🇳🇱
Data : Would you choose one life over one thousand, sir?
Picard : I refuse to let arithmetic decide questions like that.
-- Star Trek (I think TNG)
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'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
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
@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...
It uses a EWMA type method and early estimations can be made from the larger more dominant spikes to allow for an early abort :)
The human is the last thing I want to see in them.. I want to see the chimpanzee, thats where the real wealth lies.
Be more like your chimpanzee ancestors and less like humans!
God no, the Nazis were as human as you get, thats the problem... be less human.
Yes. Me. At least from *MY* perspective. "YOU" should be the beautiful reason to exist, from *YOUR* perspective.
@Romaq @freemo I do not want to be a reason, i want to comprehend. My existence is valid, no question. It just is. But what should exist?
I think there should be a progress towards a better existence, whatever the community decides. The problem here is a lack of community, so the decision cannot be made. But it should be, or, if all else fails, an end would be better than suffering.
"Whatever the community decides" is, in my opinion, a huge problem.
"The community thinks Slavery is acceptable, or if evil, a necessary evil."
"The community decided to elect President Clown Shoes to the office."
"The community is repulsed that 'those people' should have the same rights and privileges as regular folk, and should have their freedom curtailed so as not to spread their depravity."
I really don't think much about what "The Community" thinks. I care about what I think, my values.
As to "suffering," I have to make that judgement as I see it, but on the whole, my values are worthy of my pursuit and interest in spreading them, "the community" be damned.
"Improve stuff" is tricky. That's a value judgement. Some people think "improving stuff" means eliminating or at least pushing some form of control over "people not like me."
If you wish to "improve" anything, that's a value judgement. *YOUR* values. *YOUR* judgement. Own it, and don't feel apologetic about it. Best as you find those of like mind who *share* those values to work with and have company on the road you travel. But those are still *YOUR* values. You can't get away from that.
Listening to others that hate my values and wish me harm? Ain't happenin'. "Consensus not made by force?"
The Cannon Law: He who hath the cannon maketh the law.
I value trade, exchange of goods, value for value. Use of force is not how trade works. That's how thugs work, and I want no part of that.
I strive to be the change I wish to see in the world, and I also strive to invite people to share in my values. When in a social group that meets some particular need of mine, I will (and should) keep the consensus in mind. I have to do that at work, or I am unemployable. But I'm being *paid* for that. I tend not to engage with very many social groups. Hell, while I'm philosophically Libertarian, the Libertarians don't want me. If I see something stupid in what they are doing, and I say so. Currently, the LP is behaving as if they are the stoners in the bleachers of the Republican Party cheering when the QAnon freaks parade on stage. I'll have none of that thank you very much. Consensus with them on that? Nope. Never.
@freemo
@Romaq @freemo I spoke about work as an example... and i'll have you know, people are not running around with cannons at work in our country!
I think this was a mix up of previous with current topics.
With people that i do not agree with outside of work, i seek to further their and my understanding.
The work thing was just an example that a good consensus can sometimes be found. At work, i do shut up if there is no consensus to be found, i too have to eat!
My understanding of others that i do not agree with is targeted at enabling me to better understand others that think similarly. Can't even start to try to convince someone of giving up an unethical viewpoint if i don't understand why they hold it.
I would of course not judge you if you don't do that, it's exhausting and only worth it if one has a strong need to have such interactions.
To the specifics about libertarians, we don't have them in this extreme form here often. I'm sorry you have to deal with the truly unhinged.
But one party of ours is trying their best to get there, woe be to us.
"Cannons at work in our country!"
Employers have the authority to dismiss, which forms a decent "cannon" to force compliance. With the authority to dismiss, employers have the authority to form corporate policy. Employers also face various laws and ordinances: comply, or your business will be fined or potentially shut down by force.
But as an example of "a good consensus", that does happen in the work place among task groups delegated to resolve certain issues and problems that come up. How can we increase production? How can we decrease waste? How can we have a workplace that encourages employee retention? Those are problem solving issues that usually are not policy. On those types of issues, consensus by the working group tasked to resolve the problem is usually the best way forward, or at least provides management with leads on resolution.
All the above is devoid of political (governing authority) considerations. Governance is a separate beast that requires the consent of the governed. If "consensus" (and thus consent) is not apparent, then consent must be manufactured. Noam Chomsky wrote on this, for which there are many videos about it. I found https://youtu.be/34LGPIXvU5M to be useful on the topic of "Manufactured Consent."
As to "better understanding of others who think similarly," there are instances in which I do make that genuine attempt and grow in my understanding because of it. Twitter, as such, has been useful for me.
For example, I had wondered, "What's the big deal in the American Black Community concerning authority in general and the police specifically?" Then I encounter threads like ... I'm not finding the thread I saw last night, but the ongoing abuse of minorities... Yeah, I've had far too much education on exactly why, and so I've changed my mind. Racist policies are "by consent." I do not give my consent. As far as "understanding," I need only ask my dad about his grievances. He now has five grandchildren of African American descent. To keep the peace, we do have things we do not discuss. "President Trump is the Greatest President since... well, the greatest in *MY* lifetime!" We don't discuss that either. I *DO*, in fact, judge, and YES, in fact, it's exhausting.
Concerning Libertarians, as far as I can see with interaction with them on Twitter, and on the whole, they are bonkers. Many look forward to a civil war within the US with delusions of adequacy and a fig leaf of being "preppers" with guns. I shall not forgive the GOP, and I will not forgive the current LP for pandering to QAnon fantasies. If I'm to vote at all, it will have to be Democratic Party. Scratch voting is still very much an option on the table. It's a question of how hard the Democrats are going to convince me they don't need or want my vote. Again.
http://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/mar/26
That was what I was looking for earlier. These are the stories I was not taught. I found this via Twitter. Many other such stories about many "those people"... minority groups, have come to my awareness by interacting with people outside my expected social circle. These stories of factual events fill me with hot anger. This is not acceptable. This is not how humankind treat humankind. This is the work of evil entirely against who I am and what I live for. And it is also allowed by "consensus." But not by me. Not on my watch. Not while I have breath to draw and a tongue to speak.
@Romaq
A story of a racist robbery/murder supported by the state.
Using the word consensus or consent here would be as cynical and wrong as calling the holocaust charitable.
In "manufactured consensus", there is a qualifier to denote that there is no actual consensus but lies - that way, i think it is right.
I generally try not to give up basic words (like consensus or consent) because some people use them in their lies. My take would be to use a qualifier (like manufactured) when the twisted meaning is meant, thus preserving the word itself for use in the original sense.
I know that this can sometimes not be possible, but i do not see the point reached for the word consensus globally. Maybe this is also due to me not living in the us.
Context matters, and a us context existing does not mandate outsiders to frame everything inside of it - even if that is a common thing us citizens seem to think.
If what i said read to you like i would tolerate racism, then you are so deep in specifically us framed meanings of words that it borders on incomprehensible to me. I never intended such a meaning.
@freemo
Cheers! I'll respond to the other messages, but the point of this is you can come back to it *later*, so do that, and get good sleep. :D
@freemo
@admitsWrongIfProven
I block when
1) they often pop in out of nowhere
2) their SNR is very high.
@Romaq