewise think the police have a duty to protect individual citizens?
You seem to be blind to the fact that "the parents" of a school district ultimately constitute "the government"
No, they do not. The federal bureaucracy and the teacher pipeline it accredits are two intertwined systems, among a great many others, that local parents have zero influence over despite their overwhelming impact over the school systems those parents must use. Gender ideology has entered the schools top-down from national-level government and pseudo-government organs, not bottom-up from parents electing school boards to implement it, which is why fucking lying to parents about it as official school policy, and media policy, and local, state and national government policy has become a central aspect of this fight. It is true that some parents in some areas have accepted this imposition, and with varying degrees of enthusiasm. That does not change the fundamental aspect of policy arbitrage that runs through this entire issue: lie to people about what you're doing, and get as much as possible accomplished before common knowledge of the lies is established. Hence, on this issue in particular, school boards objecting to people reading from the books they've stocked the library with at their official meetings with their constituents.
If I understand you correctly, you think we should be having a debate over whether or not something is biased or neutral, acceptable or unacceptable. I have zero faith that such debates can be productively carried out in any principled sense. Either the majority sets policy in accord with their interests, or we're better off not having a policy. There is never going to be a neutral way to enforce the interests of the minority on the majority, my own minority interests most of all. Separation is the best possible outcome. When issues like this one become a debate, the system is already a write-off.
Yeah, this is the same nonsense that I heard from some colleagues when I was teaching: "It is impossible to be completely neutral; therefore, it is fine to indoctrinate my students in my personal political views."
Your colleagues at least have the virtue of being honest about their intentions. If you do not share my values, I do not trust you to engage with those values honestly enough to be paid out of my pocket to teach my children about them. If you are not teaching my children about them, I see no reason for you to bring them up. If this makes it impossible to teach a thing, then maybe you shouldn't be teaching it. Again, none of this should be surprising in any way.
...And of course, none of this solves the problem of teachers pretending that their politics are simply objective fact, as they do and have ceaselessly for decades, as all authorities in the educational pipeline insist they must. Sadly, policy arbitrage is a reality, and the normies haven't caught on yet that the system as a whole is designed end-to-end by ideologues acting in bad faith. Baby steps.
No, it isn't: A teacher, and a school, are perfectly capable of exposing students to varying views on issues, including those with which they disagree.
"A teacher" and perhaps even "a school" may be capable of doing so, in the same sense that "a man" with a severed spine is capable of summiting Everest. I have seen zero evidence that "teachers" and "schools" in the general sense even intend to try, and absolute mountains of evidence that they consider neutrality to be cooperation with evil.
I did it all the time: "Here is a very common argument on one side of this issue. Here is a common argument on the other side."
I am not terribly confident you did it well. If you did do it well, I am not terribly confident that it added significant value to your teaching. If you did it well and it added significant value to your teaching, I am extremely skeptical that this was a codifiable output of the system employing you, rather than of your own virtues. Hostile indoctrination by the educational system is an obvious, severe threat to everything I value. There is no reason to allow gaps in the defense against that threat in pursuit of nebulous and likely illusory benefits of the sort you are advocating.
[EDIT] - And one more time, none of this should be at all surprising. Arguments over bias have been a fixture of the culture wars for most of both of our lives. Those arguments have never resulted in an actual solution to bias, anywhere, ever. If you think such a solution can be practically secured, you ought to explain what you'll do different than every previous attempt.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Zunger said it better, and like six years ago. Policy starvation's a bitch, ain't it?
The dominant strain of the left and the white-identity right believe fervently in the inescapable importance of racial identity, in the same way that Gambino and Luciano soldiers believe in "their thing", and Stalin and Trotsky believed in revolutionary socialism. That their understanding of the realities of racial identity and what it means are opposed doesn't make any more difference than it does with the mafioso or the revolutionary communists.
Stalin and Trotsky doubtless had many finely crafted ideological differences, but their ideology was largely bullshit, and none of those differences actually cashed out into differences in action: both men believed that they were the champions of an unstoppable progressive force that justified a practically-unlimited amount of murder and destruction in pursuit of "the greater good". As it happens, one beat the other in the power struggle, and the loser got exiled and then killed. The fine ideological distinctions appear to me to be meaningless trivia, because they never cashed out in actual differences in action. I am not persuaded that the details of Trotskyism as an ideology actually explain why he lost, or indicate that he would have been any better if he had won.
how do the differences between the progressive left and the white-identity right actually cash out in action and policy? The progressive left demands discrimination against whites and Asians as racial groups, the white-identity right demands discrimination against blacks and hispanics as racial groups. How is this not Gambino and Luciano, Stalin and Trotsky?
I do not believe that racial identity is necessarily important or inescapable. I believe that it is at least possible in principle for people of different races to live together in peace without either top-down race-based tyranny or bottom-up racial predation. This is a distinct difference between my ideology and that of both the progressive and white-identity types.
If you think white identitarians and progressives are distinct, what differences in policy, action or outcome do you see as relevant? Is it something beyond which specific racial groupings should be favored and which oppressed?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
10mo ago
Without endorsing the theory, one could consider a country's crime rate as a multiple of the country's capacity for law-enforcement/general socialization and the innate criminal tendency of the population. The claim then would be that Europe's relatively lower crime rates are almost entirely a consequence of the tendencies of their population, and in fact their law-enforcement/socialization are relatively worse, not better; if they had the USA's demographics, their crime problem would be worse than that of the USA.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
If you make a thinking system complex enough consciousness is an emergent property. All it needs to do is to be able to reflect on itself. Not a tall order really.
Neither you nor anyone else here can support this statement with evidence, because the necessary evidence does not exist. This despite the fact that many, many people have affirmatively claimed that it existed, that they knew exactly where to find it and how to demonstrate it, were granted vast resources and many decades to confirm their claims, and had all their predictions uniformly falsified.
You, like many before you, are confidently asserting that the evidence supports you, when in fact zero evidence actually supports you, the version of your statement that made falsifiable predictions has been falsified, the version you employ here has been meticulously selected for unfalsifiability, and even this is only maintainable by discarding the strong contrary evidence via axiomatic reason.
To the extent that "facts" can be said to exist, the above is simply a fact.
And as I point out each time this comes up, none of the above is actually a problem. The problem is that you don't seem to recognize the obvious mechanisms of your own reasoning, the mechanisms underlying all human reason. What you're doing here is what everyone does when they reason about the world. There is no other way to do it. The problem is pretending you aren't doing what you very clearly are doing: accepting or discarding evidence based on pre-rational axioms, rather than through some objective, deterministic process-based assessment of the evidence itself.
You have adopted Materialism as an axiom. You discard as inconsequential all evidence that conflicts with or contradicts that axiom, as is proper, because that is what axioms are for. But the fact that you choose the axiom over contrary evidence demonstrates that the axiom is not itself the deterministic product of evidence, but rather is chosen by you for non-evidence reasons. If you can select or discard evidence for non-evidence reasons, why should others not do likewise?
"Groomer" implies that the person is doing it for base selfish motivation (of future sexual gratification), when the people you call that believe they are doing it for the sake of the children and society at large.
"Groomer" has never been limited to sexual motives, and has always been used to describe manipulation/social engineering of the vulnerable for one's personal benefit.
Warm fuzzy virtue feelings are a personal benefit.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6mo ago
Given his extensive participation in our sub, why do you have to pick an unknown alt as an example of his worst behaviour?
I picked that one because it popped up in the feed within a post or two of your reply, and seemed a reasonable example of the fundamental problem. It was convinient, in short.
I don't have an opinion on Darwin or any other user getting banned; that's on the mods, and I decided a long time ago never to argue nor concern myself with mod decisions, other than to make a good-faith effort to abide by their rules. As far as I know, Darwin isn't currently banned, and having spent years arguing with him, I'm pretty sure the above is his alt. What I object to is the idea that he was providing a valuable service to the community by presenting alternate points of view. He did provide alternate points of view, very occasionally. What he did the rest of the time, in my experience, was degrade every conversation he participated in. As with the post I linked, he rarely provided evidence or even a coherent argument, just endless faux-polite smuggery wrapped in multiple layers of indirection designed to make engagement as infuriating and unproductive as possible while maintaining a veneer of plausible deniability.
Maybe my experience or my impressions are wrong. Maybe I'm biased. I don't think so, though; I spent literally years trying to get a productive conversation out of him, and came up empty. I have in fact managed to have productive conversations with quite a few other people, even in the face of profound and irreconcilable disagreements. I saw a lot of other people flame out and eat bans from trying to engage with him before a general understanding of his technique proliferated enough to become common knowledge. In any case, I object to the idea that he was a reasonable or even a net-positive contributor, and I strongly object to the idea that people just couldn't handle having their ideas challenged. He was a troll, and he burned every scrap of good-will that ever was extended to him.
It is impossible to completely serve individual parents' interests...
No, it is impossible to serve their individual interests at all. Only their group interests can be served, because the system, like all abstract policy-based systems, only recognizes groups and classes, not individuals.
...but which comes closer: 1) permitting the majority to remove all library books that express ideas with which they disapprove; or 2) forbidding that? Obviously, the latter.
No, obviously the former.
If individual parents want their kids to have a book, they are free to supply their own kids with that book. If parents don't want specific books in the communal library, there is zero public interest in those books being in that library. The library cannot contain all books. The library is a public institution, intended for the impartial service of all, paid for by the taxes of all. To the greatest extent possible, it should contain only the things that everyone agrees on, which is a content pool many orders of magnitude larger than its shelves can contain. Such institutions were created in a time when such broad agreement could be assumed; the loss of such agreement is yet another consequence of chronic defection against our social commons. Not getting a book you want placed in limited public space with limited public money because more of the people with an equal right to that space and who pay an equal share of that money don't want it there is not a legitimate harm. If you want the book, you can buy it yourself. If people start weaponizing such objections to strip all books from the library, then maybe a library isn't a thing you should have.
No one has a right to use public money to express and amplify their personal views or values. That this principle is routinely ignored by various governmental and pseudo-governmental organs is a travesty.
Yes, yes, and what does that have to do with the topic at hand?
Because parents controlling what their children are taught is a good thing, and parents not being able to do that is a bad thing. Since parents can't all agree perfectly on a curriculum, we go with the points of unanimous consent. Where we need to go outside unanimous consent, the majority should rule. If majority rule is repugnant, it is because something is being shown that parents want not to be shown, and not because parents are unable to show something that they want to show. Parents can show whatever they want to their own kids. They have zero legitimate interest in showing things to other parents' kids over those parents' objections. Speaking collectively, neither teachers nor the bureaucrats behind them have any special insight into rearing children superior to that of parents. If the parents do not want their kid exposed to something, the school has zero legitimate interest to say otherwise.
As I said, parents elect school boards, and school boards set curriculum, and candidates routinely pledge to eliminate "bad" ideas and then do so through altering curriculum.
Yes, and this is entirely acceptable.
If they also remove books expressing views they dislike, then "parents" are indeed "the government" and are engaging in precisely the destruction of individual parental interests that you claim to be concerned with.
Parents acting through their local government are less "the government" than the unaccountable bureaucratic institutions fighting those parents for control of the curricula with those parents' own tax dollars.
There is no right to having a school library at all. No parent has a valid interest in ensuring that their prefered books are featured in such a library. The library is for the interests people hold in common, not for the interests of individuals. Nor is satisfying such an interest possible; there are too many different people with too many different opinions. Neither school libraries nor schools themselves are platforms for the presentation of one's personal views. They are shared institutions. They are supposed to be neutral. The only practical approach to neutrality when it comes to a field as varied and charged as books is subtractive. If subtraction results in an empty library, that is an acceptable outcome.
That's why the minority needs the books to be kept, because those books are written by them, from their perspective.
Public school libraries do not exist to spotlight particular minority perspectives. No common interest is served by doing so.
You are trying to present this as protection for minorities, but I know that my minority interests will never be protected by the principles you are appealing to. School libraries in NYC absolutely are not going to stock back-issues of Guns & Ammo, or allow students to watch Brandon Herrera or Garand Thumb or Demolition Ranch on the library computers. My religious views are of course entirely verboten, and many of my political views are banned as hate speech or for fostering a hostile environment or for making people feel "unsafe" or any of a thousand other workarounds to the vaunted principles of tolerance. I know that this has a roughly zero percent chance of changing in any way in my lifetime. Consequently, I have zero interest in taking your appeals seriously. If your principle cannot be implemented in general, and it evidently cannot, it isn't worth a damn. Given that I cannot get protection where I am a minority, I do not concede to such protections when I am in the majority. Why should I do otherwise?
I don't know why you are talking about values. I am talking about political and economic ideas.
Values are where political and economic ideas come from, and values are why some people are trying to put these books in the libraries, and many more people are trying to keep them out. It hardly matters, though; the same reasoning applies to the ideas as well. If you think my ideas are garbage, it would be very foolish of me to pay you to teach them. I would rather you be silent than use my money to advocate against me, openly or not, subtly or not, consciously or not.
You provide a number of examples of how a teacher can teach both sides. My answer to them all is the same: I would be a fool to trust teachers to do this in a fair and neutral fashion, so I do not want them doing it at all. Atheists felt the same way about "teaching the controversy" when the issue was teaching evolution, if I recall correctly. Were they wrong then?
A teacher can teach, "crime is caused by racism" or they can teach "here are several common theories about the causes of crime."
Sure. And my expectation is that those who teach "crime is caused by bad individual choices" probably have worse career outcomes at a statistically-significant rate. I know that my prefered version will never be allowed to be taught, so I have no interest in other peoples' fictions being taught instead, even as part of a variety sampler.
Can it be done perfectly? No, which I already said. But that does not mean there is no duty to try as best as possible.
If parents get together and enact law restricting you from doing so, it is your duty not to do so. If your claim is that teachers can and should produce liberal tolerance and a charitable urbanity in their students, I invite you to examine the world around you. Either they cannot or they absolutely will not; it hardly matters which.
Which is why it is important for teachers to always present opposing views.
Teachers cannot be trusted to do this. It is better to give them an official script and demand that they stick to it. It is better still to fence off broad topics that they are not allowed to talk about. Certainly there are no shortage of such fences for me at every office I've worked in.
And, the last time you walked into a classroom was?
Well, probably a couple months ago when I was volunteering to teach art and bible classes, but presumably you mean in a formal, institutional setting. Longer since then; I get my impressions from the news, and from the friends and family members who teach in public and private schools and at the college level. And of course, my taxes pay for the system in question, whether I want them to or not. I do not believe that my impression of teachers and school environments generally is inaccurate.
Teachers can get fired for ignoring curriculum policy, including policy on controversial issues.
Yes, and that is a good thing. Public school teachers have zero legitimate interest in engaging in controversy. They are not generally equipped to do so competently, and their performance in their actual job does not benefit from them doing so. No legitimate right is trampled by preventing them from doing so; not their right, not the parents' right, not the students' right, because none of those rights exist.
And, again, the issue is what teachers and schools should be doing; your position of "the majority of parents can silence all ideas they don't like" is hardly going to improve the problem.
I disagree. The problem is that the educational apparatus has engaged in large-scale, sustained defection, using public resources for partisan advocacy at the cost of their core mission. I am not worried that parents will try to stop teachers from teaching math, and any parents stupid enough to do so deserve what they get. I am worried that teachers will continue to use their position and the public resources they've been granted to indoctrinate children with values hostile to my own. Parents being able to silence the teaching of all ideas they don't like is pretty close to lossless for me, since all the ideas I'd personally like to see taught are banned anyway, and the objective, obviously valuable stuff that the school exists exclusively to teach won't be getting banned. I do not recognize a downside.
Public schools do not exist to unlock each child's unique potential. People who believe they do have been deceived, by themselves or by others. Public schools exist to allow parents to work without a kid underfoot, and to teach the kids basic, generic skills at a minimal level. They routinely fail at even this minimal objective. There is no reason to pretend that any higher goal is being pursued through official policy, though individual teachers will always be free to go above and beyond. There is reason to ensure that those teachers who want to go "above and beyond" do not neglect their core mission or violate parents' trust in doing so, which they have done quite frequently.
It is trivially easy to present the major arguments on most political, social, and economic issues that are likely to crop up in a K-12 classroom.
It is also trivially easy to put one's thumb on the scale. I have some experience teaching the young, and engaging in adjacent activities. I am therefore aware that teaching is fundamentally manipulative.
The question is not whether it added significant value to my teaching; the question is whether it was necessary in order to respect the rights of students and parents.
...In what way is it respecting the "rights of students and parents" to teach the students something a majority of the parents don't want you to teach them? Again, it is impossible for all topics to be covered equally, or even for all topics to be covered at all. Individual parents do not have a right to have their particular and peculiar topics or interests covered. Certainly mine are not part of the standard curriculum. The curriculum is for everyone, so it should include the things everyone agrees it should include, and it should not include things whose inclusion is contentious. If such things must be considered, putting it to a majority vote is an entirely reasonable solution, if an imperfect one. Demanding that minority views get inclusion over the objection of the majority is impossible to implement fairly, and repugnant when implemented unfairly. Doing so has nothing to do with "respecting the rights of parents and students", since the rights purportedly being respected do not exist and could not ever be satisfied if they did.
One of the observable mechanisms of social decay.
Long ago, I promised to write an effort post about this, but then I kinda lost the ability to write effort-posts. Here's the short version:
People want a thing. People clamor for the thing they want. Lots of different would-be leaders step forward offering to help organize the getting of the thing. These would-be leaders each have a different plan for how they'll get the thing. The plans tend to differ a lot their projections of how much effort and extremity will be required to get the thing.
As a rule, people don't want effort or extremity, so they tend to go with the plans that promise the easiest solutions first. When those don't work, they grudgingly accept the plans involving a little more pain and effort, and so on. Ideally, they reach a plan that gets them at least an approximation of what they want without too much pain and hardship. The people get what they want, the successful leaders are lauded for their excellent work, and everyone goes home happy.
But suppose people decide they want something that can't actually be gotten? The process above is carried out, starting with the easy plans, then the moderate plans, then the serious, hard-nosed plans. One by one, these plans are attempted, fail, and are discarded, but the people are still unsatisfied. Failed plans might be tweaked, but after a number of attempts grow discredited, and people stop backing them. If the thing people want isn't achievable by the means available, and people won't stop wanting it, you get policy starvation: people gravitate to to solutions and the leaders proposing them that under better circumstances would never be given the time of day, but now amass credibility as the only people offering solutions that haven't already obviously failed, if only because they haven't been tried yet. In the same way that physical starvation drives people to the extremity of eating spoiled food, and ultimately grass, shoe-leather or human flesh in an attempt to satiate their physical need for sustenance, starvation of policy drives people to extreme political acts: insurrection, revolution, civil war, democide.
Look around you, and you'll see it everywhere, on both sides. In this case, troll or no, Liberalism's promise was that once we adopted its norms, everyone would just sorta chill out, everything would work out, reason would carry the day, mumble mumble you get the Federation from Star Trek. It hasn't worked out like that. His generation did not, in fact, get it right, and they were, in fact, making promises, promises they were powerless to fulfill. And so they gifted us a world where people have lost confidence in the moderate Skokie solutions, and turn to Zunger's extremist zealotry instead.
Hlynka was, in my opinion, one of the best posters this community has ever seen. I had an argument with him once that abruptly and very significantly changed my mind, my values and my entire perspective on a whole host of issues, all in a single sentence. What he had to offer, this community needed quite badly, whether the members recognize it or not. I'm quite sure he was right about most things, and of the few I'm less sure of, I'd still rather bet with him than against him.
That being said, I am pretty sure he knew the ban was coming, and was in no particular hurry to forestall it. My impression is that he just got tired of the bullshit, a situation with which I sympathize even if it doesn't change the outcome. We ask questions to find answers, and having found them, the purpose of a space designed to facilitate question-asking falls rapidly to zero, and it is time to move on. Godspeed, good sir.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
You are focusing on details that don't matter, and have never mattered, instead of looking at what people have admitted, and what that means for what they will never admit.
If they don't matter and never mattered, then the "mules" movie would not have been made, having been made would not have become popular, and having become popular, would not have been cited by commenters here as evidence that the election was stolen.
I also believe that the 2020 election was illegitimate. That belief does not preclude certain claims as to the specifics of its illegitimacy from being falsified.
If the courts are incapable of doing anything about it, I judge that to be a failure of the courts, and not of the charges, because I know the charges are true, and I won't be argued out of them.
Provably false claims of election interference do neither you nor I any favors, do they? Neither does a retreat to the unfalsifiable. My conclusion that the 2020 election was illegitimate does not stem from the "mules" movie or its claims, so debunkings of that film or its claims do not challenge my conclusions. Why should one think otherwise.
The reason you get ire and downvotes is because you conspicuously highlight which side of the friend-enemy distinction you've chosen.
People should not come here to read things that they agree with written by their friends. They should come here for sound arguments well-made. I think @ymeshkout's arguments have a glaring blindspot in them. But until I have the time and energy to make my case with evidence and arguments, he's under no obligation to make the case for me, and I have no right to object to him making other cases based on his own evidence and arguments.
He thinks this specific movie is lying. Why is he wrong? If he's not wrong, why would you object?
HBD is not a political movement.
You can argue the label if you like, but "person who believes in meaningful racial differences in intelligence, and thinks it's a good idea to implement racial discrimination on this basis" is a notable cluster here, and a lot of the ones furthest out on the "fan of racial discrimination" axis are in fact former deep-blues and still retain many of their blue values, or else current deep blues with a different set of preferred races.
Meanwhile, one of the best distinguishers both of Redness and of opposition to this sort of racial politics here is "do you regularly go to Church?"
D3R is a meme because it's ineffective against blues in most contexts, due to double-standards. There's no rule against racism here, though, and there's little likelihood there will be. We point it out simply because it's true and needs to be said. If you disagree with racism as a value, you should cultivate an understanding of where it comes from, and a big part of where it comes from is Progressive social engineering ideas mixing badly with scientific fact.
What is the contrary evidence?
We can make choices, every minute of every day. We can directly observe ourselves and others making those choices, and have direct insight to the apparent cause of those choices, which appears to be individual will and volition. We can observe that the behavior of others is not perfectly or even mostly predictable or manipulable, and that the degree predictability and manipulability that does exist varies widely across people and across contexts. All of our experiences conform seamlessly with the general concept of free will, none of them conform with Determinism of any sort.
All long-term-successful social technology presupposes free will and attempts to engage it on its own terms. All attempts to engineer society along deterministic principles have failed, often repeatedly and at great cost. This is not an abstract question; it has innumerable direct and obvious impacts on the real world in every facet of human organization, cooperation and activity. There is a long history of actually testing determinism in the real world, and the results have been uniformly negative.
Humans are thinking machines that are self aware and they exist.
There is no evidence that humans are "machines", ie deterministic chains of cause and effect. This claim is not supported by any direct, testable evidence available to us, and is in fact contradicted by our moment-to-moment experience of making choices freely. Many predictions have been made on the theory that humans are machines, and all of those predictions, to date, have been falsified. Even now, you form the claim in a way specifically designed to be untestable, because you are aware that such a machine cannot now be made. You only believe that it will be possible to be made at some indeterminate point in the future, perhaps ten years hence; ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred years ago and more, your predecessors believed the same thing for the same reasons.
Materialists claim that there is no evidence for anything but materialism. Then they claim that our common, direct observation of free will can't be accurate, because it would contradict Materialism. But if our direct experience contradicts Materialism, that is evidence against Materialism.
You do not believe in Determinism because it has been directly demonstrated by evidence. You believe in Determinism because you are committed to Materialism as an axiom, and because any position other than Determinism evidently breaks that axiom. Beliefs are not generated by a deterministic accretion of evidence, but are rather chosen through the exercise of free will, by a process that is easily observed by anyone with a reasonable memory and a willingness to examine one's own thought-process dispassionately. As I said before, this is how all human reason works, how all beliefs and values are formed and adopted. The mistake is only in failing to recognize the choices being made, to allow oneself to believe that the choices are anything other than choices.
Shouldn't it logically follow that more thinking self aware machines can be made? If it exists, which it does, it can be created by us given enough resources.
It logically follows, provided one chooses to adopt Materialist axioms, and thus commits to ignoring all contrary evidence. Logical deduction from axioms is not evidence, though, and, as I mentioned previously, all attempts to actually demonstrate Determinism have failed. We do our actual engineering off free will, not determinism.
None of the above is a language game or a pointless abstraction, all of it can be directly and reliably demonstrated by universal, directly-observable experiences. None of it relies on supposition or interpretation. I reiterate that to the extent that facts exist, the above is simply factual.
Great, you've shown there "must" be an Unmoved Mover/Uncaused Cause. What exactly does find an replace with "God" for "the Big Bang" lose out on?
What does replacing the Big Bang with God lose out on? Both of them share the attribute of serving as a termination point for materialistic explanations. Anything posited past that point is unfalsifiable by definition, unless something pretty significant changes in terms of our understanding of physics.
If there's an unmoved mover/uncaused cause, that means that there's at least one non-materialistic answer that's unavoidable. Materialism's whole point is that no non-materialistic answers are necessary, that it offers a seamless answer to all our questions. This is a seam, and not a small one either. And as I argued in our last go-round, it's not the only such seam.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
We make new humans every single day. So yes they can be constructed. Just with DNA right now instead of machine code. It is all still code.
The fact that we can make more humans does not demonstrate that humans are deterministic machines, or that we can make a human-equivalent deterministic machine.
You can imagine making different ones which gives you the false impression that something different could have happened. But it never could have.
Based on what direct evidence? This is not an abstract, unfalsifiable question by default. If what I am going to choose is predetermined, you could demonstrate that by successfully predicting what I will do next to an arbitrary degree of precision, or by demonstrating arbitrary control over my decision-making through some form of mechanistic tampering with my inputs. Only, neither you nor anyone else can do either to any significant degree, and in fact the above statement makes no testable predictions, nor is based on any testable predictions. Worse, multiple generations of scientists have previously claimed to be able to do exactly that, and have observably failed. You are repeating their claims, modified only to the extent that you carefully avoid any claim that could be tested empirically under current conditions.
The only reason my choices "can't" be free is because them being free would contradict materialism. Only, I can directly observe my choices, and they do in fact appear to be free, and the apparent fact that they are free has material consequences that can be measured and observed in the real world. Your just-so story about how they only "appear" to be free in every single observable way is precisely analogous to Sagan's invisible dragon.
Ask yourself this, how are you making your choices?
By focusing my will, determining the action I wish to take, and then following through on it, despite incentives to do otherwise. I can directly observe every part of this process, as can you. I can embrace unthinking habit and instinctive responses, or I can cultivate my will and consciousness of choice, as can you. This experience of exercising the will could indeed all be an illusion, but if it is, no evidence of it being so has ever been presented.
I reiterate: your belief in Determinism is not based on evidence of Determinism itself, because such evidence does not exist. You believe that our minds are deterministic and that the evidence of free will you have directly observed every minute of every day of your entire life must be an illusion, because if it is not, then it implies that Materialism is wrong, and you are committed on a pre-rational basis to Materialism. Yours is an argument from logical inference, dependent on logical axioms, not a position derived at from direct observation of facts on the object level. And this is normal, because all human beliefs are derived in exactly this way.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3mo ago
Or forums like motte, which as far as I am aware, all moderators are liberal
I'm certainly not a liberal of any variety.
Simplicity, in the information theoretic sense, since you're dispensing with all the complexity involved with God.
Infinite universal cycles, simulation, and God are all equally non-materialistic, and it seems to me that information theory doesn't apply to non-materialistic explanations. In what sense would it? In what sense is God more complex than a universe looping according to non-observable physics without beginning or end? Is there math that can be shown proving one less complex than the other? You mention Kolmogorov complexity, but I'm skeptical. Wikipedia provides:
the Kolmogorov complexity of an object, such as a piece of text, is the length of a shortest computer program (in a predetermined programming language) that produces the object as output.
...I don't think you can write a computer program that produces either "God" or "A looping Universe" or "The computer the universe is being simulated on" as output in any meaningful sense, so I don't think you can meaningfully calculate the Kolmogorov complexity of any one of these, nor compare their complexity to determine which is the "least complex". All three concepts are, by definition, outside the bounds of observable reality, which means that whatever statements you make about them are unfalsifiable. I see no reason to presume that you can meaningfully do math on unfalsifiables.
Explaining "all but one" beats the alternatives.
It doesn't, actually, if the alternatives do not conflict with materialism when materialism gives answers that seem reasonable. Christians did not reject the concepts of math or gravity or the rocket equations. The whole claim of Materialism is that it was better because it left no need for anything further. It turns out that it does in fact need further things, and in addition appears to require discarding quite a large amount of solid evidence. Those realities pretty seriously undermine its claims to primacy through simplicity, occam's razor, etc, or that people are forced to it by a hard-nosed commitment to only draw forced conclusions.
There are no forced conclusions are forced. All reason is irreducibly axiomatic. We all believe as we will. We each make our bets and take our chances.
Besides, why isn't the Big Bang covered by "materialism"?
Because the math says it happened, but the math also says it can't happen. That is just another way of saying "we don't have a good explanation for this phenomenon."
Our intuitive notions of causality went out the window the moment quantum mechanics, with all it's superposition, entanglement and reference-frame/observer dependent definitions of cause and effect arrived.
Our "intuitive notions of causality" are the foundation of Materialism. Abandon those, and what remains? If you get to appeal to miracles, why shouldn't I?
The math does a better job.
The math doesn't do a job at all. It isn't supporting your conclusion. Your commitment to Materialism is axiomatic, not ultimately dependent on the outcome of a formula.
I don't think that describes the ordinary HBD type, though it does describe some of the louder ones. The ordinary HBD type believes in meaningful racial differences in intelligence and thinks it's a bad idea to implement racial discrimination to correct for this.
It's probably worth making a distinction between "political HBDers" and "factual HBDers", but as you say, the political ones are the loudest here, by far. I don't think this says anything about the factual HBDers, other than that they're relatively invisible in most conversations where HBD comes up, so they aren't the central example of an HBDer that comes immediately to mind.
I used to use the label "alt-right"; it was a snappy, effective label, and there was a time when one could reasonably argue that the 1488 types really were a small minority within it. But the media and the 1488 types worked together to grant the latter de-facto control of the label, so I stopped using it. I could make a strong argument that the 1488 types have no claim to the label, but at some point other fights take priority.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
11mo ago
I don't know that that is quite accurate. See here. It is more that Hitler's utopia was an exclusive, zero-sum one, whereas the utopias promised by Mao and Lenin were theoretically universal.
Mao's and Stalin's utopias were "theoretically universal" in the exact same way that Hitler's utopia was: the future infinite population would be "good people", the "bad people" having all been exterminated.
We are not waging war against individual persons. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. During the investigation, do not look for evidence that the accused acted in deed or word against Soviet power. The first questions that you ought to put are: To what class does he belong? What is his origin? What is his education or profession? And it is these questions that ought to determine the fate of the accused. In this lies the significance and essence of the Red Terror
— Martin Latsis, Red Terror, no 1, Kazan, 1 November 1918
...
To overcome our enemies we must have our own socialist militarism. We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia's population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated.
— Grigory Zinoviev, 1918
The idea that some portion of the population were innately bad and thus needed to be liquidated was baked into the cake long, long before Stalin, and none of the revolutionaries were at all shy about saying so. These ideas go all the way back past Marx to the French Revolution, and arguably straight to Rousseau and the other founders of the Enlightenment.
What determines what you will or what action you chose?
All direct evidence available to me indicates that I determine what actions I choose, through an exercise of non-deterministic free will.
Unless you're flipping a coin you're always going to chose it based on who you are genetically and your interaction with the universe up to this point. That is it.
Genetics determinism should be considered a subset of physics-based determinism, but it hardly matters because there is no evidence to support either. You can sequence someone's genome and measure their environment, and you still can't predict or manipulate their thoughts or behavior with any appreciable degree of accuracy.
There isn't any other option.
...Unless we accept that Materialism appears to be wrong in this case.
There is no such thing as free will because there literally can't be.
...Unless we accept that Materialism appears to be wrong in this case. You are demonstrating the nature of axiomatic thinking perfectly. You are not providing direct evidence of Determinism, you are simply repeating that a commitment to Materialism demands that one accept Determinism, despite all evidence to the contrary. And that is my entire point.
He’s a capricious blood god in the mold of allah or odin.
Can you give an example from the OT of God being capricious?
You know why people believe the ‘antitheist professors’? Because what they say is convincing.
Freud was one of the most convincing antitheist professors that has ever lived. Do you believe that this was because his arguments were correct?
They don’t rely on the gullibility of the recently born and the soon-to-be deceased.
No, they rely on the gullibility of people who yearn to be told that they can do what they want without consequence.
And for the record, I did not have to wait for college to notice the discrepancy between the old god and the new.
It would be interesting if you could demonstrate that discrepancy, then, because I don't think it actually exists.
Besides, those most involved in selling the image of a nice new testament god aren’t guys like me but modern christians, who by embuing him entirely with enlightenment values, sanewash christianity.
People who ignore bits of the Bible they find inconvenient aren't actually Christians. There are plenty of us left who do not.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9mo ago
A God that doesn't do anything else except set up a clockwork universe and then fuck off and never intervenes where anyone can see it isn't an entity worth worshipping.
The variant that persuaded me actually came from the Atheists, who asserted that a God who attempts to secure your love through threats of eternal torture is a monster. That seemed like a pretty good argument to me, along with the obvious-when-you-think-about-it point that if a God existed, and if he wanted us to know he existed, we'd simply have the unalterable knowledge baked in. Of course, if we knew for a certainty that he existed, then the promise of heaven and the threat of hell would be dispositive, even if Hell is the absence of God and a choice we make, etc, etc. On the other hand, if God existed, and wanted us to choose to love him of our own free will, the only way that works is if we get to choose whether or not to believe in him as well. In that case, leaving his existence plausible but ambiguous makes perfect sense, together with Hell as the absence of God and a choice we make, etc, etc. It fits even better if you presume annihilationism is correct, and the people who reject God get exactly what they're expecting: death, and then non-existence.
In any case, the chain of logic seems simple: God wants to share love with people. It's not love unless it's freely chosen. The choice is permanent, and the choice being offered is better than it not being offered. Certain knowledge of the consequences of the choice corrupt the free nature of the choice. Given those constraints, blinding the choice is the obvious way forward.
What is gained by saying it?
[EDIT] - No seriously, what's the argument here? Doing things simply because someone told you not to is childish. The idea that liberty can be secured by rejecting all norms was tested to destruction, and it did not actually work at scale. The taboo exists whether you like it or not, and flouting it provides no benefit that I can see. The word is actually garbage.
I don't actually want you or anyone else banned for mentioning it. I'm not going to, though, because I don't see the point, and I'll make the argument against mentioning because I think it's a sound one on the merits.
More options
Context Copy link