This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Because I think it is? So do most people, if they're thinking straight.
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.
Sure. But the Right To Internet Access was proposed as an addition to the usual for "Free Speech".
Could be better. Could be much worse. I give them a 8/10 for effort.
Hmm.. Harder than it looks, or not intuitively obvious to me. There are apparently 14.3 million Palestinians. ~10 million deaths from cancer a year.
Cancer doesn't usually take people in their prime, I'd know, I treat enough old people in my onco unit. Palestinians are younger than typical, apparently they think having a bunch of kids in a warzone is acceptable where richer Westerners don't.
Even so, let's assume that the average Palestinian killed this way loses 50 years of their lives. Half the people who die of cancer do so above 70, most of the other half in their fifties. Let's be generous and say the average loses 20 years of their lives, this is napkin math.
So, given my timelines for a cure for cancer the old fashioned way, maybe in 10-20 years without AGI, shorter without it..
15.3*50=765
10 * 20 * 10(years)= 2000
If I really cared, then I would adjust for Quality Adjusted Life Years due to the age of the latter population. Population growth, second order effects from 15 million people being killed, the sheer cost of the ridiculous number of missiles needed, it would cheaper to nuke them with a cleanish bomb. Risk of WW3. Yahweh intervening (honestly this one is negligible, he didn't care about the first 6 million did He?)
There you go, I'm ready to sign the form you presumably have ready when the Israelis stop holding out on us, maybe they'll share the schematics of the Jewish Space Lasers while they're being generous. RIP Palestine, but I'll buy some Raytheon stock and iodine pills while you get the pen out. Some Luxottica too, the Palestinian future is so bright that the Israelis need shades!
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.
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.
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.
Certainly, even if I still think my love for progress and civilization was clear enough in my parent comment. 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. If my arguments convince someone, and vice versa, then it's a closed loop that neither demands external grounding beyond the grinding of gears in our brains, nor needs it. You can't need what doesn't exist and that cannot exist, if you're doing something more important than trying to feel good about yourself. Even those who demand objective morality are doing just fine without it, because, once again, I stress it's incoherent.
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 am unwilling to accept the same demands applied to me and mine because I value us more. You mistake me for a Benthamian who holds all people equal, including themselves, and I very much am not. If I was Palestinian, a more unfortunate fate than being merely Indian, I would keep my head down and be mostly confident I wouldn't get killed for doing so.
It doesn't really matter. I'm trying to make a morality that works for humans. A significantly constrained problem.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think one of those even exists, even if you consider it a significantly constrained problem, for much the same reason that finding a cut of clothing that works optimally for starfish and sheep is a difficult task.
If something capable of convincing all humans of its validity (without reference to objectivity, it's just supremely satisfying and feels intuitively right) ever comes to exist, I expect it to be a problem solved by entities much smarter than us.
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.
I am perfectly content in letting others flourish, and even happy on their behalf, as long as I have my most pressing needs met.
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. True even in monkeys, or anything smart enough to understand that. Once again, for evopsych and game theory reasons, but I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at.
At the end of the day, incentive structures and fear of punishment can constrain people who aren't omnibenevolent in acting in more or less pro-social ways, which helps lubricate the rest of the problem, even if a naive approach would have you wonder otherwise.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link