431–440 of 634 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Natural selection at work.
If you're implying social Darwinism being an expected natural consequence, you may want to research the history and abuses of the idea before accepting it and throwing it around so glibly.
I don't think the GP was referring to social Darwinism, just plain old Darwinism, of the "Darwin Award" variety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how to explain it - if you make your living by being charitable, then the whole act of charity is somewhat lessened, no? It's like when nestle announces they are going to plant 1 million trees - like yeah, it's very generous of you, no doubt - but you are doing it as a marketing exercise. Mr Beast is making money this way. I am extremely far from saying that there's anything wrong with it - but it's not…
I'm sure he is making a profit off it but whatever good is happening is still getting done. He could be a famous YouTuber by playing pranks or video games and make millions too - is that better? I share an unsettled feeling about this. I think it is because things like this are a visceral reminder of differences between the rich and poor. A life altering struggle for a poor person is a solved by ten minutes of amusem…
I'm not saying it's not. I don't want him to stop. But I don't think I'd call it charity personally(and some people do, that's why I'm making this point).
Like, let me try again with an example - if you pull $10k out of your account and give it to a homeless person, that's charity, right?
Ok, but what if you get someone to invest $10k into you making a youtube video, because you promise them they will make this money back from monetization, and you then record a youtube video of giving the homeless person that exact $10k. The video then proceeds to make way more than that $10k in revenue. Is that charity too? After all the end result is the same - the homeless person was given money. Or is it just good business?
The second example is exactly what Mr Beast has done. I'm not saying he shouldn't have - just observing that what he does, the entire spectacle of it - it's just a business venture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can avoid that content by not watching the video or visiting places where videos like that appear.
Like the entire Internet now... Got it. These apps don't allow for people to choose the content they see. Even the front page of CNN.Com is regularly now citing TikTok clips that went "viral". In the next few years there will be no way to avoid this staged and shilled content anywhere. Especially as monopoly platforms begin to collaborate with each other to create marketing campaigns. Suggestive/manipulative marketin…
Not even close. There are plenty of places on the Internet that are not infected with this trash. (This site is one of them: nobody has to wade through videos and ads just to post here.) It is unfortunate that so-called "mainstream news" sites like CNN are not among them, but that's CNN's problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"
Weird metaphor, right? We're probably missing context for that one. My theory is that it boils down to "don't nickel and dime or be overly concerned with recording the amount of your charitable giving" The reason I think that, is because in ancient Roman times they had a way of counting on your fingers where you could count up to 100 on your left hand alone (then you could use your right hand after that for even larg…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You understand that most of these are examples of mental illness, right? It would be great if schizophrenic people would behave themselves, but kind of the whole deal is that they can't.
Many , not most. Meth is a huge problem here.
[1] https://www.drugs.com/sfx/methamphetamine-side-effects.html
The reason this act breaks a moral boundary is that it subverts a principle of "ends" [1]. A genuine random act of kindness cannot occur if it's being filmed. Filming the act turns it into a virtue display. It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means and not and end in themself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny how these videos say they're intended to spread love and encourage random acts of kindness, but the actual effect of them is decreasing trust in strangers (that they might be filming us for their tiktok). This makes me not trust anyone that goes up to me in the street.
So much of the content I see now on TikTok and other apps is totally staged, and quite often poorly staged at that. It would be interesting to know who funds the production of many of the videos, because there's obviously an advertising scheme or some sort of moneymaking ploy behind a lot of it. I think things really took off with the people who were making "gold-digger" videos, where a guy tries to talk to a girl an…
Fake cooking videos en masse. I think it's time to give people the option of opting out of filming, carry a small rfid/chip or s-t and then you can't be filmed - built in AI blur :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends on the type and scope of "negative externalities", and not all libertarian philosophies agree on the where to draw that line. Some would say a negative exernality like CO2 emissions would raise to the level for government regulations (violating NAP) , other libertarian philosophies would not, viewing it a totalitarian control as human breath expeals CO2 so if the government can regulate it then there are…
Well who gives a shit what libertarians think? It’s a philosophy for 12 year olds. I can come up with any old bullshit by extending arguments to a level of ludicrousness like that. Doesn’t mean you should entertain my bullshit. humans are social creatures and have alway, always, always lived in a societal hierarchy. Our only genuine political decision we can make is what kind of government we want and how much freedo…
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."