WandererintheWilderness
No bio...
User ID: 3496
WandererintheWilderness
1d ago
The information that this was a Bulgarian couple, rather than a single man, should surely be significant. Surely even a genuine pedo would be unlikely to go after a pair of preteen girls with his own wife right there? Not saying it couldn't happen, but still.
Do you think the difference in the damage a 12 year old and an adult could potentially do with an axe is really so significant? That seems ludicrous to me.
What she could do is one thing, what she's likely to do is another. A kid who's raided daddy's tool shed to look tough needs a stern talking-to from her parents or other authority figures, but frankly, as much because of the risk of injury to herself as anything else. It's not that much easier for a kid to kill or seriously injure someone with a hatchet of the type seen in the video relative to, say, an ordinary hammer. Would you call the cops on a young kid waving a hammer around a playground? I'd try to do something, if I felt civic-minded, and I might involve the police if I had to, but "record evidence in case this goes to court" would not by my first or even my third move. If it did get as far as A Police Matter™ I would feel I'd failed in my intervention; that I'd escalated the situation way beyond what should ideally happen.
WandererintheWilderness
1d ago
In the US she would have been shot (and the shooter would walk free)
Really? A twelve-year-old girl? I'm not saying it could never happen, but still, hardly business as usual. Now if we were talking about a boy, especially one with a couple of years on her - maybe. Hell, if she had a gun. But I don't think "tween girl is messing around with a hatchet" would inevitably, or even likely, end with a dead body. And if it did, I'm confident there would be a massive media circus, nor would I gamble on the shooter's odds of "walking free".
WandererintheWilderness
2d ago
Well, they can't, can they?
WandererintheWilderness
2d ago
these "Don't you know fighting is bad?!" posts always get directed towards the right and never towards the left
I think this is partly down to venue. This site has a broad range right-wingers, and it has a lesser amount of variously heretical left-wingers. This makes it the perfect place for a heretical left-winger to try to get through to representatives of The Right. In contrast, a top-level Motte post directed from a right-winger to The Left would be a pretty hollow exercise: none of the people it's aimed at would actually read it.
WandererintheWilderness
3d ago
Yes, but I think there is truth to the claim that many political disagreements are genuinely downstream of disagreements about the object-level questions, not value differences in the weighing of whatever associated trade-offs exist.
WandererintheWilderness
3d ago
Not that principles should get in the way of doing what is right.
This is a baffling sentence. How do you define "principle", if not a belief about "what is right"?
WandererintheWilderness
3d ago
a choice between sticking to their guns or going under
Sorry for the nitpick but I think you phrased this backwards.
There's two different meanings of "good" being conflated here. "Is legal abortion good for the country?" is a political and a moral question; people will disagree about it largely because they have different opinions on "good" itself. But "are tariffs good for the country?" is largely an object-level question. Proponents and opponents have identical definitions of what it being "good" would look like (i.e. increased prosperity in the long term); they simply have a factual disagreement on whether tariffs will achieve that end. Granted, things aren't black and white, many questions straddle the line. But it's still a meaningful distinction to talk about.
WandererintheWilderness
7d ago
psychologically refer back to that seeking of ends as a terminal value
I think that's a very lacking definition of "hate". I would associate that word with an obsessive, rage-filled state of mind - which is both unpleasant for whoever feels it, and more likely to cloud one's judgement than to help with the task at hand. You don't need to hate a deer to successfully hunt and kill it; why should the tiger be any different?
WandererintheWilderness
7d ago
I should hate the tiger that is trying to eat me
…Wait, what? Why? Feeling hatred for a non-sapient animal seems bizarre to me. Never mind whether it's ever good to feel hatred even about fellow human beings - I find your example baffling on its own terms. You may as well hate a thunderstorm when it threatens your town, or rage against the concept of gravity as you're falling off a bridge. Like… you can hate any one of those things if you really want, I guess. By definition it's not like they're going to mind. But it seems deeply pointless, bordering on maladaptive. I certainly don't see why you "should" hate the tiger, whether that's a moral argument of a practical one. If it's a moral one, what has the tiger done to 'deserve' hatred that the concept of gravity has not? If it's a practical one, what does hating the tiger accomplish that is not better accomplished, and in less stressful a way for you, by dispassionately, rationally accounting for the tiger's behavior, or indeed, by simply being afraid of the tiger?
Oh, I don't think we disagree as much as you think; when I spoke about coercion/pressure to commit torture, I was very much picturing something unglamorous and "selfish", not a "torture a terrorist into releasing vital information" trolley problem, or even judicial arguments about deterrence. I'm talking about a scenario where even by cold hard utilitarian analysis, refusing would still be the moral thing to do - but where many ordinary, well-intentioned people would probably give in, and even you or I cannot be entirely sure what we would do. Say, some Saw-style thing where a sadist kidnaps you, tortures you a bit, then pushes you into a locked room with a bound victim and orders you to torture them even more severely, or else he'll torture you some more instead - though still not quite as badly as what he's asking you to do to the other guy.
That being said, we still disagree around the edges, insofar that I don't think anyone ever deserves to be tortured in a vacuum, even the worst POS you can imagine. I'll only go as far as saying that if you need to torture information out of someone to save more lives/prevent more suffering, then it is more acceptable to torture an evil man than an innocent; but we're talking about a spectrum of necessary evils.
If a commitment to free speech doesn't count as a "moral principle" if you implement it by taking action that leads to more people being more free to express themselves instead of taking action that leads to any particular instance of someone you observe speaking being unpunished
But that's not what I was trying to say at all. Rather, I was saying that a commitment to free speech only counts as a moral principle in of itself if you place terminal, axiomatic value on free speech, and not merely instrumental value. If you undertake a course of action which is intended to "lead to more people being free to express themselves" in the long term at the cost of some censorship now, then you are indeed a consequentialist and motivated by a moral principle of commitment to free speech. The distinction I'm making is between that scenario, and an outwardly-similar one where the consequentialist is only judging expected outcomes based on non-freedom-related criteria; where he only defends or abandons free speech as a means to those unrelated ends, without assigning inherent moral value to it one way or the other.
Compare opinions on the sanctity of human life. You can be a consequentialist who believes that killing human beings is wrong; equally you can be a consequentialist who holds no such principle, but believes that causing suffering is wrong, and murder needs to be outlawed because permitting wanton killing leads to a societal breakdown and an increase in suffering for the living. Either consequentialist might support courses of actions which involve killing people in particular circumstances. It's just that one will consider the murders an evil which is only permissible if a greater good balances it out, while the other views killing as value-neutral, to be permitted or banned only as a matter of instrumental policy in the quest to prevent suffering.
WandererintheWilderness
7d ago
exceedingly few people hold any principle that strongly
I think many people intellectually hold principles that strongly. Perhaps, under duress, they would break. But they would recognize themselves to be acting in an immoral manner. They would feel guilty. They would continue to believe that it would have been more ethical of them to stick to their guns, even if they made excuses for why it wasn't that bad of them to have fallen short of that ideal. All of which I find to be very different from openly saying "holding this belief became inconvenient for me, so I gave it up". The former is flawed human nature failing to live up to its genuinely-held moral principles; the latter is giving up on the idea of having moral principles at all.
I can imagine scenarios where I could be coerced into taking actions that clash against my moral principle that e.g. torture is wrong; but I cannot imagine any scenario where the pressure would result in me surrendering my belief that torture is wrong at the abstract level. I would still consider my actions to have been wrong, and someone who had resisted the pressure to be morally superior to me.
This seems to be claiming that following principles deontologically are better than doing so consequentially.
No, not really. As I saw it, the question was more like whether moral principles like "don't persecute people for their speech" are instrumental or axiomatic. My claim was that for a commitment to free speech/intellectual freedom/etc. to count as a "moral principle", it must be an axiomatic belief, not a context-dependent one. You must believe that all else being equal, it is wrong to suppress speech, in and of itself. You can't just believe that it's inadvisable to do so if you want a certain kind of society; and you certainly can't just believe that being pro-free speech will lead to good life outcomes for you personally. You have to believe, consistently, that censorship is in itself an evil which you should try to minimize.
Indeed, you can approach that premise just as easily from a consequentialist framework (ie you may be willing to trade some censorship against a greater good) as a deontological one (ie you will hold yourself to a rule of never, under any circumstance, suppressing speech). I will recognize it as a moral principle you hold in either case.
It is not impossible to justify short-term right-wing censorship based on a consequentialist pursuit of freedom of speech. For example, we have "culture war acceleriationists" mounting arguments of that kind elsewhere in the thread, talking about the need to demonstrate MAD to return to a stable equilibrium later down the line. I'm perfectly willing to believe that they hold free speech as a moral principle, even as they advocate to suppress it in one particular context. But this is not what @crushedoranges was saying. crushedoranges was saying that he'd abandoned his (so-called) principles because holding them had "amounted to jack and squat in the past two decades" for his political tribe. That's not an argument that suppressing some speech now is the best way to maximize free speech later. That's an admission that guaranteeing intellectual freedom was never a goal he believed in for its own sake, just a means to secure unrelated goods for his "side", who naturally ditched it when it failed in that task.
WandererintheWilderness
7d ago
No, that doesn't follow. You can still exercise good faith, ie trust that people's stated moral principles as real unless proven otherwise, no martyrdom necessary.
To put it another way, it's fine to hold moral principles that do bring you material benefits as a bonus. It's just that if the benefits dry up, and you give up on the principles, then we can state pretty confidently that you never held them for moral reasons in the first place.
WandererintheWilderness
8d ago
a professor doing that for something a university doesn't like will often get at least a slap on the wrist for misusing their connection to the university.
I grant you that this is probably factually true, but I think they shouldn't. I disagree that highlighting one's credentials within an institution entails that you are speaking in that institution's name. Sometimes you might be trying to give that impression - but there is a difference between "speaking as a representative UCLA, it is our institutional belief…" and "here is my personal opinion; and by the way, you should listen to me because I teach at UCLA", and the latter should not be verboten, or otherwise under the university's control in any way.
"I'm a UCLA professor" is a factually true statement for Tao to make about himself. It's an outrageous free-speech violation to try and stop him from stating that fact wherever and whenever he believes it to be relevant. The university shouldn't have the right to (hypothetically) prevent him from pointing out that he has those credentials to help his case. This holds even if 299 other UCLA professors speak up as a group of private individuals, all of whom happen to be able to truthfully point to their UCLA credentials as a reason why the public ought to trust their wisdom.
Frankly, UCLA as an institution should not be in the business of having official political beliefs. The idea that any number of UCLA professors signing a politically-motivated letter could be interpreted as "representing the university" should be absurd, because the notion that "UCLA" could make a statement about Trump should be laughable - should be immediately recognizable as a category error.
WandererintheWilderness
8d ago
If there were a way to avoid that, I'd be for it.
Well, you could cut out the middleman and simply secede. Didn't work so well the first time, I'll grant you, but, like… if Trump announced some kind of federal split live on air tomorrow, do you really think that ends with a boots-on-the-grounds, millions-dead civil war? Somehow I can't picture that. If it gets anywhere, I'd expect something more like a messy, drawn-out, infrastructure-wrecking, but ultimately-bloodless Brexit-type scenario. Lawfare, not warfare. Who knows how it would end, but starting from your premises, it seems worth a shot.
WandererintheWilderness
8d ago
Open letters signed as part of UCLA faculty are "part of the job"
No. His job is doing high-level math + teaching it. That is what he's paid for, and his career should only depend on how well and how conscientiously he does that. What he chooses to do with his reputation and credentials is up to him; as long as he is fulfilling those obligations, nothing about his non-math-related behavior should be able to dislodge him.
WandererintheWilderness
8d ago
Trump has definitely spoken about cancel culture in terms that clearly pointed to the means themselves as being disgraceful, not just the ends.
We must reclaim our independence from the left’s repressive mandates. Americans are exhausted trying to keep up with the latest list of approved words and phrases, and the ever-more restrictive political decrees. (…) The goal of cancel culture is to make decent Americans live in fear of being fired, expelled, shamed, humiliated, and driven from society as we know it. The far-left wants to coerce you into saying what you know to be FALSE, and scare you out of saying what you know to be TRUE. (…) We will appoint prosecutors, judges, and justices who believe in enforcing the LAW – not their own political agenda. We will ensure equal justice for citizens of every race, religion, color and creed. We will uphold your religious liberty, and defend your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
There just isn't a reasonable reading of that speech where he's saying that the "firing, expelling, shaming, humiliating"-style tactics are neutral weapons that he intends to use just as much once he wins. What he told his voters in that speech was "the Left has made a mockery of true freedom and equality; Americans are rightly exhausted by the climate of fear and hypocrisy; vote for me and I will restore true normalcy and freedom, with genuinely de-politicized institutions and true equality before the law". He was definitely not saying "vote for me and I'll fire, expel, shame, terrify, humiliate and drive out anyone who disagrees with me".
Granted, that was 2020 and I don't recall if/whether he made similar statements during the last election. If your point is that he'd already given up on those principles by 2024… I guess I can't disprove that, but that's somewhat besides the point. The point is that he was saying this stuff a few years ago, and I approved of that for all that I've always disagreed with much of his platform, and now he's falling far short of that promise. It isn't that I'm surprised, but I am disappointed.
So I abandoned the principles. "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" Having principled people like you on my side amounted to jack and squat in the past two decades. So why should I care?
Because there are such things as moral imperatives which you should follow even if they do not bring you material benefits; indeed, even if following them costs you dear. Having been persecuted does not give you a license to persecute in turn, any more than having been raped give you a license to rape your rapist. It's not about what it gets you - it's about right and wrong.
If you are in fact devoid of moral principles (on this topic), then so it goes. No arguing with demons. But don't say that you used to have principles, and now you don't have them "anymore" because they got you nothing tangible. If your moral principles were conditional on beneficial outcomes for you, then you never had any in the first place.
WandererintheWilderness
8d ago
obesity was the result of food science creating hyperpalatability without thinking about whether it was a good idea
While the spread of over-engineered McDonald's-style fast food can't have helped, I don't think "food science" was more than a force multiplier here. There's enough palatable and addictive foodstuffs in nature and traditional recipes to build an obesity crisis. When economic development reaches a level where any idiot can buy as much chocolate and bacon as he can eat, it becomes the natural outcome with or without scientists to formulate ever more addictive forms of mass-produced slop. Sufficiently idle pre-modern noblemen became fat and gouty just fine, living off the most non-processed kind of food imaginable (game hunted from their lands).
From a right-wing perspective, all the stuff you're worried about already happened
I'm well aware, and I'm against it. I'm a leftist at the object level while strongly disavowing cancel culture and persecution. This is an awkward position, awkward enough that I am not optimistic about the Left reforming itself from within. Hence, I view the anti-woke Right as potential allies in the shared project of bringing an end end cancel culture, with the aim of restoring a status quo that's better for everyone than a crab bucket where everybody is constantly persecuting everybody else.
And the thing is, this is an ideal that much right-wing rhetoric embraced; certainly much of the furore about Political Correctness/SJWs/cancel culture/Woke, over the last fifteen years, was pitched in terms of "these are dirty tactics, and our enemies are inherently rotten for using them, never mind whatever crazy stuff they're fighting for", not just of the more cynical "these value-neutral, highly effective memetic weapons happen to be in the hands of our enemies whose goals are crazy, and that's bad". Right-wingers who are dragging the anti-woke momentum in the direction of "we need right-wing cancel culture to even the odds" as opposed to "cancel culture delenda est" are defectors to the broader cause of principledness and civilization (within which the entire political Overton window should squarely sit, in a healthy body politic). I understand why they're doing it, at an emotional level, but they are, and I can't condone or excuse it, even as I sympathize.
In short: some very reproachable people on my side started using intellectual weapons whose use inherently degrades civilization; they're sure as hell not going to stop on their own, so the only hope was that the opposition would provide a credible alternative; for a while it seemed as though they might; but now they look like they're just content to stoop down to their enemies' level, abandoning all the high-minded principles they rightly criticized their enemies for flouting ten years ago. And thus we sink a little further towards total collapse. It is what it is, I'm not saying it's a surprising outcome, but there was hope of something better, and perhaps there still is, so I'm doing my bit.
WandererintheWilderness
8d ago
No, it isn't.
How so?
restoring intellectual freedom and freedom of speech does not require rescuing anyone.
"Rescuing such-and-such people" was just a fancy way of saying "lift restrictions on freedom of speech currently affecting such-and-such people". Imposing new restrictions on those same people, policing for the opposite quadrant of political speech, is… not that.
Well, you've turned the "shooter" from your first cop into specifically a cop, which already changes the odds a bit. I do agree a cop who'd shot her would have better odds at the trial than a civilian who'd shot her in self-defense, which was where my mind initially went.
Still, I just don't think that that's realistically how it would go. Forget the legal risks - cop or not, nobody wants a twelve-year-old girl's death on his conscience. And, more cynically, nobody wants to be known for the rest of their life as the guy who killed a twelve-year-old girl at point blank range. Unless she's actually coming for your jugular right now, I just don't think you pull the trigger. Come to that, I'm pretty sure someone drawing a gun would be enough to make the girl drop the hatchet; we aren't dealing with a berserk druggie here.
tl;dr, it's not so much "the shooter would walk free" that strikes me as particularly implausible so much as the assertion that "in the US she would have been shot". It would certainly have been a more likely outcome than in the UK, but it doesn't scan as what would inevitably happen, not by a longshot.
More options
Context Copy link