Nerd
1yr ago
As i read your comment, ive just completed the mass effect legendary collection. Also spoilers. ||So anyway for those who have never played the general gist of the games is this: there is a sentient race of machines called reapers and they are cleansing the galaxy of all advanced life every 50000 years. During the 3rd game, some notable things happen, mainly:
You have A personal AI on the ship you command in the game named EDI, she gets her own body, and is relatively harmless. She also evolves: she learns things like sacrifice, attempts to date the pilot, and tries to find meaning in her own existence generally.
This goes back a bit farther then game 3, however there is an AI race called Geth, that were made by a different alien species. Long story short, the game is a RPG where your decisions impact the story, and you choices impact how things with the Geth and their creators play out. Quarians basically tried to destroy the geth out of fear, but later on as you learn about the geth. They really just want to exists and be left alone, and they even help you fight the reapers. The game gives you the choice to destroy the geth, or you can humanize them and give them basic human decency. There is a scene in the game where a Quarian tries to experiment on one of the geth, and you can basically shut it down and tell the quarian not to.
You meet another alien race in the game that are responsible for the reapers, that basically tell you that they made an AI that is responsible for the reapers, it was ironically created to prevent computers from destroying organic species. The AI turns on them, converts them into robots, and procedes to take over the galaxy in hopes to preserve organic species forever in robot form. Near the end of the game you meet the reaper AI and he basically gives you 3 options: Destroy them, Control them, or Synthesis (you can also just flat out not choose)
Destroy and control are pretty straight forward, however synthesis is where you become one entity with the machines. Its essentially transhumanism. Its suppose to be the "ideal" solution.||
Now mind you, mass effect 3 got a lot of shit when it was released because the endings were abhorrent, however i could see any one of these happening when real AI gets created, maybe we'll control it and everything turns out OK ish the AIs end up being neutral or benevelont like EDI or the Geth, in a slim chance we end up successfully destroying it if things go wrong. Or we reach some perfect transhumanist state. I think with the current things going however, its arguably more likely that we'll become, well, ill let the video speak for itself (most reliable data suggests this current trajectory)
Nerd
1yr ago
Meh, im skeptical, for one, as tough as raising them is, your boss and coworkers are likely not gonna be there for you like a relative would be. (and the partying thing seems to be on the decline among younger generations)
There are still women who want to have kids and many (if not most) perfer relationship sex over casual. They just are having trouble receiving relationships from the high class men they desire. And letting pro-natalist cultures take over isnt gonna be in their interests, considering the barbaric nature of a lot of them.
Being poor, uneducated and not independent is typically a sign of either laziness or low intelligence. Is that considered poor moral character?
Such a thing would have to assume that all outcomes are a result of the efforts of those individuals, and that there were no outside factors either giving them a significant boost, or holding back the people in the lower class. This pretty much were a lot of the debate lies. I dont know if there is a good answer. But i will say that simply believing that everyone who is poor and lacks a degree is a lazy bum is quite suspect as an explanation. Unless it could be proven otherwise.
Nerd
1yr ago
I'd say sexbot manufacturers, but we all know what's going to happen to them.
Out of curiousity, why should we assume theyd be automatically shut down? They could probably fight political resistance if they grew large enough.
Nerd
1yr ago
The answer to this is obviously yes. Of course a man who doesn't even have his own place is an inferior romantic partner. Who would want a guy who isn't independent. Are blacks more misogynistic? Almost certainly, anyone who disagrees isn't familiar with black culture. Or for something more concrete look at rates of rape and domestic violence
I mean you could make that argument, sure. Thing is, though, the mainstream media and progressives are trying to argue that these guys are single purely because of poor character, from their point of view, the races are =. (its on the inside that counts.) The question is: are the following things listed good indicators of a persons moral character?
More debates revolving around young single men in the mainstream media. Particularly, who the young women are dating due to them being disproportionately in a relationship. The article provides some insight, stating that many are dating older men and each other. This has led to a more intresting conversation of if older men are increasingly monopolizing women. Leaving younger guys out to dry supposedly, however a good chunk (acutally half, according to study from pew research). The data gives two large reasons, mainly: Having other shit to do & just like being single. What i always found frustrating with the mainstream progressive view of this matter is that they seem hell bent on blaming Men for this problem. Greg Matos, who wrote this (in)famous article which pretty much embodies the progressive view on the matter, has stated: “Women don’t need to be in long-term relationships. They don’t need to be married. They’d rather go to brunch with friends than have a horrible date,”. The argument from the mainstream being in a nutshell: that these single men are misogynistic, shitty bums and deserve to die alone. That take leads to some rather intresting conclusions however, when looking at the data. From the first pew research link and another one. The people who are most likely to be single are men who are: Black, young, only highschool educated, low income, and living with mom and pops. Are we suppose to assume, blacks, the youth, poor men, men without degrees, and guys without their own place are inferior romantic partners, and or more misogynisitic than their rich, old, white, college educated, apartment renting counter-parts?
Could it not simply be that these mens moral characters are fine, but they simply lack the resources and experience many women desire? Is such a thing their fault? Is the black man to become white? Or the poor man rich (or at least reasonably middle class)? Could there not be barriers preventing them from achieving such feats? In most cases, progressives would be open to outside forces interfering with ones ability to succeed. The matter is being treated as if all of this is entirely within their control, and their failures are a simple matter of poor character. The issue appears far more complex is you ask me.
Perhaps a bit of a divergent, but the entire dilemma has led me to a larger question of how much of life success (in dating, in work, in school) amounts to hard work. There was a post about on star slate codex sub reddit about how good IQ was at predicting life success. There is a bunch data about how expensive being poor is, poverty traps, and how difficult escaping it can be. Disputes over gender wage gaps. Not to mention all the discussions being had about how race impacts such outcomes. Id be interested if there was some huge of huge meta study done on what percentage of these factors (IQ, class, race, gender, ect) all impact your chances at life success, if anyone had such information on hand. Though my intuition tells me that such a study would be insanely difficult to do, if it even exists.
Nerd
2yr ago
human rights', here, doesn't mean some legalistic or dictionary sense. It means matters so important that the writer is not willing to accept that their edge cases are up for discussion. It doesn't matter whether that's actually present as a descriptive sense: a lot of this class of 'human rights' are not actually protected at all, or may be not especially popular in the broader world (and, conversely, many things are not 'human rights' even if they're explicitly covered by the US Constitution and UN and large majorities in the speaker's country). It's a normative analysis for that specific context: these are axioms that can not and should not be debated in this situation. If the matter comes up, agreeing to disagree isn't acceptable.
Well, i mean thats kinda begging the question isnt it. Who gave them the authority to decide such a thing?
Nerd
2yr ago
Can you date folks with different politics?
I watch this stream yesterday and i find it quite interesting. Im actually kinda in this situation now, i took a girl on a date, she made it obvious she was a progressive. I often dont share my own views on these things in real life, due to how toxic these conversations can be, so i just try to listen and empathize with where the person is coming from. Though im planning to open my mouth a little more about things on the 2nd go round, as to not give a misleading representation of who i am.
Whats interesting is that the streamer in question distinct "politics" from "human rights", she gives a pretty weak example with Roe V Wade. However i think the distinction between "politics" and "human rights" is shaky to begin with. No one really agrees on what human rights even are, per her roe example, gun control (constitutional arguably, but still) being another one, & there are still societies/people that arent accepting of LGBT although thats been on the decline over some decades. My guess is she is taking this to mean, "you probably shouldnt date a nazi", which is perfectly fine. But there arent a lot of those guys around in this day and age. For myself, i dont really believe any idea is above criticism, so i dont see how having a different idea of what constitutes human rights is much different from just having different politics.
According to pew research, most people, (myself included) are fine with dating people across the political aisle {note that many people wouldnt date a trump voter, but many would date a republican, but i suspect many people might view trump as a fundamentally immoral individual, and thus that makes him distinct from just mere disagreement}. I also find that peoples political beliefs arent good measures of how moral they are in real life. There are many progressives ive seen who were cheaters, liars, lazy, ect & conservatives who were kind hearted, hard working, & loving ect (& vice versa). But i want to know what you guys think.
So ive been trying to get involved in the local political seen. I live in jacksonville, Fl. I decided to vote straight D in hopes to get control over the housing crisis. Donna Deagan won against our republican Daniel Davis. Which is a happy victory that im thankful for. Many people dont live here in jax, but the top 3 issues for my city personally were housing, our shit-excuse for a downtown, and public transportation, all of which are currently abysmal. From what can tell, Deagan is mentioned zoning reform on her website (the only known way to decrease housing cost, losing the zoning laws to build more). She also mentioned making things more walkable, which im also in favor of. Along with bringing more small businesses to jax (if you dont live here, its kinda boring, its football, beer, shopping malls. Thats it. The most exciting place is the beaches)
Ive kinda been questioning how much this will mean. A lot of other cities have blue politics, and are still notorious for having the above problems, (well minus shitty down towns). But im still giving it a try. What i find frustrating however is how little people actually care for local politics, and how people blame things on the president or governor, without understanding anything. Housing is a good example, ive had a lot of passengers in my car (i drive for uber) blame his for the price of it, without actually understanding that the reason for housing cost is down to city politics, and not the state. (Same thing with people blaming the president for gas prices). Ive always felt as though a lot of political problems in the US would be solved if people engaged on the local level of politics more.
More options
Context Copy link