5 ms·

Yes, I'm well aware that case law is hodgepodge of arbitrary restrictions. And again, unless I misinterpreted him, jdminhbg was asking if there is a consistent

Yes, I'm well aware that case law is hodgepodge of arbitrary restrictions. And again, unless I misinterpreted him, jdminhbg was asking if there is a consistent moral principle rather than a bunch of arbitrary legal rules cooked up by politics at various times. Now, whether non-medallion owning contractors ought to be a protected class I cannot say, but I can say that such a designation will not come from facile calls for consistency in determining members of a protected class. You are quite right that moral philosophy and other rational processes are not a way to appeal to the mob. Cheap slogans ("make America great again"), tribalism, flattery, shared sense of danger an shared enemies are far more effective. That's one thing (actually the only thing) I like about Trump - he isn't even pretending that there is any substance to politics. Definitely shines a light on the fallacy of democracy.

tptacek 10y ago
Let me see if I'm following you. The one thing you like about Trump is that he isn't even pretending that there's any sense to laws like those forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or sex? And, the fact that there are such laws shows that democracy is fallacious? I remember once enjoying your comments. This recent turn you've taken towards subtly or not-so-subtly relitigating discrimination seems like it must be new. Did something happen? It's an unfortunate change.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I think you aren't following. I said the only thing I like about Trump is that he's shining a light on the flawed decisionmaking process that is democracy. The specific flaw is not that various anti-discrimination laws exist, but that laws exist due to a sequence of emotional reactions of the mob and historical accident rather than due to reasoning from a core set of principles. I don't know what you think changed - I've always favored reason over religion and moral philosophy over doing what feels good. Consider various comments of mine on moral philosophy over the years, on a wide variety of topics (free speech, public access to beaches, corporate forms, internet shaming): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4230649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4230649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8365554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8365554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9901225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9901225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9126192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9126192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6818871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6818871 I also truly don't understand why you are so offended by the idea that I consider anti-racism a consequence of my anti-violence position, rather than a core principle. Why is it so offensive that I oppose what you oppose, but I oppose it with different ideas? Isn't it good that multiple chains of reasoning lead to the same conclusion? To me that suggests robustness in the conclusions. If you were willing to actually advance a logical argument in favor of these conclusions, I'd certainly be happy that something I believe is robust and not just a weird quirk of one set of axioms. Similarly, if a mathematical fact has multiple disparate proofs, I'm far more convinced that it's actually true. Or is this simply religious hatred of an atheist who happens to live according to the principles of Christ cause they seem like a good idea?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Presumably you're writing this for the crowd, most of which hasn't read every comment you've written on HN. I think you'll be unsurprised to learn that I have read them all. So I've noticed that this isn't so much a consequence of some philosophical alignment of yours, which demands that any position or belief be defensible on the spot by the kind of first-order logic that an SAT solver could evaluate. Rather: you seem to relish into coming as close as possible to the line of openly supporting racial and gender discrimination, and then retreating behind a smokescreen of "wrongthink" and "status hierarchy" when challenged. You're better at this than Moldbug, but you seem to be playing the same game. And, like I said: my sense of it is that you've picked up this game pretty recently. Why?
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I don't need the general reader to have read all my comments - my current comments were pretty clear about the fact that I was criticizing bad arguments and clarifying moral questions. You pretty explicitly refused to challenge me which is why I assumed you were seeking status rather than intellectual discussion. That's still the belief I hold. If you want to challenge my reasoning or axioms, please do! That's far more interesting. I also have no idea why you think I'm somehow advocating discrimination or even coming close. Let me reiterate: "I know how I justify my moral positions - my opposition to protectionism (either pro-white or ..." "I'm pretty explicitly stating that I consider racism to be extrinsically bad..." I suppose the fact that I've engaged in similar philosophical nerdery for years was just great planning - I've been secretly white supremacist for years and was just laying a deep internet cover? Of course if I had that kind of foresight and such strong pro-white feelings, don't you think I would have arranged my life slightly differently? Consider the possibility that Lutherans don't secretly worship Satan, in spite of having slightly different pro-Jesus arguments than Catholics.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        My unwillingness to provide you with a first-principles predicate logic argument for why racial discrimination is wrong doesn't constitute an attempt to "seek status".

tptacek 10y ago

Let me see if I'm following you. The one thing you like about Trump is that he isn't even pretending that there's any sense to laws like those forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or sex? And, the fact that there are such laws shows that democracy is fallacious? I remember once enjoying your comments. This recent turn you've taken towards subtly or not-so-subtly relitigating discrimination seems like it must be new. Did something happen? It's an unfortunate change.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I think you aren't following. I said the only thing I like about Trump is that he's shining a light on the flawed decisionmaking process that is democracy. The specific flaw is not that various anti-discrimination laws exist, but that laws exist due to a sequence of emotional reactions of the mob and historical accident rather than due to reasoning from a core set of principles. I don't know what you think changed - I've always favored reason over religion and moral philosophy over doing what feels good. Consider various comments of mine on moral philosophy over the years, on a wide variety of topics (free speech, public access to beaches, corporate forms, internet shaming): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4230649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4230649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8365554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8365554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9901225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9901225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9126192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9126192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6818871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6818871 I also truly don't understand why you are so offended by the idea that I consider anti-racism a consequence of my anti-violence position, rather than a core principle. Why is it so offensive that I oppose what you oppose, but I oppose it with different ideas? Isn't it good that multiple chains of reasoning lead to the same conclusion? To me that suggests robustness in the conclusions. If you were willing to actually advance a logical argument in favor of these conclusions, I'd certainly be happy that something I believe is robust and not just a weird quirk of one set of axioms. Similarly, if a mathematical fact has multiple disparate proofs, I'm far more convinced that it's actually true. Or is this simply religious hatred of an atheist who happens to live according to the principles of Christ cause they seem like a good idea?
- tptacek 10y ago
  Presumably you're writing this for the crowd, most of which hasn't read every comment you've written on HN. I think you'll be unsurprised to learn that I have read them all. So I've noticed that this isn't so much a consequence of some philosophical alignment of yours, which demands that any position or belief be defensible on the spot by the kind of first-order logic that an SAT solver could evaluate. Rather: you seem to relish into coming as close as possible to the line of openly supporting racial and gender discrimination, and then retreating behind a smokescreen of "wrongthink" and "status hierarchy" when challenged. You're better at this than Moldbug, but you seem to be playing the same game. And, like I said: my sense of it is that you've picked up this game pretty recently. Why?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I don't need the general reader to have read all my comments - my current comments were pretty clear about the fact that I was criticizing bad arguments and clarifying moral questions. You pretty explicitly refused to challenge me which is why I assumed you were seeking status rather than intellectual discussion. That's still the belief I hold. If you want to challenge my reasoning or axioms, please do! That's far more interesting. I also have no idea why you think I'm somehow advocating discrimination or even coming close. Let me reiterate: "I know how I justify my moral positions - my opposition to protectionism (either pro-white or ..." "I'm pretty explicitly stating that I consider racism to be extrinsically bad..." I suppose the fact that I've engaged in similar philosophical nerdery for years was just great planning - I've been secretly white supremacist for years and was just laying a deep internet cover? Of course if I had that kind of foresight and such strong pro-white feelings, don't you think I would have arranged my life slightly differently? Consider the possibility that Lutherans don't secretly worship Satan, in spite of having slightly different pro-Jesus arguments than Catholics.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      My unwillingness to provide you with a first-principles predicate logic argument for why racial discrimination is wrong doesn't constitute an attempt to "seek status".