In college I occasionally mixed up a couple similar looking girls. I ended up marrying one of them. It worked out pretty well for me but I don’t think it’s a universally applicable heuristic.
Randy_M
Sexism has the same problem, as a word, that racism has. Is it believing in a contextually significant difference between groups OR is is believing that one group is universally superior to another OR is it actively working to support or harm an individual based on group affiliation? Examples of the latter are used to make the word have revulsion which is then used to discredit those who hold the former.
Those may be correllated, but are not identical positions.
Upvoted because I’d like to see the OP address your questions.
Not sure what to do here, or not sure what to do more generally?
Everyone knows utilitarians are more likely to break rules.
(This is mostly a joke based on the misspelling. I know a sophisticated utilitarianism would consider the effect of widespread lawbreaking and not necessarily break laws so much as to be overrepresented in prison)
Driving is just something humans happen to be competent at.
I don’t think it is pure chance, since it was designed in iterations around human capabilites.
I think you are covering a lot of distance by stretching “don’t advocate violence” into “don’t say anything that someone feels the widespread adoption of could be potentially dangerous.”
Personally, I detest it because it exists in order to avoid having to point out actual problems with what’s being said. It’s a form of ad hominem, really.
I’m surprised you think the appeal of the OP is confined to left-wingers. The bad guys are all government beaurocrats, the current boogey men of the right and a group championed by the left.
Your chance of averaging 3.5 to two significant figures seems quite high indeed, though.
Basically an umbrella term for blogs of pick-up-artists, men resentful or fearful of divorce/family court type legal structures, and traditionalists hewing to gender norms.
More like “If I can’t keep two people straight, marry one of them. That ought to provide compelling incentives to do so, not to mention ample opportunity for increased familiarity.”
“The first should not have anything to do with how rational you are, while the second very much should. ” What does should mean there, and from where do you derive it?
Bad-ass, but not instrumentally rational. I’m going to be polite to the police chief’s (or mafia boss’, etc.) son, even if the boy is rather a jerk. (Yes, I know it’s possible to be polite even when forming a poor judgement, but the context was “Doesn’t it matter”)
And if you specify more than one capability, nearly everyone does.
It’s like what the TV preacher told Bart Simpson: “Yes, a deathbed conversion is a pretty sweet angle, but if you join now, you’re also covered in case of accidental death and dismemberment!”
(may not be an exact quote)
“So let’s split the difference and say I should have stopped at two.”
There are surely hungry birds at the dump as well.
How about stop having your norms dictated by unreasonable demands that are likely to be simply signaling, status games, or go-team exercise?
Yes, the complaint strikes me as “Stop saying things we don’t like, it might lead to disapproved opinions being silenced!