timorl @timorl@qoto.org

@robryk I don't think honk supports that.

@timorl@social.wuatek.is 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@kolektiva.social 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.

@brion Bad advice, a circle is terrible topology, so you shouldn't be finding a new one.

@nomi Yes! I have minor quibbles with some of the things your wrote, but this is the general line of reasoning I would like someone to follow, only in a more formal philosophical language (unfortunately none of these assertions are sufficiently well supported a priori from a formal point of view). Why no one has is exactly what annoys me.