Let's set the scene - Nihilism We are chunks of self important jelly staggering about on the surface of a tiny nugget of rock in a second rate solar system. Sol's system is ~ four billion years old We have been “Ourselves” (Anatomically modern) for ~200,000 years Countless people have...
I read this article, felt emotional disgust at the argument and wondered why? I don't really want to hurt shrimp, so why am I so viscerally against helping them? https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/6bpQTtzfZTmLaJADJ/rebutting-every-objection-to-giving-to-the-shrimp-welfare This article is an exploration of my explanation to myself. I’m super happy to get feedback and discuss. My core...
My concern is that you are not being careful enough with your words to ensure the reader picks up what your trying to communicate.
For example, "I don't believe that empathy is the sole cause" shortly followed by "it is the root". Those are contradictory statements. Perhaps you could have said "it is one of the roots of tribe formation"
I honestly also do not understand what you mean by "emotional concern". Are you saying that someone "has a preference for others to be well, but only if they are in their in-group"?
Your essay blends definitions a little, run it through an AI for specific instances, the three majors are:
Your stipulated definition, "small-scale emotional kindness toward a few people" as the basis for tribal loyalty.
The common usage definition, "concern for others’ suffering", as what people complain politicians “lack”.
The psychological definition, "The ability to: Understand/recognize others' emotional states (cognitive empathy) and also share or mirror those emotional states (affective / compassionate empathy)" as the opposite of psychopathy.
I think you have a good point that extreme political polarization is bad and is caused by tribalism. I feel cautious about making empathy the main villain in this, for example I would argue that empathy, in the psychological... (read more)
"But man, that motivated reasoning sure does not seem very socially-oriented?" I mean add in a internal family systems model of the brain and suddenly it make perfect sense for one part of your brain to recruit the logic center to convince the rest.
I once attended an event run by and for the lowest of the lower class. It was absolutely horrifying. I cannot begin to describe to you how much of a culture shock it was to me. Attitudes and actions from 70 years ago, along with fragrant flouting of good sense, basic hygiene practises and law.
I also love humanity, but recognise the vast majority of us as mentally developed as young children, its hard to develop if no one around you is a good example and there is no incentive. I feel through that framing you can feel positively toward them, but without it I'm not so sure.
If you don't go to that sports bar, you will remain a "tiniest baby tree frog", go, learn, grow.
I'd probably say not to worry too much. I think that the question isn't whether public posting creates additional risk, it's whether that marginal risk matters given the baseline risk.
If there is a super persuader around, it has many avenues of attack, such as a $5 wrench in the hands of a more gullible person.
I think that “deep nonconsent preference”, is messy, not as compact as it could be. I think a better explanation is that women select for men who could protect them (Not exclusively of course), and an important part of protecting is the capacity for violence, decisiveness, initiative-taking, and being comfortable with tension. These traits match up with your observations.
Running an encounter with a mindset of “deep nonconsent preference” could look the same as one with a "deep demonstrated capacity to protect preference" mindset, but has an important failure case if, as it turns out, she wasn't actually interested in you.
Steamrolling over consent issues is certainty one way to demonstrate "capacity to protect", but its rather risky and there are other better ways to indicate your fitness.
Legal ≠ consequence-free. Yes, reporting police locations is legal - Waze does it daily. But there's a relevant difference between "drivers avoiding speed traps" and "people with deportation orders evading enforcement."
The app is multi-use. Potential users:
1. Researchers wanting data on enforcement patterns
2. Legal residents avoiding hassle/intimidation
3. People with deportation orders evading enforcement
4. People actively helping category 3 evade enforcement
The developer can't control which use case dominates. But category 3 and 4 users have the strongest incentive to use and contribute to the app - they're the ones with real stakes. Selection effects mean they'll likely dominate the user base.
I'm not claiming the app is illegal. I'm saying "it's legal" doesn't fully address whether AWS made a reasonable judgment call about what they want to host. Those are different questions.
People would use your app to do illegal things? Isn't that a success of the AWS Trust and Safety employee?
I think you may be confusing "Iegal" and "aligns with your politics".
Ahh, i liked the music, but cannot find it now. Is it available somewhere?
We are chunks of self important jelly staggering about on the surface of a tiny nugget of rock in a second rate solar system.
Sol's system is ~ four billion years old
We have been “Ourselves” (Anatomically modern) for ~200,000 years
Countless people have lived and died, and you are but one member of our endless shoals.
When you die, that's it, no second chances, no refunds.
There doesn't really seem to be any objective final point to it all. However there are definitely better and worse outcomes and journeys.
Let's try to define a positive direction to travel
Be aware that the more positive... (read 990 more words →)
I read this article, felt emotional disgust at the argument and wondered why? I don't really want to hurt shrimp, so why am I so viscerally against helping them?
This article is an exploration of my explanation to myself. I’m super happy to get feedback and discuss.
My core argument against the general thrust of the article is that shrimp have no moral weight and so their suffering is irrelevant. I think this article is mildly problematic, spreading confused thinking about what is important in the world and diverting resources from more valuable problems to solve.
I also think that this topic is not actually simple and it is very reductionist to make the case... (read 980 more words →)
I laughed so hard through most of this, good writing!