The Greeks didn't have a word for the color blue.
75 karma · joined September 16, 2021
Do they? To me it seems that people demand credentials in most cases to merit trust from an unknown. I certainly don't hop on 4chan and assume literal factual information is being doled out in every post. Nor on Twitter, nor Fecebook. I might backtest whatever they're proposing, but remain skeptical until I've seen it with my own eyes. And in any case if we look into the annals of history, this is blatantly false, there are reams of examples of people lying in plain sight. Tyrants and demagogues, kings and courts, basically every politician, corporations, and just regular people. Of course we've always had the issue of "determination of truth", history to the victor and such.
>It is vastly harder to exclude people spreading harmful lies when they can do it under 27 trivially created and then discarded identities across 12 platform.
Let's assume we've actually objectively determined the truth: what happens when the liars are let free? They're running around screaming 1+1=3, how is it that they're going to intuited by everyone else? I suspect, as idiots. Naive interventionism in this case turns them into a divided minority instead of an integrated (and stupid) extremity. Upon being separated they go off and get more and more wild, 1+1=5, 10, 0... Their bonds grow in strength because they're made a separate minority, and far less likely to cease their stupidity.
>It's trivial to argue that people agree to engage with online communities as they agree to engage in in person communities but what is the realistic alternative? Both huddle in your basement AND don't engage online either?
For one, I'm not saying that everything everywhere had ought to have the facilities of anonymity, but that instituting a mode of state coercion blanketing every site on the internet is plainly a hazard. But this line is non-sequitur anyways, we're talking about anonymity in social media not in-person interaction.
>It is unrealistic when your online life is a large part of people's gateway to communication and culture. People deserve to be able to engage in such without also expecting harm.
How do you define harm? Here's a salient conundrum: a guy asks a girl out, she tells him she's not interested. Or the obverse, however you like it. In either case they're very likely emotionally wounded. Then what? What do we take from this?
>Furthermore people's online hate touches people's lives with or without their opting for engagement when the festering hate nurtured online gives birth to real world violence, mass murder, coup, collapse of civil society.
The Nazis did this, the Khmer Rogue did this, the Bolsheviks did this all in plain sight. Millions dead in their wake. Violence was often a means to a better end - depending on perspective. The Hellenic empire was established through warfare, Alexander has been intuited as a great unifier, bringing together a vast and highly integrated culture made of many diverse cultures. The French revolution was a supermassive turning point, and largely lead us to be where we are today, but it was extremely violent. The USA was founded after a revolutionary war. The concern is wanton violence, which in any case is rare, and I suspect anonymity on the internet has little to contribute to it overall, despite the narratives espoused by many.
Civil society is free discourse, but we've long been eroding it.
>It seems trivially true that anonymity enables hate and I support both people's right to voice unpopular but not harmful ideas and consequences for those who call for hate and violence.
If we adopt the relativistic standpoint, every opinion is harmful to someone. Utilitarianism is flawed, not everyone can be happy, even negative utilitarianism is flawed.
And I mean, there was that one time that some dude, in person at a press conference threw a shoe at George W. Bush, the President of the United States of America, he wasn't anonymous, and what level of force could've been deployed as recourse ran up to death, evidently not adequate disincentive.
I can make a victim out of myself by a few alterations in my personal narrative. I choose not to.
Being attacked and/or killed is almost never voluntary. Viewing anonymous posts on the internet is almost always voluntary. Whatever damage is caused is emergent from the framework of interpretations of the individual. This is closer kin to victimless crime as opposed to real crime than it is conditional rules of engagement. I'm under the impression you're engaging in sophistry though, "This is troubling logic if we expand it to other areas." You're correct, a square peg does not fit in the round hole. And you've also failed to negate the myriad arguments favoring continued anonymity with any salient cons, but have instead erected a strawman.
Do you think, that having been through Cold-war era conditioning and propaganda, that you're sort of sensitized to the "modern Russia tropes"? I ask because, well Russia seems like a shithole. A sort of noncompete on the global scale outside their natural resource stockpiles, but the US demagogues seem to like to point fingers there and I see it as more or less a propaganda tool. I suspect it's aimed at the generations that experienced the cold war, but I'm inducing hard.
I don't know what to take from any of it, I'll believe it when I see it. Je ne crois que ce que je vois.
It's wrong, it doesn't account for debt. There should be a huge mass of people that are net negative. I think we're really presented with all the wrong information.
First we need to break down into a heat map of CoL which can act as an approximation of demand for the given region. Then we need to look at individual median (perhaps modal) cash flow, where your deciles land, and whether that's translating into profit when you calculate in inflationary pressures. Then you've got to look at average degrees of freedom given demographics like no-diploma, GED/equivalent, HS-diploma, and degree strata that indicate an upward move in purely economic terms. I think what you'd find is the vast majority of people are just on the treadmill, and will for the foreseeable future there remain.
I expect the median net worth (what's the method?) of a 35 year old is very much in the negative space. And I'd hope over a lifetime that the 65-74 cohort is breakeven - which is about what you've indicated - Zillow indicates the average value of a house is $264k.
To some extent this is how our system is designed to work, but the system itself is predicated on a slew of fallacious logic and wholly removed from any semblance of morality while dually being totally unaccountable for the destruction and extraction of value that it is founded on.
I should also add that power as a function of wealth had ought to be looked at. What is the effective cost of having a voice in policy? I suspect it's in the highest echelons of net worth that you can even begin thinking about leveraging the system, and locally at that. At which point, corporate personhood might had ought to be considered, how does that deform our distribution?
You see, the way that we made exchange was translated from a moral domain to a material domain, which was finally transposed to a symbolic one. Dollar valuations of a lifetimes is an intrinsically abhorrent concept. A life can never be repaid, thus it can never be valued in real terms - yet it is, billions of times over. Globalism is just a long-range result of this. Exploitation and undervaluing of billions of lives in order to create increasingly competitive products to grow dollar values of a investments in the hands of an increasingly small proportion of the population. This itself founded on false pretense.
Every move towards globalism is increasingly dangerous, this is no exception.
Split tallies were used, effectively a lock and key mechanism of receipt. A stick was marked with a contract and broken in two. If you've ever broken a piece of wood, you'll know the roughness it embodies is remarkable, and on top of that the wood itself is intrinsically patterned and readily identifiable by even cursory examination. Thus it was virtually impossible to replicate. As to how these things were enforced, I do not know. Paper contracts also leveraged this model of receipt validation for some time.
And to evince you of known hazards of leaky immunity, I suggest you look up Marek's disease.
Ah but the vaccines are leaky you say, the vaccinated can acquire and spread the disease, and they can do so asymptomatically. And to that I propose a question: are the vaccines definable as effective, that being the case? If you're so positive of the vaccine, shouldn't your whole family unit be vaccinated? Children aren't very susceptible to the disease. Once boosters are deployed to the aceding population, will that cause a paradigm shift? Once a large proportion of children are vaccinated? Once we hit the constantly moving target for "herd immunity"?
No, it's all or none. It's arbitrary. It is not logically consistent. It is government policy in a nutshell.
People die constantly. Attributing causality exclusively to COVID19 is asinine. Even using an aggregate like excess mortality is a fool's errand. It's been clear since the beginning that comorbidity in combination with COVID19 is what typically causes death. Any numbers pulled to evidence how deadly COVID19 is are fraught with interdependencies and overlap and hardly present a true to life picture.
It's naive to think you can save everyone. It's okay that you're afraid.
Hilariously it seems to be that empiricism has failed. One does not generate a meaningful framework of human morality from non-transcendent scientific conclusion other than utilitarianism which in itself is conceptually flawed because each human presents hundreds or thousands of immeasurable and constantly moving targets. This is intractable. It is also why, despite the leaps and bounds in technological advancement, people still have to put in their 40 hours. It is why a CEO can rake in ~300x that of the company's average employee. It is why a large swath of the population must undergo the risks of debt peonage. It's why people feel that populist ideology should be inflicted on everyone, despite various circumstances - by the very definition a slave master relationship, the same sort of relationship virtually everyone rails against. Which brings me to the final point, I am not your property, and I suspect neither of us wants to be the property of the government or of corporations. I will assume they neither you nor they have property rights over me and thus I will consume and defer as I so please, but do go and inflict your blind ideology on to me.
Injecting more naive rationalist bureaucrats into the system won't quell its demise. Those who have the greatest leverage over world outcomes have no interest in remedying even an iota of the social decay. And those who directly act under the dictates of the moment of those people have only self-interest to motivate them. Those of us at the bottom are onlookers, helpless to move the inertial mass away from its predestined impact, or blind to it - either by deliberate delusion or by ignorance and perhaps both. All of this because we allowed the reins to be taken by mere men, unprepared to pilot the immeasurable potential of mankind responsibly.
"Consider three cases. First, suppose a clever chart-reader thinks he has spotted a pattern in the old price records—say, every January, stock prices tend to rise. Can he get rich on that information, by buying in December and selling in January? Answer: No. If the market is big and efficient then others will spot the trend, too, or at least spot his trading on it. Soon, as more traders anticipate the January rally, more people are buying in December—and then, to beat the trend for a December rally, in November. Eventually, the whole phenomenon is spread out over so many months that it ceases to be noticeable. The trend has vanished, killed by its very discovery. In fact, in 1976 some economists spotted just such a pattern of regular January rallies in the stocks of small companies. Many investors close their losing positions towards the end of the year so they can book the loss as a tax deduction—and the market rebounds when they reinvest early in the new tax year. The effect is most pronounced on small stocks, which are more sensitive to small money movements. Alas, before you rush out to trade on this trend, you should know that its discovery seems to have killed it. After all the academic hoopla over it, it no longer shows up as clearly in price charts."
-Benoit Mandelbrot, The Misbehavior of Markets