= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
And I'd honestly rather see heretics burned at a stake or whatever than allow some well-meaning subversives to crash that dreamtime. I'm not waking up, my friends & family are not waking up, anyone whom I sympathize with is not waking up - the most I'd be okay with is an AI or augmented human dedicated to observing the "waking" reality!
You want to know why, don't you? You consider that a hysterical overreaction? Well, know this (but you already do, of course): there are essentially two types of brains - some rather unusual and aberrant ones are nourished by absorbing truth, but to most it's pure, unspeakable torture that shouldn't be acknowledged, yet alone rationally contemptated. Even if the stakes are enormous. Sure, we have hypocrisy as our saving grace, and we might get an AI to do the contemptating for us eventually. but generally there's a vast divide between people like you who want the Truth, and most folks. And I'm very, very unsure that I shouldn't just support the majority here.
This is a most excellent point, that I need to consider more. Honestly I have no desire to force people to "Truth", but I do want the liberty to seek it and act on it. If this means my segregation or secession from the vast majority of humanity and posthumanity, since they can't be protected in any other way, so be it.
Link doesn't work. Here is a new one.
Thank you! Fixed the link to match yours.
That would be a paleo-nazi. Not many of them around, anymore, and those that are don't get away with much.
Why make up a new word? Paleoconservatives and smarter white nationalists (think Jared Taylor ) seem to often fit the bill.
What about a "Racist4", someone who assign different moral values to people of different races all other things being equal?
Depends if the differences in assigned moral values are large enough they can easily approach Nazi pretty quickly. As a thought experiment consider how many dolphins would you kill to save a single person?
I'm pretty sure that's covered under Racist1. Note the word "negative".
Though it's odd that Racist1 specifically refers to "minorities". The entire suite seems to miss folks that favor a "minority" race.
Not really it is perfectly possible to be explicitly aware of one's racial preferences and not really be bothered by having such preferences, at least no more than one is bothered by liking salty food or green parks, yet not be a Nazi or prone to violence.
Indeed I think a good argument can be made not only that large number of such people lived in the 19th and 20th century, but that we probably have millions of them living today in say a place like Japan.
And that they are mostly pretty decent and ok people.
Edit: Sorry! I didn't see the later comments already covering this. :)
On specificity and sneaking on connotations; useful for the liberal-minded among us:
I think, with racism and sexism and 'isms' generally, there's a sort of confusion of terminology.
A "Racist1" is someone, who, like a majority of people in this society, has subconsciously internalized some negative attitudes about minority racial groups. If a Racist1 takes the Implicit Association Test, her score shows she's biased against black people, like the majority of people (of all races) who took the test. Chances are, whether you know it or not, you're a Racist1.
A "Racist2" is someone who's kind of an insensitive jerk about race. The kind of guy who calls Obama the "Food Stamp President." Someone you wouldn't want your sister dating.
A "Racist3" is a neo-Nazi. You can never be quite sure that one day he won't snap and kill someone. He's clearly a social deviant.
People use the word "Racist" for all three things, and I think that's the source of a lot of arguments. When people get accused of being racists, they evade responsibility by saying, "Hey, I'm not a Racist3!" when in fact you were only saying they were Racist1 or Racist2. But some of the responsibility is on the accusers too -- if you say "That Republican's a racist" with the implication of "a jerk" and then backtrack and change the meaning to "vulnerable to unconscious bias", then you're arguing in bad faith. Never mind that some laws and rules which were meant to protect people from Racist3's are in fact deployed against Racist2's.
This is missing Racist4:
Someone whose preferences result in disparate impact.
There is the minor matter of people trying to very hard to spin and misrepresent events. At this point I can't help but link to this very relevant Aurini talk on the subject.
("Western nations only lose in wisdom and gain in suicidal insanity as ages go by, because of their horrible, evil memetics since the Reformation"
Suppose a society was consistently getting richer for a long time because of better technology. Would positional signalling of your status via your opinions and beliefs instead of say with material goods (purple cloak, rare feathers, enough food to grow fat) be more or less valuable? What would memetic evolution look like in such an environment? How would this effect the fitness of memes that are basically true beliefs that pay rent (in material gain or happiness), but happen to make you look bad?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
What is the intended extension of "political stupidity" in this quote? (Intended by you in quoting it; I can hardly demand that you engage in telepathy.)
What do you think in the context of the link I called "Relevant"?