domain:abc.net.au
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
5m ago
and i think I made that clear in the above comment when I talked about the subject knowing
I dont think this is considering intent properly. Theres a difference between doing something despite or because of an effect. I think what Im suggesting here is similar to the doctrine of double effect - and you have been arguing that because the "forseen unintended" case is ok, the "forseen intended" case is too.
I think there is a conflation between sexual intercourse and the possible results of sexual intercourse - or conception. Sexual intercourse is the ejaculation of a penis in a vagina.
How do you think acts and their proper form are determined? I thought that it was to do with purposes. Meanwhile your description taken at face value, without background knowledge of what you want it to mean, sounds like condoms are ok too. I suggest that thats not a coincidence: the principles youre using on this case are much more permissive than those that inform your general view.
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
7m ago
The Virgin Nietzche vs Chad Aristotle.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
12m ago
The majority of Trump voters (let alone the 'independents' who have been deciding our recent elections by flip-flopping between Obama, Trump, and Biden) don't think about immigrants, nationalism, or even gays, in the same way they do.
How do the majority of Trump voters and flip-flopping independents think about such things? How do right-wingers like Auron think about them?
And you will encounter no politics at all during, say, Black History Month?
How do you differentiate 'people who talk about witchcraft are witches, so they're tabooed' vs. 'if you taboo any discussion of witchcraft, only maniacal Satanists will talk about it'? See e.g. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/
aceventura
18m ago
What right-wingers like Auron underappreciate is how vast the chasm is between their version of the right and IRL conservatism. The majority of Trump voters (let alone the 'independents' who have been deciding our recent elections by flip-flopping between Obama, Trump, and Biden) don't think about immigrants, nationalism, or even gays, in the same way they do.
this is not actually how it works in most of the non-US West
Well, yes, I can admit that as Europe is concerned, they are moving quite fast to the oppressive, and sometimes approaching totalitarian, direction, and there a person who is persecuted for disagreeing with the government - which is not at all limited to Nazis now - could be justly called "dissident". I haven't read anything the person in question posted, is he European?
aceventura
28m ago
After Zizians and the efilist bombing I have tried to pay more attention to the cross section of ethical veganism, rationalists, and nerdy utilitarian blogs.
A Substack titled "Don't Eat Honey" was published. Inside, the argument is made that to buy or consume honey is an unethical act for insect suffering-at-scale reasons. According to the essay, bees, like livestock, suffer quite a lot at the hands of beekeepers, but there's a lot more bees. Thus the title: don't eat honey.
The median estimate, from the most detailed report ever done on the intensity of pleasure and pain in animals, was that bees suffer 7% as intensely as humans. The mean estimate was around 15% as intensely as people. Bees were guessed to be more intensely conscious than salmon!
If we assume conservatively that a bee’s life is 10% as unpleasant as chicken life, and then downweight it by the relative intensity of their suffering, then consuming a kg of honey is over 500 times worse than consuming a kg of chicken! And these estimates were fairly conservative. I think it’s more plausible that eating honey is thousands of times worse than eating comparable amounts of chicken
This particular post is high on assumption and light on rigor. It received outrage. Another post on Bentham's blog on insect suffering I recall as higher quality material for understanding. Did you know that composting is an unethical abomination? I'd never considered it!
'Suffering' presents an incommensurable problem. Suffering is a social construct. Suffering is the number and intensity of firing pain receptors over time. Suffering is how many days in a row I experienced boredom as a teenager. Still, science attempts to define and quantify suffering. An equation works out the math: how conscious a cricket is in relation to man, a cricket's assumed capacity to feel pain, the length of time it spends feeling pain, and so on. My prediction is we will figure out the consciousness part of the equation with stable meaning before we ever do so for suffering.
We will manage to rethink, remeasure, and find additional ways of suffering. People always have. Today, plants do not feel "pain", but tomorrow, pain may not a prerequisite for suffering. Maybe starvation becomes a moral imperative. If the slope sounds too slippery, please consider people have already built a (relatively unpopular) scaffolding to accept and impose costs at the expense of human comfort, life, and survival. Admittedly, that suffering may present an incommensurable problem doesn't negate any imperative to reduce it. Find more suffering? Reduce that, too. It does give me reason to question the limitations and guard rails of the social technology.
According to Wikipedia, negative utilitarians (NU) are sometimes categorized as strong NUs and weak NUs. This differentiates what I'd call fundamentalists --- who follow suffering minimizer logic to whatever ends -- to the milder "weak" utilitarians. The fundamentalist may advocate for suffering reduction at a cost that includes death, your neighbor's dog, or the continued existence of Slovenia-- the honey bee capitol of the world. Our anti-honey, anti-suffering advocate has previously demonstrated he values some positive utility when it comes to natalism, but much of his commenting audience appears more in the fundamentalist category.
One vibe I pick up from the modern vegans is that the anti-suffering ethics are the ethics of the future. That our great-grandchildren will look backwards and wonder how we ever stooped so low as to tolerate farming practice A or B. I don't doubt we'll find cost effective, technological solutions that will be accepted as moral improvements in the future. I am not opposed to those changes on principle. Increase shrimp welfare if you want, fine.
My vague concern is that this social technology doesn't appear limited to spawning technological or charitable solutions though. It appears more ready to justify a mad man's actions to decide our fate than. If technology increases the damage an individual can impose the human population, then is this not cause for some consideration? For a group I assume has much much overlap with AI risk doomers I find the lack of concern a little surprising. Maybe mad men are going to mad men and there's no reason to worry about it. With things like lab meat showing up more frequently in the culture war I'd expect the social technology to spread. So far, however, vegans remain a stable population in the US. Nerdy utilitarian bloggers are yet to impose their will on us. They just don't think you should eat honey.
I'm not disagreeing with the factual findings. Literally in the post you're replying to, I said:
T.B. here might well (maybe even likely would) fail an honest analysis of dangerousness, but we didn't get that. T.B. might well (maybe even likely would) fail an honest analysis of improvement in mental health condition.
Indeed, the question raised by the petitioner during appeal was specifically "the trial court improperly relied on his current physical condition, age, and stated reasons for seeking expungement". While I don't think that's meritless -- I raised some statutory interpretation questions, again literally in the post that you're replying to -- I do fully recognize that there's absolutely zero chance of them being successful. Likewise, I recognize that because of the commitment's age bringing any serious challenges to would be difficult even were New Jersey and its federal circuit any less biased against gun rights, and because of the petitioner's age and the speed of New Jersey courts, any Second Amendment-related or due process legal challenges would be doomed.
My argument is that these are bad; that they defy broad rights and due process and justice, and yet can't be meaningfully challenged and won't be meaningfully recognized. We've had this distinction before.
T.B. in this case might have failed a test for expungement in a fair system, but he didn't get a fair system. Instead he got one where his rights could be taken away in an ex parte hearing with no due process or representation and standard, and to retrieve those rights he could present only limited information against an explicitly adversarial judge who could moor any denial in anything the judge wanted under any standard of evidence and using any information or no information at all. Indeed, he didn't even get a system interested in pretending to be fair, where the judge can make some handwave toward what T.B. would have to do in order to comply with the law.
There's a trivial sense where they're bad in ways that undermine all of the defenses that you entered this discussion with. But there's a more general one where it's no defense at all to say that the bad procedures are established by statute, and that the biased judges are just part of a biased system, and that there's just going to be people who fall between the awkward interactions of laws that don't mesh together, and that people simultaneously should know that any constitutional or due process arguments would actively doom whatever trivial chance their 'conventional' petition might have and that outside observers can't point to the blatant disregard for constitutional rights or due process.
There are imaginable universes where we are, as a society, so attached to legal formalism that all of these things weigh against constitutional rights, and the constitutional rights lose. There are imaginable universes where all those frictions and safety risks weigh against constitutional rights, and the same happens.
The courts can, have, and did in the last week jump over themselves to protect the rights of a murderer to 'prove' that he might have only planned and assisted with the murder of an innocent woman. The courts can, have, and did jump over themselves to defend an illegal immigrant who beat his wife and allegedly participated in human trafficking from getting deported, with everyone on the Left and their dogs and you specifically talking up the important of due process.
We aren't in those universes. You know we're not in those universes. That this disagreement is only imaginable for matters that happen to line up with your political goals leaves any argument presented under them as below contempt.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
42m ago
This worldview would seem to conflict with HBD theories. Indeed, one would have to conclude that whites are an inferior race. Guatemalans in their "third-world s***hole" don't just sit around despairing, they cross multiple borders and look for work in a country where they can't even speak the language, while white men who got laid off in their rust-belt factory towns twiddle their thumbs and inject fentanyl, unable to compete with said Guatemalans.
While the tone of your post is a bit aggressive, I do strongly agree with this line of reasoning. I've always been skeptical of hard HBD because I grew up in a rural white town, where there was so much despair and economic struggling.
In my opinion culture is OBVIOUSLY the bigger factor than genes or IQ. And the rise and current downfall of most whites is actually the perfect example. White people used to rule the world with an iron fist, we roamed the seas and dominated everything we saw. Then our culture changed over time, and despite our very similar genetics to our ancestors of a few hundred years ago, we have... the problems we have now.
Lizzardspawn
44m ago
"up to a third of programming is now done by AI" does seem to be a straw in the wind. Yes? No? Just means they're not hiring new junior staff?
It is a bit like saying a third of programming is done by hibernate and spring. Even if true, doesn't mean what you think it means.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
46m ago
Yeah my cynical view is that large corporations would've done layoffs either way, as they often do during a downturn or after overhiring (what happened during covid.) In my mind AI is just a convenient excuse. While I do think it improves productivity somewhat, I think the layoffs would've come either way.
gattsuru
59m ago
It's possible, but I'm skeptical -- AI isn't as bad as people say, but I don't think it's quite there yet, and more critically there's a massive space for additional programmer output -- and a lot of this stuff is happening at the same time that Microsoft is demanding vast increases in cheaper workers.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1hr ago
I worry about the ladder effect. In that, devleopers will be pulling the ladder out behind themselves.
Say you need a low-level coder to help support a more experienced software developer. You might just tell the developer to use AI instead of hire a kid out of college. AI will be better than 80% of kids out of college after all.
But AI can't do what that Software Developer does, and perhaps it never will. Ten years later, you have seasoned developers retiring and who is there to replace them? All the kids with CS degrees had to turn to menial labor and no one got that experience needed to take over the Software Developer's position.
But if you're a future-oriented company who thinks long term, and you say, "I'll hire these CS people so they get trained," you are at a disadvantage against your competitors for years, and there's no guarantee that the guy you hired will stick with you after the job market for seasoned developers tightens.
Supah_Schmendrick
1hr ago
A majority of historical wars were genocidal in intent; wanting to exterminate your enemies is in fact an extremely common motivation for warfare
Citation very much needed. Wanting to kill the enemy country's elites and replace them is common, wanting to loot the enemy country's stuff is common, wanting to reduce the enemy people to servitude or slavery is common, even wanting to displace and take territory from the enemy group is common. But even in "barbaric" ancient wars outright eliminating the enemy people root and branch is usually too much work for an unclear reward.
Nice strawman. But even the most hardcore HBD believers would accept that the worst whites are likely worse in some aspects than the best non-whites.
I have seen it argued on multiple occasions right here on the Motte that racial background is the "most dispositive" factor in determining human behavior. That is to say that a person's race will tell you more about how they are likely to behave than whether they are male or female, young or old, married or single, rich or poor, urban or rural, republican or democrat, etc...
By extension wether a man is black or white must matter more than whether they are an aged Supreme Court Judge or a Twenty-something meth head. You may claim that the Motte is not representative of the HBD movement or that when users here say things like "most dispositive" or "predictive" they don't actually mean it literally, but it's not a strawman.
TIRM
1hr ago
Yes, this is selectively applied only to white people. I can walk by a huge "La Raza" mural and most people don't seem to mind. An equivalent "WHITE RACE" mural would never be tolerated.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
1hr ago
My priority is winning, because that’s how you execute power. If EHC needs to be appealed to in order to understand that having power is better than not having power, I question how elite they actually are.
Again, what is EHC actually going to do? If they are so elite, why are they incapable of directing the herd of unwashed sheep?
Traditionally, a shepherd demonstrates his superiority over the sheep by making sure the sheep do what he says. If he’s not capable of leading them, he’s not much of a shepherd.
So, again, assuming your Nietszchean WTP movement is more aligned, even if only a tiny bit, with MAGA than with bio-Leninism, how do you propose to build on that opportunity? How will you lead the sheep?
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1hr ago
If anyone thinks ChatGPT is ready to replace programmers then just like... ask it to build some software for you. Enough to run a sustainable business. It's ready to be an employee, ok then, go employ it. That's free money for you that's just sitting there for the taking.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1hr ago
So next on my list of "things I should have picked up twenty years ago, and now are vaguely embarrassing to learn" is bicycling. I found myself in possession of a 21 speed Pacific mountain bike, and I've been riding it a few miles as a warmup before climbing workouts on the moon board. The things is...I suck at bicycling. Like, badly. I can ride a bike, but even just keeping my balance while signaling a turn is a conscious effort, and I regularly get concerned I'm going to just fall over, which is deeply stupid. I feel like I should be more fluent in my motion, but I'm just not.
I learned to ride a bike at an appropriate age, but never really did it much after a few 15-20 mile bike trips in scouts in my early teens. My parents never really let me ride my bike anywhere interesting because I would have to cross "busy roads" and I was the kind of quiet submissive kid that listened to them and didn't push boundaries.
So here I am, 33 years old, and I'm bad at riding a bike. But it seems like something I "should" be able to do, and the novelty is making it a pretty fun workout.
How does one get better at riding a bike as an adult? What should I be doing to bike as a workout program? What should my goals be? I literally have no idea, so far I just ride a mile up the road and turn around and ride back, then climb.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
Also, its probably the only actual racial identitarian movement in US politics that anyone talks about
Black identitarian movements are a thing.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
Almost nothing is specific to any one group, especially when we're dealing with groups as broad as "right" and "left", but I do think it's ugly and getting uglier on the right.
I'm saying it's bizarre to single the right out when there was a general raise of "antisemitic" sentiment, and a big part of the current vibe shift was Jewish people responding to the left's reaction to 10/7 .
And it's broader than racism. For instance, I'm closer to Trace's side than I am to Auron's in this exchange, and so I don't want our politics to go down the path Trace is arguing against.
I assure you Trace is no stranger to deploying shame against people he disapproves of. In fact, I don't think you can have a functioning society without shame.
If he (or you) wants to argue that everyone needs to act like trans aspect of trans people should be completely ignored in all contexts not related to sex, he can knock himself out, but I don't see any vitriol in rejecting the concept of transgenderism, and guarding against your movement being eternally trapped in the progressive frame.
But it somehow falls upon America to disentangle a conflict we have little to do with
lol, lmao even.
The US has been playing stupid games in that region for the 10-15 years preceding the war- they wanted that war, and they got it. And Trump is still responsible for it, given that the destabilization efforts continued under his administration; we can blame upper military brass for hiding shit all we want but at the end of the day it's still the responsibility of the guy at the top.
And we can discuss the fact the war had significant economic consequences for the Fourth Reich Germany, too- the US took their cheap natural gas away (it wasn't the Russians that blew it up) and now they get to experience a 1973-style price shock in manufacturing because they were too stupid to figure out how to frack for themselves.
It's unwise to meet NATO spending targets because every non-US nation in that alliance is very well aware that the way they actually pay for it is "the US does something that damages our economy, which causes our GDP to drop by about the same measure that it would if we were paying for our own defense". And paying for their own defense is something that grows the middle class, because the elites are forced to pay their own countrymen for it (this is the idea behind the military-industrial complex), which is why just taking the hit and allowing the US to break client economies is deemed acceptable in said client states.
And [as stated below] if the US is intending to bail out the middle class (which is why Trump II, a reformer, was ultimately elected over the arch-conservative Harris), amping up R&D in the military-industrial complex is the way to do it, because it forces the elites to take a step back from their current objectives of enclosure [no growth ever + environmentalism] and race war and actually start approving development projects for once.
So I think the appropriate question that Europe should be asking is "how much should Europeans allow the Americans to wreck the pan-European economy because they wanted to go to war with Russia for shits and giggles"? If I were Chancellor of the Fourth Reich, my protestations would be as loud as my contributions symbolic, and I'd only start making stuff the Americans might be directly dependent on if they go to war somewhere else... which is probably why their military-industrial policy is currently exactly that.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
I remember the GOP before Trump. Still disadvantaged in academia and the like.
Lol, whut?
You might want to read what /r/askHistorians thinks of Guns, Germs & Steel and if you think that subreddit is full of ”online far-right autists” I suggest you check in for psychiatric evaluation for massive delusions.
More options
Context Copy link