OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
23d ago
The best way I've seen it put is that the Right isn't actually against cancelling those outside the Overton Window, they were just protesting the arbitrary narrowing of the window by a handful of powerful state and corporate actors. In that frame, the recent cancellations make sense and look less hypocritical.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
23d ago
Kazuo Ishiguro writes the same story over and over and over again, but he does it well. The servant who believes in their service and doesn't mind that it eats their life up.
It's kind of an anti-novel. You hope for character development, but it doesn't happen. It's more like a series of vignettes.
His other novels do have more development and plot, but never to the point where the main character advocates for themselves.
I found his body of work poignant and depressing.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
23d ago
Kazuo Ishiguro writes the same story over and over and over again, but he does it well. The servant who believes in their service and doesn't mind that it eats their life up. Klara and the Sun is the same. After reading The Remains of the Day, Klara and the Sun, and Never Let Me Go I realized that I've seen pretty much all he has to say.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
23d ago
Jesus' prescriptions were all about making the aggressor view you as a human, not so much as non-resistance. It's resistance through excessive submission.
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
In order:
If someone slaps your right cheek, present them your left cheek. Most people are right handed, so to strike a right cheek they need to use the back of their hand, which denotes an inferior. If you turn your cheek, you are demanding that they slap with the palm of their hand, something that would denote an equal.
Jesus does not say, "Let him beat you up to a pulp."
If anyone sues your for a tunic, let him have your cloak as well. This would leave you naked, which is not allowed. You are shaming the person who sued you for your tunic.
Go the extra mile - you are acting like it was your choice to carry the Roman soldier's gear. The Roman soldier can only force you to carry their gear for one mile, but by going two miles you're shaming them.
The message is - by humbling yourself just the same amount you've already been humbled, you can shame your opponent A Lot.
"I forgive you," is comparatively a small sacrifice next to actually losing her husband. But by saying it she is shaming the killer and everyone knows it.
Regardless of her forgiveness, society has a need to keep dangerous killers off the streets. Even if Erika began advocating for the killer's release, every judge, police officer, etc has a higher duty to keep the killer imprisoned.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
25d ago
I assume when people talk about women being inherently more valuable than men they mean it in the sense of:
If you have 100 men and 1 woman, the most babies you can have at the end of the year is 1-3. If you have 1 man and 100 women, you could have 100+
But that doesn't hold as true in a monogamous society so I don't understand where the idea that men are extra expendable is coming from.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
26d ago
You would still only have as many pregnant women as there are men, making men a bottleneck to reproduction the same as women.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
26d ago
Only in a polygamous society which I'm not sure is very common in Gaza.
Historically, marriage to cousins was once common. Polygamous marriages are rare among Muslim Palestinians, except among some Bedouin communities. As Palestine does not have a civil marriage option, marriage law follows the religious faith of the couple.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
27d ago
Maybe a Starbucks coffee from 10 years ago, those things have gotten expensive.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
28d ago
I'm not going to make a comprehensive argument for the existence of God, any suitable argument would be at least chapter-length. You brought up Feser earlier, I wonder what you've read of him. Five Proofs of the Existence of God provides five chapter-length proofs. If you've only read The Last Superstition or even his beginners guide to Aquinas I don't think you've seen the best he can do.
As far as what relation the robots have to a proof of God, the analogy is this:
-
The robots with their hands down express now everything we see does not exist necessarily.
-
That the robots are programmed to raise their hands if one next to them raises theirs reflects how contingent things derive their existence from another contingent thing.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
28d ago
Ok.
From -infinity to t, infinite robots have their hands down. We are an observer at time t. All infinite robots have hands down. Looking at the robot code, we see that they are only programed to raise their hands if a robot next to them raises their hands. We can deduce that no robots will raise their hands from t to +infinity.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
29d ago
My post was mostly a musing that, even if there's a small percentage of crazies in the world, the odds of encountering a crazy is not terribly small in a large enough public gathering. But your point is also noted.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
29d ago
What are the odds?
In the chaos of the Charlie Kirk shooting, a lot of people forgot about the weirdness of the multiple arrests. Immediately after the shooting, George Zinn reacted in a very unusual way. He insisted that he was the shooter and police arrested him, allowing the real shooter to get away.
Was he an accomplice? No, it doesn't look that way. There's no evidence that he knew the shooter ahead of time.
So that leads to the first, "what are the odds?" Online, we saw leftists explode into cheers of support for Kirk's killer and suggestions for the next victim. But we are told that this represents a small fraction of the left, only the most politically deranged. But a random person in the crowd didn't just cheer on Kirk's death, he was willing to risk arrest, possibly death (if you claim to have a gun during an active shooting, you can't really be surprised if you wind up shot.)
BBC says there were about 3,000 people at Utah Valley University when he was shot. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yev470d59o. At least 1 of those people were very clearly supportive of the assassination. 0.03% isn't that bad, I suppose. There were also several people on a balcony cheering (I saw this on video, I don't have any desire to find that video again for hopefully obvious reasons so if you don't trust me on this that's fine.)
So let's say .03% willing to take extreme lengths in support of political violence, .3% immediately visibly excited by political violence. As a percentage that's low. It's a really, low, comforting percentage. Except when you see it happen in real life. Then it's not so comforting.
Every time you go out in a large enough crowd, there is a high chance that at least one person is kind of crazy. The kind of person willing to take the fall for someone else's crime. This is not comforting at all.
Another set of odds
What brought this on was a press release Andy Ngo shared from the county sheriff's office. Not only was Zinn a political extremist, he was also in possession of Child Pornography (real children, ages 5-12.) He also distributed this material to others.
Now, you might think such a person would have a strong incentive to avoid being picked up by the police and have his phone searched, but Mr. Zinn did not seem to have much hesitation.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
29d ago
In context, I guess? But right wing commentators are calling for Trump to ax her over all this mess.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
29d ago
I have been happy to see right-wing commentators call our Pam Bondi on her "hate speech" comments:
https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1967948684886450235
https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1967950157095530518
Bondi later clarified that she meant incitement to violence: https://x.com/matt_vanswol/status/1967939882980085980
I have also seen push back on Libs of Tiktok posts where she calls on people to cancel those who simply didn't like Kirk.Unfortunately, those don't have as many likes as her posts calling for the cancellations.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
30d ago
I could express it as -infinity < t < infinity; robot hands = down.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
30d ago
What is finite here? The number of robots and the lenght of time can all be infinite. You are objecting to "initial condition?" It is a rough analogy to the concept that no part of the universe has within itself the ability to cause itself.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
30d ago
Knitting with an audiobook or podcast on.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
30d ago
Then if the theist's arguments are that the world resembles the line of robots, then their argument does not hinge on the impossibility of infinity. They might be wrong that the world resembles the line of robots, but that puts the objection somewhere else.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
No. I'm not arguing for God at all. I'm arguing that the arguments for God's existence do not depend on the non-reality of infinity.
If there is an infinite line of robots that all have an initial condition of their hands down and they are all only programmed to raise their hands if the robot on the right raises their hands, it does not matter how infinite the robots are, none will have their hands raised. Adding to the number of robots does not increase the possibility of a robots hands being raised. Do you agree to that much?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I'm not arguing for God's logical necessity, I am arguing that the argument for God does not rely on infinity not being real.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
My intuition is that O9A stuff looks left wing to those on the right (Satanism is often coded as left wing due to the anti-theistic libertarian strains) while it also looks right wing to those on the left due to being Neo-Nazi. Truth is no one wants it on their side, which should count for something.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
at any point in time an infinite number of robots on the left has their hands raised.
Not necessarily, some robots on the left might have their hands raised for a long, long span, and then there might be once again robots that do not have their hands raised. I'm not advocating for a starting point in the sense that the line cannot be infinite on either side.
So: infinite robots with hands down, some point on the line something outside the line of robots intervenes to make a robot raise their hands. We know this thing cannot be a robot with its hands down.
I think this counters your argument about the robots lowering hands too?
The point is you can disagree that the world is like the robot analogy but saying that it is infinite does not counter it.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I haven't laid out a proof for the existence of God here because I don't have the time to write one out. All I am doing is objecting to you saying that ALL proofs for God's existence rely on the non-existence of actual infinity. But based on what you're saying I'm not convinced you've understood a single proof in the slightest.
I'm going to try to write it out again without mirrors:
Imagine a circle of 100 robots facing each other. Each has a command to raise their hands if the robot next to them raises their hand first. Each robot starts with its hands down. After how many hours will every robot have its hands raised? They never will.
What if you made the circle bigger? 100,000 robots. 10^100 robots? Infinite robots? (Please understand, I am not implying that a universe of infinite robots is possible without God or anything like that. This is a thought experiment to demonstrate an aspect of a different argument.)
Just because there are infinite robots does not mean that they will all raise their hands with infinite time.
Now we come upon a circle where some robots have their arms up. We know that every robot is programed to not raise its hands until the one in front of it had its hands raised. What can we deduce from this?
Even if the robots had been there for an infinite length of time beforehand, the answer remains the same. There must have been something different from the chain of robots - like a robot that started off with raised hands.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
If the meaning was as you speculate, why would he call that a very, very radical view?
Because from Elementary School on kids are indoctrinated into treating MLK Jr. as an American saint who saved us from our sins of racism. We study his pastoral letters and speeches while teachers coo about how enlightened he was. Even saying, "he was a good man, but not perfect," would be radical. And he wasn't perfect. He plagiarized his PHD dissertation and a lot of his speeches. He cheated on his wife with multiple women, one of whom he struck. He still likely had a positive impact on the country, because most of these pecadillos were not widely known during his life or even today. But if more people knew these details about him, I don't think it would become a very radical thing to say that MLK Jr. was not a good man.
Thank you for turning up more than I could, but I wish I could watch a video where he actually goes into what his beef is with the Civil Rights Act so I don't have to strongman him myself.
I think there are many diverse opinions on the Right, some who are Libertarian free-speechers. But there were some who have been honest from the start.
Tim Pool told Jack Dorsey that he was introducing a bias against conservatives through Twitter's policies. Ironically I think Pool is more Libertarian, but the point he makes is specifically that the "neutral" policies mostly harmed normal, ordinary conservatives. Not that there shouldn't be moderation at all.
Kevin Dolan was up front about supporting cancellation over a year ago: It's different when we do it
More options
Context Copy link