61–70 of 433 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Treating a rigged game as fair doesn't make it fair, it just makes you easier to beat.
> Treating a rigged game as fair doesn't make it fair, it just makes you easier to beat Not playing at all makes you easier to beat still. Anyone pining for civil war should vacation in a war zone first. It’s difficult to encapsulate the privilege of peace until it’s been lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re some combination of deranged, depressed and looking for a thrill. In most countries they fail to stab someone. Here they have guns.
[flagged]
Sure. Figurative language will be figurative. There have been tons of assasinations in the last 10 years of police chiefs, politicians, journalists and an MP.
If we’re being pedantic, there isn’t technically a CEO in America who’s been killed. Mangione potted a middle manager with a CEO title. The billionaires who own the company are fine, as is the group CEO, and none of them materially changed any policies as a result of his death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re some combination of deranged, depressed and looking for a thrill. In most countries they fail to stab someone. Here they have guns.
Before passing judgment consider that while you may have the privilege of posting from a country that's never had to fight for relief from tyranny, that's not necessarily the case for others.
Totally agree. I’m speaking to cases in America. If you’re in a rich country broadly at peace with competitive elections to any degree, and you’re choosing violence, you should vacation to e.g. Burma or Sudan or Libya or Ethiopia and see the cost of the violence you’re glorifying.
In case someone reading this is thinking similar thoughts: there's no version of reality where doing this will solve any problem. Don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Treating a rigged game as fair doesn't make it fair, it just makes you easier to beat Not playing at all makes you easier to beat still. Anyone pining for civil war should vacation in a war zone first. It’s difficult to encapsulate the privilege of peace until it’s been lost.
Civil war or getting screwed by elites aren't the only two options. That's a false dichotomy.
I completely agree. But political violence increasingly polarises the outcomes to those two. (The elites can buy gunmen faster than you or I can.)
California has a referendum system. Get an AI measure on the ballot. Companies that are doing the things Anthropic got fired for refusing to provide are banned from doing business in the State of California. (Or with the State. Find a balance that gets the votes.)
Political violence is not acceptable in a democracy. Full stop, no "but". That's all that needs to be said on this thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider rights a functional abstraction. That is to say, they're useful, we should abide them as a tenet of a civilized society, but we also made them up. And importantly we all recognize that they're conditional - if you cross certain lines of conduct you lose them - and there's actually a lot of debate to be had about where those lines are. So I disagree with your axiom that you have to believe in them 100% or 0…
> all recognize that they're conditional - if you cross certain lines of conduct you lose them - and there's actually a lot of debate to be had about where those lines are One hundred percent of those debates end at process, not unilateral action. If it can be unilaterally nullified, it is no longer a right. > you have to believe in them 100% or 0% Not degree but range. We don’t have a right to infinite life or medic…
1. We shouldn't kill or harass or destroy the property of someone like Altman. AKA, I'm not in disagreement with your take on abiding by the laws of the land.
2. But it's not surprising that such things happen to individuals like him, for reasons outlined. Put it this way - if I was in his position, I would be very wary of my public image, and I'd be very wary of my intentions - am I acting for the greater good, or only for my own good?
Of course it's possible he's actually acting with the best of intentions and is just terrible at presenting himself, which is one of the reasons I'd agree with due process and respecting his rights.