2
points
somenameforme
Joined 13,037 karma
- No, his arguments were materially different in this case. Most of his arguments came from first principles and worked outwards from some baseline; in particular - what is virtue and how virtue, itself, leads to satisfaction in life, and onward to how this can apply to systems and politics in general. But slavery he treated in an entirely different, practically ad hoc, fashion starting from slavery and then trying to shoe-horn in a justification along the lines of what you alluded to already with e.g. natural order and it being an inescapable inevitability.
It was a complete, and poor, rationalization. He even added, almost as a disclaimer, that there was not a complete overlap between 'natural' slaves and legal slaves, giving himself a plausible out to explain the endless examples of the repulsiveness of the institution by applying a no true scotmans fallacy, 'Ahh yes, I would agree with you there. But that is because that is not a natural slave, but merely a legal one.' And this is not my opinion alone. It has long been considered notably weak, especially from an otherwise brilliant man.
And I think that leads into your next issue. I don't think higher intelligence makes it easier to treat morality as a fiction, but rather even average intelligence, without discipline and virtue, makes it very easy to engage in self delusion and cognitive dissonance. Even those conditions are hardly a guarantee - Aristotle certainly had and strived for both discipline and virtue, yet the desire to rationalize what we want to be true, even if we know it is not, is a never-ending struggle that's easy to fail.
- His arguments were generally driven by logic and reason, not rationalization. Rationalization is generally only necessary for adopting views that seem ostensibly inappropriate, which would certainly include these sort of 'naturally repulsive' acts. And indeed his arguments for slavery were some of his weakest precisely because they were uncharacteristic rationalizations.
I completely agree that if you go back far enough in the evolutionary pipeline then my claim becomes invalid. I also think it would not apply to people of a sufficiently reduced IQ. You need to have a minimum of intelligence to understand what you're doing, alternatives, and its consequences on others. But once you have that baseline of IQ then I think morality, and a natural repulsion to certain behaviors, comes as naturally as communication.
- I'll get back to what you said, but first let me ask you something if you would. Imagine Gender Queer was made into a movie that remained 100% faithful to the source content. What do you think it would be rated? To me it seems obvious that it would, at the absolute bare minimum, be R rated. And of course screening R-rated films at a school is prohibited without explicit parental permission. Imagine books were given a rating and indeed it ended up with an R rating. Would your perspective on it being unavailable at a school library then be any different? I think this is relevant since a standardized content rating system for books will be the long-term outcome of this all if efforts to introduce such material to children continues to persist.
------
Okay, back to what you said. 30% being attracted to the same sex in any way, including bisexuality, is a large shift. People tend to have a mistaken perception of these things due to media misrepresentation. The percent of all people attracted to the same sex, in any way, is around 7% for men, and 15% for women [1], across a study of numerous Western cultures from 2016. And those numbers themselves are significantly higher than the past as well where the numbers tended to be in the ~4% range, though it's probably fair to say that cultural pressures were driving those older numbers to artificially low levels in the same way that I'm arguing that cultural pressures are now driving them to artificially high levels.
Your second source discusses the reason for the bans. It's overwhelmingly due to sexually explicit content, often in the form of a picture book, targeted at children. As for "sexual deviance", I'm certainly not going General Ripper on you, Mandrake. It is the most precise term [2] for what we are discussing as I'm suggesting that the main goal driving this change is simply to be significantly 'not normal.' That is essentially deviance by definition.
[1] - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301639075_Sexual_Or...
- Many things are naturally repulsive, but are indulged out of necessity or gain. For instance Aristotle wasn't opposed to slavery, yet nonetheless in his writings, now some 2400+ years ago, he found himself obligated to lay out an extensive and lengthy defense and rationalization of such, and he even predicted what would eventually end it:
"For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet, 'Of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods.' If, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves." [1]
There were millennia of efforts to end slavery, but it's only the technological and industrial revolution that finally succeeded in doing so. But the point is that even though Aristotle was ostensibly not opposed to slavery, he nonetheless knew it was a decision that needed justification because it was fundamentally repulsive, even in a society where it was ubiquitous and relatively non-controversial, thousands of years ago.
This 'natural repulsion' is, I think, some degree of evidence for persistent, if not absolute, morality throughout at least thousands of years of humanity's existence, and I see no reason to assume it would not trend back long further than that.
- A practical issue is the sort of books being banned. Your first link offer examples of one side trying to ban Of Mice and Men, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Dr. Seuss, with the other side trying to ban many books along the lines of Gender Queer. [1] That link is to the book - which is animated, and quite NSFW.
There are a bizarrely large number similar book as Gender Queer being published, which creates the numeric discrepancy. The irony is that if there was an equal but opposite to that book about straight sex, sexuality, associated kinks, and so forth - then I think both liberals and conservatives would probably be all for keeping it away from schools. It's solely focused on sexuality, is quite crude, illustrated, targeted towards young children, and there's no moral beyond the most surface level writing which is about coming to terms with one's sexuality.
And obviously coming to terms with one's sexuality is very important, but I really don't think books like that are doing much to aid in that - especially when it's targeted at an age demographic that's still going to be extremely confused, and even moreso in a day and age when being different, if only for the sake of being different, is highly desirable. And given the nature of social media and the internet, decisions made today may stay with you for the rest of your life.
So for instance about 30% of Gen Z now declare themselves LGBT. [2] We seem to have entered into an equal but opposite problem of the past when those of deviant sexuality pretended to be straight to fit into societal expectations. And in many ways this modern twist is an even more damaging form of the problem from a variety of perspectives - fertility, STDs, stuff staying with you for the rest of your life, and so on. Let alone extreme cases where e.g. somebody engages in transition surgery or 1-way chemically induced changes which they end up later regretting.
[1] - https://archive.org/details/gender-queer-a-memoir-by-maia-ko...
[2] - https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/nearly-30-gen-z-adu...
- Even more so as the lesson of that story is perhaps the single most important one for people to learn in modern times.
Almost everybody in that book is an awful person, especially the most 'upstanding' of types. Even the protagonist is an awful person. The one and only exception is 'N* Jim' who is the only kind-hearted and genuinely decent person in the book. It's an entire story about how the appearances of people, and the reality of those people, are two very different things.
It being banned for using foul language, as educational outcomes continue to deteriorate, is just so perfectly ironic.
- Wow. I did not expect singing like that in this sort of domain.
- This reminds me of efforts to reproduce Ancient Greek music. [1] It's very similar in that there's a lot of hints, but still enough missing parts that there seem to be two schools of thought, that can even present within the same project. That linked audio is unpleasant, but perhaps they just liked it? Yet, this solo [2], comes from the exact same project - and is amazing.
I do not think tastes can change to such a degree that that first link would ever be pleasant to listen to, though that itself could be intentional for theatrical, theological, or other such purposes. Music seems innate to humanity - children generally start 'dancing' of sorts to music, 100% on their own, before their first birthday, long before they can speak or usually even walk!
The thing is that even if we do not personally like some form of music, I think we can still appreciate it. The Chinese guqin [3] is my favorite example - it goes back at least 3000 years, is played in a fashion completely outside the character of modern music - to say nothing of Western musical tradition as a whole, and yet nonetheless sounds amazing and relaxing even to a completely foreign ear.
Culture and tastes may change, but I think our ability to appreciate (or be repelled) by things is fairly consistent.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hOK7bU0S1Y
- I think this is one of the first lessons independent developers quickly learn. I think we're initially geared to want to make beautiful, elegant, and technically pleasant code because it's our thing - it's like how e.g. a guitarist is going to want to play a song other guitarists would be impressed by. You spend a million hours perfecting Classical Gas, while Smoke On The Water goes down as one of the most iconic tracks and riffs in history.
I'm not endorsing slop, but rather advising against the equal but opposite.
- Ok I actually agree with you about debt and the general societal degradation, but kidnapping is a non-issue.
In modern times there's a total of about 70 child kidnappings per year in the US. I am excluding parental kidnappings which sends that up by orders of magnitude, but I think that's fair because that's an entirely different issue and you specifically said stranger anyhow (though even of those 70 - a sizable chunk are not strangers). For contrast about 400 people are struck by lightning each year.
Statistically, it just doesn't happen. It's just one of those things, like terrorism or mass shootings, that is so unbelievably terrifying that people overreact in a self destructive way to try to prevent something that is statistically much less of a threat than just normal behaviors we take for granted.
I don't think money is the key issue. There were no clubs or nice tracks when I grew up, but ditches, canals, and forested areas worked just as well.
- You have literally 1 person in the entire world capable of firing somebody, and then that results in a case being heard by the Supreme Court when that person tries to invoke that power, after lower courts immediately said Nope. That is, absolutely by definition, somebody who is extremely difficult to fire. Extremely difficult does not mean impossible.
And you calling something a bribe doesn't make it a bribe in the legal sense, which is the point. For instance big pharma "donated" hundreds of millions of dollars across Congress the President just in the midst of the pandemic. Those beneficiaries, in turn, passed laws and created unprecedented and controversial defacto mandates which directly drove tens of billions of dollars in profits for these "donors." Is this a bribe?
Given your likely ideological perspective, I assume you would vehemently insist it's not. Why?
- Why must it be a caricature? Many successful writers are some rather extreme people, which is probably part of the reason why they're successful. Reality is, as always, far stranger than fiction, and a lifetime of exceptional experience is the writer's palette.
- The point he's making is that these things are not illegal. They're bribery, but carried out in a way designed to fall within the bounds of the law. Because actually outlawing every single way of bribing somebody is, in general, impossible. And it's difficult to make any progress even plugging the holes that do exist, because the people that could do that are the very ones taking advantage of those holes.
And removing a regulator is extremely difficult. For non-independent regulatory agencies it can only be done by the President (who generally is the same one that appointed him). For independent regulatory agencies it can again only be done by the President but this time only for just cause and in a process that can involve judicial appeal and involvement. Removing a judge, by contrast, is done by congress and requires impeachment/conviction. So rather than one being easier/harder, it's just that the process is different. Regulators are 'controlled' by the executive with judicial oversight, and the judiciary is 'controlled' by the legislative.
It's all a big game of rock, paper, scissors in many ways.
- Amish 2.0?
I realize this sounds out there, but I'm not entirely joking. I feel there is a significant subset of all people that are not particularly happy with the direction of society at large. And the great thing about places like the US is that you're free to develop your own little sub-societies. There's no reason a group of like-minded people could not work to develop a technologically embracing society, but one that aims to focus more on decentralization, and utilizing digitization as a convenience rather than a necessity.
Think about something like a 'Google Smart City' except from an entirely different ideological foundation, such that the entire project doesn't sound like something out of Black Mirror. The reason this would be beneficial as a social project, instead of the vastly more viable independent one, is that a lot of tech is generally seen as undesirable, certainly in certain contexts (like smartphones at school), yet it spreads virally making its adoption a defacto necessity. Get rid of the virality and you could create a better life, and a better situation, for many people.
- You don't need skepticism, because even if you're acting in 100% good faith and building a new model, what's the first thing you're going to do? You're going to go look up as many benchmarks as you can find and see how it does on them. It gives you some easy feedback relative to your peers. The fact that your own model may end up being put up against these exact tests is just icing.
So I don't think there's even a question of whether or not newer models are going to be maximizing for benchmarks - they 100% are. The skepticism would be in how it's done. If something's not being run locally, then there's an endless array of ways to cheat - like dynamically loading certain LoRAs in response to certain queries, with some LoRAs trained precisely to maximize benchmark performance. Basically taking a page out of the car company playbook in response to emissions testing.
But I think maximizing the general model itself to perform well on benchmarks isn't really unethical or cheating at all. All you're really doing there is 'outsourcing' part of your quality control tests. But it simultaneously greatly devalues any benchmark, because that benchmark is now the goal.
- I think some of the big features of VSCode are the extensions and, equivalently, the nice debug support. I just started using VSCode about a week ago thanks to moving to a project that uses scons as its primary supported build tool, and I've learned to hate scons and love VSCode over that time. The completely manual tasks/launch/etc stuff is kind of weird at first, but then becomes amazing and far more convenient, after you get used to it. And the 'debugger' (kind of weird to frame it that way as its extension based, like everything) is amazing - extremely fast, great visualizations, and so on.
How would vim compare?
- Almost everything from a grocery store starts in, or ends up, in a water resistant package. There are a handful of exceptions like eggs in cardboard casing, but you can just wrap them in a baggy to solve that. For that matter, unless it's like an insanely torrential downpour, very little, if any, water is going to get through a closed bag.
If your observation is accurate, the more likely reason is that people just don't like going out when it's raining. Getting your shoes/pants wet sucks, getting your car (or truck) seats wet sucks, rain traffic sucks, there's more crashes - which suck, and by contrast you could just be sitting at home enjoying the relaxing sounds of rain, which doesn't suck.
And even for valuable degrees, the advantage yielded is far less than you might think. It's not like the movies where you have dozens of companies begging you to come work with 6 figure starting salaries and fat bonuses up front. You open a few more doors, and people have a better than average initial impression of you, but at the end of the day - it's not a world-shifting advantage. The overall edge in outcomes is not because of the university, but because of the sort of people that the university admits. The sort of guy who graduates class president, valedictorian, wrestled at state, and with a near perfect score on his SAT is going to do disproportionately well in life completely regardless of whether he ends up at MIT, Party U, or just skips university altogether.