It’s not even humans keeping track or selecting which hospitals/refugee camps to blow up anymore, it’s fucking skynet being run on AWS servers (oh and they snuck in some blasphemy while they were at it):
The latest Israel-Hamas war has provided an unprecedented opportunity for the IDF to use such tools in a much wider theatre of operations and, in particular, to deploy an AI target-creation platform called “the Gospel”, which has significantly accelerated a lethal production line of targets that officials have compared to a “factory”.
Well, it certainly “subverted” (or atleast was part of the effort to subvert) all the prior theories of human racial separation. It allowed every moron on earth to bleet out pat phrases like “there’s more genetic diversity within Africa than outside Africa” and have literally zero idea what they’re talking about, or what their useful idiocy is being used to achieve. “Out of Africa” basically exists to subvert all notions of racial differentiation, since “we wuz Africans 6 gorillion years ago”.
I take less issue with the actual data the theory is based on (basically attempting to reconstruct a history of haplogroup migration), than I do the broad and absurd popular delusions that have been constructed on that theory and data. But one piece I’ll point to debunk the broadest strokes of the theory is to point to the up to 20% of the subsaharan genome which doesn’t appear in any other genome on earth (also referred to by the popsci label “ghost DNA”). Out of Africa has no plausible mechanism by which this reality could exist while also maintaining its core notions.
The problems caused by invaders being here are caused by invaders being here, obviously. However, we can’t neglect the fact that invaders are here only because the gates of Toledo have been swung wide open for them. Whatever motivates that pattern must be unearthed and revealed in its totality (the root cause), otherwise we just treat the symptoms, blindly (aka “you’ve got a cold? let’s get you intubated and on a respirator”)
Here you go again - presented with a discussion prompting short text piece, you began with personal attacks and hostility and have continued ever since. Frankly it’s ironic you say:
If you want to have a good faith discussion…Take a step back and look at the questions you're being asked
without a utilitarian lens first; you might find they're not the questions you've been answering.
Because that’s exactly what you’re doing. It’s an interesting piece to get the noggin joggin on such interesting subjects as have so far been merely scratched at here, yet you want to turn it into a personal “own” on a “midwit philosophy”, by….misreading people’s points, not answering their discussion prompting questions in good faith, and fixating on semantics and word choice instead of just accepting the reality that your failure to understand my opening reply is, perhaps fittingly to the conversation, a shared responsibility, and moving on in good faith.
rather than showing why the example is invalid
As a sign of my good faith, I’ll explain what I thought was self-evident from all my previous comments, maybe then this can get back on track:
The thief who takes 1 dollar from 100 hungry mouths has captured the system to a far greater degree than the thief who takes 1 dollar from 100 tips left on the table at a fancy restaurant. Following the logic of the piece, this higher degree of capture would necessitate a higher degree of punishment (hence, logically, the prevalence of hand-removal in subsistence cultures for thieves, or the execution of cattle thieves, and the relative disappearance of those punishments as cultures develop/grow). Analogous to the example I laid out as a more clear replacement to your own
Crazy, so at some point your ancestors chose to leave their home country, travel somewhere new, and brought so much value that they could be said to have legitimately helped build their new country.
What year / where is the clear demarcation between such valuable, productive builders coming as colonists, and the valueless scum coming as immigrants? I guess late arrivals like von Braun and Musk are temporally excluded from consideration?
noun: immigrant a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
What country was your great grandfather born in? What country were you born in? Why are you such a parasitic immigrant?
> it’s ok when we do it! Here’s why that’s a good thing
Hypocrisy seems like an odd hill to die on
America is being colonized right now. Parasites colonize too genius
I'm not sure you understand how 'devoid' is typically used in English.
See you just can’t help but be a prick. It’s not my fault you have poor reading/context comprehension and a shallow understanding of philosophical concepts like Boltzmann brains and game theory.
A human, in the total absence of other humans, or even the total absence of the possibility of other humans. still has worth.
Sure, debatably. Does that same human have more or less potential worth when part of a system of other people? It should be obvious that any intrinsic moral value of a person is dwarfed by the moral value they can achieve in a system of other people (moral harm too)
He still had worth prior to the creation of Eve. After all, how could it be "not good" for him to be alone if he had no worth?
What kind of worth did he have if he was incapable of comprehending that worth without another person present?
As an example:
Poor example. Let’s look at the child who took from the cookie jar, the thief who stole a loaf of bread, and bill gates seizing control of 50%+ of Americas farmland recently. The child can be talked to or have the jar moved out of reach. The thief can be brought to the stockades and shamed, and gates can have his hands cut off. Can you follow the progression between “success of the system” and “degree of punishment for overstepping the system”?
I have. You clearly don't understand what Game Theory is. At a fundamental level, it has nothing to do with determining moral action, merely… to study ethics and the development of social mores
Lmao
Those are value judgements made by the actor, not incentives given by a 'structure' he is a part of.
Except for the fact he’s standing at the switch making his decision based on who he wants alive more.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8U18EuNN2D0&pp=ygUfRHVrZSBudWtlbSBibG93IGl0IG91dCB5b3VyIGFzcw%3D%3D
Whites in America were immigrants once
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?
I believe there’s an interesting case to be made for a type of ancient communism which seems to have persisted through to the Classical era:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Marxist_communism#Classical_antiquity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism#Example_societies