swlabr @ swlabr @awful.systems

Only Bayes Can Judge Me

---

Read more

Posts

36

Comments

1,729

Joined

2 yr. ago

maybe there should be some kind of scoring system

If we start doing Awful Gold^TM I will die a little inside

dear gods how does one type that with a straight face and not pass out from sheer intellectual exertion

Yeah. One thing I’ve realised since participating in Sneerclub is that when someone comes in thinking it’s debate club and 1. starts saying shit, and 2. you start coming up with counterarguments, and 3. you realise everything you come up with is just first order, basic stuff, then you have to remind yourself that this isn’t debate club, and that this person is stupid, and you don’t owe them intellectual energy.

In this case, in the broadest sense, politics is about getting a bunch of people to do something they might not initially agree with. Guess what a moral framework is designed to do?? Especially utilitarianism, which is literally just economics and accounting with a moral/ethical veneer. And that’s just first order shit!!! It’s not hard to go up the ladder from base theory to reality and come up with all kinds of examples and counterarguments or what have you. It’s just a waste of time with these people! They are either stupid or intentionally ignorant or both.

So yeah sometimes I’m ankle deep in drafting something offsite when I remember “it’s sneer club” and then I stop myself. You won’t convince these people, so just clown on them.

“What do you mean the clock is broken? It’s 12 now, and the clock says 12!”

I just don’t see how all these people come in and get insulted, only not to realise that no one is here to debate them and instead are just finding ways to clown on them. I will never get it. Thanks tho, this was super dull and I regret everything

Don’t worry, utility monsters aren’t real. A utilitarian would say the “benefit” the IDF reaps from doing genocide is completely dwarfed by the suffering they cause.

lol. Utilitarianism requires you to come up with some way to quantify the utility of an action. Such a system isn’t real, so a utilitarian just makes shit up about utility according to whatever agenda they have in mind. Case in point: Zionists, of which EA is rife with.

guess I need my brain re-wrinkled

Nah, just wrinkled.

And what elements of EA makes it a political framework rather than a moral one?

Even if it were possible, it’s not my job to educate you.

saving lives through charity, not the distribution of power, resources and privilege within a society or communal framework.

My stars! Good job googling “political framework”! You seem to be under the impression that charities are a black box that do nothing other than save lives. Perhaps you should look into that.

EA is absolutely a political framework. You're just too lazy or smooth-brained to see it.

Usually that doesn’t involve compelling you to perform that action by any other means than appealing to your desire to be moral.

You... don't know what a moral framework is.

It for sure is morally good to spend any extra money you have in a way that does the most good, billionaire or not.

"Duuuuuuuh it's good to do thing that do most good duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh" <- that's you

Nah, it doesn't. Utilitarianism is pretty useless; in this case, it's pretty fucking clear that the IDF are utility monsters. And what do you mean by "basic universalism"?

response to your edit: that is not an unequivocal denouncement of genocide lol. That's some weaselly shit where Singer is trying his best not to say what is obviously true (genocide bad) and instead try and say "these are ways in which Israel can continue to justify genocide."

found on reddit. posted without further comment

The saying “there is no such thing as an ethical billionaire” springs to mind. Who did they, or their families fuck over, in order to garner that sort of wealth?

There’s a running joke/working theory I’ve heard that in order to become billionaire, you have to have killed someone. (The reality is almost definitely worse)

yeah, so we agree, EA, which is predicated on the wealthy actually giving away their money, is a flawed concept as that is something the wealthy cannot be compelled to do without force

Nah dawg it’s the fact that his “incredible solid and well argued” moral framework finds it impossible to unequivocally denounce a fucking genocide that means that maybe it’s not nearly as solid as you say.

Not sure on that but I think he’s related to Sabrina Carpenter. Source, this line from Espresso:

I'm working late, 'cause I'm a Singer

mating pool

probably on par with the other stuff you might see at a rationalist poly compound

It’s almost as if the wealthy by and large don’t actually care about doing good or improving society!!!

It’s somewhat non-trivial to create a billionaire, let alone an EA variant; what other ideas do you have for improving EA?

who is this peter singer fellow? Sounds like a great and unproblematic man. Please tell us more of his teachings.

A random thought occurred to me that Veo is probably “better” at being prompted with something like “the scene from X movie but with Y instead of Z” as it is a plagiarism engine first and foremost. I will never investigate this hypothesis, nor will I hold onto it past typing it here.

think of all the rug you could have pulled...