YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
20hr ago
Historical incidence rate of what? A particular value set? A behavioral distribution? A comparative cross-sectional study of different civilizational values throughout history and their effectiveness and pros/cons would be interesting but one would need to account for local selection pressures. Warlike values are very adaptive in violent, tribal, resource-scarce environments but not very useful in post scarcity western society where cooperation, norm-following, and restraint are likely more adaptive.
Virtue arguments are always boring because they are unfalsifiable and unrealistic. But i would disagree that it's just bad people coping. Needing to view people with a different value set from you as "bad" is already Untermensch behavior indicative of being a slave to basic primitive tribal impulses. Any real "highest type" would already be able to not be chained to those primordial impulses.
We can barely agree on basic human morals, pretending that one cultural viewpoint of virtue is some how objectively correct already fails contact with reality.
Clearly put, if we decide that the "highest types" are ranked according to progressive virtues, then conservatives will hate it. We do christian virtues, then non-christians will riot. You've failed to articulate an actual measurement to decide who is an "Ubermensch" but you want a top down system to do so, meaning you need a metric and a decider. If the answer is "anyone I like" then congrats you have a thoroughly unoriginal idea that has existed for all of human history. It's also very bloody, and unstable and never creates an actual "better" society for anyone but those at the top.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Who decides what constitutes a "highest types of people"?
YoungAchamian
1d ago
There is a much easier one that another friend pointed out: CS-GO skins are essentially child gambling. Loot crates are absolutely designed to be addictive gambling.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
You could even get your hands on one of those billion-dollar zimbabwean notes and pass it around
This is actually amusing. not as a "immunity totem" but as a effigy. Give it to another friend so we can "publically" condemn them. Real abducto ad absurdium.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
Assuming OP and his buddy could agree on a standard, they could in theory go down the Forbes list and rule people out accordingly.
Probably going to be hard, because I think I really oppose their idea on this, but its interesting from a devil's advocate perspective, if its just impossible to be an ethical billionaire, in that they have created an unprovable tautology, or if even within this framework, one could find an "ethical" billionaire, and essentially prove their statement wrong.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
Judy Faulker in the healthcare space, Epic
Epic low balls SWEs, back in the golden years of the SWE field, when entry levels were commanding 6-figs, EPIC would try to pressure hire you on a 60k starting. Many ex-EPIC folks are like ex-amazon folks. People did not stay there long. Idk if they stack ranked but it wouldn't surprise me.
Pretty much any large company with employees is going to run into the framing of: "If you got rich owning the company did your employees who were doing the major work get rich too? Did you fire anyone who was there too long so they didn't get equity? Did you give any equity?"
YoungAchamian
3d ago
I agree that I think we are pretty much restricted to software which is interesting considering how much hate I've been hearing about SWEs on the left. It's probably impossible to be considered an ethical billionaire under the framework if you manufacture something or have a company that employs lots of people because the rejoinder is "if you got rich why didn't your employees". Software bypasses that. Sports or celebrity is interesting because there's a part on how they got rich, if it was from merch sales then you pretty much got rich by exploiting third world sweat shops. Not very "ethical" I think they said TSwift was unethical but didn't enquire about the reasoning because I am not a swiftie.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
I would broadly agree that they would view it as a circle, but it actually makes for an interesting follow on. Are billionaires unethical because of how they got their money or because what they do with it? If it's the former, JK Rowling would probably be a good example of an ethical one. If it's the latter than being a billionaire isn't really the core component because there are plenty of people who behave poorly that aren't billionaires. (in this case by being a TERF) The billionaire part is irrelevant.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
I was talking to a Progressive friend on Friday and the left's favorite topic came up: Billionaires. Or more specifically how it is impossible to be an ethical billionaire. Obviously there are loads of moral axioms loaded into that statement and several different framings that can be used to identify that. I'm curious if you take the idea outside the obvious marxist definitional stance, and look at how the billionaires got their money. Can you have a billionaire who ethically got their money? If we grant things like selling merch made in third world sweatshops a la TSwift or not paying employees the fair "value" of there labor as unethical. Anyone have some ideas. I said Gabe Newell, owner of Steam and did not get a convincing counter-argument for that, even in a marxist theory frame. I wonder if there are others?
YoungAchamian
4d ago
Thank you for the correction, I have only heard of this through heresay/
YoungAchamian
4d ago
Yes, your job is essentially to get hot women into the club so men come in and buy drinks. Clubs work a bit on a network effect. Nobody wants to go to a club that is empty, everyone wants a “popping” club
YoungAchamian
4d ago
Yeah falklands is another good example of post WWII Britain with balls. Whats that guy the said(incorrectly) history ended in the 2000s, maybe its that sort of vibe.
YoungAchamian
5d ago
That part wasn't really for you. I think you and I have substantive disagreements but your disagreements are at least enjoyably thought provoking. I enjoy seeing your responses, though I am often not on my A-game enough to give you a good-enough response back. One day, once this place has corrupted me further...
It was more for @stoatherd, and others like him, who have clearly expressed that they think my opinions are so beyond pale, so outside the norm of what they think should be thought, that they couldn't possible be sincere and therefore I must be a troll/shit-stirrer. It's going to save us all a lot of headache if they just ignore me then.
This forum runs on a reputation economy. People can remember the things you say, and use sequences of statements to build a working model of your behavior and goals, and steer their interactions with you thereby.
Yes Agreed. I think that is as it should be. If you(EDIT: royal) think my history and sequences of statements is that of a troll/shit-stirrer then I recommend for your own sanity and mine that you block or just ignore me. I'm here to express my opinion, develop ideas, and maybe one day make posts testing them.
I do think my posting these days is tilted towards topics that get my goat rather than topics I think deeply about. And that mistakenly gives people the wrong impression of my belief system. But that's my fault and the only remedy is to post more. But I doubt people care about the internal thought process/belief system of one more Autistic Classical Liberal.
YoungAchamian
5d ago
Put money where ones mouth is. Sponsor a refugee. Let him into your house. Fucking do it.
Reminds me of this oldie but a goodie: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JYtbLCa65eA
YoungAchamian
5d ago
Several of the faces have very clear distinct features that were hard to miss for me. The pudgy face was easy to remember, but slightly double chin face? Much harder depending on the angle. The 1st face looks like a co-worker's side profile. Cheekbones guy was very distinct by how sharp his face was. It was the guy with the fat(?)Fuzz(?) right besides his nose that I kept fucking up.
YoungAchamian
5d ago
I thought he got hacked, and his hacker was trolling us. Though publicist is a good theory too but boring. However I think that people forget that Biden senior was a pretty charismatic person, definitely high on the list of politicians I'd get an Ice Cream cone with.
YoungAchamian
5d ago
Based on... literally nothing? That's not what "apparently" means.
Considering both people in this thread were given mod warnings, I was right. They both deserved and did get modded. You thinking that was wrong is provably incorrect.
I know that it's poor behaviour to call an innocent murdered man a "retard"
It's not poor behavior here. This place has different rules. I can civility express an opinion to matter how distasteful you feel it is, and that constitutes normal behavior here. Go back to reddit where shaming of opinions based on content is the norm or grow up.
But imagining that I'm following you around
"Following around" on a forum means dragging the content of one thread into another. This thread has nothing to do with my opinion on the Digwa vs Nowak Murder. This thread is about the interpersonal drama between FttG and MKC, and the slap fight they are having. You bringing up my opinion from another thread constitutes "following around". Not really sure why I need to explain internet forum etiquette to you, it should be known and understood by this point.
Am I following you around now
No... because I am responding to you on this topic... Honestly you even saying it makes me think you don't understand forum norms.
I'm in that class of people?
You are definitely acting like it. You've directly stated that you think I am deliberately shit-stirring. That is definitional troll behavior.
using the exact words their opponent was using
Something something commonly used and colloquial language for a response on why someone spend too much time online. It's almost like colloquial phrases in language get applied to the same situation by different people because they are colloquial phrases. It's not nefarious or malevolent, its just common language.
Yeah, no. You're in the wrong here.
Apparently not. Maybe you should update your priors about what constitutes good behavior in this place and what is not. They were clearly both rage posting at each other personally, which is frowned upon.
I think its far clear you are pissed that I have a disagreeable opinion, that dares to disagree with you in another thread. As such you feel the need to follow me around and make low effort snipes.
I don't feel the need to shit-stir online, I can do it in person to a far more enjoyable degree. I express my honest 100% opinion. It is always weird to me that there exists a class of people who essentially assume any opinion not agreeing with their own is a troll. And then comes to a debate forum filled with heterodox thinkers.
YoungAchamian
5d ago
I got 83%, but yeah the spike in difficulty for that last part was unreal. I swear some of those where just pixelated 3D shapes on some gradient where it was all the same face in increasing levels of gaussian noise. Reminds me of looking at diffusion model outputs.
My father has been claiming he's face blind for a year now, time to put this in the family chat and find out how much.
Well I do, being from the UK. And taking what we know about Nowak's outgoing and friendly character, what he was snapchatting before, and the fact that at no point during the trial did anyone suggest that what Nowak had said was aggressive, I can conclude that he was being friendly, not aggressive.
He was in a leafy, middle class surburb talking to an individual.
Touche, I can admit my cultural radar is less attuned than a local. If that is the case it, it would be extremely jarring.
This is more like seeing a Japanese guy on the streets of San Francisco dressed like a Samurai, making a jokey comment about his katana, and then the Japanese guy actually drawing his sword and attacking.
That said if I am walking down the dark streets of SF and some Japanese guy with a katana is scowling, and I am just barely tipsy, I'm not going to stop and try to banter with him. Banter IS NOT always well received. Banter requires an existing relationship or existing knowledge of how the other person will take it. Some people just take it as insulting. It's horrible that this is how that lesson needed to be learned.
To me it looks like you trying to assign as much of the blame as you can on the murder victim, with the necessary commensurate reduction of blame on the murderer.
This is what I am doing, trying to determine how much Nowak participated in a situation that escalated to an disastrous outcome. If you wish to think of that as blaming the murder victim, you can, but I do not. I'm not really shame-able along those lines because the feminists beat that out of me with "blaming the rape victim" when I asked questions. It feels like this line implies you are trying the same tactic.
do what you are doing now.
I'm not sure I would put myself in this category. I think I disagree with the overall idea about how we should organize society around quokka-like behavior. My ideas on this topic are still a bit protean. But they are influenced by FromSCC's stance on rule-based systems being very vulnerable to exploitation. But I'll give it a go.
It seems to me that this rule: "Personal Violence is verboten" is very vulnerable to exploitation by smug assholes who's verbal intelligence allows them to insult, provoke, coordinate violence and other behaviors. They seem to take for granted that this rule exists, and it allows them to succeed at the expense of everyone else. That smacks as unfairness to me. The problem is that rule, is not natural. It only exists due to a strong centralized authority that will "Swing it's dick around". Now the motte/Chesterton's fence for this rule, is that in tries to prevent the interpersonal violence. The anti-violence norm is one of the pillars of mass society. But it is not a natural equilibrium because it's missing the other side of interpersonal violence.
A society needs more than a “no hitting” rule. It also needs a serious norm against provocation without accountability. Otherwise, the society privileges people whose aggression is deniable, verbal, procedural, or reputational. The thug says, “I’ll beat you.” The civilized predator says, “I’ll make everyone hate you, destroy your reputation, get you fired, humiliate you in public, bait you into a reaction, then appeal to the rules when you snap."
This is the cancel culture people claim to hate. It comes across as masculine vs feminine norms in society. We seemed to be in a phase of punishing the masculine and supporting the feminine. I don't think a society can survive without balancing these norms.
And while a lot of this idea is prescriptive, I think a large thrust is actually also descriptive. I think many lay people just intuitively grasp this idea. They grasp that if you verbally start shit out at a bar in the sticks, it is expected that you are going to get beat unless you can back it up with physical might. It's only in more urban, high-class, environments that people seem to not grasp this natural reality.
YoungAchamian
6d ago
I'm not defending Digwa, and he and his family should absolutely be convicted. My position/question as it always is in these situations is to determine how much the victim contributed to the situation going sidewise.
The trick a lot of victim supporters always want is that they want to frame the victim as this complete innocent bystander who was just set upon by the perp, no culpability. When the reality is that a lot of these victims put themselves in risky positions and then don't want to deal with the logical consequences of their set of actions. The former terrifies people in the way that random acts of violence, rape, fraud, etc. always do. The latter is more realistic, in the sense that if you have some common sense and a bit of risk avoidance you can genuinely avoid being put in these sort of situations. But activists/culture warriors always want it to appear to be the former because that helps the cause more. Which I think obscures the truth.
Also violence, cruelty, might makes right, honor feuds, glory seeking, ruthlessness, predatory opportunism, clannishness. Warlike values are not restricted to "virtues" that you like. We just had the whole Nowak vs Digwa discussion. Digwa is acting with virtue in a warlike tribal society. Do you like those virtues in the practical application?
This is nonsensical, local selection pressure make people good for surviving those local selection pressures. It is not a universal minimum in the gradient space of values. You'll have to give actual evidence than Tengri Mongolian values and behaviors should convey actual virtue in Christian Renaissance Italian society or Imperial Chinese society. I cannot convey how quarter-wit I find this weird objection. Your argument is that we should take known heavily biased data, do no normalization, no attempt to account for outside factors, and use it to build models and they will just generalize for any situation. It's statistically and mathematically illiterate.
I do not, but I am learning you lack imagination, introspection, and/or the ability to see the whole system. You cherry picked a bunch of warlike values that you think are virtuous, conveniently did not include any that you don't view as virtuous and then attempted to put them as words in my mouth. You left out virtues that real societies have considered virtuous but that you do not. Proving my point that virtues are culturally defined. You derive from a western-christian cultural milieu, you have a biased set of virtues. You could have the epistemological humility to understand that, but clearly don't.
This is a wildly crazy sentence. Capitalism does not want anything, it is not sentient. In so much, if you believe the idea that Capitalism is egregore, then it wants to perpetuate its own existence, and derive profit. Profit is a-moral, multi-agentic, and a stable signal. It is up to a society to use Capitalism and Profit as a tool of how they see fit. One does not blame the hammer for how it used.
Modernity favors cooperation, rule/norm-following, individualism, but also self-promotion, narcissism, materialism, strategic coldness, status management, narrative control, and the ability to dominate without looking like a brute.
It's pretty opposed to the old martial values because it is not the society of warriors, it is a society of merchants and priests. The selection pressure are different. If you want to make the argument that we should return to being a society of warriors, that is a better argument, but you should actually make it.
You are treating "warrior values" as though they are eternal truths rather than the self-justifying morality of a particular ruling caste.
More options
Context Copy link