Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Whispering Earring

croissanthology.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: The Whispering Earring

#91

Post by rwnspace »

throwanem wrote: post #87
rwnspace wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it happens I'm neither an EA nor much of a utilitarian, in the traditional sense, probably closer to a Christian "post-rat". I'd be hard pressed to say that it's worth killing a bunch of people to say, save the universe. I still have had a good time reading Scott and occasionally engaging with other people in the community.

> I'd be hard pressed to say that it's worth killing a bunch of people to say, save the universe. Well, thank God for that, at least. Do you honestly not realize how you sound? That's a genuine question, if not an especially friendly one. You can answer it out loud if you like, but no one really needs you to. I strongly suspect we agree on nearly nothing, including the moral value of your desiderata. But it makes som…

Right, it's not like such "do this awful thing or do that awful thing" scenarios are constantly relevant in medical, the government, or dare I say, military decisions.

You need to start actually having conversations with real individuals, I was giving you a chance, but I'm not bothering with it any more, except to say this: I am not "you people", I am not whatever you are projecting me to be, at all, least of all someone with a lack of moral disgust. Because I am capable of engaging in deliberate thought about awful things does not make me awful too, and I have no idea why you think that Scott Alexander is somehow the boogieman in the current ethico-political landscape, go look at Curtis Yarvin.

Re: The Whispering Earring

#92

Post by throwanem »

rwnspace wrote: post #91
throwanem wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd be hard pressed to say that it's worth killing a bunch of people to say, save the universe. Well, thank God for that, at least. Do you honestly not realize how you sound? That's a genuine question, if not an especially friendly one. You can answer it out loud if you like, but no one really needs you to. I strongly suspect we agree on nearly nothing, including the moral value of your desiderata. But it makes som…

Right, it's not like such "do this awful thing or do that awful thing" scenarios are constantly relevant in medical, the government, or dare I say, military decisions. You need to start actually having conversations with real individuals, I was giving you a chance, but I'm not bothering with it any more, except to say this: I am not "you people", I am not whatever you are projecting me to be, at all, least of all som…

> medical, the government, or dare I say, military decisions

Which of these are you making?

> Because I am capable of engaging in deliberate thought about awful things does not make me awful too

Are you sure? Being able to entertain ideas you don't agree with is necessary, but there is a sting in the tail. There was an old warning about that, something about how it looks back. I don't believe people nearly often enough understand what was meant. I don't believe you do.

> I have no idea why you think that Scott Alexander is somehow the boogieman in the current ethico-political landscape, go look at Curtis Yarvin.

Yarvin's never been anything but a jackoff wannabe who dresses up in big bro's old rocker drag to indulge his humiliation kink on stage, and reliably struggles to achieve even that much.

I'm more interested in people capable of being taken seriously, and "Alexander's" whole schtick is making the implausible, nonsensical, and unconscionable go down easy. Eugenics is one example. I don't hold against him that he's justified it once long ago; anyone in their 20s or early 30s is likely to say dumb shit occasionally. It's just that I see no compelling evidence he has in the interim developed an understanding of what was wrong with his prior thinking, only learned in the manner of an incompletely socialized child what makes people angry to hear talked about. Unfortunately, he is no child; like anyone his actions have consequences in the world, all the more in his case for his outsized profile and persuasive qualities. That makes him a somewhat dangerous person in his own right, and as anyone else's 'useful idiot' potentially a good bit more so. As such he merits interest, which as a public figure he also recruits. And, of course, it is always interesting to observe who lately seems to be recruiting him, which appears pretty simple to do.

What a shame. As an author of fiction the man has a genuine gift, I think, yet he will always in the end be "better known for other work."

Re: The Whispering Earring

#93

Post by rwnspace »

throwanem wrote: post #92
rwnspace wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, it's not like such "do this awful thing or do that awful thing" scenarios are constantly relevant in medical, the government, or dare I say, military decisions. You need to start actually having conversations with real individuals, I was giving you a chance, but I'm not bothering with it any more, except to say this: I am not "you people", I am not whatever you are projecting me to be, at all, least of all som…

> medical, the government, or dare I say, military decisions Which of these are you making? > Because I am capable of engaging in deliberate thought about awful things does not make me awful too Are you sure? Being able to entertain ideas you don't agree with is necessary, but there is a sting in the tail. There was an old warning about that, something about how it looks back. I don't believe people nearly often enou…

Again you speak completely arrogantly, you have no idea what decisions I've taken in my life, no, none of the list, and yes, ones that involve significant threat to life. I specifically did not use the word "entertain" for those ideas because I have firsthand experience of the aforementioned sting. There's a reason I described myself as "post-rat". Yarvin was taken seriously for quite a time and is far more well-aligned with the sorts of people and views you're alluding to. Scott's Jewish, for god's sake.

I can only conclude you're a troll with far too much time on your hands. Goodbye.

Re: The Whispering Earring

#94

Post by throwanem »

rwnspace wrote: post #93
throwanem wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> medical, the government, or dare I say, military decisions Which of these are you making? > Because I am capable of engaging in deliberate thought about awful things does not make me awful too Are you sure? Being able to entertain ideas you don't agree with is necessary, but there is a sting in the tail. There was an old warning about that, something about how it looks back. I don't believe people nearly often enou…

Again you speak completely arrogantly, you have no idea what decisions I've taken in my life, no, none of the list, and yes, ones that involve significant threat to life. I specifically did not use the word "entertain" for those ideas because I have firsthand experience of the aforementioned sting. There's a reason I described myself as "post-rat". Yarvin was taken seriously for quite a time and is far more well-alig…

You ask me explicitly to address myself to the individual, and then object when I do so. I was trying to do you a favor with "don't agree with," and I have no idea what anyone's ethnicity is meant to do with anything or why you bring it up, but according to you I'm arrogant and unreasonable. You want credit for not being a "rationalist" or an "EA" any more, now that the other Scott has officially declared those words smell funny, while changing only your taste in axioms and leaving the ubiquitously and shamelessly tendentious method of ratiocination wholly intact. You call yourself a Christian and know nothing of humility. Sure. So long.

Re: The Whispering Earring

#95

Post by naasking »

kybernetikos wrote: post #42

I'm not actually sure how horrifying this is. It sounds like it's just a better executive planner to achieve your goals. As long as they are still your goals, surely you'd want the best executive planner available. I would say it's the goals that are important, not the limited way in which I work out how to achieve them. It would certainly be horrifying if I were slowly tricked into giving up my goals and values, but…

> I'm not actually sure how horrifying this is. It sounds like it's just a better executive planner to achieve your goals. As long as they are still your goals, surely you'd want the best executive planner available.

The goals you form depend on your values, and your values are formed by learning from trial and error by what you like and what you regret. If the earring removes all chance of regret, then you also remove all chance of learning and all possibility of forming values or meaningful goals. You effectively erase yourself, hence why the brains were atrophied.

Re: The Whispering Earring

#96

Post by klipt »

throwanem wrote: post #84
klipt wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, tell me what your moral framework is, and I'll tell you how it's just a variant of utilitarianism.

For the sake of this argument, let's assume my moral framework is identical with that of a priest of Tezcatlipoca, at the height of the Aztec Empire. Astonish me.

> For the sake of this argument, let's assume my moral framework is identical with that of a priest of Tezcatlipoca, at the height of the Aztec Empire. Astonish me.

Easy, your utility function is an indicator on WWPTD (What Would a Priest of Tezcatlipoca Do)?

+1000 when your actions are in accordance with a priest of Tezcatlipoca, and -1000 when they are not.

Like string theory, you can make utilitarianism fit anything. So on its own, it is neither good nor evil.

It entirely depends on which utility function.

Re: The Whispering Earring

#99

Post by throwanem »

klipt wrote: post #96
throwanem wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of this argument, let's assume my moral framework is identical with that of a priest of Tezcatlipoca, at the height of the Aztec Empire. Astonish me.

> For the sake of this argument, let's assume my moral framework is identical with that of a priest of Tezcatlipoca, at the height of the Aztec Empire. Astonish me. Easy, your utility function is an indicator on WWPTD (What Would a Priest of Tezcatlipoca Do)? +1000 when your actions are in accordance with a priest of Tezcatlipoca, and -1000 when they are not. Like string theory, you can make utilitarianism fit anythi…

Which is where we came in. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44826880

I appreciate your honesty.

Post reply on HN