timorl @timorl@qoto.org

I'm moving my account to my own instance. I'll try doing the proper account migration procedure, but I'm not sure I can trust this to work completely smoothly, so I'm leaving this post as a more manual redirect. The new account is @timorl.

Thanks @freemo for your hospitality!

My instance will most likely stay very small, but if anyone wanted to join me there just DM me or something.

Tried out honk, was cool but not quite what I wanted, replaced it with Akkoma under the same address. After I followed this account from the one on Akkoma I did not get a notification about a new follower here (kinda makes sense, it's sorta the same account, at least as far as ID goes) but I **did** get a notification there about this account following back. This also makes sense if you squint, but sure. xd

@robryk I don't think honk supports that.

@timorl Clearly the DZ is necessary and remains there... strange.

Trying to make a goose angry.

I hate the lack of standards.

@uxor *Kuratowski sitting annoyed in the corner.* @Vierkantor

@modulux I remember there was 1 (literally one) marxist in the comment sections, and I believe they got banned eventually – the banning itself might have been justified, I don't know –which pretty much confirms your point.

Eh, I definitely should eventually write down my anti-capitalist interpretation/review of "Inadequate Equilibria", maybe that would help a bit...

@trans_caracal Trza jutro zapostować wraz z linką: https://hanba1926.bandcamp.com/ :>

Huh, Scott Alexander is apparently clearly right-wing now. This has been brewing for a while, but I thought it would take longer. I wonder how long will it be still worthwhile to keep reading him.

@8petros Unfortunately, I don’t have the whole thing written down or even fully thought through, if I had I would have at least linked it. :<

The line of reasoning I would start with would go something like: The mere existence of people is not inherently valuable (this is what I was referring to as “anthropics”, which is not quite correct, but I tend to think of it as a moral equivalent of the epistemological problem), so there is no moral incentive to produce more of them a priori. This already puts into question whether the future will contain that many more people as longtermists claim is likely or desired (depending on the specific subschool of thought). From there I would also examine assumptions of how much we actually should be deciding for potential people – while I see we might have some obligations towards future generations, assuming too much risks impeding on their autonomy, which is also problematic.

Eh, there would likely be more, but even what I have already written contains so many philosophical holes that I get anxious re-reading it. If I ever get a week free I might end up writing down a semi-rigorous version of this argument. Actually, probably a couple weeks, since I have higher priority things to do… bleh.

@2ck It was only protected by a Supreme Court ruling, and it was explicitly mentioned in the recent abortion-related opinion from there that many related protections (most related being same-sex marriage) might be overturned as well.

The opinion didn't mention interracial marriage, but likely mostly because the judge who wrote it is in an interracial marriage himself. :P The reasoning mostly applied to interracial marriage as well.