|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 28 2024 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 04:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Government asking networks to clamp down on misinformation in the midst of a global pandemic is not something I worry about no.
In fact I encourage it.
Noticed you changed “pressured” to “ask” there you ask, and when they say no you pressure. Well sounds like Zuckerberg isn’t going to tolerate that anymore. Elon probably won’t either. Sounds like the government is going to have to make good on their pressure and start breaking some kneecaps if they want speech to be censored on social media. I know you think your pointing out a flaw but I have been hoping for the EU to crack down on social media lies and bullshit for some time. Oh slippy slope and all that shit. social media and the echo chambers of bullshit it has created are serious issue for society and it only keeps getting worse, something needs to happen. PS that is also why Zuckerberg gave in, and will give in in the future. If social media doesn't pretend to moderate itself the government will step in to do it for them as it did to other more traditional forms of media decades ago.
There’s also historical precedent that the government clamping down on the flow of information and what ideas should be tolerated is a serious issue for society as well
|
On August 28 2024 05:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Government asking networks to clamp down on misinformation in the midst of a global pandemic is not something I worry about no.
In fact I encourage it.
Noticed you changed “pressured” to “ask” there you ask, and when they say no you pressure. Well sounds like Zuckerberg isn’t going to tolerate that anymore. Elon probably won’t either. Sounds like the government is going to have to make good on their pressure and start breaking some kneecaps if they want speech to be censored on social media. I know you think your pointing out a flaw but I have been hoping for the EU to crack down on social media lies and bullshit for some time. Oh slippy slope and all that shit. social media and the echo chambers of bullshit it has created are serious issue for society and it only keeps getting worse, something needs to happen. PS that is also why Zuckerberg gave in, and will give in in the future. If social media doesn't pretend to moderate itself the government will step in to do it for them as it did to other more traditional forms of media decades ago. There’s also historical precedent that the government clamping down on the flow of information and what ideas should be tolerated is a serious issue for society as well
Question: Do you think that misinformation/disinformation/falsehoods/lies fall under the umbrella term of "information"? Just wondering how you're defining "information", and if that includes statements that are factually incorrect.
|
On August 28 2024 05:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Government asking networks to clamp down on misinformation in the midst of a global pandemic is not something I worry about no.
In fact I encourage it.
Noticed you changed “pressured” to “ask” there you ask, and when they say no you pressure. Well sounds like Zuckerberg isn’t going to tolerate that anymore. Elon probably won’t either. Sounds like the government is going to have to make good on their pressure and start breaking some kneecaps if they want speech to be censored on social media. I know you think your pointing out a flaw but I have been hoping for the EU to crack down on social media lies and bullshit for some time. Oh slippy slope and all that shit. social media and the echo chambers of bullshit it has created are serious issue for society and it only keeps getting worse, something needs to happen. PS that is also why Zuckerberg gave in, and will give in in the future. If social media doesn't pretend to moderate itself the government will step in to do it for them as it did to other more traditional forms of media decades ago. There’s also historical precedent that the government clamping down on the flow of information and what ideas should be tolerated is a serious issue for society as well It certainly is, so how about we sit down and work out guidelines. In the same way there are guidelines for things like newspapers or tv broadcasts.
Imagine if Facebook was liable for the things posted on it in the same way that a newspaper is liable for what is publishes, now that would be a sight.
|
On August 28 2024 05:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 05:41 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Government asking networks to clamp down on misinformation in the midst of a global pandemic is not something I worry about no.
In fact I encourage it.
Noticed you changed “pressured” to “ask” there you ask, and when they say no you pressure. Well sounds like Zuckerberg isn’t going to tolerate that anymore. Elon probably won’t either. Sounds like the government is going to have to make good on their pressure and start breaking some kneecaps if they want speech to be censored on social media. I know you think your pointing out a flaw but I have been hoping for the EU to crack down on social media lies and bullshit for some time. Oh slippy slope and all that shit. social media and the echo chambers of bullshit it has created are serious issue for society and it only keeps getting worse, something needs to happen. PS that is also why Zuckerberg gave in, and will give in in the future. If social media doesn't pretend to moderate itself the government will step in to do it for them as it did to other more traditional forms of media decades ago. There’s also historical precedent that the government clamping down on the flow of information and what ideas should be tolerated is a serious issue for society as well Question: Do you think that misinformation/disinformation/falsehoods/lies fall under the umbrella term of "information"? Just wondering how you're defining "information", and if that includes statements that are factually incorrect.
Are they the same? Not really. Can you surgically separate all of the above with a scalpel? Obviously not. Hell, this conversation literally started with Zuckerberg saying they censored something they thought was disinformation but was actually true.
|
On August 28 2024 05:25 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2024 15:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 27 2024 14:31 BlackJack wrote:
Applying MP’s logic, if you are a nation at war then as soon as you kill your first innocent civilian you might as well carry on killing many more intentionally. You’ve already committed the mortal sin of murder and since it’s no worse to kill one million people than one person you might as well just carry on slaughtering people. It will help the war effort. It’s a good thing nobody else follows this logic because we wouldn’t want to incentivize mass murder. I mean there's the 'probably not actually stated by Stalin but still attributed to him'- quote: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." Aptly put. People are missing the point I'm making because they miss the part where I attribute infinite value to every single individual life. Infinity times a million is not a greater infinity than infinity times one. It's the same. One murder equates to a million murders. What people are also missing is that the utility of human life - unlike value - is finite. The greater utility of a million people can never be used to rationalize murdering one person, because the act of murder steals infinite value. Value, due to being infinite, always surpasses utility. I could describe it this way: my reasoning makes absolutely sure that murder is never right and always wrong. Putting the utility of numbers above the value of individual life does the opposite: it incentivizes murder. The problem is: when does every human life actually have "infinite" value? The simple answer is never, and we all have very strict hierarchies of which human lives we value more based on our group proximity. At some theoretical level, you can claim that every human life is worth just as much, and that value is "infinity", but this translates terribly to any real world situation. Every parent should be ready to kill for their children. All countries have soldiers, who are ready to murder at short notice. Do you really care about every human on the planet equally? Of course you don't, it is impossible. You can only have any relation to a few thousand people in a lifetime, and will obviously care more for people closer to you or your own group. I find news reports very telling about this. X-thousand people were killed in Y disaster in a foreign country, but if anyone from that country is among them, it will be told about right away.
I deliberately use the word "murder", not "kill". Killing in self defense is not murder. Killing someone who's threatening your child is not murder.
If you think murdering someone to save your child is not immoral, then I ask you if you would also murder someone else's child to save your own child? Do you think that would be morally acceptable?
I'm not the one here who has to go to an extreme to defend my actions. People act outraged at my views because they can't reason with them.
|
On August 28 2024 05:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 05:41 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Government asking networks to clamp down on misinformation in the midst of a global pandemic is not something I worry about no.
In fact I encourage it.
Noticed you changed “pressured” to “ask” there you ask, and when they say no you pressure. Well sounds like Zuckerberg isn’t going to tolerate that anymore. Elon probably won’t either. Sounds like the government is going to have to make good on their pressure and start breaking some kneecaps if they want speech to be censored on social media. I know you think your pointing out a flaw but I have been hoping for the EU to crack down on social media lies and bullshit for some time. Oh slippy slope and all that shit. social media and the echo chambers of bullshit it has created are serious issue for society and it only keeps getting worse, something needs to happen. PS that is also why Zuckerberg gave in, and will give in in the future. If social media doesn't pretend to moderate itself the government will step in to do it for them as it did to other more traditional forms of media decades ago. There’s also historical precedent that the government clamping down on the flow of information and what ideas should be tolerated is a serious issue for society as well It certainly is, so how about we sit down and work out guidelines. In the same way there are guidelines for things like newspapers or tv broadcasts. Imagine if Facebook was liable for the things posted on it in the same way that a newspaper is liable for what is publishes, now that would be a sight.
Well it probably wouldn’t even exist as it does now. A lot of people think social media is toxic in general and we’d be better off without them so maybe that’s the idea here.
|
On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 01:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2024 22:17 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2024 22:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean those people survived so they didn't actually die. Makes it a pretty different scenario. If they had survived through killing and eating their sick friends, I could be on board with that being less moral of an action than not killing their sick friends and themselves dying.
I agree that there are interesting, different approaches to the trolley problem, and I don't necessarily fully ascribe to the type of utilitarian view which would make switching from 2 to 1 the right thing to do. Honestly I imagine myself freezing and not doing anything, if I have such a dillemma. But there's a big difference between saying 'there are situations where consistently applying simplified utilitarianism could lead to a corruption of morality through making life seem expendable' and saying 'there's no difference between the murder of 1 and the murder of 1 million'. The former makes total sense to me, and is the point I think you would actually like to argue, but you're arguing the latter, which is nonsense. I'm pretty late to the party of explaining this though, and I don't really see the point in arguing it any further. The people on the boat didn't all survive, I thought that was clear. My bad if I failed to express that clearly. You can call my view nonsense as much as you like, I know it's not nonsense at all. It's just not a view you subscribe to for your own reasons. At the end of the day I'm against all murder, and you're not against all murder. You can claim it isn't nonsense until you're blue in the face, that doesn't make it sensical. I know flat earthers who will insist with equal insistence as you are doing that their worldview isn't nonsense at all. Sadly for all of you, the earth is spherical and your kindergarten moral philosophy has gaping holes in it. Saying that murder is literally always wrong is nonsense in your opinion? The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect. For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic.
I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed.
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/bc0c38e0442cf659652c47d9272213af.png)
You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine.
|
Yo, how'd you get dark mode?
|
On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 01:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2024 22:17 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2024 22:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean those people survived so they didn't actually die. Makes it a pretty different scenario. If they had survived through killing and eating their sick friends, I could be on board with that being less moral of an action than not killing their sick friends and themselves dying.
I agree that there are interesting, different approaches to the trolley problem, and I don't necessarily fully ascribe to the type of utilitarian view which would make switching from 2 to 1 the right thing to do. Honestly I imagine myself freezing and not doing anything, if I have such a dillemma. But there's a big difference between saying 'there are situations where consistently applying simplified utilitarianism could lead to a corruption of morality through making life seem expendable' and saying 'there's no difference between the murder of 1 and the murder of 1 million'. The former makes total sense to me, and is the point I think you would actually like to argue, but you're arguing the latter, which is nonsense. I'm pretty late to the party of explaining this though, and I don't really see the point in arguing it any further. The people on the boat didn't all survive, I thought that was clear. My bad if I failed to express that clearly. You can call my view nonsense as much as you like, I know it's not nonsense at all. It's just not a view you subscribe to for your own reasons. At the end of the day I'm against all murder, and you're not against all murder. You can claim it isn't nonsense until you're blue in the face, that doesn't make it sensical. I know flat earthers who will insist with equal insistence as you are doing that their worldview isn't nonsense at all. Sadly for all of you, the earth is spherical and your kindergarten moral philosophy has gaping holes in it. Saying that murder is literally always wrong is nonsense in your opinion? The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect. For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic. I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine.
I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity.
|
On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 01:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2024 22:17 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2024 22:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean those people survived so they didn't actually die. Makes it a pretty different scenario. If they had survived through killing and eating their sick friends, I could be on board with that being less moral of an action than not killing their sick friends and themselves dying.
I agree that there are interesting, different approaches to the trolley problem, and I don't necessarily fully ascribe to the type of utilitarian view which would make switching from 2 to 1 the right thing to do. Honestly I imagine myself freezing and not doing anything, if I have such a dillemma. But there's a big difference between saying 'there are situations where consistently applying simplified utilitarianism could lead to a corruption of morality through making life seem expendable' and saying 'there's no difference between the murder of 1 and the murder of 1 million'. The former makes total sense to me, and is the point I think you would actually like to argue, but you're arguing the latter, which is nonsense. I'm pretty late to the party of explaining this though, and I don't really see the point in arguing it any further. The people on the boat didn't all survive, I thought that was clear. My bad if I failed to express that clearly. You can call my view nonsense as much as you like, I know it's not nonsense at all. It's just not a view you subscribe to for your own reasons. At the end of the day I'm against all murder, and you're not against all murder. You can claim it isn't nonsense until you're blue in the face, that doesn't make it sensical. I know flat earthers who will insist with equal insistence as you are doing that their worldview isn't nonsense at all. Sadly for all of you, the earth is spherical and your kindergarten moral philosophy has gaping holes in it. Saying that murder is literally always wrong is nonsense in your opinion? The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect. For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic. I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine. I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity.
You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one.
Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me.
On August 28 2024 06:42 Gahlo wrote:
Yo, how'd you get dark mode?
I'm not sure, I use the Microsoft Edge browser. Maybe it can do dark mode for any website?
|
On August 28 2024 06:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 05:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 28 2024 05:41 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Government asking networks to clamp down on misinformation in the midst of a global pandemic is not something I worry about no.
In fact I encourage it.
Noticed you changed “pressured” to “ask” there you ask, and when they say no you pressure. Well sounds like Zuckerberg isn’t going to tolerate that anymore. Elon probably won’t either. Sounds like the government is going to have to make good on their pressure and start breaking some kneecaps if they want speech to be censored on social media. I know you think your pointing out a flaw but I have been hoping for the EU to crack down on social media lies and bullshit for some time. Oh slippy slope and all that shit. social media and the echo chambers of bullshit it has created are serious issue for society and it only keeps getting worse, something needs to happen. PS that is also why Zuckerberg gave in, and will give in in the future. If social media doesn't pretend to moderate itself the government will step in to do it for them as it did to other more traditional forms of media decades ago. There’s also historical precedent that the government clamping down on the flow of information and what ideas should be tolerated is a serious issue for society as well Question: Do you think that misinformation/disinformation/falsehoods/lies fall under the umbrella term of "information"? Just wondering how you're defining "information", and if that includes statements that are factually incorrect. Are they the same? Not really. Can you surgically separate all of the above with a scalpel? Obviously not. Hell, this conversation literally started with Zuckerberg saying they censored something they thought was disinformation but was actually true.
I agree that not every statement obviously fits cleanly into a specific category, especially the moment it's made. Setting aside statements that are ambiguous or sitting in the gray areas... suppose there was a very clearly false statement, like if Donald Trump were to post on social media that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Would you support any sort of oversight from that social media platform, ranging from attaching a note/correction that viewers could read, to deleting the post or even timing out the poster for an hour or so as a penalty?
|
On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 01:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2024 22:17 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2024 22:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean those people survived so they didn't actually die. Makes it a pretty different scenario. If they had survived through killing and eating their sick friends, I could be on board with that being less moral of an action than not killing their sick friends and themselves dying.
I agree that there are interesting, different approaches to the trolley problem, and I don't necessarily fully ascribe to the type of utilitarian view which would make switching from 2 to 1 the right thing to do. Honestly I imagine myself freezing and not doing anything, if I have such a dillemma. But there's a big difference between saying 'there are situations where consistently applying simplified utilitarianism could lead to a corruption of morality through making life seem expendable' and saying 'there's no difference between the murder of 1 and the murder of 1 million'. The former makes total sense to me, and is the point I think you would actually like to argue, but you're arguing the latter, which is nonsense. I'm pretty late to the party of explaining this though, and I don't really see the point in arguing it any further. The people on the boat didn't all survive, I thought that was clear. My bad if I failed to express that clearly. You can call my view nonsense as much as you like, I know it's not nonsense at all. It's just not a view you subscribe to for your own reasons. At the end of the day I'm against all murder, and you're not against all murder. You can claim it isn't nonsense until you're blue in the face, that doesn't make it sensical. I know flat earthers who will insist with equal insistence as you are doing that their worldview isn't nonsense at all. Sadly for all of you, the earth is spherical and your kindergarten moral philosophy has gaping holes in it. Saying that murder is literally always wrong is nonsense in your opinion? The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect. For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic. I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine. I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity. You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me.
Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment.
|
On August 28 2024 07:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 06:28 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 05:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 28 2024 05:41 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Government asking networks to clamp down on misinformation in the midst of a global pandemic is not something I worry about no.
In fact I encourage it.
Noticed you changed “pressured” to “ask” there you ask, and when they say no you pressure. Well sounds like Zuckerberg isn’t going to tolerate that anymore. Elon probably won’t either. Sounds like the government is going to have to make good on their pressure and start breaking some kneecaps if they want speech to be censored on social media. I know you think your pointing out a flaw but I have been hoping for the EU to crack down on social media lies and bullshit for some time. Oh slippy slope and all that shit. social media and the echo chambers of bullshit it has created are serious issue for society and it only keeps getting worse, something needs to happen. PS that is also why Zuckerberg gave in, and will give in in the future. If social media doesn't pretend to moderate itself the government will step in to do it for them as it did to other more traditional forms of media decades ago. There’s also historical precedent that the government clamping down on the flow of information and what ideas should be tolerated is a serious issue for society as well Question: Do you think that misinformation/disinformation/falsehoods/lies fall under the umbrella term of "information"? Just wondering how you're defining "information", and if that includes statements that are factually incorrect. Are they the same? Not really. Can you surgically separate all of the above with a scalpel? Obviously not. Hell, this conversation literally started with Zuckerberg saying they censored something they thought was disinformation but was actually true. I agree that not every statement obviously fits cleanly into a specific category, especially the moment it's made. Setting aside statements that are ambiguous or sitting in the gray areas... suppose there was a very clearly false statement, like if Donald Trump were to post on social media that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Would you support any sort of oversight from that social media platform, ranging from attaching a note/correction that viewers could read, to deleting the post or even timing out the poster for an hour or so as a penalty?
Sure, I think “community notes” like Twitter currently uses is a better option. I generally follow the idea that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” so fighting bad ideas with better ideas is superior to deleting ideas entirely.
|
On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 01:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2024 22:17 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2024 22:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean those people survived so they didn't actually die. Makes it a pretty different scenario. If they had survived through killing and eating their sick friends, I could be on board with that being less moral of an action than not killing their sick friends and themselves dying.
I agree that there are interesting, different approaches to the trolley problem, and I don't necessarily fully ascribe to the type of utilitarian view which would make switching from 2 to 1 the right thing to do. Honestly I imagine myself freezing and not doing anything, if I have such a dillemma. But there's a big difference between saying 'there are situations where consistently applying simplified utilitarianism could lead to a corruption of morality through making life seem expendable' and saying 'there's no difference between the murder of 1 and the murder of 1 million'. The former makes total sense to me, and is the point I think you would actually like to argue, but you're arguing the latter, which is nonsense. I'm pretty late to the party of explaining this though, and I don't really see the point in arguing it any further. The people on the boat didn't all survive, I thought that was clear. My bad if I failed to express that clearly. You can call my view nonsense as much as you like, I know it's not nonsense at all. It's just not a view you subscribe to for your own reasons. At the end of the day I'm against all murder, and you're not against all murder. You can claim it isn't nonsense until you're blue in the face, that doesn't make it sensical. I know flat earthers who will insist with equal insistence as you are doing that their worldview isn't nonsense at all. Sadly for all of you, the earth is spherical and your kindergarten moral philosophy has gaping holes in it. Saying that murder is literally always wrong is nonsense in your opinion? The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect. For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic. I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine. I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity. You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment.
No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder?
|
On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 01:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2024 22:17 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2024 22:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean those people survived so they didn't actually die. Makes it a pretty different scenario. If they had survived through killing and eating their sick friends, I could be on board with that being less moral of an action than not killing their sick friends and themselves dying.
I agree that there are interesting, different approaches to the trolley problem, and I don't necessarily fully ascribe to the type of utilitarian view which would make switching from 2 to 1 the right thing to do. Honestly I imagine myself freezing and not doing anything, if I have such a dillemma. But there's a big difference between saying 'there are situations where consistently applying simplified utilitarianism could lead to a corruption of morality through making life seem expendable' and saying 'there's no difference between the murder of 1 and the murder of 1 million'. The former makes total sense to me, and is the point I think you would actually like to argue, but you're arguing the latter, which is nonsense. I'm pretty late to the party of explaining this though, and I don't really see the point in arguing it any further. The people on the boat didn't all survive, I thought that was clear. My bad if I failed to express that clearly. You can call my view nonsense as much as you like, I know it's not nonsense at all. It's just not a view you subscribe to for your own reasons. At the end of the day I'm against all murder, and you're not against all murder. You can claim it isn't nonsense until you're blue in the face, that doesn't make it sensical. I know flat earthers who will insist with equal insistence as you are doing that their worldview isn't nonsense at all. Sadly for all of you, the earth is spherical and your kindergarten moral philosophy has gaping holes in it. Saying that murder is literally always wrong is nonsense in your opinion? The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect. For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic. I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine. I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity. You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder?
Because "I would stop at nothing to defend my children" is a more sensible and relatable human position than "If someone held a gun to my family I would not murder them because human life has infinite value"
The morality of it is not at question and never has been. The practicality of it is what we question. "Peace on earth, and no murder or crime or sin from anyone ever" is a similarly empty ideal. Great on paper, but far from human.
Like it just doesn't work. Run a thought experiment envisioning a world where everyone adopts "Human life has infinite value" with your understanding that the important parts of human life is that everyone is born, lives, and dies.
There's no calculation for quality of life, and as infinite is a maximal value, there is also no calculation for length. Therefore, in a world where everyone believes human life has infinite value, the single most important thing is the number of lives experiencing this infinite value. People should be solely interested in *producing life*, regardless of that life's quality or length.
...But even that isn't accounting for infinite value, because 10 babies experiencing "infinite value" is the same value as one baby, or one parent, or a thousand parents. As long as there IS life, the value is infinite. Death, murder, starvation, torture, genocide, joy, birth... all irrelevant.
Do you see how quickly the ideal "Human life has infinite value" becomes entirely meaningless? There's no depth to the statement at all. It doesn't mean anything and is not an ideal you can apply any practicality to. Your trolley calculations don't change, because as long as one thing survives we're still at the maximal possible value for human life.
|
On August 28 2024 07:22 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:56 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 06:48 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 06:39 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:On August 28 2024 01:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2024 22:17 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2024 22:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean those people survived so they didn't actually die. Makes it a pretty different scenario. If they had survived through killing and eating their sick friends, I could be on board with that being less moral of an action than not killing their sick friends and themselves dying.
I agree that there are interesting, different approaches to the trolley problem, and I don't necessarily fully ascribe to the type of utilitarian view which would make switching from 2 to 1 the right thing to do. Honestly I imagine myself freezing and not doing anything, if I have such a dillemma. But there's a big difference between saying 'there are situations where consistently applying simplified utilitarianism could lead to a corruption of morality through making life seem expendable' and saying 'there's no difference between the murder of 1 and the murder of 1 million'. The former makes total sense to me, and is the point I think you would actually like to argue, but you're arguing the latter, which is nonsense. I'm pretty late to the party of explaining this though, and I don't really see the point in arguing it any further. The people on the boat didn't all survive, I thought that was clear. My bad if I failed to express that clearly. You can call my view nonsense as much as you like, I know it's not nonsense at all. It's just not a view you subscribe to for your own reasons. At the end of the day I'm against all murder, and you're not against all murder. You can claim it isn't nonsense until you're blue in the face, that doesn't make it sensical. I know flat earthers who will insist with equal insistence as you are doing that their worldview isn't nonsense at all. Sadly for all of you, the earth is spherical and your kindergarten moral philosophy has gaping holes in it. Saying that murder is literally always wrong is nonsense in your opinion? The problem is you’re making absolutely no effort to analyze your nonsense view when challenged. Saying “Life has infinite value” is a nice feel good hallmark moment for yourself but when I present you with multiple hypotheticals of what that belief necessitates you just squirm around and deflect. For example, since this started with a discussion on Israel, your belief dictates that Israel using a precision guided bomb to target a terrorist that kills one civilian as collateral damage is equally as bad as Israel carpet bombing all of Gaza to kill the same terrorist. If everyone in the world had your same dumb view then Israel would take the path of least resistance and murder everyone in Gaza since they wouldn’t look any worse than they do now. Your view incentivizes Israel to commit mass murder in Gaza. If your idea performs so terribly in so many real world applications it should give you pause. Instead you kind of just throw your arms up and say “that’s not what I’m saying” which really just shows you’re completely incapable of applying your own logic. I've rarely seen you argue in so much bad faith and so chaotically coming to absolutely crazy conclusions about me. You seem pissed off because you made an oopsie and you got exposed. You can come down from your moral high horse. Your view on murder is no better than mine. I’m not sure what you think the “oopsie” is with that post. If you really believed what you say then murdering all the Jews on earth is no worse than murdering 1 other person. The fact that you cry foul on that hypothetical simply means you can’t apply your own logic or you have a poor grasp on the concept of infinity. You admitted to being willing to commit murder. But my idea is the crazy one. Go pull that in a court, I dare you. Ask them who they think is more sus, you or me. Right. I said I would commit murder in certain circumstances. Uldridge said he would commit genocide in certain circumstances. You really can’t figure out why I’m picking on you and not Uldridge? It’s not because I think “not murdering anyone no matter what” is morally worse than genocide. It’s because it’s a facade of bullshit that you’re standing behind to pretend to be morally superior and you’re too stubborn to acknowledge the flaws in your logic. As someone else said earlier, you just want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be morally superior by not murdering the one person but also you don’t want all the Jews to die. It’s simply the most obnoxious answer to the trolley problem. You’re trying to deceptively give an “I would save both” answer without saying it blatantly because you know it’s counter to the entire thought experiment. No, I can't figure out why you're not picking on Uldridge but instead you prefer to pick on me. Explain it, please. Elaborate. Why exactly is the willingness to commit genocide less bad than the unwillingness to commit murder?
I didn't say it was less bad or more bad. The reason is because he is actually willing to answer the question. If you actually just said "no I wouldn't flip the switch to kill 1 person even if every Jew was on the other side of the tracks" I might think thats kind of messed up but mostly my sentiment would be to not really give a shit and move on - same as when Uldridge said what he said.
It's the fact that you seek praise from some unnamed court for being the "least sus" while refusing to acknowledge that the necessary consequence of "never" flipping the switch is that you would allow all the Jews to die if they were on that side of the tracks. If you just had the spine to simply acknowledge the consequences of your inaction in that hypothetical then I would stfu.
|
On August 28 2024 07:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 07:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 28 2024 06:28 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 05:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 28 2024 05:41 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Government asking networks to clamp down on misinformation in the midst of a global pandemic is not something I worry about no.
In fact I encourage it.
Noticed you changed “pressured” to “ask” there you ask, and when they say no you pressure. Well sounds like Zuckerberg isn’t going to tolerate that anymore. Elon probably won’t either. Sounds like the government is going to have to make good on their pressure and start breaking some kneecaps if they want speech to be censored on social media. I know you think your pointing out a flaw but I have been hoping for the EU to crack down on social media lies and bullshit for some time. Oh slippy slope and all that shit. social media and the echo chambers of bullshit it has created are serious issue for society and it only keeps getting worse, something needs to happen. PS that is also why Zuckerberg gave in, and will give in in the future. If social media doesn't pretend to moderate itself the government will step in to do it for them as it did to other more traditional forms of media decades ago. There’s also historical precedent that the government clamping down on the flow of information and what ideas should be tolerated is a serious issue for society as well Question: Do you think that misinformation/disinformation/falsehoods/lies fall under the umbrella term of "information"? Just wondering how you're defining "information", and if that includes statements that are factually incorrect. Are they the same? Not really. Can you surgically separate all of the above with a scalpel? Obviously not. Hell, this conversation literally started with Zuckerberg saying they censored something they thought was disinformation but was actually true. I agree that not every statement obviously fits cleanly into a specific category, especially the moment it's made. Setting aside statements that are ambiguous or sitting in the gray areas... suppose there was a very clearly false statement, like if Donald Trump were to post on social media that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Would you support any sort of oversight from that social media platform, ranging from attaching a note/correction that viewers could read, to deleting the post or even timing out the poster for an hour or so as a penalty? Sure, I think “community notes” like Twitter currently uses is a better option. I generally follow the idea that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” so fighting bad ideas with better ideas is superior to deleting ideas entirely.
Agreed.
|
On August 28 2024 07:14 BlackJack wrote:
Sure, I think “community notes” like Twitter currently uses is a better option. I generally follow the idea that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” so fighting bad ideas with better ideas is superior to deleting ideas entirely.
How do you combat things like the flat earth movement then? It's like, a bad idea that got trumped by a good idea and then several centuries later you have it propping up again. Does it die down? Or does it die off silently into the night in a few years?
What with something much more nefarious like anti-vaxxers? It seems like it flies directly into the face of good ideas, yes, it's become something that which - ironically originally very far left leaning types - has been embraced by the Republican party?
A lot of substantial whataboutism.
The goal of good ideas is to root out the bad ideas. Not for the bad ideas to entrench themselves firmly as a fringe subculture.
It's not like these people are actively destroying society (because they are too inept and too far removed from reality to do so), but all it takes is some crazy people to spring into action. Also, the more people aligned on the "truth" the better, no?
|
On August 28 2024 07:42 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 07:14 BlackJack wrote:
Sure, I think “community notes” like Twitter currently uses is a better option. I generally follow the idea that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” so fighting bad ideas with better ideas is superior to deleting ideas entirely.
How do you combat things like the flat earth movement then? It's like, a bad idea that got trumped by a good idea and then several centuries later you have it propping up again. Does it die down? Or does it die off silently into the night in a few years? What with something much more nefarious like anti-vaxxers? It seems like it flies directly into the face of good ideas, yes, it's become something that which - ironically originally very far left leaning types - has been embraced by the Republican party? A lot of substantial whataboutism. The goal of good ideas is to root out the bad ideas. Not for the bad ideas to entrench themselves firmly as a fringe subculture. It's not like these people are actively destroying society (because they are too inept and too far removed from reality to do so), but all it takes is some crazy people to spring into action. Also, the more people aligned on the "truth" the better, no?
I suspect like >95% of people hold some form of illogical or non-scientific belief. That includes even otherwise intelligent people. Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of quackery. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle thought his friend Houdini actually had magic powers and had a falling out with him because Houdini wouldn't share his supernatural secrets. The large majority of people in the world believe in some kind of powerful Deity that created everything.
If we starting dropping the banhammer on people with stupid ideas then the internet would be quite the exclusive club. Not to mention that there are plenty of people through history that had great ideas that were considered whacky for their time. Microscopic germs causing disease? No way that's real! /sarcasm
I'd also point out that I think some of these bad ideas have a self-limiting factor. If COVID killed 10% of people that got it I think the anti-covid-vax movement would be pretty darn small.
|
Northern Ireland26040 Posts
On August 28 2024 05:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2024 05:41 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2024 04:09 BlackJack wrote:On August 28 2024 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:
Government asking networks to clamp down on misinformation in the midst of a global pandemic is not something I worry about no.
In fact I encourage it.
Noticed you changed “pressured” to “ask” there you ask, and when they say no you pressure. Well sounds like Zuckerberg isn’t going to tolerate that anymore. Elon probably won’t either. Sounds like the government is going to have to make good on their pressure and start breaking some kneecaps if they want speech to be censored on social media. I know you think your pointing out a flaw but I have been hoping for the EU to crack down on social media lies and bullshit for some time. Oh slippy slope and all that shit. social media and the echo chambers of bullshit it has created are serious issue for society and it only keeps getting worse, something needs to happen. PS that is also why Zuckerberg gave in, and will give in in the future. If social media doesn't pretend to moderate itself the government will step in to do it for them as it did to other more traditional forms of media decades ago. There’s also historical precedent that the government clamping down on the flow of information and what ideas should be tolerated is a serious issue for society as well It certainly is, so how about we sit down and work out guidelines. In the same way there are guidelines for things like newspapers or tv broadcasts. Imagine if Facebook was liable for the things posted on it in the same way that a newspaper is liable for what is publishes, now that would be a sight.
This should have happened years ago, and not via some government diktat but via some kind of voluntary, collaborative process where we grappled with these problems before they became problems.
You’re seeing very much the same process repeating itself with AI. Tech which has great useful application, but also many obvious (and some less obvious) ethical pitfalls. But companies are just battering on before even considering much of them.
I think there’s quite an interesting contrast between now, and what I suppose I’ll call the ‘old’ internet. Call it internet 1.0 versus 2.0 or whatever.
People thought about ethics, principles and ideas and baked them into structures and practices that we still use today. Hell, the internet’s stabdard protocols being open technology, and not proprietary tech is at the base of it. Open source software and various use licences that were codified in that time would be another biggy.
Obviously the internet becoming such a huge commerce enabler is a pretty bloody big difference, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to stop considering ethical implications of what you’re doing.
Not all, or even the majority of these quandaries have easy, simple answers. I may not agree with what consensus ends up being, the concerning part for me is that the relevant powers aren’t having those conversations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
