I get the point, but its all bullshit. By which I mean its the worst possible way to approach any sort of moral theory. A genome based allegory with a bit of Nash Equilibrium thrown in?
More like a cancer-based allegory of societal decay, but, whatever floats your boat. I’m always interested in new ideas.
Thanks, I feel you must have put more effort into explaining OP than the writer who created pic rel.
Heh, idk but Im sure my rambling comment there doesn’t come close to the portion of the narrative budget of a multibillion dollar IP paid for even this small excerpt lol
All good, I posted it for discussion
Basically it’s an interpretation of game theory expressed in parable form, I suppose is one way it could be summarized, or perhaps a modern elaboration on the Tragedy of the Commons. It’s also covering a couple ideas, and framing it all as a question.
Individuals in a society are like cells in a body. Temptation to cheat, and the power granted by cheating, grow in proportion to the success of the body and the size of the surpluses it generates. In order to function, violence must be used to punish cheating. This piece suggests that the violence should and must be proportional to the degree of violation, which increases with the degree of corruption, which increases with the success of the system.
It then boils down morality to a basic question of individual incentives and societal/systemic “needs”. This can be debated but I think there’s a solid foundation behind the claim (i.e. Game Theory).
This is all then wrapped in a delicious little theodic quandary: is the agent which punishes the cheaters with violence an agent serving “dark”, or “light”? I think the answer is clearly “light”, but I’ve posted it before and heard everything from good, to evil, to balance, to communism, so idk I think you’re short shrifting it a bit. Maybe you’ll like it more in the morning lol
What makes you see this as “gene essentialism”? I see it as basically a modern day parable using “technojargon metaphors” instead of animal or agriculture metaphors
You'd have to define 'humanity' for me to answer that question properly
Humanity as in “every other person in existence”. The meaning should have been obvious as it was used in contrast to the single person and the mention of Boltzmann brains. The question is, does a lone human, floating in the void, devoid of all elements and agents of what might fall under the label “humanity”, have value or worth?
but I'd suggest that there are times when a human can by their actions negate their inherent worth through harm to another, without losing that worth.
That’s not at all what I’m getting at. Like I said, no man is an island. My point here can probably be summarized as “even Adam, the perfect man, needed Eve”. You want to dismiss this piece because you perceive it as dismissing the value of the individual, I think that’s a misreading.
Yes, but that's not what the post states (nor the question it addresses)
Quoting here:
The more successful the structure grows, the more temptation accrues to cheat. And the greater the advantage the cheaters gain over their honest neighbors. And the greater the ability they develop to capture the very laws that should prevent their selfishness. To prevent this, the structure must punish cheaters with a violence that grows in proportion to its own success.
The relavent context is literally immediately prior to the sentence you take issue with here…
and as a result, their conclusion falls apart.
What conclusion? The one you assert that “the punishment is not proportional to the crime”? Again, this is just you being ungenerous and looking for an “own”. No real “conclusions” are given, beyond a description of the “basic problem of morality”, which I suppose you take issue with in its own right.
Incentives have nothing to do with morality or ethics, those lie within the realm of economics, civics, or politics.
You’ve never heard of Game Theory I take it?
Take the classic example of a moral dilemma: the trolley problem.
Ok let’s. The incentives in most renditions is “people I {like/dislike} will {die/not die}, my decision is based on how I want the world, and humanity, to look going forward.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_8BZVpl2dMc&pp=ygUWa290b3IgeW91IGd1dGxlc3Mgc2ltcA%3D%3D
the analogy is inapt. A human being has worth on their own, while an individual human cell (generally) only has worth in aggregate. You can't draw direct parallels between cells in a human body and human beings in a society and expect them to be valid.
does a human being, devoid of humanity, have worth, or meaning? Similarly, does a Boltzmann brain, conjured from a quantum infinity yet presenting atleast to its own perceptions as totally real have worth, or meaning? I think we’re defined by our connections to other humans. No man is an island.
The second that stands out to me is that it suggests that punishment should not be relative to the crime, but rather the success of a society.
Should a police officer who abuses his position and the trust put in him by society to break the law be punished more or less harshly than a common citizen? Should the legislator who writes his corruption into his nations laws so that he and his tribe of corruption can gorge themselves be punished more or less harshly than the police officer? I think that’s the point expressed here, not the far less sensible one you propose, though I suppose I see where you’re coming from, I just think you’re being unduly harsh.
It suggests that the needs of the individual are totally supplanted by the needs of the state/society.
“Basic problem of” != be all and end all period end of discussion. Realistically, I struggle to think of an example of a moral dilemma which doesn’t fit into this “basic” shape. Can you think of one? This piece doesn’t really “suggest” what you claim it does, I think it merely points at the topic and asks us to consider it.
then I think you might need to find some sources for philosophy and literature than Destiny lore.
The specific problem here is this insane neoliberal regime of rampant illegal and quasi-legal replacement migration (every line of bullshit about refugee, asylum seeker, “migrant”, “temporary worker visa”, etc) . The UK and the rest of the world had no real problem with muslims until relatively recently (2001-ish), largely because far fewer immigrated to the West and those that did were bringing value. In fact, the main issue with muslims (terrorism) is in most ways directly traceable to Western (i.e. zionist) meddling in their affairs starting approximately with the founding of israel but not totally ramping up until their successes with the 9/11 hoax.
Regarding TR himself, meh, I don’t know much about british personalities or influencers, only what I come across, and I’ve come across enough of his staged arrest videos and useful idiocracy to think what I think. So few of the most important topics of the day can be answered with “hard evidence”
He’s a fed because he’s promoting a race war while sitting on a beach of a foreign country. He’s a zionist because he works for israel (who infact do benefit greatly from a white v muzzie race war - y’know, the thing they’ve been trying to provoke through false flags and funding “terrorism” since the the bombing of the King David Hotel, the sinking of the Liberty, 9/11, and to this present day with 10/7 - what am I forgetting? Assassinating the Kennedys?)
Oh absolutely, you’re right here and you’re right in your first comment, it is a fundamental belief of 99.99% of mainstream Christianity
Just personally, as someone who came to see the Treasures contained within Christianity later in life through attempts to logically grapple with it (as opposed to being born into a sect of the faith), I look back at this oldest of schisms which still festers today in many ways:
Given the choice between defining Christianity as “choosing to act like Christ” (as revealed in the Gospels and associated texts), and defining Christianity as “choosing to believe that God and Jesus are Father and Son/part of a Trinity/etc”, I see the latter as having so much unnecessary suffering associated with it through the last 2000 years of bloodshed that I can’t reconcile it with the first.
For example, how many “Christians” today use their interpretation (foisted onto them it may be) of their faith to justify support for israel, a modern day genocidal state which embodies much of what Hitler apparently believed, just with the roles reversed? A disturbing amount by my estimation. Stuff like that leads me to think “huh, maybe the mainstream answer in this realm is just as wrong as the mainstream answers in every other realm of investigation, maybe I should look deeper into these older conversations and debates, see who made more sense.”
What about Unitarians like Newton?
Honestly, the subject of the exact nature of the divinity of Jesus is probably just about the oldest schism (or perhaps heresy, considering the side of the schism who believed in his total divinity came to completely dominate the discussion going forward). But you’ll find this was a common thread among these earliest of schisms/“heresies”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Jesus_as_Gnostic_saviour
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
And many others, continuing throughout history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism#Christology
And even to this day in some major sects/splinters:
>Sockpuppet account with no posts proves my point
Lmfao
“harmful words”, but only with respect to one specific demographic.
I’m against posts that degrade the forum, in general. That’s why I make fun of imp, the israel simps, and the unproductive blackpillers
yet you wonder: why the hostility?
Who is the you in this statement? Surely not me. No what I wonder about is why the sudden attempt to shift the mental and physical landscape of the forum by people who have spent the last 3 years largely mocking this place. Maybe you guys should deeply ponder why you want to have these discussions here in the first place, as opposed to the forum which has been consecrated in that purpose for all this time. I would wager it has something to do with “the quality of discussion”. If that ends up being the case, ask yourself why you’re choosing to act in ways which degrade the quality of discussion here down to the level present there.
Your performative confusion
>Wahhhh wahhhh everyone who doesn’t want the forum to consist of nothing but people calling eachother kike shills is a kike shill
Didn’t something similar happen to Attack on Titan? I remember hearing something about the ending of that one either being changed or having plot lines dropped or something.
Another example might be SEELE in NGE though nothing explicit iirc
The OP is stating facts and definitions basically, a far cry from calls for (ethnically-defined) violence.
Tangentially, I think the existence of people like Ron Unz, Ilana Mercer, Henry Makow, Bobby Fischer, Glen Greenwald, Norman Finkelstein, and historical figures like Nicholas Donin and johannes piffercorn show that the issue we all want to talk about isn’t genetically deterministic (though that case could be made, or that it has a genetic basis, and if it’s going to be raised it should be supported with evidence not just presented as a given. The case could also be made, like Kevin Macdonald does in his book The Culture of Critique, that what we observe could be almost entirely cultural as well). Discussion of these topics doesn’t necessitate discussion/planning of acts of violence. Hence the fine line the Unz Report walks, and the similar line the mod here has to walk. I find he is quite reasonable if he is treated like a reasonable person. If the conversation starts with calling someone a kike shill I find it less likely productive discourse will ever occur
Are you a TS….tribute account lol?
However, on reading the actual texts it becomes clear that the Bible refers to "other gods" in the sense that we refer to the Greek gods - in other words, imaginary concepts.
https://www.logos.com/grow/who-are-elohim/
Interesting article on the subject, by Michael Heiser
I will say I doubt most are doing it maliciously, but I simultaneously think there are a group of “seeders” who are acting maliciously. We saw it* happen to 4chan, 8chan, reddit, theDonald, ConPro and I’m sure a bunch of forums I never bothered with. These seeders, through astroturfing votes and responses, basically change the collective consciousness of the forum through subverting the old and replacing it with the new.
it* meaning “forum sliding with the goal of neutering discussion”, because while the overarching pattern is the same, different forums with different ethos’ require different means of subversion. On the Chans it was most often porn, here it more often takes the form of ragebait/“mental junk food”
We could probably have like 5 stickies with enough information to highlight all problems in modernity such that more posting wasn't even required.
What I would most like about this hypothetical is that it could open things up for more discussion of the good things in life. We all know what we hate these days, it’s rubbed in our faces constantly. I think we could do with more reminders of what we love, what’s beautiful still… I think the main point should be balance. Maybe this whole subject deserves a meta post in the future for the community to actually consciously direct ourselves?
Cheers man thanks for being reasonable (and thanks for getting me to expand my point enough that it made sense)
It's equivalent to the omg look what this guy said on twitter, as if that means anything.
For real, it’s the equivalent of “mental junk food”, and it’s a fact that there are “junk food pushers” out there who have the goal of sliding/degrading forums into irrelevance. They’re trying to give us diabetes so we all end up with our legs amputated lol.
My issue mostly comes down to how problems are being framed here lately, usually I agree with a/the core nugget of the points, but they’re so often being framed in a way that neglects nuance and context, which frames something that could be a productive discussion as more of a blackpill take-it or leave-it situation
Imagine thinking that 80iq congolese playing with ai image generation are to blame for a French company saying that there were black samurais in Japan
https://communities.win/c/KotakuInAction2/p/17txMTCYyo/blacks-are-using-ai-to-convince-/c
Imagine thinking you need to post graphic footage of a white woman being beaten by an african in order to laugh at marvel being a dei shitshow:
https://communities.win/c/KotakuInAction2/p/17txMTCHvq/x/c
Posts like these degrade the forum. Everyone should be opposed to degrading the forum, regardless of your beliefs on the modern world’s social issues
https://communities.win/c/KotakuInAction2/p/17t1olplNI/zionist-shills-be-like/c
https://communities.win/c/KotakuInAction2/p/17t1aiy93p/why-do-jews-have-a-special-word-/c
https://communities.win/c/KotakuInAction2/p/17siXMkOfJ/two-interesting-views-on-the-sit/c
https://communities.win/c/KotakuInAction2/p/17s5tjwZ1B/despite-making-up-25-of-the-us-p/c
https://communities.win/c/KotakuInAction2/p/17s5p3FwFM/the-idf-are-literally-gassing-th/c
Those are just my own posts going back two pages. Dom doesn’t seem to oppose factual discussions, more so fed posts and things which are debatably lies/extreme claims without justification
Also people definitely get banned from ConPro for sharing their opinions. Even if you think most of them are trolls, they aren’t all. Any time a TD poster wanders in or another tourist they run the risk of getting nuked for their “free speech”. Call that a good thing if you like, to preserve the “ethos of the board”, but then it would logically be a similarly good thing when dom does that here.
Why not just use ConPro? Why does every forum need to cry about minorities 24/7?
Realistically, this (an aging population, in a socialized healthcare system, clinging longer and longer as tech advances) is behind the push for MAID, and realistically most people wouldn’t have a problem if they didn’t hear about depressed teenagers or young people cripple by the vax being offered euthanasia
That’s a fair point but what I’m saying includes delineating between the ideas of single payer and universal coverage/healthcare, we don’t have to mix their pros and cons in a hypothetical - my idea was a single payer system upto the point of direct patient contact (the provider)
That’s true. I know, for instance, Canada has straight up “sin taxes” where a pack of cigarettes or bottle of beer will cost 4x what it costs on this side of the border. So many people would cross the border just to shop for shit where I used to live, even taking the hit in currency exchange rates that usually would entail. I understand that the idea behind these extra taxes is that these people will supposedly go on to cost their healthcare system disproportionately. The funny thing is that I’ve actually seen data suggesting the opposite, that smokers and drinkers drop long before their healthcare costs hit the stratosphere, while “healthy” people in their desire to cling on later and later into old age actually end up “costing” these government healthcare systems more. So yeah, that big ramble was basically just to echo your point about how this is all basically based on utopian thinking.
Tangentially, the only thing actually that I see people buying from Canada and bringing/shipping here is, oddly enough, medicine and certain health products.
Isn’t the “reason” (obviously more complicated but just for the sake of discussion) that the prices for a procedure or drug are less expensive with insurance is because of “bulk purchasing”? The insurance company is buying 1000 MRI scans per year per hospital, so they work out a discount between eachother, then when you need one of those procedures or prescriptions it’s available “cheaper” (though after accounting for all the money you spent on insurance but didn’t get maximal “value” from, you might end up paying more than a guy who isn’t paying for insurance his entire life )
For example, I wouldn’t want my doctor to have to hire people at his small family practice to haggle with the insurance companies and the drug companies and the one-time-use sterile syringe companies, and disposable scrubs companies, and so on and so on, but right now they are almost forced to. If the state (or federal, but most constitutionally appropriate, the state) government handled the sourcing and purchase negotiations they would, ideally/hypothetically, have far more leverage in getting better prices than the small family doctor, the clinic, the hospital, or even the network of hospitals which is often the case these days. Then these supplies would be distributed at or near their total cost.
So all that is to say, I don’t see why the idea of a single payer system necessarily harms the patient or the healthcare provider, I see it mainly just cutting into the extortionate profits of big pharma/insurance companies and the “administration” departments of healthcare providers
Whites in America were immigrants once