111–120 of 251 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think there's an ethnic group genetically more likely to be poor or in jail?
I think there are multiple ethnic groups more likely to be poor or in jail. I have no idea whether genetics is a cause, I doubt it, but it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis and thinking it is true does not make one racist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there are multiple ethnic groups more likely to be poor or in jail. I have no idea whether genetics is a cause, I doubt it, but it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis and thinking it is true does not make one racist.
If thinking ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to being poor or in jail is not racist, what would qualify as racist?
So ignoring the abstruseness and pretentiousness for a moment [x], what I don't like is this model of immutable networking Urbit has. Maybe I am in a minority position, but I fear the future where everything is cryptographically signed, verifiable and irrefutable. I want to be able to go on a website and post bullshit that I'll regret 15 years later. And if after 15 years someone unearths that post, I want to be able…
I'd say this problem is best solved not by having no cryptographic identities, but by using disposable identities. If you bound an identity cryptographically to your real name, that's permanent -- no getting around it. We all make mistakes. However, one of the benefits of Urbit is that you can build a reputation around a pseudonym that isn't linked to your real-life identity. There's a place for the 4chans of the wor…
A problem with disposable identities as usually implemented is that they are too cheap and easy to make. This makes it easy to make a new identity every place you want to be an asshole. The end result is that places get tired of this, and ban such identities from their spaces.
I think what we might need are semi-disposable identities. You can make a new one whenever you want, but it costs something to make a new one, and that cost goes up with each new semi-disposable identity you make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shame on you. Why are you and other devs are collaborators in behavior that should _never_ be tolerated? I don't give a FF how 'smart' (sic) Curtis is. When he crosses the line, YOU have a moral choice, and you should and will be judged accordingly. Do nothing to reinforce the line, enforce no consequences? _You are a coward, you are complicit, and your place should be removed from the table as well._ _Smart (sic) do…
> collaborators in behavior that should _never_ be tolerated? Why? What has he done to anyone? Do his designs have built-in genome detectors? Or are you encouraging us all to join in as collective arbiters of wrong-think? Doesn't that seem a little too Maoist Cultural Revolution to you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comments that I have seen from him on that topic (and it should be noted that I have only read a small part of his comments so this may not be representative of his thoughts on these matters) implied that those groups were better slaves because they were more resilient or stronger, so were able to better survive slavery than less resilient or weaker groups. I don't see why that would make people from those groups…
Wait, so your argument is that only Native Americans would feel unwelcome in this community? Is this supposed to be in his favor? EDIT: For clarity
You're putting words in 5F36B5F62640's mouth.
And to be absolutely honest, anybody reading this can see that you're the one attempting to make people feel unwelcome in this community.
Edit: The commenter has now upgraded his comment but the original with added emphasis is quoted above.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean aside from the project under discussion? Why are his personal views even relevant here?
Because they're so repugnant that they make reasonable people question why anyone would be willing to tolerate, let alone defend him. He's freely declared himself so reprehensible that it impairs his ability to lead any project because it will inevitably attract this type of discussion. If you'd prefer this not to be the case, please outline what restrictions on free speech you'd like emplaced so that people would no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there are multiple ethnic groups more likely to be poor or in jail. I have no idea whether genetics is a cause, I doubt it, but it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis and thinking it is true does not make one racist.
If thinking ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to being poor or in jail is not racist, what would qualify as racist?
1. (Least bad, though still racist/bad) Believing that other ethnic groups are "better" or "superior" rather than "different". So if you honestly believed that the ethnic groups are inferior due to their genetic traits (I do not consider being predisposed to slavery, jail, being poor etc something to consider a group inferior for especially since it wouldn't be that clear cut anyway. It'd actually be something like "predisposed to aggressive behavior, which leads to jail" or something anyway).
In the case of hard evidence of a genetic predisposition to something directly negative it is possible for this opinion to be technically correct but still racist and morally wrong.
2. (Worse than 1, implies 1) Believing that actions should be taken to the detriment of the "inferior" ethnic groups and/or benefit of the "superior" ethnic groups. This would include things like enslaving people, not hiring them, promoting/demoting people based on ethnic group etc. There are a lot of items in this list including everything America did to the detriment of the Africans.
3. (worse than 2, implies 1 and 2) Actually carrying out actions or encouraging others to carry out actions that are to the detriment and/or benefit on a particular ethnic group.
In my case, I'd be willing to work with a 1. but would respect them less than otherwise. A number 2. would be dicey, i -might- be able to work with them if they don't talk about it and aren't going around regularly talking about it to others but it would drive me crazy. I would not agree with censoring/banning people from number 2. I would quit/not hire/stay away from someone with number 3 and would support banning them from communities though still not censorship (I am hardcore against censorship).
So ignoring the abstruseness and pretentiousness for a moment [x], what I don't like is this model of immutable networking Urbit has. Maybe I am in a minority position, but I fear the future where everything is cryptographically signed, verifiable and irrefutable. I want to be able to go on a website and post bullshit that I'll regret 15 years later. And if after 15 years someone unearths that post, I want to be able…
I'm all for that, but for that to really work you'd have to change what people understand about ownership of material goods, and I suspect that'll be a hard battle to win. Perhaps a good place to start would be experiencing life in an ecovillage, some of them work with a minimal reliance on money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it matter if it's true or not?
"race" and "IQ" are fictions, so what does that do for their truth value? I would ask, are these concepts truly useful ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If thinking ethnic groups are genetically predisposed to being poor or in jail is not racist, what would qualify as racist?
First off, in my opinion I don't really care what anyone thinks. I care about what they do and what they encourage other people to do (I can't find anything about moldbug treating anyone in any negative fashion nor encouraging others to do so). However, in the context of racist thoughts: 1. (Least bad, though still racist/bad) Believing that other ethnic groups are "better" or "superior" rather than "different". So i…