iprayiam3
2d ago
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
I'm going to agree with @MonkeyWithAMachinegun, on pushback here but for a different reason; not for the sake of preserving known untruths, but for avoiding type 1 errors. Overzelous knocking down of 'perceived untruths' can produce a lot of collateral damage;
There's a Chesterton's fence argument here imo, more than a 'value of the myth' argument.
I think the axiom as stated tautologically, creates zelousness without clear reasoning;
If you see something that you beleive can be destroyed by truth, but cannot discern any benefit to destroying it, or harm by leaving it, maybe consider leaving it be.
iprayiam3
9d ago
Not to dig in, but I can't let the hyperbole slide. A night of interrupted sleep on a national holiday, is not a threat to 'a person's livelihood'.
So whether livelihood is more important than a celebration (and it is), is an irrelevant point here.
Celebrating July 4th is a more important social tool than ensuring total sleep quality on a single night of the year.
iprayiam3
10d ago
stopping at a reasonable hour (say 10-11 pm) so as not to disturb those trying to sleep. 10pm?! This gets you less than an hour of darkness where I live.
On July 4th itself, we should at least induldge till 2:00am., with maybe till midnight on the day before, through the next closest weekend.
iprayiam3
14d ago
It has everything to do with your post; it is a counterthesis to the quoted question.
You're basically complaining that there isn't a reasonable 'win condition' against the scolds scolding him, and I am extrapolating on that.
An old fat lady, may have been relatively better percieved, because it could have engendered some 'love is love' sentimentatily.
But mostly, the idea of a rich guy disrupting marriages with children and taking other people's women (whether that's literally another man's wife, or a more figurative, crowding the market of young hot chicks for single guys) ends up producing an aversion response in a large fraction of people.
But modernity can't out and say that, so the complaints about Bezos's are being laundered through secondary issues.
Does that clear up the response, or were you just itching to sneer at a percieved suggestion that adultery is bad and couldn't be bothered to post it anywhere relevant?
iprayiam3
15d ago
Right which is why she can’t criticize it on that front. So the present moral distaste is transferred onto something else
iprayiam3
15d ago
Does he have to marry an old fat lady?
No he has to stay married to his wife and the mother of his children
iprayiam3
15d ago
I don’t disagree with this and that the just so undermines credibility of the point. On the other hand, I do think Bezos deserves to be criticized whoever he marries. He started an affair and broke up two marriages with children.
I think part of the issue is that modernity has removed the vocabulary to cricicize the object level misbehavior so they displace their ‘something is wrong’ to a secondary element
iprayiam3
16d ago
My wife has recently given me a little gentle ribbing about my softer than usual belly. We were at the beach last week, and she turned to me and said, "Yeah, seeing all these shirtless men makes, me realize how in shape you actually are."
Point being I agree.
iprayiam3
17d ago
IMO this comment is way too uncharitable...I'd hesitate to call it laziness.
To clear this up, I didn't call it laziness, I just listed that as a possible pragmatic blocker. My point is that it's trivially solvable in technical sense. It's really really easy to think of ways to evaluate students or have them practice learning in scenarios that AI cheating could be mitigated. It's not remotely unsolveable in that sense. But there are, to your point structural and indivdual reasons that make implementing such a solution harder.
I have sympathy for these defenses, but not infinity. If it's something any homeschool parent could solve without any innovation, then the school system needs to be able to react to in order to remain a legitimate concept. We can't just 'oh well...' cheating at scale. It needs to be treated as existential to schooling, if it's really this widespread.
There is no legitimate reason an institution of learning, can remain remotely earnest about it's mission as a concept, and still allow graded, asynchronously written reports.
Now of course many of the blockers to reacting to this are an outgrowth of similar challenges schools have faced for decades: The conflicted, in-tension-with-self mission of schooling in general. as described in the excellent book, Somone Has to Fail. Schools simultaneously trying to be a system of equality and meritocracy will fail at both.
But AI has stopped the buck passing; like so many other things, AI is a forcing funciton of exponential scale. I think if the can gets kicked any further, ever single semester, every single assignment, the entire idea of schooling massively delegitimizes itself.
iprayiam3
17d ago
Cheating with AI in school is trivially solvable on an object level. It’s just that the bureaucracy and or faculty don’t want to.
Whether that’s due to laziness, head in sand, politics, profit, or some sense of “inequity”, or any other misaligned incentive is up for debate.
I assume the inequity part is a decent amount of it. If you start actually forcing measurable accountability, it will take away other subjective safety nets.
This will effect pass rates and almost certainly have some disparate impact.
But the point is that anybody with even a little bit of intelligence could think up a plan to counter AI cheating for any given course or learning objective.
iprayiam3
26d ago
A few walked out in disgust in favor of Hananianism, others embraced rightoid brainworms.
Stop trying to make fetch happen.
I think most people are missing it, but this whole shaggy dog is just to bury another love letter to Hannania.
iprayiam3
27d ago
"What is with him" is that he genuinely believes that his God, through scripture, has commanded him to support Israel, and there are many in the upper echelons of the US government who genuinely and wholeheartedly believe the same thing.
I don't want to go off the deep end speculating on his stated faith, but at first glance, this part felt somewhat post-hoc to me. I don't doubt that his support for Israel is tied to his faith to some degree, but I also doubt that that particular verse is the driver rather than the justification.
It is suspicious to me that he had the verse memorized (and corrected Tucker on the exact wording at one point, to narrow his interpretation even though his quote was not quite right anyway.), and had the 'I learned in Sunday school' framining, but didn't know where in the Bible it was, or provide any additional context outside of the single quoted verse.
It just came off to me like a digestible soundbite to rattle off, rather than the starting point for a developed point of view. I think Tucker sufficiently surfaced this in his pushback, but it didn't come out explicitly.
iprayiam3
29d ago
Search has continued to deteriorate steadily over the past 15 years and this is just more of the same.
Google wants to retain people who asking AI instead of search, which makes sense from their point of view.
But it’s misaligned with the users incentives. If I open google instead of ChatGPT it’s because I want a search not an AI response, nor an ad.
It’s just a terrible experience all around.
Yes, this is liberalism in the era of post-detraditionalization, and it's where I find myself sharply offboard with the classical liberals of both the left and right, and have theoretical sympathy for the progressives for whom 'wokeness' was a project to rebuild social scaffolding.
As you point out in this thread, the thing about 'liberalism' and this atomic individualism, is that it's good for you (the individual who can 'win' in it), so people have a vested in escaping some kind of constraint, will advocate for it. And this isnt' bad per se. At least not in the way communism is bad. But unrestrained, you get the tragedy of the commons.
The thing is that the commons are protected or at lead hidden when you're knocking down superfluity, non-loadbearing parts of social infrastruture, and then load bearing ones that can temporarily shift weight to other pillars. ANd for several decades, liberalism in a traditionalized world was doing just this. Finding ways to peak above the pack for an advantage, or loose a restraint for everyone.
But here we are where the fat has been long since trimmed, and we're left hypermaxxing individually. So where previously, we had social expectations that kept people largely on broad tracks toward success as a society, those have been whittled away.
More options
Context Copy link