I find the opposite. It's the pampered well-to-do who most often sound off in Universities about "privilege" and its evils. And, hey, the concept probably applies to such.
That's not "the opposite." That's educated people being self-aware. Pompous dickbags aren't usually among the most educated.
Its the false logic of "some people gain success through an unearned advantage, therefore all success is unearned"
Said no one ever. Of course it's fucking easy to deconstruct this argument that isn't being made. I'm sorry, but society does have stereotypes that help some people and hurt others, and it requires intentionally trying to ignore it not to notice.
Arbitrary doesn't mean "without scale", which was the concern I was expressing. The difference between 2 kilos and 3 kilos is the same as the difference between 3 and 4. Whereas the difference between "5 minutes to midnight" and "6 minutes to midnight" are "we say so"
If we're acting on predictions, then we must also trust in the adequacy of the existing predictions of consequence, no? Taking a "we just don't know" approach with a paranoid degree of caution isn't really any more reasonable than the deniers "we just don't know so lets do what we want". It's using ignorance as a justification for an action, which I can't defend.
except that we factually know that a greater percentage of money is being held by corporations, and workers have been producing more, and not seeing any of it, which stifles everything.
He wasn't trying to start an argument, just make a joke. Turning that joke around to target another group is kinda like going "well... your mom is also fat and stupid, so there!"
Only if you're willing to put 0% of increases in disease treat-ability down to NIH research. It's hard to look at a person who survived cancer due to an experimental treatment and say "if we let 20 people like you die, we could have gotten an extra satellite in orbit." That's not to say I think NASA doesn't need funding, it does! It's just that NIH as useless is staggeringly unreasonable.
No, that's completely unreasonable. I'm not unconcerned with climate change. It's a serious problem from any sort of critical analysis. It just doesn't map to "anything could happen and we all die" in the slightest.
Yeah, it's kinda silly to compare an environmental disaster that will moderately drop the potential carrying capacity of the planet to nuclear annihilation, as even being the same order of magnitude of danger. It makes climate change harder to take seriously, which is bad, because it's important(just not anywhere near as important as not starting a nuclear war).
That's not the correct parsing of "existential threat", which means a "a threat to continued existence as a species" not "a threat related to to the philosophy of existentialism"
I mean, a PR stunt that says "don't start a nuclear war, ya doffers" wasn't necessarily a bad idea back then, but its continuation as an "institution" really just ruins its credibility.
Yes, some people care, because they lack any other critical tools to understand nuclear geopolitics. A deficit I have to acknowledge a degree of myself(but I'm cognizant of objective measures enough to know that "5 minutes" means absolutely nothing in context).
Yep, they exist, and they're basically manifestations of people killing each other just like every other weapon is. Not good, but not worse than what we had before.
Seriously, this particular instrument has always been a "be afraid, due to mangled metaphor" instrument for PR, and never really meant anything meaningful and measurable.
I mean, we do lack an objective instrument for how screwed we are as a species, but "any minute now" is just a terribly uninformative model.
But I promise my own personal perception of an ideal system of governance will be perfect and resolve all your problems. Just make me dictator for life, and I'll get it all sorted out.
Slashdot Mirror
I find the opposite. It's the pampered well-to-do who most often sound off in Universities about "privilege" and its evils. And, hey, the concept probably applies to such.
That's not "the opposite." That's educated people being self-aware. Pompous dickbags aren't usually among the most educated.
Its the false logic of "some people gain success through an unearned advantage, therefore all success is unearned"
Said no one ever. Of course it's fucking easy to deconstruct this argument that isn't being made. I'm sorry, but society does have stereotypes that help some people and hurt others, and it requires intentionally trying to ignore it not to notice.
Arbitrary doesn't mean "without scale", which was the concern I was expressing. The difference between 2 kilos and 3 kilos is the same as the difference between 3 and 4. Whereas the difference between "5 minutes to midnight" and "6 minutes to midnight" are "we say so"
If we're acting on predictions, then we must also trust in the adequacy of the existing predictions of consequence, no? Taking a "we just don't know" approach with a paranoid degree of caution isn't really any more reasonable than the deniers "we just don't know so lets do what we want". It's using ignorance as a justification for an action, which I can't defend.
It offends people who don't want to be challenged on their assumption that they're god's gift to the world, just like mommy said.
except that we factually know that a greater percentage of money is being held by corporations, and workers have been producing more, and not seeing any of it, which stifles everything.
He wasn't trying to start an argument, just make a joke. Turning that joke around to target another group is kinda like going "well... your mom is also fat and stupid, so there!"
I'm just opposed to trying to pretend there's an objective numeric component to any of it.
Opposite-of-what-I-said.txt
And you're pretending that people are basing any sort of philosophy on that? It's still a silly comparison.
Only if you're willing to put 0% of increases in disease treat-ability down to NIH research. It's hard to look at a person who survived cancer due to an experimental treatment and say "if we let 20 people like you die, we could have gotten an extra satellite in orbit." That's not to say I think NASA doesn't need funding, it does! It's just that NIH as useless is staggeringly unreasonable.
No, that's completely unreasonable. I'm not unconcerned with climate change. It's a serious problem from any sort of critical analysis. It just doesn't map to "anything could happen and we all die" in the slightest.
So, if we're doomed in 5 minutes, what does 24 hours represent? What's the scaling factor? To me, it reads as false objectivity.
Forgive my rudeness, but that appears to be a bit of a non-sequitur.
Well, I'm a little concerned that I used the word "doffers" without actually knowing what it means, and that's tangentially related!
Yeah, it's kinda silly to compare an environmental disaster that will moderately drop the potential carrying capacity of the planet to nuclear annihilation, as even being the same order of magnitude of danger. It makes climate change harder to take seriously, which is bad, because it's important(just not anywhere near as important as not starting a nuclear war).
Um, no? That really has no bearing on what I said whatsoever, and kinda just makes you look crazy.
We're talking about people using fiction to justify their beliefs, not "things I disagree with theater"
That's not the correct parsing of "existential threat", which means a "a threat to continued existence as a species" not "a threat related to to the philosophy of existentialism"
I mean, a PR stunt that says "don't start a nuclear war, ya doffers" wasn't necessarily a bad idea back then, but its continuation as an "institution" really just ruins its credibility.
Yup. It's like a less useful Homeland Security threat level color.
Now there's a comparison I never thought I'd see..
Yes, some people care, because they lack any other critical tools to understand nuclear geopolitics. A deficit I have to acknowledge a degree of myself(but I'm cognizant of objective measures enough to know that "5 minutes" means absolutely nothing in context).
Because even sometimes very smart people use fiction as a basis for their beliefs.
Think about the number of intelligent people you know who have, in their lives, believed Atlas Shrugged was meaningful commentary on economic systems.
Yep, they exist, and they're basically manifestations of people killing each other just like every other weapon is. Not good, but not worse than what we had before.
Seriously, this particular instrument has always been a "be afraid, due to mangled metaphor" instrument for PR, and never really meant anything meaningful and measurable.
I mean, we do lack an objective instrument for how screwed we are as a species, but "any minute now" is just a terribly uninformative model.
But I promise my own personal perception of an ideal system of governance will be perfect and resolve all your problems. Just make me dictator for life, and I'll get it all sorted out.
Murder laws were created by governments, and murders wouldn't exist in a free market(just people killing each other).
Just because something is defined by law doesn't make something like it, but now legally unconstrained, from existing.