🇳🇱
The answer would need the context of what was happening in the episode. I gave you a link to the synopsis of the episode. Once you read it we can discuss what the answer might be in that scenario if you'd like.
Hahah my purpose was to exemplify the fact that morality, especially in the face of people dying, cant be reduce to a set of rules (no matter how complex)... It is a subtle matter with no real objective answers.
@freemo @Romaq The answer is that it is complicated. If someone is trying to be social, it is good and a mistake is to be excused. If someone is not trying, it is bad.
Hard to hold those apart, since those not trying will not admit it until they have so much power that they can dismiss any consequence.
The fact is that there are people that accept any cost to achieve any goal, no matter how small. We are just too divided to counter it, as we are not such maniacs. We will perish because we are too nice.
But fret not, they will also die. It will be a nice wrap, may the next try work out better.
Im not so sure there are is some evil few in charge against a mass of divded people...
I think most of the evil in the world is carried out as a collective will... the "leaders" just emerge from that tendency.
We are all, each of ius a small part of the evil boogie man and if we want to start fixing the problems we have to look at the small-time individuals and not the leaders.
@freemo @Romaq So you are saying if the ecosystem collapses, if everything is going to shit...
This is not some systemic aberration of humans trying to live like in the stone age, failing to adapt, it is for their conscious will?
I very much think we are all just stupid, but if you see humanity as the central evil, who am i to say no.
It's kind of a philosophical question. Are we unable to advance, or are we held back by some trait that gave emergence to something that is meta and held us back? Are we the problem, or just the cause of the problem?
The end goal may not be their conscious will, but the steps to get there are. How many people are running their AC, leaving their lights on, throwing trash out their window... billions. Not because they want to die a horrible death, but because they want to be comfortable now and dont care if it fucks everyone over to do it.
@freemo @Romaq And yet, the rich are causing more damage as far as i know... it's not that much of a stretch, if you have all the money, you can fuck shit up. When was my last choice about taking a private jet to my destination?
What about another yacht for my yacht, that i reach with my private jet? Do you think i fucked up the environment by buying another plastic bottle of milk instead of a glass bottle of hemp milk (which does not exist, not by my choice)?
So tell me, is the end consumer the baddie? By not flogging the producer into doing it right?
Get it right, power to decide equals responsibility. I have a lot of wishes, but no power. I could shout and scream, but not make tetra packs go away.
The rich are just as careless as the non-rich.. they have more money so individually they do more harm (just as the good ones do more good), but there are also far far fewer of them. So collectively the few rich are probably doing the same harm as the many non-rich.
Moreover, the rich are only rich because we choose to make them rich. You can shop at a mom and pop store, or you can choose to shop at amazon. That on you... so the rich are the consequence of the middle class anyway, and the choices they make. So no matter how you slice it the point of "blame the rich" is a moot one.
To put some perspective on it... the non-rich engage in about 100,000 flights perday on commercial jets. The rich engage in 1.10th that, 10,000 flights a day. Their planes are also considerably smaller than commercial jets so in terms of harm is far far less than 1/10th... So collectively the non-rich (base on this one small metric) are doing maybe 100x the harm as the rich.
Work is when someone tells me to make him stuff, and if i do it they give me little IOU's that I am then allowed to use to buy back a portion of the things I just made for him. Those IOUs are even interchangable with other workers from other companies who get the same deal.
Oh, I was blocked by someone in a recent conversation including @freemo because I'm a trash person with nothing of merit to contribute.
Reminds me of the time @\p@shitposter.club started blocking people on his server after I jokingly said I had alts "somewhere"... he even made this huge scene accusing one of them publicly of being me and going "GOTCHA"... everyone laughed at the dude for months because it was so obviously not me.
I block when
1) they often pop in out of nowhere
2) their SNR is very high.
I've blocked a few flerfs with an insanely high SNR. Most I don't block.
Right the SNR needs to pretty much max out... some nasty slurs and racist shit ill block no matter how much signal though. Nothing pleasant will come of them anyway.
Repeating the same slur within the first few minutes is a pretty good indication. They aren't even creative enough to come up with fresh new slurs in a single sitting.
They are flerfs, and hopeless. But I meet cool people and new things from them. Those who are *NOT* flerfs, that is.
They claim to be flat earthers on Twitter. Some portion are Poes (from https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/poes-law/) but some seem to be genuine, and very determined not to see reality. Some are scammers who know, but are busy fleecing the rubes and don't want anyone to kill the golden goose.
The problem is how it's used as a conduit for plugging people into the anti-vax, anti-jew, anti-science, anti-reality club.
"Sounds like most people."
Yes.
"Wizard's First Rule: people are stupid." Richard and Kahlan frowned even more. "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."
"Because of Wizards First Rule, the old wizards created Confessors, and Seekers, as a means of helping find the truth, when the truth is important enough. Darken Rahl knows the Wizard's Rules. He is using the first one. People need an enemy to feel a sense of purpose. It's easy to lead people when they have a sense of purpose. Sense of purpose is more important by far than the truth. In fact, truth has no bearing in this. Darken Rahl is providing them with an enemy, other than himself, a sense of purpose. People are stupid; they want to believe, so they do." --Terry Goodkind, Wizard's First Rule.
That's why I don't care to have "the community" make important life decisions for me.
"Just gets more complicated the more you look."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/12/25/universe/
The quote and its permutations make an interesting read. My life is an open invitation, but certainly not anything I wish to compel people to.
Back to the "Wizard's First Rule" quote... there are "players" on the world scene. They *are* skillful manipulators. That's what "players" do.
"Players only love you when they're playing" --Fleedwood Mac, Dreams
I will apologize as appropriate for when I'm wrong. But I will not apologize for being *me*. And that is something "community" tends not to abide.
I am my own best chance and my only chance to express, promote, and enjoy my own values. "Social Consensus" in my mind is saying nothing while GQP maniacs push the destruction of anyone who disagrees with them, just to keep the peace "by consensus." That ain't me. It isn't my nature to just shut up and be cowed, particularly for the sake of "consensus."
@Romaq
I think we have a different interpretation of the word consensus. I use it in the original dictionary meaning:
An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.General agreement or accord.A general agreement or concord: as, a consensus of opinion.
Please be aware that i am not american and do not know all the word twists used by the extremists in the us.
@freemo
@Romaq
Hmm, there seems to be a minimum scope set by you. The consensus i mean is on a level where nefarious outside influence is limited, whereas you interpret it upwards to elections - which have many more factors, and where chomskys manufactured consent is valid (i know the concept, i just don't think it can be applied down to all interactions of small groups).
With extremists i meant the gop, qanon, trump, not you!
@freemo
The "outside influence" is passed on to "True Believers" who in turn press "The Faith" into social groups. Some people proselytize that more than others. My Dad wants you to know about Jesus and hey what do you think of the Conspiracy against Our President Trump and doesn't it bother you that LGbalfabet is teaching our kids in Public Schools and getting them all caught up in this perversion stuff?
The "outside influence" is only limited by people in small groups willing to actively challenge nonsense in such small groups as it rears its head. Of course, I'm willing, but this does tend to have me excluded from small social groups. Fortunately, I don't care for small group socializing. I have little in common with most people or small group socializing bullshit, and I find social jockeying tiresome.
Extremists... heh...
@Romaq
Any you want to tell me that our consensus about which library to use and which codestyle is best for the team was subject to this?
I am stumped, i don't understand. The concept of manufactured consent i already acknowledged. But why do you say this needs to be in everything, no matter how small?
@freemo
It appears you are specifically speaking of "consensus for workgroup tasks" which is outside the scope of "social consensus" to be found in small groups of people, such as at a bar or dinner, or two couples playing cards at a meal.
When dealing with "workgroup tasks," a proper "workgroup" will be focused on the specific "task to be achieved." It shouldn't have political or social theory involved. If it's a group as small as my mom & dad preaching to my aunt and uncle who simply don't wish to hear about Jesus & Trump at every belch or fart during dinner, how small does it need to be to be "too small?"
My understanding of the crux of the discussion was your promotion of "social consensus to improve social problems." I do not hold "social consensus" to be a worthy target for me to promote my values within the world. Indeed, I find "social consensus" antithetical to the promotion of my values. Chomsky's focus, as far as I know, was on the political authority side, the "big picture" of the equation. I'm not clear he had any such lectures.
@Romaq Hmm, did i use the phrase?
If so, i was not being precise and am sorry for that.
I think people should find consensus in a rational way to determine what society should look like.
This is a utopic ideal, not meant for straightforward implementation, as i do see the problems you hint at.
So what i mean is that i use this as a benchmark: does a small group of people set policy or is there agency for people in general.
@admitsWrongIfProven
As far as I'm aware, we are understanding it in the same meaning. Winning an election is "by consensus." The most people agreed, so that is what we will do and we all agree (so it is said, even if we don't) to accept the policies promoted by the winner because "we agreed by consensus."
"Consensus of opinion" is exactly the point of "Manufactured Consent" as discussed by Noam Chomsky and explained in that video link. "Consensus", and thus "consent for policy" manufactured by those in charge or their opposition powerful enough to be a factor.
I do not deny being worthy of the title, "extremist within the US." But I'm not clear how that impacts the meaning of "consensus" or how my view affects its usage in this context.
@freemo