That's a pretty broad generalization, but OK I'll bite.
- I think Yarvin has a lot of good points. No one should be ashamed to admit the truth of a matter. I can't stand his voice, I think he has annoying mannerisms, but nonetheless the man has a point and I'm not ashamed (especially by unknown and strange online personas) to say so.
- Palantir is objectively a profitable job. I've learned a lot here and the people I work with are brilliant.
- I don't think I have "blood on my hands" and rather instead think that people who use that tactic are resorting to strange emotional manipulation in place of a salient argument.
Let's be honest, simply conjecturing that someone ascribes to a political view isn't discourse. It's a potshot. You're assuming that anyone who reads your comment and leans in your direction is going to agree and vote with you. This is literally the lowest and cheapest form of engagement. It's also the most self serving. It does nothing to advance the conversation or prove your point.
Most importantly, this is the exact type of behavior that is furthering political polarization and discouraging actual discourse.
Honest-to-God truthfully, reading Moldbug is what made me realize the speciousness of pure rightism and ushered my journey from a rightist-axiomatic "Libertarian" / ancap to a centrist-qualitative libertarian-without-labels that sees left and right thinking as both necessary parts of a complete whole. But YMMV, apparently!
In general I think whenever you find a "red pill", you also end up confronted with a whole slew of new easy answers. Whether you end up buying into them or not really comes down to who you are as a person.
Can you describe at what point someone would “have blood on their hands” in your view?
The problem in my mind is that these systems are exclusively in service of dishonesty. ICE is clearly being used to further political ends. If it were actually trying to stem immigration it wouldn’t concentrate its officers in a state with one of the lowest rates of illegal immigrants.
Are you saying you agree with that cause or that you bear no responsibility?
It makes perfect sense to concentrate law enforcement in a state that is in defiance. Even if the absolute numbers are low, the state cannot back down from enforcing the law because some people are resisting. Otherwise you invite anyone to disregard any law they don’t like. The state won’t allow this and the only way to overcome this is either to change the law or toss out the government, and only one options is realistic. And btw I am against deportations of people who have committed no felonies unrelated to immigration.
I don't think I would ever "have blood on my hands" in my current position as a software developer because Gotham and Foundry have valid and real world use cases that are being implemented in ways that actually make people safe across the nation. That's honestly just the truth. Can people, or and organizations use any given product for nefarious ends? Absolutely. Do we try to mitigate it? Very much so.
At the end of the day it sounds like the people making this argument don't really like how ICE is using the product. That's unfortunate, but it seems like the response is making a proximation error though. For those taking this view: Do you yell at farmers for planting, growing and packaging strawberries because you're upset about the obesity crisis and people's craving for strawberry flavored products? Do you run out into the fields and grab them by the shoulders saying "This is your fault!". I'd hazard not.
There is a larger epistemological argument to be had there, but needless to say I'm just not convinced that any sober person believes that qualitatively ascribing moral outrage to a single group of people is really that simple.
>I don't think I have "blood on my hands" and rather instead think that people who use that tactic are resorting to strange emotional manipulation in place of a salient argument.
Yes, yes, the little hands at the gestapo that were just filling up forms for deportation do not have blood in their hands, we know. Tried and failed defense, many times.
>No one should be ashamed to admit the truth of a matter.
Yet supports a regime that is censoring colleges, getting workers fired over their political views, pressuring and shutting down press, and more.
The point clearly only matters for truths they like.
>Palantir is objectively a profitable job
And ICE offering 50k signing bonuses. How much is your soul worth?
>I don't think I have "blood on my hands" and rather instead think that people who use that tactic are resorting to strange emotional manipulation in place of a salient argument.
Dismissing ethics as a salient argument is exactly why pathos is effective. If you were truly without shame you wouldn't be affected by the argument. Deflecting shows shame. I've meet a few sociopaths and this isn't how they respond.
>Most importantly, this is the exact type of behavior that is furthering political polarization and discouraging actual discourse.
Citizens are being killed on the street as we speak by their government. This is not a time to say "but why can't we just get along". There is literal blood on their hands. Maybe yours, I don't know.
And I'm beyond tired of this because this was warned from day one. But it was dismissed by overly reactionary and dramatic (I can pull up many of the flagged threads here). It's tiring because this wasn't some freak accident we correct, but a year of escalation that was designed by the administration.
If you're fine with that to self preserve your lifestyle, then I hope you are a sociopath. Otherwise, that does indeed eat at your soul, deservedly.
it's funny how now days you can spot a tool by how they want to make sure the nuance of the fascist prick argument is being heard. I hear it. It sucks.
That's a pretty broad generalization, but OK I'll bite.
- I think Yarvin has a lot of good points. No one should be ashamed to admit the truth of a matter. I can't stand his voice, I think he has annoying mannerisms, but nonetheless the man has a point and I'm not ashamed (especially by unknown and strange online personas) to say so.
- Palantir is objectively a profitable job. I've learned a lot here and the people I work with are brilliant.
- I don't think I have "blood on my hands" and rather instead think that people who use that tactic are resorting to strange emotional manipulation in place of a salient argument.
Let's be honest, simply conjecturing that someone ascribes to a political view isn't discourse. It's a potshot. You're assuming that anyone who reads your comment and leans in your direction is going to agree and vote with you. This is literally the lowest and cheapest form of engagement. It's also the most self serving. It does nothing to advance the conversation or prove your point.
Most importantly, this is the exact type of behavior that is furthering political polarization and discouraging actual discourse.
Really shows the state of things right now tbh.
I'm vouching for this comment (even though I disagree with it) as it's important to hear dissenting views.
Can you elaborate on some of Yarvin's points you think are good?
https://x.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744
Honest-to-God truthfully, reading Moldbug is what made me realize the speciousness of pure rightism and ushered my journey from a rightist-axiomatic "Libertarian" / ancap to a centrist-qualitative libertarian-without-labels that sees left and right thinking as both necessary parts of a complete whole. But YMMV, apparently!
In general I think whenever you find a "red pill", you also end up confronted with a whole slew of new easy answers. Whether you end up buying into them or not really comes down to who you are as a person.
2 replies →
Can you describe at what point someone would “have blood on their hands” in your view?
The problem in my mind is that these systems are exclusively in service of dishonesty. ICE is clearly being used to further political ends. If it were actually trying to stem immigration it wouldn’t concentrate its officers in a state with one of the lowest rates of illegal immigrants.
Are you saying you agree with that cause or that you bear no responsibility?
It makes perfect sense to concentrate law enforcement in a state that is in defiance. Even if the absolute numbers are low, the state cannot back down from enforcing the law because some people are resisting. Otherwise you invite anyone to disregard any law they don’t like. The state won’t allow this and the only way to overcome this is either to change the law or toss out the government, and only one options is realistic. And btw I am against deportations of people who have committed no felonies unrelated to immigration.
15 replies →
I don't think I would ever "have blood on my hands" in my current position as a software developer because Gotham and Foundry have valid and real world use cases that are being implemented in ways that actually make people safe across the nation. That's honestly just the truth. Can people, or and organizations use any given product for nefarious ends? Absolutely. Do we try to mitigate it? Very much so.
At the end of the day it sounds like the people making this argument don't really like how ICE is using the product. That's unfortunate, but it seems like the response is making a proximation error though. For those taking this view: Do you yell at farmers for planting, growing and packaging strawberries because you're upset about the obesity crisis and people's craving for strawberry flavored products? Do you run out into the fields and grab them by the shoulders saying "This is your fault!". I'd hazard not.
There is a larger epistemological argument to be had there, but needless to say I'm just not convinced that any sober person believes that qualitatively ascribing moral outrage to a single group of people is really that simple.
>I don't think I have "blood on my hands" and rather instead think that people who use that tactic are resorting to strange emotional manipulation in place of a salient argument.
Yes, yes, the little hands at the gestapo that were just filling up forms for deportation do not have blood in their hands, we know. Tried and failed defense, many times.
>No one should be ashamed to admit the truth of a matter.
Yet supports a regime that is censoring colleges, getting workers fired over their political views, pressuring and shutting down press, and more.
The point clearly only matters for truths they like.
>Palantir is objectively a profitable job
And ICE offering 50k signing bonuses. How much is your soul worth?
>I don't think I have "blood on my hands" and rather instead think that people who use that tactic are resorting to strange emotional manipulation in place of a salient argument.
Dismissing ethics as a salient argument is exactly why pathos is effective. If you were truly without shame you wouldn't be affected by the argument. Deflecting shows shame. I've meet a few sociopaths and this isn't how they respond.
>Most importantly, this is the exact type of behavior that is furthering political polarization and discouraging actual discourse.
Citizens are being killed on the street as we speak by their government. This is not a time to say "but why can't we just get along". There is literal blood on their hands. Maybe yours, I don't know.
And I'm beyond tired of this because this was warned from day one. But it was dismissed by overly reactionary and dramatic (I can pull up many of the flagged threads here). It's tiring because this wasn't some freak accident we correct, but a year of escalation that was designed by the administration.
If you're fine with that to self preserve your lifestyle, then I hope you are a sociopath. Otherwise, that does indeed eat at your soul, deservedly.
Just saw this. Hope you feel better. It seems you were really going through it when you wrote this.
it's funny how now days you can spot a tool by how they want to make sure the nuance of the fascist prick argument is being heard. I hear it. It sucks.