guajalote

guajalote 2yr ago

When you speak through a private platform (e.g. youtube), you incur various contractual duties to that platform. If your speech violates those contractual duties, then it's permissible for the platform to prevent you from speaking. Similarly, I would say boycotting or quitting one's job is permissible and doesn't count as cancel culture because no one is being prevented from speaking by these actions.

But a situation such as the one that recently occurred and Stanford, where the Federalist Society invited Judge Duncan to speak, followed all proper rules and policies to obtain a room for him to speak in, but he was then shouted down and prevented from speaking, is an example of "deplatforming" that is improper.

Context

guajalote 2yr ago

If Alice is breaching a duty, for example if she works for the US government and is obligated to keep nuclear secrets confidential, then it's proper for the US government to intervene and stop her from speaking. If Alice obtained the nuclear secrets without incurring or breaching a duty, for example if she found them laying on the street, then there's no proper basis to stop her from speaking, even if her speech is likely to cause harm.

I claim that it is legitimately in the interests of person C (the rest of us humans on Earth) to prevent that communication from happening, even if Alice had never signed a nondisclosure agreement.

There are lots of things that may be in Person C's legitimate interest but are nevertheless are impermissible because they infringe the rights of others. Person C may want a new Rolex watch and it therefore may be in Person C's interest to steal a Rolex from the jewelry store, but that doesn't make it permissible to do so because stealing a Rolex involves violating the rights of others.

Context

guajalote 2yr ago · Edited 2yr ago

First off, there were lots of attempts to "cancel" Hitler and the Nazis and those attempts didn't work. Criminal laws against hate speech were brought to bear, and if anything those attempts at shutting down the Nazis made them stronger and gave them better rhetorical tools. "What don't they want you to know?" was their argument.

Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters.

But even if I thought it would work, I'm against censorship on principle.

Context

guajalote 2yr ago

it's true nonetheless that there must be a line somewhere that would make "cancel culture" type tactics acceptable; we're all just debating where that line is.

I'll bite the bullet and say I don't think there's any line where cancel culture type tactics are acceptable.

If person A wants to speak and person B wants to listen, then it's not acceptable for unrelated third party C to prevent this from occurring.

The only exception would be if person A or person B was breaching some duty they owed to person C. For example, if person A signed a non-disclosure agreement with person C.

Context

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 2023

guajalote 2yr ago

I wonder how Tibetans would respond on a survey if you showed them the video and asked them whether anything sexual is going on. I'm not sure what answer you would get, but it wouldn't surprise me if they overwhelmingly said "no."

I have been to Tibet, but I'm by no means any kind of expert on Tibetan culture. Still, it's extremely obvious to a casual observer that standards for platonic male behavior are way different over there. If you see two men or boys together they will almost certainly be holding hands or have their arms around each other. It was very unusual to see two males together not making physical contact with each other. It's clear that this is seen as completely normal and expected platonic behavior and not sexual or romantic at all.

Also the tongue thing, as you mention. Everybody sticks out their tongues at each other as a sign of greeting or (platonic) affection. I never saw any tongue sucking going on, but it wouldn't surprise me if the average Tibetan perceived this kind of thing as a form of "platonic goofing around" rather than the highly sexualized act we see it as in the west.

Context

guajalote 2yr ago

So, for those who elected him, Trump defecting is exactly why they elected him - because cooperating hasn't been working for them for decades now, and they feel like the other side is already been defecting for a long while, and it's time to respond in kind.

Sure, but if this is the case you don't have standing to complain when his opponents adopt the same strategy. Arguing that indicting Trump is norm-breaking rings hollow if Trump himself was elected to break norms.

Context

guajalote 2yr ago

I don't think I do need to explain why he's hated in order to take it as a given, and use that hatred as the basis for explaining behavior.

"Hatred for Trump is a significant motivating factor in these prosecutions" is I think an almost trivially true statement. The question is whether the hatred is justified and leading to socially desirable outcomes. Hatred for rapists is a major factor in why rape is criminally prosecuted, that doesn't make it illegitimate or inappropriate to prosecute rapists.

While I can't answer why, I have some theories. First, he's a genuine outsider that has resisted cooption. Second, he's personally repugnant due to manners and demeanor. Third, he's politically repugnant, and his pet issues (immigration, mostly) mark him as low-status or otherwise 'other.' Fourth, he's a genuine threat to the status quo (similar to #1) is ways that triggers reactions from those inside the system (deep state, anyone?). Fifth, the normal demonization of Republicans, but enhanced due to #2.

I would say a combination of your second, third, and fifth explanation, combined with the fact that many of Trump's detractors legitimately believe he has violated democratic norms. Putting aside whether he has or hasn't, I do think they sincerely believe this and are motivated by it.

He was hated, and persecuted, before he contested the 2020 election. He was already impeached once and the entirety of the bureaucratic class was opposed to him by the time he walked in the door. It was this antipathy that caused the groups described in the famous Time article to collectively 'fortify' the election in advance. So I think this causation is backwards.

There are many pre-2016 election examples of behavior that one could believe in good faith violates democratic norms. For example, calling on Russia to release one's opponent's hacked emails and threatening to "lock up" one's electoral opponent.

Context

guajalote 2yr ago

If any other Republican nominee had beat Clinton, they would have been hated, as Obama was, as Bush was, and perhaps even more due to social media turning up the temperature. But I think it's unlikely they would have been impeached or criminally indicted.

Context

guajalote 2yr ago

I think both proposed explanations I gave are wrong, or only partially correct at best. My point is simply that the degree to which hatred of Trump is legitimate, and the degree to which actions taken against Trump, such as this prosecution, are legitimate, in large part depends on the specific explanation for why he is hated and why the actions are being taken. This part of the argument can't simply be ignored or hand-waved.

Context

guajalote 2yr ago

Trump engenders hatred and revulsion unmatched by anyone in my lifetime, the source of that hatred is his 2016 election win, and that people like Bragg can't help themselves but act on it.

What's missing from your argument is an explanation of why Trump engenders unprecedented "hatred and revulsion." The explanation cannot be merely that he won the 2016 election, since many of the other people you mention (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden) also won presidential elections.

The standard pro-Trump explanation for why he's hated is something like "he's the only one who isn't corrupt and won't do what the deep state wants." The standard anti-Trump explanation is something like "Trump has shown a unique willingness to violate democratic norms, such as by calling on Russia to release hacked emails or stating that both the 2016 and 2020 election results were rigged."

It seems like the whole argument pivots around this "why is he hated" question. If Trump is in fact uniquely willing to violate democratic norms, it seems reasonable for his opponents to take issue with that and to argue he has forfeited the right to avail himself of those norms for protection. You and VDH raise good arguments for why the norm of "don't prosecute former presidents" exists, but many similar arguments could be made for why the norm of "presidents gracefully concede elections and don't challenge the results" exists. In game theory terms, if Trump consistently choses the "defect" option, it may be the optimal strategic choice for his opponents to do the same.

Context

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 2023

guajalote 2yr ago

"Only" controlling the flow of high-tier computing resources is really hard, especially when that control needs to be exercised across the entire globe. And the basic elements (GPUs) presumably won't be outlawed, just large clusters. And it's not enough to shut down 99% of clusters, since even a few slipping through the cracks is still a major threat if Yud's argument is correct. Absent panopticon-like surveillance and control, how would this be even remotely feasible?

Context

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 27, 2023

guajalote 2yr ago

Even if I thought there was a 99% chance of AI destroying humanity, creating a massive totalitarian world-state that tracks all private behavior and is willing to start nuclear wars to enforce its power doesn't seem like an improvement. What Yud is proposing is probably not possible, but if it is possible it's one of the worst futures I can imagine for the human race.

Context

guajalote 2yr ago

If you use qualia to mean the 'experience of reading and thinking' then it has zero value.

This seems like an admission that qualia in fact exist, which would refute your claim that it's "not real." Whether it has value is a different question.

The experience of reading is inherent when you read.

What is your evidence for this claim? If I ask a human to read and summarize some text, the human will have the experience of reading. If I ask Chat GPT to read and summarize some text, it's unclear whether it will have any experience at all, and I think most people assume it does not. A cleaner example: a human has the experience of adding numbers whereas a simple digital calculator does not.

People in real life are not simulations running on a few hundred lines of code and some textures!

If the video game NPC had the subjective experience of being shot and dying, it would be immoral to kill the NPC. The moral weight of killing the NPC does not depend on how many lines of code are involved, but rather whether qualia are involved. This refutes your claim that qualia has "zero value."

Context

guajalote 2yr ago

The idea that qualia is "made up" or "not real" seems difficult to defend. You can verify for yourself right now as you're reading this that you are directly experiencing qualia at this very moment. It is not a speculative thing like a soul that may or may not exist. Qualia is the one thing you can be quite sure exists. "I think therefore I am."

Maybe qualia is not important or is not a useful distinction, but that's different from saying it's not real. And in practice most people seem to think that qualia is very important indeed, so you would need to do some serious heavy lifting to prove otherwise. For example, the moral difference between killing someone in a video game and killing someone in real life primarily comes down to the differences in the qualitative experiences the two acts produce; the video game death produces no negative qualia, the real death produces large amounts of negative qualia in the victim and their friends and relatives.

Context

guajalote 2yr ago · Edited 2yr ago

Part of being a pro athlete is becoming and being a public figure, and that's part of why they are paid so well and receive sponsorship offers, etc.

I'm saying people shouldn't expect more out of public figures than what they're being paid to do. A good athlete doesn't need to be smart or a morally good person, those attributes are unrelated to their job. Same with actors, musicians, artists, and the like. None of the bad things Mike Tyson has done could diminish his quality as a boxer. None of the bad things Roman Polanski has done could diminish the quality of his films.

Are you suggesting that 0% of a player's off-the-field conduct should be considered in decisions about whether to play them (criminal misconduct aside)?

Yes, though by "off the field" I mean things not directly related to their ability to win or perform well. So missing practice or causing problems in the locker room would count as "on the field" since this clearly has an impact on their performance or the team's performance.

And even criminal misconduct I would say should not factor into such decisions, except to the extent that the consequences of such misconduct impact the player's ability to do their job (e.g. if they're in jail then obviously they can't play). The justice system should adjudicate guilt and punishment, not sports teams.

Context

guajalote 2yr ago

To the extent woke people purport to disagree with objective morality, I think it's a combination of two things:

They interpret the phrase "objective morality" to mean western/Christian morality.
They interpret "objective morality" as supporting the idea that the powerful should be able to impose their morality on the oppressed.

So even though they do believe in "an" objective morality, they associate the phrase "objective morality" with views they disagree with and therefore claim to not believe in it.

Context

guajalote 2yr ago

Right, but the only reason the athlete is a "brand risk" to begin with is because people care about what they do off the field. I recognize that people do care about this, but my argument is that people shouldn't care about this. Nobody cares about or wants to know about their plumber's politics because it's irrelevant; they should take the same approach with athletes.

Context