181–190 of 219 posts
Also, it's not like OpenAI responses aren't censored when it comes to "sensitive" topics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hypothetically if laws lose their legitimacy because nobody is willing to enforce them (at least some people have that perception) and the political system is designed in such a way as to make any meaningful change near impossible what is there left to do?
And more generally the fundamental reason we agree to operate under laws is because these laws are expected to improve society as a whole. But if those laws instead start enabling and protecting bad behavior then they're doing the exact opposite. It's fairly obvious that much of what the more sociopathic corporations do today will be illegal in the future, but changes in social opinions tend to predate changes in the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And more generally the fundamental reason we agree to operate under laws is because these laws are expected to improve society as a whole. But if those laws instead start enabling and protecting bad behavior then they're doing the exact opposite. It's fairly obvious that much of what the more sociopathic corporations do today will be illegal in the future, but changes in social opinions tend to predate changes in the…
The way to change this is to build consensus and update the law, not go out and shoot whoever you disagree with.
Modern democracy mostly just doesn't seem to work how it ought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way to change this is to build consensus and update the law, not go out and shoot whoever you disagree with.
There are pretty much 0 people who think healthcare insurance providers should be intentionally engaging in delay, deny, defend as a means of maximizing profit. Passing a law against stands essentially 0 chance of happening. If it was passed, it would intentionally have loopholes aplenty buried in a hundred page document that essentially 0 people, including those who wrote it, could understand. Modern democracy mostl…
People broadly agree that they dont like the status quo. They dont agree on what would be better. You cant have change without direction and detail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in software in the US, but I am not rich, nor would I consider myself close to "the privileged class" at all. Yes, I do better than a lot of the people I know. However, this is more that they are in a poor situation. Despite being somewhat frugal and not spending (I've never been on a vacation, I cook at home, I rarely do anything that requires money), I don't have a huge disposable income. If I lost my job, I…
Yes, I am indeed trying to be dismissive of people glorifying murder. You caught me red handed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are pretty much 0 people who think healthcare insurance providers should be intentionally engaging in delay, deny, defend as a means of maximizing profit. Passing a law against stands essentially 0 chance of happening. If it was passed, it would intentionally have loopholes aplenty buried in a hundred page document that essentially 0 people, including those who wrote it, could understand. Modern democracy mostl…
Then we need to fix it. Going out and shooting whoever you dont like moves us further from this goal, not closer. People broadly agree that they dont like the status quo. They dont agree on what would be better. You cant have change without direction and detail.
And getting people elected is no different. Fewer and fewer people identify as either republican or democrat (with independents being the largest 'party' by far), yet lo and behold like 99.9% of politicians at all levels, high and low, are republican or democrat, with basically no independent representation because the system makes it unreasonably difficult to select an alternative. This is further confounded by an utterly worthless media system that further works to entrench the political establishment, and much more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pattern for basically every small nation is "choose of which superpower you wish to be a client." From that patron you get some level of benefit. Not aligning with any either doesn't work (you get attacked) or means you get no benefit (and eventually get pushed into obscurity and instability.) You can make a lot of complaints about America but we have, looking back on history, been nicer than any other patron. Ot…
> The pattern for basically every small nation is "choose of which superpower you wish to be a client." This is straight up Russian mentality. > extravagant welfare states of the past decades, subsidized largely by American defense spending This sounds to me like a US partisan narrative rather than anything else. It’s a nice story, because it strokes the American ego, but I’ve yet seen it backed up by serious analysi…
There was actually a really good article in the FT of all places on this subject: https://www.ft.com/content/37053b2b-ccda-4ce3-a25d-f1d0f82e7...
The fact that the FT is picking this up should tell us something given its typical perspective. There are two big groups of countries in this situation concerned with keeping russia in check: America and the Euros. The former has less of a direct concern but more ability to do something about it; the former have more concerns but less ability. So we settled on a compromise where each country would contribute a proportion of GDP rather than a dollar figure. This is fair-ish; it's still a huge benefit to the euros, but pretty fair. Yet for decades, they have consistently failed to meet their proportional obligations, instead directing those funds to things like "free healthcare".
Other major reasons they can do this include not having debt from having to finance the rebuilding of their continent themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The pattern for basically every small nation is "choose of which superpower you wish to be a client." This is straight up Russian mentality. > extravagant welfare states of the past decades, subsidized largely by American defense spending This sounds to me like a US partisan narrative rather than anything else. It’s a nice story, because it strokes the American ego, but I’ve yet seen it backed up by serious analysi…
This isn't a russian mentality, this is more of a realpolitik reading of how things work. Don't mistake a positive statement for a normative one. There was actually a really good article in the FT of all places on this subject: https://www.ft.com/content/37053b2b-ccda-4ce3-a25d-f1d0f82e7... The fact that the FT is picking this up should tell us something given its typical perspective. There are two big groups of coun…
The US is spending more of its GDP percentage-wise on healthcare than any European country. How you can consider the European spending "extravagant" is inexplicable, you have to be deep deep in the ideological rabbit hole, and unable to admit new information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way to change this is to build consensus and update the law, not go out and shoot whoever you disagree with.
There are pretty much 0 people who think healthcare insurance providers should be intentionally engaging in delay, deny, defend as a means of maximizing profit. Passing a law against stands essentially 0 chance of happening. If it was passed, it would intentionally have loopholes aplenty buried in a hundred page document that essentially 0 people, including those who wrote it, could understand. Modern democracy mostl…
It is funny to say this as if every other modern democracy hasn't solved the specific problem that you have given. The issue isn't democracy, it is the American democracy (or republic if you want to be pedantic).
Specifically, the combination of our expansive freedom of speech protections (which make campaign financing restrictions near impossible) and first past the post voting system make it easy for corporations and the rich to shape the government however they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then we need to fix it. Going out and shooting whoever you dont like moves us further from this goal, not closer. People broadly agree that they dont like the status quo. They dont agree on what would be better. You cant have change without direction and detail.
This isn't the issue. You could get easily get the overwhelming majority of society to agree 'let's criminalize unjustified denials with criminal penalties for the executives of healthcare companies who violate such' and it's simply not going to happen. A handful of corporations' "lobbying" easily trumps the opinion of society. And getting people elected is no different. Fewer and fewer people identify as either repu…
Regarding the party and representational system, I agree there is a lot of dysfunction. Same problem. Nobody can agree on alternatives. Even ranked choice, which I think is the tiniest step in the right direction is highly controversial. Ideas like expanding the house to 30,000 representatives [1], seem like a fantasy.
People hate change more than the status quo.
Regarding the media environment, the consumer is the problem. As long as people prefer and seek out garbage, there is no possible solution.