Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

General off-topic stuffs goes here.
User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » January 15th, 2015, 11:44 am

Zummorr wrote:That is a dangerous road to wander down. Because implementing a program to support "genetic diversity or genetic favor-ability" is basically reviving a nasty old thing known as Eugenics.

The problem with a system which tries to control the genetics of a society is that it ultimately restricts the freedom of the societies individuals, it would prevent people from procreating. At the same time how does one determine which traits (because ultimately that is what you are selecting for right?) are favorable to society and should be passed on.

At the same time, while holistically genetic diversity generally healthier for a species it isn't an end all be all. Since many species like Elephant Seals or Naked Mole Rats have extremely poor genetic diversity but do just fine. The Mole Rats in particular have overcome those unwanted negative disease traits despite generations of inbreeding.




You misunderstand. I don't mean to suggest that we curtail the population by any means. What I mean is this:


Evolution describes the behavior of allele frequencies over time. It tells us what tends to die, what tends to live. But it also tells us what is difficult to maintain, and what is easy. It's not that it assigns us a methodology; it describes the things we should look at as challenges. How can we subvert these tendencies? How do we maintain our intelligence? Not at all by selecting against what we momentarily decide is stupid, but by investing more into the quality of our own development.

It's out of date, but it's still useful to describe things in these terms:

dN/dt = r((K-N)/K)

N is the population of a species. dN/dt is it's rate of growth.

r is it's maximum growth rate - say the animal is a mammal with six teats; it takes two to make a litter and anything more than 6 pups will lead to the extras starving to death, so we're looking at a growth of 300% (6/2) for this species.

K is the carrying capacity of an environment. There's only so many resources, and so if, just because of diets, every wolf needs 10 bunnies to live, then we have to define K in terms of wolves = bunnies/10.

The ratio of the population to the carrying capacity is pretty straightforward. If the population is greater than the capacity, the K - N becomes negative, which multiplies further making the description of growth negative. Likewise, a population generally grows when under capacity, because there are more resources to tap.


But what variables are really controllable? The rate of population growth and the population itself (taken from previous times, t) are dependent variables. So we're left with r, and K. But natural resources are scarce; it's not really practical to select for both. So we end up with a spectrum of strategies. At one extreme is r-selection - increase the total number of offspring you can produce, at the expense of K. But on the other end is K-selection - invest in making offspring capable of tapping into the resources of their environment, at the expense of the total number of offspring you can produce.



r-selection includes mice, who have many kits, most of whom don't make it to adulthood. It includes spiders, who spend everything in making a million babies and throwing them off to the wind, most of whom don't survive to adulthood. It includes many fishes, who dump clutches of eggs, fertilize them, and never see them again - and many don't survive to adulthood. Grasses fit it - they make many seeds and jump on any opportunity they can, without investing much into their own growth and structure.



K-selection includes whales, who generally have one calf they teach and protect and parent it for a year, who usually make it to adulthood. It includes many birds, who sit on their egg and feed their offspring so they can invest in long, costly developments for later returns. It includes some of the large trees; even though sequoias make many seeds, to reach adulthood they require extreme care in the most favorable conditions, so that, by adulthood, they develop extremely complex structures giving them uncanny protection from fire etc - in other words, they invest in offspring development over proliferation. And of course, humans are K selected. We spend nearly two decades developing ourselves.



But K-selection has implications. Implications extremely good for our altruism. For example, in an r-species where every individual is cheap and disposable, a male that does not mate with females is doomed to a short relatively meaningless life. But in a K-species, he can provide meaningful non-genetic support to another's offspring. He can contribute to society, he helps the overall fitness of our species. The same goes for almost every other member of our species differing from the norm.

But it also teaches against quiverfull-type bullshit. It implies that if we take to extremely large families, the quality of each of their lives will go down. It means that any fear we have of losing our intelligence is not to have as many offspring as possible, but to invest in the quality of our offspring - their education, their health, not through warfare etc.

K selection does come with some problems - our populations are more fragile, we don't survive trauma as well. It's a great tragedy to lose someone at an age like 20 or 16 - that's over a decade of investment lost with limited returns; even if the person reproduced they can't contribute to their offspring's development after the fact.

I don't know if you noticed that though, so I want to spell it out: our altruism, our investment into each other, is exactly what gives our lives worth. It makes us meaningful. It gives us our minds, it makes us human.

But listen to the eugenicists, listen to the racists, the anti-disabled, those folks wanting to kill off others of our species. They're afraid of their ingroup going extinct. But all humans are K-selected - so what does that mean? That means we're fragile. Kill off a group and we lose genetic and cultural information, reducing our resources, lowering our K which is bad even from an r-species standpoint. Kill off the person holding our 10 and we might not have the flush needed against what life deals. They have shown a tendency to eliminate an entirely successful contributing group simply because they don't live up to arbitrary temporary non-genetic standards in biologically microscopic span of time.

And I want to add this point - today we are treating effectively with drugs and therapy disorders that just a few hundred years ago - nothing really for human biology - we burnt at the stake because we didn't understand. Today we can work with the afflicted not to wipe them out but to find cures, to find behaviors that help us improve. We take care of the groups that, unlike other nonbreeding groups that can contribute to society, can't, precisely because we have shown that investing into their quality of life has long term benefits for other members of our species, and we can, by investing in them, give them exactly what they need to become contributing members of our society. And improve the overall fitness of our K-strategy.


The eugenicist's problem is that they don't understand biology. They don't understand human biology. And they certainly don't understand what it means to be human.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".
Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic

User avatar
Zummorr
Posts: 382
Joined: January 4th, 2015, 12:00 am

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Zummorr » January 15th, 2015, 11:45 pm

Well that clears things up. Then by that argument, the strategy to properly K-select then be to spend less of a societies wealth on assuredly destructive things...and, you know, "think of the children." for once.

Essentially the K-select argument proposes, that in order to support a long-lived species genetic strategy, the species has to hedge its bets and raise a wide range of genetic types and invest heavily in its children. When a species does this they have better chances of recovering after getting sent careening by disaster.

I only bring up the Eugenics thing because any time folks propose trying to wrangle in the beast that is human population genetics I find it important to consider that if a society tried to control its population genetically. That society would essentially be controlling who breeds and who doesn't, which is a really upsetting concept.

The only disadvantage about the K-select strategy is that some genetic diseases will stay in a population (granted they can be useful in some situations like Sickle-cell anemia which lowers the symptoms of Malaria) But compared the atrocities it would take to purge those...it is better to just leave them be.

Sooo...we are in agreement, I suppose.

User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 409
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Aposke » May 10th, 2015, 6:47 pm

Foucault has annoyed me a large deal lately. His analysis of social structuralism and what he calls the "discourse" make a lot of sense and produce some interesting views on societal evolution, but he draws all the wrong conclusions from it and ends up in a position where nothing is right, nothing is wrong, and any reason anyone can have for doing anything is as shallow as "because it fits this current situation well" (and even that he criticizes with his notion of "instrumentalized reason").

And all of that just because he rejects the notion of continuous societal/scientific/conscious progress. Is it just me? Am I just reading Foucault too negatively? Because it seems to me, had he lived during the time of the Science Wars of the 90's, he would've been up there with Derrida and Feyerabend, not necessarily fighting alongside them, but at least giving them reassuring pats on their backs.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » May 10th, 2015, 9:08 pm

I'm not too familiar at with Foucault, but that sounds exactly like what I've heard. Then again I'm an antipostmodernist so I would think like that.

Most of what I've heard is like most of postmodernism he only put forward negative critics and was caught up in the same old "because there's a problem with our data it's therefore all wrong" fallacy. There's a relativity of wrong, you know.

I do prefer a rejection of the concept of human nature, but I've been strongly influenced by Chomsky. (Language nerd influenced by Chomsky, who coulda guessed)
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Horikawa Otane
Posts: 26
Joined: February 15th, 2015, 3:50 am

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Horikawa Otane » June 11th, 2015, 11:09 am

Absolut Zero wrote:Is evolution real?

Yes. Also, this is not a question related to philosophy.

Absolut Zero wrote:Will the technological singularity occur in our lifetimes?

Speculation on the likelihood of a technology developing in a given time frame is definitely not the realm for philosophers. The responsible thing to do regarding questions outside of your field is to defer to the scientific consensus.

However, assuming you mean the development of an AI with above-human intelligence, as most AI theorists and people who study exactly this in computer science and computer engineering will tell you - almost certainly not. It's stupid to debate this unless you know a lot about it though. I can tell you from experience that it can definitely be a fun con-suite conversation if you hang out with economists or CS professors at sci-fi conventions though haha.

Absolut Zero wrote:Will we create an AI that will destroy our civilization?

Not if we're smart about it.

Absolut Zero wrote:What is the meaning of life?

A faulty question. "What is a square triangle?" would be a near equivalent. We cannot assume that life, by itself, has an intrinsic purpose/reason to exist/meaning. Prove that human (which is what you mean) life has this (at the exclusion of alternative explanations) and you could then propose the related follow-up question "what is the purpose of human life?" Before you prove that this exists, however, you may as well be attempting to answer "what is the purpose of gravity?" Sounds deep, but it's intellectually void.

Absolut Zero wrote:Do you have any insight on our purpose in this world?

No, and neither do you without first handling the problem of demonstrating that life (human or in general) has a purpose at the exclusion of non-purposed alternatives.

User avatar
EarthPhantomTS
A little bit of a fan of Tiamat
Posts: 1439
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 5:33 pm
Location: In Tiamat's boobs

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby EarthPhantomTS » June 11th, 2015, 3:09 pm

Horikawa Otane wrote:
Absolut Zero wrote:What is the meaning of life?

A faulty question. "What is a square triangle?" would be a near equivalent. We cannot assume that life, by itself, has an intrinsic purpose/reason to exist/meaning. Prove that human (which is what you mean) life has this (at the exclusion of alternative explanations) and you could then propose the related follow-up question "what is the purpose of human life?" Before you prove that this exists, however, you may as well be attempting to answer "what is the purpose of gravity?" Sounds deep, but it's intellectually void.

Absolut Zero wrote:Do you have any insight on our purpose in this world?

No, and neither do you without first handling the problem of demonstrating that life (human or in general) has a purpose at the exclusion of non-purposed alternatives.


Personally, I always thought life had the meaning you give it. Like, you can't point to one thing (like appeasing YHWH/Allah/any other deity, or helping the less fortunate) and say "that's the meaning of life" (though some people are certainly trying to :tangry: <_<), simply cause of the diversity in the human race. You have to figure out what the meaning of your life is, and live it. Like, for me, it seems the meaning of my life is sex and hedonism :theart: , but they wouldn't be for asexual peeps or traditional religious peeps, and I have to respect that. Even if the latter, in my experience, doesn't seem to (so I don't really respect them insofar as they don't respect me).
Resident slut, harlot, whore, tramp, and Tiamat fangirl. Also, proud pervert, nympho, and sex worshiper.

Proud to be a worshiper of Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of sex and war, in the 21st century CE Image!

Warning: Noted tendency to go from the Queen of Lewd to the Queen of Shrews seemingly at random. If this happens, explain that you meant nothing by it, and she'll quickly apologize

Image
Yes, she's still my wifey

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » August 9th, 2015, 7:39 pm

Free speech might be one of the greatest contributions the US has made to the world. By lifting the fight between 'Ideas' from the arms of the state, it permits uniquely the evolution of Idea-vaccines against the Idea-viruses that infect the minds of people. In that way, it offers unparalleled dignity to the common man, and prevents the creation of martyrs for ideological dead-ends while promoting a fecundity of options for adaptive, fit ideologies that would otherwise be consigned to monolithic, baby-and-the-bathwater structures.


But it doesn't seem to adapt well.


Most of it seems to be simply that autocrats gonna autocrat, and simply won't tolerate dissent. Some of it might be cultural, where another penetrating mode of thought is incompatible with it due to the mode-Idea's weaknesses making it need to piggyback on the power of the state or other threats of violence.


In some countries directly emulating the US, such as Mexico, or the former USSR, even when power is polycephalic/multicapital (not confined to one head, I mean, such as post Khruschev USSR or even with Mexico's multiple parties), the main problem appears to be part of the autocracy problem, where corrupt politicians or cartels put their power above everyone else and disregard their constitution.

On the other hand, you have countries without free speech behaving as if they did and forming Free Trade unions that stipulate as a requirement of joining practicing it. It's notable that these countries were at one point heavily controlled by the US.


But what other issues are there with FoS?




A main thing I've seen is the problem of the ambiguity of the term.


Some cultures have different ideas of what constitutes speech. There's a lot of nuance I could get into with this - I don't really feel like listing everything much less listing the minutia with the respect they deserve, but it plays into the sum of the next line. The only significant thing I can think of that hasn't been discussed in the US is that Leninism is nominally compatible with free speech, but because of the paramount place of the party dissent has no vehicle to participate in state building and as such is subject to the prevailing thought's definition of sedition.


The other side is the US's hypocrisy. The dirty little secret of our little free speech Idea is that we rarely practiced it, even as far as to the 90s, and we still have some issues.


We began our country by a war between two sides that culminated in the (for the most part) extermination or expulsion of one of those sides. But the side that lost were the opponents of the idea, ready to kill those that had it. I'm far too cynical to believe that they actually acted in the Idea's self-defence, but it played by the alternate regime's rules and in that sense it was fair. The most crucial point followed that - there was anarchy in a negative sense; the states cracked down and attempted to control speech and other things before discussion and debate amongst the new ruling class led to a new set of rules to play the game by. But we followed that with eras of persecuting dissenters, whether in the extreme sense of Civil War, the moderate sense of the terrorist lynching of people deemed "uppity", and in something of a minor sense throughout the 20th century at least sabotaging, rigging against, etc of e.g. communists and socialists (make no mistake that these interacted; part of why King was so threatening was that he was an admitted socialist). But it even manifested in other ways, through disenfranchisement, through monopolistic media tycoons, up to Clinton bombing third party internationalist/panslavist parties in the dying Yugoslavia.


The hypocrisy argument is wrong - formally it's a tu quoque. Just because your parents are addicted to nicotine and still smoke doesn't mean smoking is itself safe for you. Gun suicide rates don't go down just because a gun control advocate offed himself with a gun.



But why the hypocrisy in the first place?

I think it should be said

It is not mere tribalism to attack2 attack1ers not to be intolerant2 of the intolerant1. It is praxis. To hold them same: false equivalence. To extend virtue to all but the opponents of virtue is not inconsistent- it is more consistent, it is bearing the fangs to survive. Every creed is universalist, up to a point; perhaps it stops at members of ingroup X, but it includes every member of X universally. The natural limit is serious enemies of X; more yields less fitness, diminishing returns. This isn't a feature of Gods or of Men. Even Virtues are imperfectly designed, by mindless, goalless rules.


At some level it seems we recognize a limit to what constitutes free speech. Freedom of Speech needs to fight against what destroys it. States don't enjoy seditious behavior. And this can look identical at times, as horrible as it seems (it's merely that they share the same goal at that point, like in war, politics makes odd bedfellows). But there's also a lot of noxious, odious opinions out there; case in point, racists like Scott Terry or Micheal Anissimov. There are people who outright advocate violence against demonized groups, consciously or unconsciously. There are cases of religious leaders issuing statements, even bounties on people they perceive as a threat. It's not unique to the religious either.

And it can be extended to the absurd - are private parties required to host the speech of those they find noxious at their expense if they can't find a platform of their own? If yes, is there a difference between the scale of requiring a large monopolistic platform host it and requiring a small polypolistic platform? What if it's just a practical issue like 'yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre'? That latter issue has precedence in America - it's how we define the limit. But how do we decide what constitutes that kind of threat? We didn't decide that, on purpose, to leave things flexible enough to persecute the communists and anarchists as we saw fit.

That kind of ambiguity empowers the enemies of Free Speech. If you libel enough, you can make the society host to the idea intolerant of the belief (intolerant in the sense not of being critical but of being unable to permit the existence of the belief) to the point where they engage in violence. So ban libel, right? But the line between libel and criticism is thin and merely being hyperbolic can incite charges of the latter.



I kind of want to propose a hard-line rule against the ambiguity. Make the game a little more... game like (I say game, but this is dead serious, just as russian roulette is).



The line not to be crossed is this - the limit of free speech ought to be the direct advocacy of murder through non-state means.


This permits discussion on warfare, death penalty, and so on, but draws the line at terrorism. It permits the existence of parties like a typical Social Democracy party while outlawing maoism. It permits the racists to make a case, but forbids them from advocating genocide. It permits the existence of almost all ideologies, creeds, and religions, but doesn't allow them to target enemies with mere accusations of libel. It doesn't permit states to prosecute speech on mere hypotheticals or prejudices; bad thought might lead to death, but unless it directly calls for it, it cannot be prosecuted, and the same is true for good thought, able to operate without fear of being wiped out merely because its opponents think it will (e.g. your economic policy ideas versus theirs).


I'm toying with the idea of adding a clause "..., or can be shown to have directly influenced a sane murderer to kill." There'd be considerable dancing around advocating death, as is. The goal of the clause is not to extend it to bad ideas put into practice, nor to inflammatory speech not advocating murder, but solely to charge those directly advocating death without using the language of death or without advocating death specifically; those using euphemisms, those suggesting indirectly.



So the heuristic applied could make these statements:

"Kill all gays" - would be forbidden for directly calling for death.

"Homosexuality ought to be a capital offense" - sadly would be permitted for the same reason we should be allowed to consider the death penalty in any arbitrary circumstance, so long as people do not advocate vigilantism.

"We ought to put Charlie down under..." such as in the context of a mafioso's phone call, could be prosecuted as the speech is clearly merely a euphemism for murder.

"Muslims are all terrible people" would not be able to be prosecuted, but

"Muslims ought to be slaughtered..." would be

"Leninism is pretty great" would not be prosecutable

"We should kill the bourgeoisie" would be.



Practice is pretty close to this, tbh, but the lack of effective adaptation I think demonstrates some kind of need for this.


Any thoughts?
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Horikawa Otane
Posts: 26
Joined: February 15th, 2015, 3:50 am

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby Horikawa Otane » September 4th, 2015, 6:05 am

I just realised that this thread is missing an apostrophe.

That's kinda hilarious and fitting, given.

User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3816
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Life's Important Questions

Postby Alice » September 4th, 2015, 9:31 am

Horikawa Otane wrote:I just realised that this thread is missing an apostrophe.

I blame Tova.
💙💙💙
Image
Image

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Life's Important Questions

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » September 4th, 2015, 11:11 am

Alice wrote:
Horikawa Otane wrote:I just realised that this thread is missing an apostrophe.

I blame Tova.


I blame the lack of a white pixel in the upper left hand corner of your avy
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3816
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Life's Important Questions

Postby Alice » September 4th, 2015, 11:43 am

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:I blame the lack of a white pixel in the upper left hand corner of your avy

I blame the lack of a purple one in the top right of yours.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
EarthPhantomTS
A little bit of a fan of Tiamat
Posts: 1439
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 5:33 pm
Location: In Tiamat's boobs

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Questions

Postby EarthPhantomTS » September 4th, 2015, 4:44 pm

Horikawa Otane wrote:I just realised that this thread is missing an apostrophe.

That's kinda hilarious and fitting, given.


I blame the fact that the One Goddess/Universe Consciousness has an ironic sense of humor :twink: . Also, Tova's avi. It's probably also partly my fault, since my avi is of one of my patron deities :tstick2: :theart: , and my last name probably stole the apostrophe.

(Wonder what you mean by "fitting", though :undecided: . Do you mean your cynicism over the topic of the thread?)
Resident slut, harlot, whore, tramp, and Tiamat fangirl. Also, proud pervert, nympho, and sex worshiper.

Proud to be a worshiper of Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of sex and war, in the 21st century CE Image!

Warning: Noted tendency to go from the Queen of Lewd to the Queen of Shrews seemingly at random. If this happens, explain that you meant nothing by it, and she'll quickly apologize

Image
Yes, she's still my wifey


User avatar
EarthPhantomTS
A little bit of a fan of Tiamat
Posts: 1439
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 5:33 pm
Location: In Tiamat's boobs

Re: Philosophy, Life's Important Questions

Postby EarthPhantomTS » September 5th, 2015, 2:44 pm

And now the apostrophe in the OP is in the wrong spot. It should be before the "s" in "Life's", not "Questions". Like it is in my post.
Resident slut, harlot, whore, tramp, and Tiamat fangirl. Also, proud pervert, nympho, and sex worshiper.

Proud to be a worshiper of Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of sex and war, in the 21st century CE Image!

Warning: Noted tendency to go from the Queen of Lewd to the Queen of Shrews seemingly at random. If this happens, explain that you meant nothing by it, and she'll quickly apologize

Image
Yes, she's still my wifey


User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3816
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philo'sophy, Life's Important Que'stion's

Postby Alice » September 5th, 2015, 3:14 pm

EarthPhantomTS wrote:And now the apostrophe in the OP is in the wrong spot. It should be before the "s" in "Life's", not "Questions". Like it is in my post.

How about we just put an apostrophe before every S in the thread title to be safe?
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » September 7th, 2015, 10:47 am

I'm dealing with a (Randian) Objectivist. Any questions you want passed along?
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
EarthPhantomTS
A little bit of a fan of Tiamat
Posts: 1439
Joined: December 25th, 2014, 5:33 pm
Location: In Tiamat's boobs

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby EarthPhantomTS » September 7th, 2015, 3:38 pm

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:I'm dealing with a (Randian) Objectivist. Any questions you want passed along?


Yeah. Ask him why libertarian-ism does not eventually devolve into an oligarchy. What safeguards does it have to keep people like Bill Gates and Sam Walton from flexing their money-mediated muscle and imposing their views on society? How does it encourage their children to work for their own fortunes? What's to stop their children from just inheriting all their money and power, like ancient and medieval princes?
Resident slut, harlot, whore, tramp, and Tiamat fangirl. Also, proud pervert, nympho, and sex worshiper.

Proud to be a worshiper of Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of sex and war, in the 21st century CE Image!

Warning: Noted tendency to go from the Queen of Lewd to the Queen of Shrews seemingly at random. If this happens, explain that you meant nothing by it, and she'll quickly apologize

Image
Yes, she's still my wifey


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » September 7th, 2015, 3:58 pm

EarthPhantomTS wrote:
Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:I'm dealing with a (Randian) Objectivist. Any questions you want passed along?


Yeah. Ask him why libertarian-ism does not eventually devolve into an oligarchy. What safeguards does it have to keep people like Bill Gates and Sam Walton from flexing their money-mediated muscle and imposing their views on society? How does it encourage their children to work for their own fortunes? What's to stop their children from just inheriting all their money and power, like ancient and medieval princes?



His response:

"objectivism != libertarianism. objectivists support having a government which enforces fair laws against violence, fraud, breaking contracts, etc. Bill Gates and Sam Walton can promote their views, but they can't *impose* their views on anyone. You get an oligarchy when business mixes with the state. Empirically, places with small states (early US, Britain at the same time, medieval Iceland) don't have oligarchies."


He addended this:

"To spell it out in more detail - people having only money are not a political threat. (what are they going to do, spend it at you?) the reason people are legitimately concerned about the wealthy having power is because wealthy people and large corporations are intimately mixed with the large state. lobbying and government funding flying around everywhere. Early United States is a good example of what a free society looks like with a small state."

(i disagree with his empirical claims strongly and his logic that promotion isn't imposition but w/e it's not me)
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 409
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Aposke » September 7th, 2015, 9:54 pm

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:He addended this:

"To spell it out in more detail - people having only money are not a political threat. (what are they going to do, spend it at you?) the reason people are legitimately concerned about the wealthy having power is because wealthy people and large corporations are intimately mixed with the large state. lobbying and government funding flying around everywhere.

So his reasoning is that smaller state = less power for the incredibly rich?
How exactly would that work? We're already seeing separate groups of wealthy people and institutions emerge that aren't affiliated with any one government in particular, yet enact quite a bit of power when it comes to deciding politics. Making the state smaller would only hasten that development, which is exactly the reason why people are concerned about wealthy people having political power.

The only way I could try to understand that kind of thinking would be assuming that he's indeed a closet liberalist, but only when it comes to economics, and somehow does not see any connection between wealth and social status / social power.
It's also weird that he's essentially advocating to return to 1776, as if our global economic situation was somehow comparable.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » September 8th, 2015, 3:16 am

Aposke wrote:
Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:He addended this:

"To spell it out in more detail - people having only money are not a political threat. (what are they going to do, spend it at you?) the reason people are legitimately concerned about the wealthy having power is because wealthy people and large corporations are intimately mixed with the large state. lobbying and government funding flying around everywhere.

So his reasoning is that smaller state = less power for the incredibly rich?
How exactly would that work? We're already seeing separate groups of wealthy people and institutions emerge that aren't affiliated with any one government in particular, yet enact quite a bit of power when it comes to deciding politics. Making the state smaller would only hasten that development, which is exactly the reason why people are concerned about wealthy people having political power.

The only way I could try to understand that kind of thinking would be assuming that he's indeed a closet liberalist, but only when it comes to economics, and somehow does not see any connection between wealth and social status / social power.
It's also weird that he's essentially advocating to return to 1776, as if our global economic situation was somehow comparable.




What I don't understand is how he thinks early US wasn't an oligarchy. No one here ever phrases it this way, so maybe that's why, but our revolution was the result of a bunch of rich white tradesmen pissed that parliament decided to change taxes on British tea to undercut the sale of non-British goods deciding their business was worth more than the lives in the colonies. After the war was over, the new government was comprised of those businessmen and mostly white landowners. We considered blacks 3/5s of a person (admittedly, this was mostly to prevent the south forcing their slaves voting in their interests and overwhelming the north) and women 0/5s. The people who governed typically had connections in this class, coming from either other landowning families (like, say, mine) or were directly related (the Adamses, or whatever).
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 409
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Aposke » October 31st, 2015, 4:52 pm

Tovarish Red Yoshi wrote:Also funny thing about essentialism; this was posted a couple days ago and is pretty much my views on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVTgtvK3vDo


Hmm, that video seems to be confusing Essentialism with Idealism. Idealism is a type of Essentialism, but in its basic form, it means nothing more than a specific entity needs a set of attributes (its "essence") that make it "this entity" and not something else. Plato (but not Aristotle) tried realizing this with his realm of ideas, but that's a sub-category of Essentialism at best. Personally I understand it as a concept contrary to Existentialism, which proposes the exact opposite – and I think it's best to look at both theories for answers. For example, it seems obvious to me that, in order to be able to talk about and recognize a certain thing, we need to have a clear set of attributes by which to (maybe non-explicitly) define that thing – but at the same time, the "existence" of said thing (whichever form it might take) is a prerequisite for us being able to talk about it, even if it's a fantastic creature we literally just made up in our minds. Maybe Essentialism is more useful when talking about things as-they-are-right-now, while Existentialism more adequately describes things that are in the process of changing. I suppose making that distinction in the first place is a kind of essentialist position to have, but I feel like a theory that doesn't assume at least /some/ kind of attribute set for certain things has a hard time explaining why we can tell apart, say, a clock from a train.

tl;dr I don't think Essentialism is 100% correct, but I feel like it makes too many good central points to completely discard. I feel the same way about Existentialism, too, but I just can't find any merit in the basic assumptions of Postmodernism, maybe because it seems to criticize and undermine everything without creating any solutions or providing a good rationale for doing so in the process.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » November 9th, 2015, 7:11 am

So, assuming I can ask a political question here, I'm being absolutely serious here, and would like some help.

For this question, assume worker's self management is a good thing you want. It makes upper management answerable to bad performance and makes you richer because it sets the wage ratio to something like 5:1 instead of 500:1

How do you sell WSM to the unions?





While you'd think the union wouldn't need to comment on co-ops, historically unions protest them (since members cannot join the union => pay the union dues), and unions typically put the union's interests ahead of workers in general (the proletariat as a whole, as opposed to the union's set of workers) (for example, they're typically anti-immigration reform, because they higher ups fall for the lump of labor fallacy).
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » December 7th, 2015, 9:35 am

What am I?


Like, really?

Generally I fit in with progressives. My social policy beliefs and so on pretty much fit right in with Atheism+. I think diversity and image are vital to a movement and the way to be inclusive is to listen to complaints from marginal groups. I think to be a successful group movements have to present themselves as future-aligned and I think history best fits a progressive narrative. But I don't deny that there's serious problems in progressive approach that's unhealthy for discussion. I don't deny that I'm often guilty of that very thing.

My understanding of deep history is fundamentally Marxist. I think this system, let's call it liberalism, will one day collapse (fall back into feudalist modes of economy) or be outcompeted by another marxian system ("socialism", whether or not it looks like Marx's socialism). Ecologically I don't even think it's sustainable beyond a few hundred years. But the thing is I think some of the strongest ways to accomplish socialism is to do liberalism humanely, efficiently, and well; free trade has the power to dissolve borders. At the same time I want very distinctly, classically socialist modes of business to predominate over traditional business structures; basically I want the economy to become mostly cooperatives (e.g. Chipotle, King Arthur Flour, Madrogon) and consumer clubs (e.g. Costco) over even left-aligned traditional corporations (e.g. Ben and Jerry's).

I'm not actually optimistic things won't collapse, badly. I don't know if we can ever meet the anti-scarcity requirements something like communism entails and do so sustainably. I generally want direct democracy or republican democracy where the latter isn't practical, but I want it tailored by a strong judiciary because the masses have lynching behaviors.

I think there's huge problems in utilitarianism but generally I think it's the best approach paired with consequentialism. Looking at people's motives, endearing as they might be, should only be considered when trying to weigh future outcomes. I'm strongly atheist, but I have a begrudging respect at least for the more esoteric, harmless forms of spiritualism.

I'd also like to think I'm pragmatic generally. Most often I find myself forced to lean in the democrat's direction. The Libertarians as I know them are just Republicans in drag and the Eisenhower Republicans themselves are a thing of the past. I don't agree with all of Sander's positions but I'd rather him than the people who want to dismantle infrastructure. I don't want Clinton, but it's because I think she's corrupt and neoliberal, more than anything.

I'm not a neoliberal. I'm not for military intervention. If I were Japanese I'd be protesting the constitutional amendment. I'd prefer trying to change foreign policy through economic intervention and consigning ourselves to defeat when incentives or disincentives don't work. But I think if we actually gave a damn about freedom or anything like that, we'd have dismantled Saudi Arabia, Eritrea, and North Korea. I'm not pro ISIS. I'm pro immigration so I'm not against intervention insofar as evacuating potential victims of genocide but if the state calms down I think the best thing to do to put down extremism is a little free trade and a lot of investing in their infrastructure. Legitimately, not like the Chinese have been doing in Africa.


Am I liberal, socialist, capitalist, what am I? Am I even left wing anymore? I mean I'm comfortably progressive but other than that, what am I?
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3816
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Alice » December 7th, 2015, 9:55 am

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:Generally I fit in with progressives. My social policy beliefs and so on pretty much fit right in with Atheism+. I think diversity and image are vital to a movement and the way to be inclusive is to listen to complaints from marginal groups. I think to be a successful group movements have to present themselves as future-aligned and I think history best fits a progressive narrative. But I don't deny that there's serious problems in progressive approach that's unhealthy for discussion. I don't deny that I'm often guilty of that very thing.

When your own beliefs stray too far from any specific group it tends to be really pointless to actually try and classify yourself honestly. For example I could easily be classified as a very liberal/progressive person and it wouldn't even be inaccurate but if you compare me to your typical liberal/progressive there'd be massive differences so it clearly isn't what I should identify myself as since it wouldn't communicate things properly.
I'm not actually optimistic things won't collapse, badly. I don't know if we can ever meet the anti-scarcity requirements something like communism entails and do so sustainably. I generally want direct democracy or republican democracy where the latter isn't practical, but I want it tailored by a strong judiciary because the masses have lynching behaviors.

In my personal opinion a direct democracy is a bad thing. Something like what the US has is best so long as proper steps are taken to keep corruption and personal interests under control. As you said, the masses have lynching behaviors. Mob mentality is a thing and a very bad thing. Tyranny of the majority is a definite concern as well. Those things can both be countered by having the right sorts of people in office as well as the right laws and regulations in place.
Am I liberal, socialist, capitalist, what am I? Am I even left wing anymore? I mean I'm comfortably progressive but other than that, what am I?

You probably fit as cleanly into any one classification as I do. Which is more or less not at all. As I said earlier I could very easily be considered a very liberal or progressive person. Yet compared to the liberal/progressive group as a whole I'd be considered more of a moderate. Yet calling me a moderate isn't remotely accurate. I'd personally argue that I'm actually more liberal/progressive than most people in those groups because I strive to actually practice what I preach and make efforts to not be hypocritical. Those are things far too many people (of any group really but it's more predominant in progressives and liberals due to the nature of their claimed beliefs) are completely lacking in.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » December 7th, 2015, 10:18 am

Alice wrote:When your own beliefs stray too far from any specific group it tends to be really pointless to actually try and classify yourself honestly. For example I could easily be classified as a very liberal/progressive person and it wouldn't even be inaccurate but if you compare me to your typical liberal/progressive there'd be massive differences so it clearly isn't what I should identify myself as since it wouldn't communicate things properly.


Well, actually, I'm not sure I'd classify you as much off the progressive millenial norm. You're just an older millenial, whereas some of the people we know typically skew with the younger millennial, or alongside some of the radical progressive theories that are proving ineffective if well-meaning.

In my personal opinion a direct democracy is a bad thing. Something like what the US has is best so long as proper steps are taken to keep corruption and personal interests under control. As you said, the masses have lynching behaviors. Mob mentality is a thing and a very bad thing. Tyranny of the majority is a definite concern as well. Those things can both be countered by having the right sorts of people in office as well as the right laws and regulations in place.


I think there's maybe a miscommunication with this sometimes. Direct democracy means referenda or direct voting on issues. e-voting can happen. As opposed to populism which is just doing what the people want regardless of constitutionality. I'd like referenda that meet line item vetos before excecution and have to pass constitutionality tests. It's more of a legitimacy thing and supposed to represent - not enforce - populism in a way that diminishes the need for gerrymandering.

You probably fit as cleanly into any one classification as I do. Which is more or less not at all. As I said earlier I could very easily be considered a very liberal or progressive person. Yet compared to the liberal/progressive group as a whole I'd be considered more of a moderate. Yet calling me a moderate isn't remotely accurate. I'd personally argue that I'm actually more liberal/progressive than most people in those groups because I strive to actually practice what I preach and make efforts to not be hypocritical. Those are things far too many people (of any group really but it's more predominant in progressives and liberals due to the nature of their claimed beliefs) are completely lacking in.


You can smoke and convince other people not to smoke. Hypocrisy doesn't really bother me if the right thing is getting done anyways. Beyond that it's just a superficial thing and not good communication about belief sets. I just want a way to communicate my belief set. And the only word that seems to reveal anything significant about my belief set and preferences is prog.


EDIT: superficial but infuriating. but there's a lot hypocrites on both sides and I'm not really concerned with communicating my comfort with the hypocrites in my communities as much as i am the beliefs themselves
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3816
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Alice » December 7th, 2015, 10:51 am

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:Well, actually, I'm not sure I'd classify you as much off the progressive millenial norm. You're just an older millenial, whereas some of the people we know typically skew with the younger millennial, or alongside some of the radical progressive theories that are proving ineffective if well-meaning.

The key thing is the "radical progressive" bit really. A stupidly large chunk of the vocal portion of the current progressive movement leans towards radicalism. And radicalism is bad no matter what side you're on.
I think there's maybe a miscommunication with this sometimes. Direct democracy means referenda or direct voting on issues. e-voting can happen. As opposed to populism which is just doing what the people want regardless of constitutionality. I'd like referenda that meet line item vetos before excecution and have to pass constitutionality tests. It's more of a legitimacy thing and supposed to represent - not enforce - populism in a way that diminishes the need for gerrymandering.

Yeah, it sounds like we weren't on the same page there then. When you said direct democracy I thought you meant what the majority wants goes no matter what.
You can smoke and convince other people not to smoke. Hypocrisy doesn't really bother me if the right thing is getting done anyways. Beyond that it's just a superficial thing and not good communication about belief sets. I just want a way to communicate my belief set. And the only word that seems to reveal anything significant about my belief set and preferences is prog.

Smoking but but telling others not to smoke is a totally different beast than what I'm talking about. In that example it's more a matter of addiction than hypocrisy. I'm talking about things such as people espousing that intolerance and harassment and such are bad but then turning around and being extremely intolerant and actively encouraging harassment towards people who don't believe the same as they do. That's not only hypocrisy but it completely undermines what they're trying to argue. That shows a lack of integrity and discipline and is not something I can respect at all no matter how much I agree with their espoused beliefs.
EDIT: superficial but infuriating. but there's a lot hypocrites on both sides and I'm not really concerned with communicating my comfort with the hypocrites in my communities as much as i am the beliefs themselves

I'm usually a very tolerant person no matter how much someone disagrees with me but there are a few places where I'm not remotely tolerant. Hypocrisy is one of those places. It shows a complete lack of integrity and self-discipline. Both of which things that are sorely lacking in our current time. That's one of the biggest reasons I have a great deal of respect for Bernie Sanders. The fact that I do agree with quite a lot of his political views actually has very little to do with my respect for him.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » December 7th, 2015, 11:15 am

Alice wrote:The key thing is the "radical progressive" bit really. A stupidly large chunk of the vocal portion of the current progressive movement leans towards radicalism. And radicalism is bad no matter what side you're on.


...no? today's radicalism is tomorrow's moderacy is tomorrow's conservatism. But really what radically means is by the roots; challenging it would upend my entire worldview much like plucking a plant from its pot. I'm pretty radically anti-racist, pro-not-locking-people-like-you-up-in-mental-hospitals-and-lobotomizing, radically pro gay marriage, radically pro women's suffrage.... you might wanna check something like the overton window out. And then a guy like Ingersoll

Yeah, it sounds like we weren't on the same page there then. When you said direct democracy I thought you meant what the majority wants goes no matter what.


I am in favor of the measures of the Brothers Gracchi however. Break me with chairs and throw me in the Tiber if you must~

Smoking but but telling others not to smoke is a totally different beast than what I'm talking about. In that example it's more a matter of addiction than hypocrisy. I'm talking about things such as people espousing that intolerance and harassment and such are bad but then turning around and being extremely intolerant and actively encouraging harassment towards people who don't believe the same as they do. That's not only hypocrisy but it completely undermines what they're trying to argue. That shows a lack of integrity and discipline and is not something I can respect at all no matter how much I agree with their espoused beliefs.


I'm insinuating that abusive people don't always "choose" to be abusive, and I'm also insinuating that smokers don't always believe smoking is bad for them when they repeat what they're supposed to. It's different at the extremes, granted, and completely undermines the points regardless, granted, but people who are abused typically become abusers themselves, regardless of whether they've seen the light, or recognize their actions in others. Bad pattern matching is a thing in them too and unfortunately safer than sorry errs on the criticism pattern matching with abusive trolling. This is why complement sandwiches are better with these people than loudly mooning them

I'm usually a very tolerant person no matter how much someone disagrees with me but there are a few places where I'm not remotely tolerant. Hypocrisy is one of those places. It shows a complete lack of integrity and self-discipline. Both of which things that are sorely lacking in our current time. That's one of the biggest reasons I have a great deal of respect for Bernie Sanders. The fact that I do agree with quite a lot of his political views actually has very little to do with my respect for him.



Maybe I'm a cynic
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3816
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Alice » December 7th, 2015, 11:43 am

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:...no? today's radicalism is tomorrow's moderacy is tomorrow's conservatism. But really what radically means is by the roots; challenging it would upend my entire worldview much like plucking a plant from its pot. I'm pretty radically anti-racist, pro-not-locking-people-like-you-up-in-mental-hospitals-and-lobotomizing, radically pro gay marriage, radically pro women's suffrage.... you might wanna check something like the overton window out. And then a guy like Ingersoll

The thing is that for most people radicalism and extremism are effectively the same thing. Because they far too often go hand in hand. There's nothing wrong with those views you voiced there (though I think just about all of them with maybe the exception of the mental hospital one were pretty controversial in the past) but too many people take radical views too far. That's why you rarely see someone actually identify as a radical.
I'm insinuating that abusive people don't always "choose" to be abusive, and I'm also insinuating that smokers don't always believe smoking is bad for them when they repeat what they're supposed to. It's different at the extremes, granted, and completely undermines the points regardless, granted, but people who are abused typically become abusers themselves, regardless of whether they've seen the light, or recognize their actions in others. Bad pattern matching is a thing in them too and unfortunately safer than sorry errs on the criticism pattern matching with abusive trolling. This is why complement sandwiches are better with these people than loudly mooning them

If the abused becomes the abuser then they just aren't putting in the effort to not become the abuser. My father was an extremely physically and emotionally abusive person. Due to all that I've found myself leaning towards the same mindset myself at times. But I always manage to catch myself because I REFUSE to be like him because I believe it's wrong. I actively combat my own nature in that regard because I won't be a hypocrite about it. Giving in to that garbage would only serve to completely undermine my beliefs and trying to make excuses justifying my actions if I were to do those things is just refusing to take responsibility for my actions. If you truly and honestly believe something to be the right view to hold then it is your responsibility to make sure you uphold that belief or take responsibility for your actions if you slip up.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » December 9th, 2015, 1:50 pm

Sorry for a tovapost. I'm gonna bold the most important part

I want to talk about anti-SJ for a second, sorry. I recognized that this might be what drives my reactions to the discussion, and, well... this morning I articulated it and decided I wanted see if my articulation rings true to anyone else.

So like before I say that, I kinda want to start by giving a few words that are sensitive and I want to try to be somewhat careful with the terms for once.

The first is a narcissist. The narcissist is commonly taken to mean a person with an over inflated ego, but the way it's used in psychology is a lot more subtle. I'm not going to use the psychological definition, but I want to borrow from it because I think it reflects certain people better. Narcissists, actually, usually have very brittle egos. For a narcissist (psy diagnosed) I know, it's less that they have to be better, and more that they react (passively) to being bettered as being put down. They can't really help that emotion, but can at least control what it does to them and the actions they take because of it. Some narcissists, feeling constantly abused, put others down, and turn to abusers themselves. Some control themselves. But usually the SJ types that everyone shits on are in this vein, if maybe they aren't exactly narcissists in the psychological or common sense.

I need to borrow a pair of words from LessWrong for the next big definition: believe and alieve. To believe something is like knowing something intellectually; I guess a German analog (if I'm speaking to Aposke) is wissen. Whereas alieving something is to have internalized it, to believe it passively, and it might map to kennen. Sometimes people might believe something to be true, like, the world is round, but not alieve it until they're strongly convinced through experience or something, like going into a dramatically different timezone. Sometimes people might believe something to be true, like, NarcissaWright is a girl, but not alieve it even when someone is totally in their belief system and deep down a trans ally, and as they're making efforts to internalize it there's lag between believing and alieving that might yield freudian slips like "Cosmo" or "he" even when they feel really bad about doing so.


So, to the main words, there's also generally a type of person with an inferiority complex. I think the psychological term isn't even 'inferiority complex' anymore, I think it's more like 'lack of covert self-esteem'. But basically, there's people that even when they believe they're decent enough people, they don't alieve it. Sometimes they even believe they aren't too. What goes on in the minds of people can be complex and from the outside paradoxical. But sometimes because they - consciously or otherwise - believe themselves subhuman.


Some end up as narcissists. Some end up as other things. There's a specific, well, species of this sort of thing - the type that self-flagellate. So they seek out self-destructive things. Some kinds of self harm are this sort of thing - it's not that they're trying to kill themselves and are too stupid to figure out how (sometimes this is the case), it's not that they're crying out for help (sometimes this is the case), it's not that they're punishing someone else (sometimes this is the case), but sometimes it's just that they want to see themselves hurt, because it satisfies the same part of the mind that wants to see evil vanquished and good triumph. Masochist doesn't really fit this, I think. It might, but it's not a sexual thing, though it can become a sexual thing.




Anti-SJ is supposed to be about anti-abuse. Right? SJ itself however, is, in part, a reaction to inferiority complexes. There's some SJ stuff that enables inferiority complexes too, but I'll get to that. The problematic aspect of SJ is it often enables abusive narcissists, because it's trying to minimize harm to a category that happens to include narcissists. Except it's politicized; it enables ingroup narcissists, but attacks outgroup narcissists. I'd say something like "so this makes it absolutely no different from anything absolutely ever" but that's not an excuse.

Like it or not, shame is a deterrent, and something that can be used to lessen bad behavior. So SJ tries to shame people enabling inferiority complexes; people who hate fat people, people who hate trans people, beauty standards bullshit, people who hate people based on their race, or on the attractions they feel. There are legitimately people who suffer for this kind of shit.



Something I hope we can all agree on: people should have some right not to be abused.

There's a difference between abuse and criticism. "I think you'd do better to choose a different platform" is different than " https://twitter.com/Ricky_Vaughn99/stat ... 0881937408 ". Sometimes the distinction is muddier, like "What were you thinking would happen?" or whatever. I'm not for criminalizing this, even when it's clear that it's abuse. I'm not for criminalizing language that isn't directly calling for someone's slaughter outside legal means. This isn't what I'm trying to talk about.

There's something extremely pernicious and disgusting about anti-SJ and it's the shaming of people trying to withdraw from the discussion. Because frankly while some people need negative feedback, some people don't.

I don't mean the abusers. I don't mean 'big name X'. I mean a lot of the little people caught in the middle of the drama, who didn't put a lot of their causitive force into the discussion.


But like, a lot of people with inferiority complexes are constantly trying to evaluate things, either confirming or contradicting their model of themselves or whatever. I don't know that putting down narcissists is always the right thing to do but I'll grant that sometimes the only pragmatic thing to do about abusers is to turn some of their abuse back at them (nota bene: not all narcissists are abusers; some are in fact quite scrupulous, er, I mean something not based on purity culture stuff). But sometimes the self-flagellating, masochistic, self-destructive, whatever types who alieve themselves evil catch wind of anti-narcissistic negative reinforcement. And seeing the common inferiority complex, and ascribing their own self over evil things, they conflate themselves with that image. This is made very bad much worse because, sadly, sometimes classes overlap and someone might be the self-destructive sort with (negligible/minor/average/significant/major) narcissistic tendencies.


Sometimes inferiority complexes are caused by abuse. Sometimes there's other causitive agents. So like, sometimes these people really do actually need to stand up for themselves. But they hear this anti-narcissist shit and they think they're the abusive one (this is very common in abusive romantic relationships, at least), and they let themselves be abused. Because they don't think they have a right to stand up for themselves. Or that it's their place.


SJ abuses people at times. There are things about it that I think are very good - it's motivations are harm minimization, it's had *some* ideas about how to approach basic respect that I find extremely congenial (respecting pronouns, for example, a strong emphasis on asking things first or not assuming, not assuming guilt of the innocent (though it expresses it badly; we need anonymity in the legal system I think), generally promoting being aware of how you might be making other people uncomfortable). But it's also fucked up in that things like Mizzou happened. Or that it's a vehicle used by Trans* Exclusory Radical Feminists, or that, because it's grown out of a very Kantian worldview it has some oddball, often quintessentially deontological beliefs and tries to immanentize the eschaton or sometimes treats its divine laws as unquestionable. Or that fighting against victim blaming seems to turn into guilt presumption. Furthermore there's the guilt by association bullshit and general vengeance seeking behaviors common to most groups' politics.



But there's also the personal drama bullshit. And how most of the anti-SJ seem to be articulated from my perspective; that SJ promotes abusive narcissists. And that's a good thing to fight against, I think.

But more often than not I find that people I know think they're shit because they want to stand up to someone putting them down, and don't because they're afraid of being accused of wanting a hugbox. Or that they think "please don't insult me" is the same thing as coming down with a banhammer or something. Regardless of the fact that from a libertarian perspective I think everyone should have the right to control the space they provide for however they see fit, boycott who they want, etc, there are toxic environments. And the selfhating types can be narcissists, but they can also confuse *not* wanting a toxic environment with wanting a toxic circlejerk, don't speak up for themselves, feel like shit, and feel like shit for feeling like shit, and end up trapped in a toxic environment predicated on negative feedback mechanisms. Defeat spirals (spirals, being, both a noun and and a verb).


I could also say something like how uncomfortable I am that fighting against toxic people and toxic policies, when they're meant to do something amiable, often empowers their mirror images (well, same symmetry, opposite chirality; toxic people, toxic policies, *in*amiable motivations). I think it's a good thing that racism used to be a serious issue in the way that being openly racist inspired boycotts (this isn't the same thing as silencing someone! I don't have to buy your thing, you don't have to buy mine, that's how the free market is supposed to work!). It's saddening to me that I think antiracists are dropping the ball and forgetting how to argue against racism seriously without resorting to arguments from consequences, but that's object level analysis that's neither here nor there.

But mostly I'm concerned about narcissists and the self-flagellating types. Because I'm pretty certain that the latter outnumber the former, especially because the former tends to be a subset of the latter. I don't know if the harm done by the abusive narcissists (quite apparently, no one takes them seriously outside their own groups) actually outweighs the harm done to the types who hear the criticism and internalize it due to a mistaken alief that they're in some way the Abuser. Minor disclosure - someone I talked to last night I think is this sort of person.


And of course, there are some people who are abusers and are abused, and I don't think casting this as "good victims versus bad abusers" is productive, because people usually aren't all good all bad, and as critics of SJ culture like to note, being a victim isn't an intrinsically good thing (and it's true that SJ has a bizarre relationship with purity culture and being a victim has a lot of almost theological "Uuwaagh" (nota bene: not a technical term) around it, kinda like virgin in familiar forms of purity culture). Some people overlap, and they need help, and abusing them isn't really doing anything other than hurting more people if they don't respond to abuse.

And of course there's the hypocrisy charge. Anti-SJ enables narcissists too, like the AmazingAtheist, Chobitcoin, or whatever. But like this is a cheap shot and when you level things out I reckon there's about equal hypocrites on both sides. Everyone's a hypocrite afterall, ekh, reprobates, sinners, thieves, thugs, whores? ;)

No, but, mostly I'm concerned about the self-destructive types...

Full disclosure - I feel like I myself am of the self-destructive types. Maybe I'm a narcissist too; hell, prolly am with the oh-so-full of myself analyses and other bullshit i drop off like some pretentious asshole, but, like, from within it's hard to tell the difference between standing up for myself, being full of myself, that, whatever; and because I was bullied a lot I'm not sure what's me in survival mode either, or what's "threaten my friends and I threaten you" kind of reflexes. But like, I'm pretty sure my ex is a self-destructive type. Most of my friends have been like this, because people tend to attract like minds. My family too - it's actually a great deal of why people turn to drugs; it's self medication, sometimes it's suicide. So like, calibrate what you read against this.


Thanks if you read.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 409
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Aposke » December 15th, 2015, 11:49 am

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:Anti-SJ is supposed to be about anti-abuse. Right? [...] people who hate fat people, people who hate trans people, beauty standards bullshit, people who hate people based on their race, or on the attractions they feel. There are legitimately people who suffer for this kind of shit.

Something I hope we can all agree on: people should have some right not to be abused.

There's a difference between abuse and criticism. "I think you'd do better to choose a different platform" is different than " https://twitter.com/Ricky_Vaughn99/stat ... 0881937408 ". Sometimes the distinction is muddier, like "What were you thinking would happen?" or whatever. I'm not for criminalizing this, even when it's clear that it's abuse. I'm not for criminalizing language that isn't directly calling for someone's slaughter outside legal means. This isn't what I'm trying to talk about.

Then what are you trying to talk about? A lot of the differences between SJ and Anti-SJ are to be found in different defintions of the same word, like "abuse". Obviously noone argues for abuse, but SJ tends to have a more open definition of what constitutes "abuse" than Anti-SJ does. I completely agree with your way of approaching it, but that certainly doesn't seem to be the SJ(W) way of doing it, especially when it concerns the groups of people you mentioned above.

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:There's something extremely pernicious and disgusting about anti-SJ and it's the shaming of people trying to withdraw from the discussion. Because frankly while some people need negative feedback, some people don't.

I don't mean the abusers. I don't mean 'big name X'. I mean a lot of the little people caught in the middle of the drama, who didn't put a lot of their causitive force into the discussion.

I don't see how this is a problem Anti-SJs have in particular. "Forcing" people to take a stance on their issue is something most advocacy groups display (which, I agree, is a shitty thing to do in general).

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:SJ abuses people at times. There are things about it that I think are very good - it's motivations are harm minimization, it's had *some* ideas about how to approach basic respect that I find extremely congenial (respecting pronouns, for example, a strong emphasis on asking things first or not assuming, not assuming guilt of the innocent (though it expresses it badly; we need anonymity in the legal system I think), generally promoting being aware of how you might be making other people uncomfortable).


What I find jarring about SJ theories on harm minimization is that it seems to always put that first and foremost, before any other consideration, to the point where an action that as much as has the potential to cause minimal harm to someone is deemed unethical, even if it has the potential to have a big positive impact in other areas, or when they prioritize equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. I also don't share the sentiment of "making other people feel merely uncomfortable is bad" at all, which is the idea underlying the promotion of comfort awareness you mentioned at the end. I don't need to, and quite simply cannot even begin to take into account everything or even just a tiny percentage of what sentiments my actions might arouse in most other people I interact with, and constantly worrying over that would severely impede my freedom of action and consideration as an individual.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » December 15th, 2015, 2:44 pm

Aposke wrote:Then what are you trying to talk about? A lot of the differences between SJ and Anti-SJ are to be found in different defintions of the same word, like "abuse". Obviously noone argues for abuse, but SJ tends to have a more open definition of what constitutes "abuse" than Anti-SJ does. I completely agree with your way of approaching it, but that certainly doesn't seem to be the SJ(W) way of doing it, especially when it concerns the groups of people you mentioned above.


My central idea - I think antiSJ's push back is creating the sort of environment where people who need to say no can't because they think they'll be typecast as SJWs. Abuse happens in both 'names'. We hear about SJ shit all the time, or it seems like I do, and after hearing a few close friends come to me with severe esteem problems, too scared shitless to even politely ask someone to stop explicitly because of those fears, I got really mad. And I think that kinda like nobody cared with the left went overboard in the Bush era, I can't help but think that people ignore antiSJ's legit atmosphere because SJ is the current thing to shit on.

I mean, I think part of that is strongly who we deal with. Because that approach has been the vast majority of sj for me. The people I tend to deal with on tumblr (*tend*, lately I've been seeking out and following personas non gratas) aren't that way. And they're strongly oriented towards internal criticism, which people on the outside love to attack as "infighting" or whatever.

Maybe a problem there, it seems to me, is these people are talking about real abuse that gets overlooked and that typecasts them as SJWs. So they get thrown out with the bathwater. Instead of actually trying to do the thing, discussion is breaks down at resistance to new ideas level in petty identity politics. Idk

Honestly I trying to be diplomatic and maybe that was me taking too much ground for my team or something. Because it honestly disgusts me to try and be diplomatic towards certain kinds of people


I don't see how this is a problem Anti-SJs have in particular. "Forcing" people to take a stance on their issue is something most advocacy groups display (which, I agree, is a shitty thing to do in general).


No, it's not, but it's something I see more often specifically in the sj-antisj discourse. It's the hugbox thing. Because if someone tries to back out of these heated discussions they just want to be coddled according to some mindsets. Or say something like "taking ideas seriously is important but 100s of heated arguments about sj/antisj shit is creating an environment that makes it difficult to make friends and have fun while playing video games so let's not please" they're an sjw and a hitler commie suffrage wanter who just wants to live in an echo chamber generally, not like... someone who just wants a low stress and harmonious community?

And like I don't even want to get into how accusing someone of being a coward for having other things to do than argue with you is just, well, it reinforces, not undermines, the beliefs of anyone who believes in toxic masculinity. And it's sick and stupid and hypocritical when SJ does that, it's just I don't see it as much from the SJ side as I do the masculinist side.


What I find jarring about SJ theories on harm minimization is that it seems to always put that first and foremost, before any other consideration, to the point where an action that as much as has the potential to cause minimal harm to someone is deemed unethical, even if it has the potential to have a big positive impact in other areas, or when they prioritize equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. I also don't share the sentiment of "making other people feel merely uncomfortable is bad" at all, which is the idea underlying the promotion of comfort awareness you mentioned at the end. I don't need to, and quite simply cannot even begin to take into account everything or even just a tiny percentage of what sentiments my actions might arouse in most other people I interact with, and constantly worrying over that would severely impede my freedom of action and consideration as an individual.


Quite a lot of people work on that principle actually. Harm minimalization is the basis for a lot of fundamentally secular ethical systems, it's practically the definition of utility. It's actually mine for the most part.

I can see a situation where an action that has a lot of payoff in the far future has a small tradeoff now. Like getting a root canal now could prevent a lifetime of pain, infections, etc. And that some people don't get the relationship and refuse the root canal because it's a painful thing. And that's a problem.

But a lot of the time I don't see people explaining and defending that kind of accusation in disputes over what constitutes harm. Instead they make bad arguments like "well it doesn't hurt me so it doesn't hurt you" or "it doesn't hurt me a lot therefore it doesn't hurt me at all". Generally as someone with sensory issues I get mad when people make the former argument, and to the latter I hold it as an axiom that everything that harms, harms. If someone doesn't like the taste of baloney I'm not for forcing them to eat baloney just because it won't kill them.

To the issue of prioritizing equality of outcome over equality of opportunity, unfortunately sometimes systems have feedback mechanisms which clouds the relationship, and sometimes inequitable outcomes are saying "hey you've missed something". But to that it sounds like we have the same value theory wise, but are fussing over the details. In which case somewhere people on both sides need to stop accusing someone of being unfaithful to the goal and accept that they have merely conflicting details. I see that coming from anti-SJ. Maybe you see that as coming from SJ.

And maybe this makes you feel uncomfortable, but it's not an all or nothing thing. And most of the people I've spoken to about you find you something of an asshole. Maybe you can't be super perfect buddhist socialist jesus level aware of everyone's problems and everyone's actions, but it'd pay if you started trying to err the other way on the matter of thinking about what makes other people feel, I don't know, comfortable with taking you seriously and hearing you out without dismissing you outright, instead of being purposely malicious to make a point, in the name of, and I'm quoting you, "terrorism".

There's other people that do that too! though. On SJ's side! But it's hard to tell the chicken from the egg sometimes. I don't like it when a certain person does that any more than you do and I think she's clearly in the wrong for it. But you're playing into the negative feedback mechanism when you do it too. And you're helping no one when you do that to someone when they've shown you no such hostility, like way back when.



But all of that's beside my ultimate point - I really think antiSJ is making it harder for people to stand up for themselves because they're thinking they're wrong for merely asking people to please stop. Because friends have confessed this vary thing to me. And I don't really know what's a clearer example of abusive behavior for attacking people for trying to step away for a bit or take things in stride.

I'm serious. Making people actually afraid of *merely* saying "hey guys, could you please not shit talk me in front of me" when it's not like they're coming down to censor people or stop them from talking about it elsewhere, really, actually, truely is an example of emotional abuse and it's something that I've seen with all my mom's partners because she's the kind of person who doesn't know anything else. Like, it's not merely a one off thing about hurt feelings. It's coupled with emotional and other kinds of actual abuse - fuck, my earliest memory is mom bleeding after dad broke a beer bottle on her forehead. Since I lived with him, I've lived with that kind of shit as my only kind of role model. And you know what? Nowadays a huge part of the reason I can't make suggestions anymore or help people who need it like my grandma is because being a stupid kid I parroted his casual, 'playful' insults to the point where if I try to say something I'm "critical". I mean it's entirely my action and it's entirely my fault for being an asshole, but that's sort of the issue. It acts as a sort of kid who cried wolf thing and if you have a reputation for being an asshole people aren't going to take you seriously. If you normalize it you make people calloused which just contributes to the problems later on. Someone made cynical by an asshole in their life generally becomes the type to be an asshole. Disagree with the straw however much you want, when you break that camel's back reality will set in whether you want it to or not.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 409
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Aposke » December 15th, 2015, 7:32 pm

I think it suffices to say that I didn't catch your original point, what with the passive intimidation from the way Anti-SJ works, the first time I read your post. I guess I can see where you're coming from, but I think it's one of those cases where I feel closer towards the people fighting for some sort of political goal than to those whose feelings may be heard or who might not speak up because they're afraid of being labelled "part of the other camp". I think it's acceptable to not think of these (some might say "overly self-conscious") people when pushing a social or political agenda, simply because these sort of situations of being afraid of being labelled happen all the time, and I really see no problem with this, as long as it's reasonable to assume that (at least the vast majority of) the persons involved would have to do nothing more than to jump over their own shadow and stop taking other people's opinion of them so incredibly seriously.

Which is, incidentally, why I act like I do on here. I'm not particularly concerned about most people from Talkhaus and/or Iso taking me seriously, since I see it as a useless cause either way. I wouldn't be posting here if it wasn't fun, and I'm sure as heck not trying to change anything about the way the Talkhaus is run (anymore). And I will happily admit that being here only to shitpost and start arguments with Horikawa is an absolutely childish thing to do, as was the entire CSS "terrorism" thing. That was to make a point, yes, but primarily it was FUN. If I want to discuss something seriously with people who take me seriously, I have plenty of real life opportunities to do that (and other forums, even!).

Concerning what you said about conflicting details, working towards the same goal, the all-or-nothing issue, the negative feedback mechanism, etc, I'm fully aware of that, and even though I'm not really taking most things seriously on this forum I don't think I've ever strayed from such basic principles as "Everything exists on a gray scale", "allies you disagree with on details are still better than your enemies" and "hatred begets hatred". At most, I'm simply abusing the last one in order to get a quick chuckle during the evening, when I have nothing better to do than to shitpost on IsoNation.

Oh, and remember when I said how I don't take "most people" and "most things on this forum" seriously? You're one of the exceptions of that. Because, despite all the shit I've posted and me having arguably acted worse on here than I ever have on Talkhaus, you still talk to me in a way that seems like you're at least assuming there's an actual, rational(ly capable?) human being on the other side of the keyboard.

User avatar
Alice
⦂☽
Posts: 3816
Joined: December 23rd, 2014, 10:47 pm
Location: Wonderland
Contact:

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Alice » December 15th, 2015, 7:45 pm

Aposke wrote:despite all the shit I've posted and me having arguably acted worse on here than I ever have on Talkhaus, you still talk to me in a way that seems like you're at least assuming there's an actual, rational(ly capable?) human being on the other side of the keyboard.

What all exactly have you done here that's worse? Literally the only thing that comes to mind for me is the CSS thing.
💙💙💙
Image
Image


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » December 15th, 2015, 8:40 pm

Aposke wrote:I think it suffices to say that I didn't catch your original point, what with the passive intimidation from the way Anti-SJ works, the first time I read your post. I guess I can see where you're coming from, but I think it's one of those cases where I feel closer towards the people fighting for some sort of political goal than to those whose feelings may be heard or who might not speak up because they're afraid of being labelled "part of the other camp". I think it's acceptable to not think of these (some might say "overly self-conscious") people when pushing a social or political agenda, simply because these sort of situations of being afraid of being labelled happen all the time, and I really see no problem with this, as long as it's reasonable to assume that (at least the vast majority of) the persons involved would have to do nothing more than to jump over their own shadow and stop taking other people's opinion of them so incredibly seriously.


And that's not unreasonable, double negative. Some things need to be said. It's just not always appropriate. Everything may be politics at a philosophical level, but it isn't and shouldn't be at a level at relaxing with people and it's long term negative to alienate people by intimidating/criticising them for asking "please don't". Like one of the things that I hear from anti-SJ all the time is how the left is a mirror of fundies because they have the same culture of always staying vigilant and the whole 'onward christian soldier' stuff but prog colored, and sometimes I think the anti left and right forget we inherited that from them.

Aposke wrote:Which is, incidentally, why I act like I do on here. I'm not particularly concerned about most people from Talkhaus and/or Iso taking me seriously, since I see it as a useless cause either way. I wouldn't be posting here if it wasn't fun, and I'm sure as heck not trying to change anything about the way the Talkhaus is run (anymore). And I will happily admit that being here only to shitpost and start arguments with Horikawa is an absolutely childish thing to do, as was the entire CSS "terrorism" thing. That was to make a point, yes, but primarily it was FUN. If I want to discuss something seriously with people who take me seriously, I have plenty of real life opportunities to do that (and other forums, even!).


Concerning what you said about conflicting details, working towards the same goal, the all-or-nothing issue, the negative feedback mechanism, etc, I'm fully aware of that, and even though I'm not really taking most things seriously on this forum I don't think I've ever strayed from such basic principles as "Everything exists on a gray scale", "allies you disagree with on details are still better than your enemies" and "hatred begets hatred". At most, I'm simply abusing the last one in order to get a quick chuckle during the evening, when I have nothing better to do than to shitpost on IsoNation.


Oh, and remember when I said how I don't take "most people" and "most things on this forum" seriously? You're one of the exceptions of that. Because, despite all the shit I've posted and me having arguably acted worse on here than I ever have on Talkhaus, you still talk to me in a way that seems like you're at least assuming there's an actual, rational(ly capable?) human being on the other side of the keyboard.



So like... I'm a commie in the US. I'm an atheist who's never had an unchurched or nonbelieving friend in real life. I've been suicidal at some level since I was 9. I get that sometimes people just don't have the time or energy to spend in debates like Nye and Hovind and I don't really much like debates for framing them as equals either, but I understand really deeply how valuable being treated seriously can be when you have no esteem and think your whole worldview has to be deeply flawed and you just can't see it because you think you're too stupid.


On the other hand there's drama in taking everything seriously and it's not always really productive. And not everyone's capable and it doesn't necessarily make a healthy environment. Everything I just said.

So I guess it's just my way of trying to balance the two. Don't generally put things out seriously but take them so?
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » December 15th, 2015, 9:52 pm

wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 409
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Aposke » December 30th, 2015, 8:44 pm

I've been reading an interesting book lately about the philosophy of science and its history, and have finally come to the part about how structualism and post-structuralism deal with empirical science. The author (very convincingly, as I find) makes the point that (post-)sturcturalist understanding of science is one that is fundamentally derived from German 19th century Idealism. He sees it this way because authors like Sapir-Whorf, Kuhn and Feyerabend base their opinions that, for example, scientific theories are structured in the same way that de Sassure said Phonemes are structured – each individual aspect of a theory is defined solely by its relations to everything else within the grand structure that is the complete theory. Essentially, this makes different scientific theories incomparable to one another, because two theories concerning the same general subject never actually refer to the same thing when they, for example, talk about electrons. Extending from this, Kuhn for example asserts that scientists who support different theories on fundamental aspects of how the world works live in different worlds entirely. That is to say, if they make a new discovery which causes their theory-system to change, their very world changes. I've seen this kind of argument (and definition of the word "world") used by Phenomenologists and Existentialists before, but I've never thought to apply it to (post-)structuralist thinking, at least not when it came to their criticism of empirical science. I've also never particularly thought of this line of thought as "idealist", especially since many phenomenologists don't deny the existence of an outside world, but I can see how they're at least descendants of Kant's transcendental idealism, since for them, the "thing-itself" doesn't really matter – they might not be stringent idealists, but they're still pragmatic idealists.

Besides having improved my understanding of this relationship, the author (Mark Rowlands) also makes an interesting point against the phenomenological definition of "the world" when he points out the difference between what it means to say that the world is constructed from one's thoughts or simply revealed by one's thoughts. Construction, even on the background of idealism, implies that something is being built that doesn't exist in that form, that humans create their worlds independently of the things themselves,while a relationship between the mind and the world that is founded on revelation is one that presupposes the existence of things themselves, which are simply revealed to us in a certain way dictated by our sensimotor capabilities, experiences, thoughts, and so on. What this means is that revelation differentiates strictly between the world "out there" and an individual's perception of the world (what would be Heidegger's definition of "world"), which is formed by construction of experience, but never constructed itself. Basically, his point is that structuralism is jumping the shark from one conclusion on the line to the next.

(1) Our world is constructed out of what we think (to be true, to be false, etc.)
(2) The structure of language defines the structure of our thoughts
Therefore: (3) The structure of language defines the structure of our world

Basically, Rowlands' criticism is based on the idealistic fuzzing of the realtionship between an individual's living environment, their "reality", and the individual-independent world, and I see the same problem he does.

E: In fact, he calls this line of thinking "Neo-Kantian", which I find very interesting and also somewhat amusing, as
(1) Tova said he never heard of any Neo-Kantians outside of religious fundamentalists, and
(2) I seem to have had an incorrectly one-sided view of Neo-Kantianists myself, although my image differed from Tova's.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » February 2nd, 2016, 11:48 pm

I was on vacation when you posted that and I guess I forgot about it?

Extremely minor note - Sapir and Whorf were different people and the Sapir-Whorf linguistic determinism hypothesis was Whorf building on Sapir's work. Like a lot of things the hard interpretion was completely wrong, but there seems to be a little bit of pseudo-whorfianism here and there like how Lamarck was exactly wrong but some kinds of elements of his theory have a certain utilitarian use in describing epigenitics. A lot of it's trivial shit like 'if you're not cultured to look for something, you might not have found it' but for the most part, everything is translatable on principle, even it just takes a lot of words to express it.

And... yeah. Idealism is strange to me. My uninformed know nothing view is that there's a thing in itself triangulated by the senses, and because of physical reasons the senses are imperfect, which means the end products in the mind are necessarily imperfect, including the models we use to make judgments. My chief admiration for post structuralism and the rest is it's ability to point out that, hey, sometimes the imperfections build up and build up to the point where you can make logically consistent but empirically false theories from them, and that it's empiracally led to a lot of carnage. But because I don't think of syntheses as being inseparable I don't think it follows to throw out the babies with the bathwaters.




Anyways I kind of had a question for you since you know more than I do:

Does it really make any kind of sense to you to blend different moral philosophies? Like Nietzsche once criticised the English Utilitarians for their system's 'simplicity', and where my tumblr friends are there's a strong utilitarian culture that I find myself... I don't know. I think I internalized it as fundamentally a 'true, good framework' thing. It's just that, and I think it's true for most moral philosophies, there are some definite paradoxes that I think it really can't adequately resolve, like the dust in the eyes v torture a man to death thing. At that point what I want to do mostly go to philosophies where it isn't a paradox - certainly divine command theory wouldn't permit murder for that, I'm sure there's non-theistic deontological responses to it, and if I understand virtue ethics like I think I do, the motivations might get different considerations but I think aretaic types more often would think 'a little suffering puts the vir *flexes* in virtue' and might think it more befitting the mass's dignity to endure something so minor.


The problems probably come from mixing foundational principles but I guess I'm asking is if they need be so incompatible. Or idk. I don't really know what I'm talking about.
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 409
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Aposke » February 8th, 2016, 10:53 pm

First off, I think it can make sense to think about blending different moral philosophies together in order to find a better overall (compound) theory. However, in order to do that, you would need to look at the foundations of those ethics, to see if they're compatible with one another. What I mean by this is that I understand ethics as a sort of second-order philosophy, i.e. something you can only develop on the foundation of a pre-existing epistemological and ontological world view.
For example, things like trying to explain Platonic virtue-ethics from a materialistic standpoint is very close to impossible, as Plato's conception of virtue already necessitates an idealist view on existence. With situations like these, I would make the argument that you would first need to look at an author's thoughts concerning first-order philosophy (epistemology, ontology, maybe metaphysics...) in order to understand their moral philosophy and maybe match it up with that of another author.

Basically, if you can make two sets of ideas concerning ethics match up not just on the ethical-theory level, but also on their foundational level, that is, on the level that gives the logical framework for those ethics to be developed, there's nothing to say against combining aspects from different moral philosophies.

I might not have worded this very well, but I wanted to get an answer out there, so sorry if I said the same stuff twice or elaborated too little. I'll get around to it next time.

User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » February 8th, 2016, 11:47 pm

Aposke wrote:First off, I think it can make sense to think about blending different moral philosophies together in order to find a better overall (compound) theory. However, in order to do that, you would need to look at the foundations of those ethics, to see if they're compatible with one another. What I mean by this is that I understand ethics as a sort of second-order philosophy, i.e. something you can only develop on the foundation of a pre-existing epistemological and ontological world view.
For example, things like trying to explain Platonic virtue-ethics from a materialistic standpoint is very close to impossible, as Plato's conception of virtue already necessitates an idealist view on existence. With situations like these, I would make the argument that you would first need to look at an author's thoughts concerning first-order philosophy (epistemology, ontology, maybe metaphysics...) in order to understand their moral philosophy and maybe match it up with that of another author.

Basically, if you can make two sets of ideas concerning ethics match up not just on the ethical-theory level, but also on their foundational level, that is, on the level that gives the logical framework for those ethics to be developed, there's nothing to say against combining aspects from different moral philosophies.

I might not have worded this very well, but I wanted to get an answer out there, so sorry if I said the same stuff twice or elaborated too little. I'll get around to it next time.



Yep. Pretty much what I thought
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Tovarisch Red Yoshi
Resident Commie Chameleon
Posts: 1944
Joined: December 29th, 2014, 10:57 pm
Location: Ashtree

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Tovarisch Red Yoshi » February 15th, 2016, 7:27 am

Apollonian and Dionysian are pretty much a dialectic, aren't they?
wikipedia wrote:The word "w00t" itself was first seen in 1994.[citation needed] The expression rose in popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s (decade) mostly on MMORPG such as RuneScape. It remains a niche Internet term and is not in general usage. The symbolic approximation of Latin letter forms makes w00t a prime example of internet leetspeak. It may also sometimes be seen spelled as "wewt" or "wought".

Isocitration wrote:<Isocitration> a long obscure nonsequitur that must be explained
<Isocitration> the joke is funny because of that alone
<tovakj> you've known me how long, yet?
<tovakj> yes
<tovakj> you're finally figuring out my aesthetic


User avatar
Aposke
Posts: 409
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 9:55 pm
Location: Take my post count and subtract 400. That's how many good posts I've made

Re: Philosophy, Lifes Important Question's

Postby Aposke » February 15th, 2016, 11:09 am

Tovarisch Red Yoshi wrote:Apollonian and Dionysian are pretty much a dialectic, aren't they?

Please specify which of the billions of historical interpretations of the word "dialectic" you mean.
If you're talking about Hegel then yeah, probably. But you're likely to know more about Hegel than I do, anyway (I've so far only read about him)


Return to “General Perversion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EarthPhantomTS and 1 guest