What’s different about these domains? Can you tell them apart in any way?
clone of saturn
Karma: 1,078 (LW), 0 (AF)
meta: LW supports spoiler tags now.
Is there anything that makes observations different or distinguishable from imaginations? If so, what?
Right… but fraud rings need something to initially nucleate around. (As do honesty rings)
I don’t endorse the quoted statement, I think it’s just as perverse as you do. But I do think I can explain how people get there in good faith. The idea is that moral norms have no independent existence, they are arbitrary human constructions, and therefore it’s wrong to shame someone for violating a norm they didn’t explicitly agree to follow. If you call me out for falsifying data, you’re not recruiting the community to enforce its norms for the good of all. There is no community, there is no all, you’re simply carrying out an unprovoked attack against me, which I can legitimately respond to as such.
(Of course, I think this requires an illogical combination of extreme cynicism towards object-level norms with a strong belief in certain meta-norms, but proponents don’t see it that way.)
Of course, I completely agree with this, especially this part:
“we’ve put massive amounts of effort into punishing physical violence as a way to solve problems and as a tool it’s acceptable to use (generally, and in the domain of sexuality).
Punishing physical violence. With more efficient violence. What we’ve done is brought a very large coalition into extremely precise agreement about who it’s acceptable to do violence to (“criminals” for short), who must do it, and how it must be done. Not only will uninvolved bystanders intervene to ensure these violent norms are followed, but we even have a class of professional violent bystanders (the police).
The sort of spontaneous lashing out that you brought up is exactly the kind of thing highly organized violence excels at suppressing. Lack of such violence, overall, tends to make life much worse for physically weaker non-criminals, even if it might let them get away with occasionally pepper-spraying a catcaller.
Right, and also the ability to do science and engineering, the ability to frankly discuss strategy without too much political backstabbing, etc. tends to favor less-hellish societies.
See my other reply.
My problem with this is that human history is heavily saturated with violent conflict; most places on earth have been violently conquered not just once but many times. If violence were really asymmetric in a bad direction, goodness ought to have been very thoroughly eliminated by now!
Violence isn’t merely symmetric—it’s asymmetric in a bad direction, since fascists are better than violence than you.
This seems like a strange opinion to have, given that the fascists were in fact the losers of the most violent conflict in history, and their name became the default metonym for pure badness as a direct result of that loss.
I’ve been working on something similar, it should be ready soon-ish.
If we measure the Baumol effect in healthcare using “salary and benefits” where there’s no increase in salary and the increase in benefits all goes to increased healthcare costs, that seems like a form of circular reasoning or begging the question. We’ve only concluded that healthcare costs increased because healthcare benefits increased.
(but what would be the effects of making potentially dangerous medications freely available?)
Well, you can already walk into any hardware store and buy all sorts of deadly poisons, no questions asked. So my guess would be not much, except they’d be a lot cheaper.
Only if you assume everyone loses an equal amount of privacy.
Would you mind being more specific about what you find lacking in other tools?
It seems natural to weight things according to how much I expect to be able to interact with them.
Obviously that means my weightings can change if I unexpectedly gain or lose the ability to interact with things, but I can’t immediately think of any major problems with that.
Personally, I would modus tollens this and take it as an example of why it’s absurd to morally value things in other universes or outside my light cone.
I’m happy to discuss any concerns you have about it.
But you realize this isn’t just random unmotivated nitpicking, because it’s also fairly straightforward and reasonable to clump “Nazi” with “HBD”, and from there to ban someone like Gwern for his GWAS and embryo selection research, right?