ahthat

Exactly. It’s easy to lie, narcissists more than others are likely to flatter themselves. This kind of data is not all that accurate or helpful. It really doesn’t tell you anything.

Very cool idea! Room for lots of improvement, keep working on it, I like the direction this is going.

True, but even beyond world music, as far as I can tell there is no widely accepted academic theory of modern production technique, where note-based harmonic language is secondary to general creativity in sonic landscape. This is a large part of what most people find interesting in music today, that is popular music production for distribution via sound systems, which arguably represents the current pinnacle of evolution in human musical ingenuity.

You are correct that the republic is designed to balance against a tyranny of the majority and for good reason: the rights of minority factions are threatened in such a state.

>The executive branch has so much power that it is in fact a monarchic republic

That is not true. The executive does not hold power for life, rule is not hereditary. Also, the executive branch is not a republic. What would that even mean? The executive branch is more like a dictatorship within government that is held accountable by congress, the judiciary, and the people. And the executive is ultimately held accountable by the people via the election of representatives.

To your point that democratic republics fight popular movements such as the protesting of slavery, every state has the capability to do bad. This is not surprising in the least. This is about as surprising as saying ‘humans are capable of doing bad’. The good news to my mind is that the democratic republic is the least bad option and has performed fairly well over time in response to changing social mores.

That is the whole point of the state: that it is permitted to conduct violence for its preservation. In republics/representative democracies, the people endow the state with this power via elections. It's not a utopia, but at the end of the day the ownership of the state remains with the people, that is, a collective of individually thinking voting persons. This is in utter contrast to the monarchies and despotisms that preceded modern representative democracies.

I wrote about a similar comparison way back in the middle of 2017:

https://benshieldsblog-blog.tumblr.com/post/165101127465/let...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9li-Wu3-bPEWEswQVdIOHVKTmM...

Care to explain the - points?

Time is only the relativistic motion of measurable phenomena. We can’t know what we can’t measure, it is perhaps possible that things “happen/happened” outside of the limits of what we can measure and extrapolate from measurement. We will never know what we can’t know. I would argue.

What the heck is going on in western North Dakota?

You do not know that the problem wouldn’t be worse without widespread messaging.

Again anecdotal evidence. Just because some people shrug off multiple infections does not mean awareness has no influence.

No, you are not wrong to say that... but that’s not what your parent comment was saying. Your comment was saying that messaging did not have much influence on your behavior later in life. I’m saying that just because it didn’t have much influence on your behavior does not mean it hasn’t had much influence on the behavior of others

My hunch is that people are probably generally unaware of the recent rise in syphilis cases, would do well to be more informed, and with proliferation of the message some general adjustment of behavior in society is to be expected

Very well and succinctly put

No evidence provided.

Of course it is useful - if you don’t know of a thing, you don’t know the consequences of engaging in that thing. It’s as axiomatic as the trite and age old saying “knowledge is power”. Your comment is completely disingenuous.

Continuing to raise awareness of the consequences of assuming risky behavior is a reasonable action that could be taken. With widespread messaging, the burdens of the consequences of risky behavior greater fall solely onto those who engage in the behavior, rather than being distributed evenly across society

Attempt to derail parent argument by citing inadequacy of reflection of anecdote in a general survey of literature/media

Anecdotal evidence

This guy is reasonable. Kudos to making reasoned and nuanced observations regarding both sides of the argument.

This is actually similar to how I've been reading a lot of books over the past few years. As a practical realist, I realized that, when it comes to reading, if I have a clear objective in mind, as long as I feel I have accomplished that objective then I have no use to continue my involvement with the work. Much of my reading of literature has amounted to merely becoming somewhat familiar with the work such that I am able to understand what others are talking about when they refer to it, and can engage somewhat intelligently with them about that work. This does not require actually reading the entire work in many cases.

This for me is the true value of much literature as it applies to me personally. Of course, on a basic level this is perhaps not quite as rewarding as reading a book cover to cover and becoming intimately acquainted with all the characters, stories, facts, figures, and/or arguments inside. But in my approach to a life filled with an absolute abundance of ideas from so many brilliant minds - indeed, there are most likely more men and women of utter genius alive today than have existed in the whole of antecedent human history - I decided that it would be a shame not to become acquainted with as many perspectives and ideas as possible. Sure, I sacrifice the rewards that come with truly coming to understand some objects in depth, but my hope has been that in doing so I have assumed some breadth in the understanding of the world, its affairs, and a great many of its inhabitants' ideas.

I don’t think PG is necessarily saying that income inequality is not a problem. This is disingenuous on your part. Saying “of course the Gini coefficient is increasing” does not necessarily translate to “income inequality is not a problem.” Rather, what he is to my mind correctly pointing out is that the entire situation regarding wealth accumulation, distribution, and class mobility is perhaps more nuanced than we typically understand it to be. Indeed, he points out that it is in fact easier in some major ways, which is a wonderful thing to realize. This does not necessarily mean that income inequality does not exist or is not a problem. There may still be ways in which it is. Instead, it is good to acknowledge that the ability to build wealth through starting businesses is, in his particular lens, better than it has ever been.

Further, I think it is disingenuous to compact PGs meaning to “‘people like me are creating a lot of value, please acknowledge it. Also there are no downsides to this accumulation of wealth.’ ... it just seems like a desperate play to keep his wealth intact.” So much of the time argument betrays the arguer and rather demonstrates a perverse inclination to emotions such as jealousy rather than reasoned indifference. Why is he desperate in this case? Is he afraid of people taking his money away from him? Are there people actively attempting to do so? Is this not a natural human inclination? Is this something that only affects the wealthy? Do not all of us to a certain degree wisely protect what we have earned? It has indeed gone out of fashion to point out that the rewards of benefitting society are equal to the benefit ie what society is willing to pay for those benefits (if not less so, due to the existence of taxes). We should first admit that society is made of industrious and lucky individuals by varying degrees, admit this, and then stave away jealousy at the success of those more industrious and lucky than you or me - for success coming to the industrious and lucky remains just despite the existence of those who pursue lives of industry and are not as lucky. It is out of fashion to point out the simple and bare fact that ambition to improve the world is amplified in the environment where it is incentivized: if this be done through the respect garnered as a result of benefitting the world, that is great; if this be done as a result of rewarding the creator of those benefits commensurate to the benefits given, that is great also. In either case, the results are amplified; with both cases the results are amplified still further by the addition of the incentives. Yes, indeed the numbers by certain statistical methods appear disproportionate within studies of income inequality. Yet, simply because these figures impress upon us a knee-jerk reaction to decry the accumulation of great wealth by the few as unfair, does not make it so; it does not necessarily mean that something is wrong that these results should be allowed to occur. So long as the majority of we who inhabit the economy are not actively oppressed by the creators of great wealth, so long as our freedoms are not taken away, no reasoned argument can point to why the accumulation of great wealth is a damaging thing. Indeed, if it results from the great mutual benefit to society, this is in fact a very good thing. So long as the accumulators of such great wealth are not oppressing the majority of participants of the economy, the accumulation of great wealth ought to be a sign of the great benefits that the accumulators are providing to society, as it is society, as has now been remarked a number of times in this comment, that is paying for it. Indeed, if we continue to demonize wealth creators and go on to pass reforms that remove incentives to wealth creation, we would only de-incentivize the creation of future benefits to ourselves as members of society. Further, with certain reforms that constitute graded barriers to success, the freedom of economic mobility then being lessened, the entire economy and state as a whole is then oppressed by degrees - the oppression is then rather achieved by those who have sought to fix the “problem”. I’m not saying that income inequality does not exist - I’m saying that in this particular form the fact that there are disparities in income is not unfair, and that results from the just distribution of benefit to society that society is happy to pay for is not necessarily unjust by statistical analysis of income data alone.

It’s a little incendiary and perhaps would look a little racist to label things “Chinese free” or “Not made in China”.

Objects should simply continue to label their country of origin.

If the population really is interested in generally removing themselves from commerce with China, there will be a tendency to avoid products with the “Made in China” label. How great this tendency is will depend on how much the population values a commercial separation. Of course, it is ridiculous to assume that any individual would be completely aware of the degree to which their lives are ultimately influenced by commerce with China via their consumption of goods, let the alone the entire population. However, we can still expect the change in commerce with China to reflect the degree to which the rest of society values not doing business with those business entities that prosper in the spirit of mutual benefit with a regime that practices perverse and backwards acts against humanity entirely unbefitting of any modern world power.

Anyone man of commerce with a conscience must ultimately conclude to some degree that cooperating with entities under such a regime is not ideal, if simply for the sake of attempting to do good rather than evil. However, any man or woman of reason must realize that the leaders in international commerce that make these decisions must ultimately weigh this fact against a multitude of other factors. Their service most likely is foremost to the continuing survival of the business they represent, which in turn is dependent on consumption of the goods they sell. In the case of business with China, we can assume this to be goods sold elsewhere in society. These members of society have multilayered responsibilities in their responsibilities to society. Yes, to a degree they are responsible for the strife in China— however, they are also responsible to all the members of their supply chain, fellow colleagues and employees, business partners, and then also their consumers, not to mention their dependents and other contracts such as debt obligations and taxes. These are realities for society members working in the integrated world economy. To quit business altogether means disrupting these chains. However, if society values not cooperating with that particular system that sins against mankind enough, it would by degrees remove its consumption of the goods that arrive from that system, and furthermore by degrees shame and diminish the reputations of any partner to that specific system — the greater we as a society value liberty and justice for all, in both the arenas of physical personhood and in business, the more we will pressure the partners of the system and then ultimately the system itself to cease the contraptions diminishing to our natures. The degree to which society truly values these noble aims will be shown by the collective decisions and actions of that society.

In other words, in a free society, by which the actions of men and women are freely chosen, the degree to which that society as a collective values freedom will influence the degrees to which those who practice barbarism can continue doing so.

Nice piano

Lol this stuff is cool

Studied classical music all my life, then got into DAWs and electronic music making in college. Here’s some stuff!

This is for when you are lifting weights in a nuclear Armageddon: https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/yGrrQjR5VwJJDd5SA

This is an album of eclectica, maybe when you’re doing dishes or something: https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/DehvWyDDCqFKUGPq8

If it were part of the job description, there would be nothing wrong with being asked to serve coffee to management, no matter what your position is. If it is not in the job description, then it is generally inappropriate.

I think people are confusing the notion of being a secretary and having sex with your boss with the idea that it is inherently wrong for superiors to use their workplace capital to exploit those who work under them. It is completely correct that the latter idea is exploitative; however, if a woman is a secretary and is also arranged to have sex with her boss via her job description, and she consents to this when accepting the job offer with full understanding of what her job entails -in effect being a fifty fifty secretary sex worker- then there is nothing wrong with this at all, quite self evidently. It would be consensual and in writing. If she is not coerced into the job, it is not exploitative.

You’re attacking a straw man here. Your experience and personal anecdote may be completely true— however, you are skirting OPs very interesting idea so succinctly stated: that “a populace thoroughly satiated in private can afford to be puritanical in private.” My immediate hunch is that this is generally true.

Don’t forget Alaska. There are roads connecting the Yukon to Fairbanks and Anchorage, and the unpaved Dalton Highway connecting Fairbanks to the North Slope, but there are no roads connecting Fairbanks to the western part of the state at all. Most of the state and its towns and villages are accessible only via aircraft. There are no roads to Juneau, the state capital, for instance. Hawaii has an interstate on the island of Oahu, but Alaska has no interstate highways to speak of. It is a VERY undeveloped state.

I agree that Nietzsche is trolling here. This passage I believe occurs early in the book, in the section titled ‘On Philosophers’. In this section, Nietzsche attacks literally every philosophy he can think of with as much vehemence and irony as possible. This passage is rather a structural component towards the revelation of his agenda in the work.

He does this in order to support the central thesis of Beyond Good and Evil that emerges later in the work - that the men of the next generations should rather re-examine moral value itself, and then be the maker of new value systems. The ubermensch idea, though not mentioned in Beyond Good and Evil, is a direct descendent of this idea.