@drmanhattan16's banner p

drmanhattan16


				

				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2022 September 05 17:01:12 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 640


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
drmanhattan16


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 17:01:12 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 640


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Violent Class: the Point of Empire.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


As a composite character, I give you the US infantryman. He is nineteen or twenty years old, grew up in a trailer park, has a kid or two with women he's not married to, is married to a woman with kids that are not his. He'll be divorced in a year. His family are construction workers, nurses, truck drivers, retail workers, garbage collectors, heavy machine operators, drug dealers, petty criminals, major criminals. He is dumber than average, hated school, has never read a book not assigned in class. He's been in jail multiple times, and probably will be again, mostly for low level stuff like underage drinking, vandalism and fighting. He binge drinks and smokes when in garrison, dips in the field. He gets in fistfights on a regular but extended basis with members of his own unit, in group conflict with other units, or with civilians on liberty. His politics, if he has any, are somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan. He drives a pickup truck, a Mustang, or a heavily riced-out import and is dead broke most of the time. He is, in short, perilously close to the underclass of our society, and there's a lot of crossover. His life is boredom, fear, pain and the brotherhood of those who live in fear and pain. His values are foreign, rude and frightening to those not of his group.




Your description is fascinating to me because I would have assumed this to be the modern equivalent of one of McNamara's Morons. The self-destructive and perhaps anti-social behavior are the kind of thing I wouldn't expect from a modern soldier, because my understanding was that everyone looked at MMs and concluded that they were better dead than alive.


Or maybe MMs were even more abysmal than this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But I think this ignores the fact that Israel has the luxury of successfully hitting military targets. Israel can kill just as many civilians as Hamas by targeting military sites, while also killing relevant military leaders and defending against unwanted criticism.




It's not luxury, it's capability. Luxury implies that it shouldn't be held against Hamas.




However, I’m not convinced that there is a clear moral difference between Hamas actions and, say, the firebombing of Tokyo, where as many as 100k were killed, the vast majority being civilians.




The firebombings could be justified if they took out some doomsday weapon that was guaranteed to win Japan the war and there was no other way to stop them. I don't believe the firebombings would qualify, there wasn't much to threaten the US by that point.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I've long felt that something essential was lost from the post-WWII world when we decided to define riots, pogroms, ethnic cleaning and genocide as atrocities that the civilized world could never tolerate, rather than as social technologies that humanity developed to bring permanent resolutions to seemingly intractable problems.




I've long felt that people who talk this way of such things have never engaged with war closer than playing a Paradox game.




What does it say of our enlightened modern era that two and a half years of bloodthirsty war did more to bring about peace than the preceding 30-something years of talking and diplomacy and give-peace-a-chance rigmarole?




Very true, which is why I support the genocide of all landlords and capitalists because they stand in the way of the socialist utopia and would just keep trying to destroy it if we left them alive. In fact, I might even extend this to genociding all humans because they can't stop polluting the earth.




No one is denying that if you kill anyone who opposes you, you can stop fighting instead of continuing a protracted engagement that drains resources and willpower. What is denied is that this is a moral thing to do. Ending war is not inherently a moral good. To have it as a terminal value is the same mistake the pacifists make when they insist the West should voluntarily disarm or leave the Soviets/Russians alone.


In fact, if I was going to be more cynical, I would guess that for some people, any solution to a problem is better than having to keep hearing about it, as if the real sin is that they were asked to pay attention to something other than their own lives. Funny how this forum would reject that idea if it were leftists calling for a ban on anything that cast black people in a negative light because that is a way of fighting racism.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Spend an hour reading the "decolonization" tag. They are telling you what they are, and like Noah Smith I am getting "sort of negatively polarized against these people."




We implemented a rule against culture-warring precisely for that reason. It doesn't matter who you are, your brain is fundamentally susceptible to letting its emotions trump its rationality and logic. This is precisely why engaging the culture war at all is a highly dangerous task, the risk of neutral observation slipping into partisan advocacy is too high.


I would highly encourage 99% of people reading to just not bother reading that tag. It's not going to do you much good.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You stand little chance of succeeding in that endeavor, given that no end of philosophers have tried to find a moral code that is acceptable and preferable over all the others for a ~full subset of humans.




It's not a question of success, it's a question of whether I need to believe in moral objectivism to make my argument. I don't. I only need to convince people that my morality works better for them without appeal to moral fact.




There are plenty of people with even less power than the minimal amount I wield, and you don't see me going around tormenting them, not even for financial gain...The only reason human society works is that despite our moralities diverging in the edge cases, there's a strongly conserved core, with random acts of murder, theft and the like nearly universally reprehensible.




No, they are only reprehensible in human nature when we believe others have moral worth. Our instincts turn this into "anyone who is a part of my tribe" and brother, you probably aren't in the tribe of every rich Indian out there. So this isn't a strong response. That you wouldn't do it tells me nothing about what your morality does to prevent a more powerful person from just killing your for their benefit.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Just don't fall for the illusion that highly conserved aspects of our conserved morality are anything but the outcomes of evolution and game theory working on mammalian brains.




It doesn't really matter. I'm trying to make a morality that works for humans. A significantly constrained problem.




That's like your, opinion, man. Do demonstrate how dearly you hold your stated convictions if people paraglide onto your doorstep and shoot your kids. Or don't, because honor is a poor balm for the dead.




I would regard my emotions as irrelevant when deciding how criminals are to be treated, I wouldn't insist on a double standard for me and those who aren't me.




You mistake me for a Benthamian who holds all people equal, including themselves, and I very much am not.




The difference is that your morality doesn't do anything to prevent those more powerful than you from killing you if it would benefit them. Mine would.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Sure, Israel is net immoral. Probably everyone is net immoral, there are always ways to be better, and always horrible mistakes one's making at some scale. You can't find a country that isn't killing its inhabitants with obesity, addictive drugs, or something.




The problem is that of intention. It's one thing to say that there are inevitable costs to, say, policing and some people will end up being hurt when they are. But it's an entirely different thing to say that we shouldn't try to prevent those from happening in the first place.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Because I think it is? So do most people, if they're thinking straight.




No, actually, that's not so clear. People may find it valuable, but an argument has to be made that creating a civilization is itself a moral good.




Your question makes no sense without that presumption, unless you want a scan of my brain so you tease out the way the neurons fire.




We can use arguments to determine what morality we want to follow even as we acknowledge it's not objective. Not that hard to understand.




There you go...




You've already made it clear that you would never accept the costs if you had to pay them. It's a damning indication of just how little your stated morality means to you if you would refuse to accept its worst outcomes being applied to you.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I deny that objective morality even exists. Or that it's a even a coherent concept!




I said nothing about objective morality.




Civilization is a social technology in itself, us bootstrapping from Monke to apotheosis.




And why is that itself a moral good?




What is a Right to Internet Access without the internet? Healthcare, without it?




You understand that we can abstract these things, right? For example, the right to use contemporary means of private messaging. Letters in the past, DMs today.




Ain't nobody perfect. It's still the smart decision, even if the dice or Mossad roll against you.




But you certainly seem to be indifferent to how imperfect they may be.


If the Israelis were having Predator drones (or whatever their equivalent is) bomb a random house in each block every day, would you say that's just "imperfection"? What if they decide to genocide by bullet the Palestinians entirely, but they also promise a cure for cancer?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No one is disputing the value of civilization and technological improvement. What I'm disputing is the idea that they are so important as to offer a moral offset when we ask if a civilization is immoral on the whole.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Keep resolving the edge cases, blatant conflicts and order of operations, and you have a dumbed down version of utilitarianism/consequentialism. Reality isn't so kind that it always gives you one option unreproachably better than the other.




I understand that morality is hard. That's not the same as saying that the creation of technology or civilization is itself a moral good.




And eventually every single one ends up riddled with exceptions for the public good and whatever the bored judge or civil servant feels like that afternoon.




You're letting implementation dictate the value of the theoretical.




Nope. I wouldn't say that if that was the price, but once again, Palestinians don't face that tradeoff either. They could diminish their risk of drone strikes killing them and their loved ones to ~0% by not doing everything in their limited power to piss off their more powerful neighbors.




But then you're also okay if Israel happens to, intentionally or with reckless disregard, kill Palestinians who do precisely that because the Israelis think this particular person or family are terrorists or criminals. After all, these are the "occasional human rights violations" you're talking about.




I'm sure I'm inconsequential in the greater scheme, and I've made my peace with that long ago, as long as things keep improving.




Meaning that your statements on any moral issue are contingent upon whether you have political or social power, correct?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No, I mean why do you endorse a position in which technology and civilization have such value that they can balance out moral obligations? Most people would say that morality comes first, always. In a sense, that's precisely what morality is, the rules that hold utmost importance and must be obeyed should there ever be any conflict. You don't even dispute the idea that what Israel is doing is immoral.


You say that technological innovation and civilization creation are aspects in which Israel does so well that its immoral actions can be ignored. Would you say the same if the costs or consequences of those actions fell on you or those you cared about? If the cost for Israel's success was the death of your parents, your wife, your children, or even you, would you still make the same argument?


Now, you could argue that your human responses are irrational. Feelings are stupid and gay, after all, there's no reason your chemical reaction to seeing your family killed by a drone should dictate the actual morality you hold to. But talk is cheap. I've debated people who struck me as incapable of separating the reality we all inhabit from any hypothetical world I proposed. It's easy to bite bullets about what you would accept when the only one biting actual bullets are your adversaries.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I respect that enough to ignore the whole religious ethno-state deal, or even the occasional human rights violation.




Why?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Then just use the free tutorials online or invite artists to teach your people.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Then you invest in your own artists and train them to be just as good.


The money's there, the people can be found, nothing stops you from going to art school and just faking your politics if the credentials matter that much.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't think they are actually the same in nature.


But the reason I ask about the family structure being more like fascism is because I've only ever seen that claim in the context of trying to cast conservatives as fascists. It was a talking point during the 2016 US election. So to see it alluded to here surprised me, that's all.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What is the proof of family units being like fascism instead of communism?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


We have some great running series of posts, like the San Francisco housing issues, that I think pretty much no one objects to.




Ah, but why do we not object? I would argue that we find it less bothersome because it's not an overwhelming topic here - you don't get people constantly talking about the failure to build and NIMBYs. It's also a less charged topic, economics generally tends to be.


In contrast, the OP's post touches on several topics far more incendiary, in the sense that you'll get a lot more people offering their own diagnoses of the issue, but often agreeing with the underlying premise. You can also find at least half a dozen posts by the week's end that make a similar sort of point of "progressives stupid/evil".


I don't have any concrete proposals, but one thing I would encourage people to keep in mind before they make a top-level comment is just how much insight they think they're adding to the overall conversation(s), doubly so if it's about race, gender, and sex. If you're a newcomer, lurk more.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


but I think reading his exhortations in the Communist Manifesto makes it clear that he was enthusiastic about appropriation.




Certainly. Appropriation, however, doesn't necessarily translate into murder. Likewise, capitalism doesn't require the deaths it caused, but if we're talking about deaths under a system's means of economic production, then I don't see a way in which you count, for example, the Holodomor as a death under Marxism but exclude the Great Bengal Famine of 1770 from the capitalist side.


My point is that you have to be consistent.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I've wondered for many years why Marxism is more socially acceptable than racism when it's responsible for even more deaths than the Holocaust.




If Marx Marxism is responsible for those deaths, do leftists have a point when they say that X millions were killed by capitalism?


Edit: Marxism, not Marx


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Quality Contributions Report for September 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Hence the word "most"


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I'm not saying you defended the latter, I just don't understand how you can defend the claim that an expression of a certain view in media is "no big deal" in a context where the removal of this view is itself censored.




They're two separate claims, that's why. The inclusion and subsequent exclusion of that view do not concern me in the least. At least in the context of single-player video games. The more zero-sum a thing we're talking about, the more I'd be concerned about it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Quality Contributions Report for September 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


was it the same small group of people nominating all three posts because they were complementary, or have we rooted out a silent consensus among Mottizens?




The silent consensus was basically established years ago once most of the leftists and liberals left.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


How can it simultaneously be true that woke messaging is not a big deal, and that people should not be allowed any option to remove it?




I didn't defend the latter, I defended the former.




I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. You're saying that if he had his way, he'd just turn the tables on the woke, and censor them, including their mods? If not, I'm not sure I see where you're going with this argument.




I'm saying I think he'd censor almost anything he could. He might be less tempted in cases where it's up to adults to make a decision, but I'm not confident of that. So when you say




Your argument would make sense if he complained about ANY game EVER catering to the pronouns crowd




I think he genuinely would complain about pronouns and whatnot. But he may just not be playing Starfield, so he hadn't heard of that case.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It's not gaslighting if it's true.




I'm saying that argument would only make sense if he wanted to purge all wokeness from all games, rather than just complaining about how top corporations are pushing it through it's media.




The problem I have with this argument is that the OP called multiple popular kids shows "too damned gay". One of those was Peppa Pig, which the linked article literally just says had a lesbian couple with a child who was friends with the titular character. I assume OP is linking the part he finds problematic, but if so, then he finds it to be unacceptable that a kids show literally depicts a gay family. I even asked explicitly and didn't get a response on what exactly he found problematic about that. The other linked articles aren't much better for making his point.


It is true that one can have separate opinions on video games and kids shows. But I have yet to meet anyone who thinks Peppa Pig is LGBT propaganda and can't comprehend the criticism levied against their modding choices who doesn't also think "wokeness" in video games is a problem, period. I don't place much confidence in WhiningCoil breaking this mold. But I leave it to him to at least offer the defense if he cares to do so.