5 ms·

On Committing Suicide

15 points by lettergram 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
raxxorrax 6y ago
> Why can’t I be anti-vaccine and pro-choice? That is not a box others want you to be put in. People want a justification for their views. There are the nazis and the people that think they are better than nazis (hint: not hard) and build their raison d'être around that. Well, nazis are quite unpleasant. Still, anything that might convince them of being wrong, which a position that cannot put you into firmly defined groups will do, will result in hostilities. Furthermore the tactics of both opponents will become the same with time. In the end there isn't even much difference between fascists and their opponents. Again, you fight the former most effectively by ignoring them and see the rights of people protected, that are target of the mobs. Those involved will quickly loose any conscience. It is the result if you believe you were wronged because people are somehow oppressing you. That is also when you loose your believe in meritocracy/fairness. I don't think your perception of people not working in your interest is true. You should differentiate between public statements and deeds though. Meritocracy will still prevail in the long run.
mgamache 6y ago
We've (in the US) have been captured by two parties that are exploiting us to prevent democracy from breaking out. How does the elite stay elite? Take the anger that people have from being in a rigged system and focus it on the other party or someone else instead of the people that write the laws. I would argue that Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party, Trump 2016, and the latest social unrest are all symptoms of an unresponsive political system. People are angry, and looking for someone to blame. With social media amplifying the anger, the whole situation may get out of control and damage the US for years to come.
AnonC 6y ago
Some rambling as I try to figure out what I intend to convey. During normal times, humans behave in irrational ways. During testing times (with a pandemic, unemployment, violence, corruption), humans seem to behave irrationally and exhibit frustrations akin to taking it out on someone/some group even though the cause and the resolution (or the ability to bring a resolution) lie elsewhere. Somewhere in this mix, from well intentioned and otherwise logical or educated people, we see utterly incomprehensible support for certain non-progressive ideals, bigotry and outright violence. I don’t know what could really help. But there seem to be some fundamental problems (in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) that have become exacerbated and are snowballing and manifesting in many other areas. To those on the fence or amenable to change their views, solving some of these problems could help bring them to the table and be willing to listen (and then change).
Kednicma 6y ago
Meritocracy is incompatible with justice. Either some people are better than others, and deserve more, or they aren't and they don't.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  I disagree. Meritocracy is an euphemism for fairness for the vast majority of people valuing it. Is that incompatible with justice? It is not a value judgement of people. If you work harder, you earn more. Some don't even want to do that and are not lesser beings for it. freedom is incompatible with equity is a response on the same level, but there is much more truth in it.
  - Kednicma 6y ago
    As explored in the original book [0], it is hypocritical to both succeed because of a meritocracy and also support the idea that the meritocracy is just. The underlying principle is that justice empathizes with everyone, not just those with merit, in determining a path forward. To quote the author, > Educational injustice enabled people to preserve their illusions, while inequality of opportunity fostered the myth of human equality. To get a glimpse at true justice, please consider the following thought experiment, which leads to what I call "algorithmic justice." There is a traditional game that children play where there are two children and a cake. The first child cuts the cake, and the second child selects which piece goes to whom. Let us do the same, but more broadly. Take the resources of our society, the raw inputs and the processed goods and the man-hours of labor, and apportion them to each person as seems fair and just, by asking each person to apportion them amongst each other, and going to the iterated minimization of disagreement and regret. This is a game that many political ideologies have attempted, but they have all failed because they chose to take a shortcut and use some sort of heuristic rule for judging people. However, it turns out that people are too unique to be judged as a single collective group fairly by any single metric. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
    - raxxorrax 6y ago
BJBBB 6y ago
"Unfortunately, many of our would-be leaders have opted out or have been pushed out of this system. They've become engineers, scientists, bloggers -- too scared to share their opinions (even shutting down). To hold a nuanced opinion different from the "socially accepted" by one group or another will get you "canceled". In this case, "canceled" can mean anything from losing your job, to losing financial platforms/instruments (i.e. PayPal, VISA, YouTube revenue, etc.), to receiving threats on your life." Our consulting consortium is, not by design, a freakin UN assemblage of engineers. About 1/3 are female and includes two Indians, one Iranian, one Canadian, one Irish, two Mexicans, one Brazilian, one Polish, and the token Texan. With the exception of the guy from Texas, we are all the offspring of immigrants. The guy from Texas talks a bit funny, but being from a distant and strange land, that is to be expected; and his great grandmother was born into an enslaved family in the Carolinas. All except three have served in the military. The one rule we have is there will be no sexual, political, racial, or religious discussions once at the client's site; that is, we only talk about solving the customer's problem. We do not have lunch or take breaks with clients, we do not accept invitations to any client's social functions, and we have 'physical protection' clauses in each contract. During the last five months, all members have seen clients' technicians, engineers, or managers either sent home or fired for sexual, political, racial, or religious comments. The workplace has become a very hostile environment, which probably reflects the generally polarized and intransigent American environment. We have decided to give the U.S. another 10 to 15 months to see if America is lost (not my words); otherwise, were splitting up and heading to other places. Also, one of our Indian engineers was being recruited last year by a political committee to run for a local position, but decided the risk to the family was not insignificant.
- RickJWagner 6y ago
  I can totally understand that US life looks crazy to an outsider right now. I work for a company with employees around the globe. The Americans are polarized-- on the left, they mostly seem to support 'cancelling' people that don't agree with them. On the right, they are mostly silent, but quite upset. Colleagues in overseas locations are likewise polarized. Some hold liberal opinions and agree with the left-side views. I've been especially surprised by some people that come from former Soviet-block countries, though. They are mostly horrified at the statue toppling, language 'cleansing', etc. They believe it looks too familiar and is leading to worse things.
apta 6y ago
> You would suspect everyone would agree that we “own” our bodies. No they don't. This is one of the causes of many issues we see in the US today, and it seems to be infecting many "Western" countries, particularly English speaking ones.
tzs 6y ago
>By and large, I believe this is due to the “absolute” nature of our current social strife. Take the question: >> Why can’t I be anti-vaccine and pro-choice? > You would suspect everyone would agree that we “own” our bodies. If that were true, then you would effectively have to be pro-choice AND support people’s right to choose what to put in their bodies; That's only true if you believe that ownership of something means you are the sole determiner of what can or cannot be done with it, regardless of how that affects others. One could agree that we "own" our bodies but still be in favor of mandatory vaccination of people who do not have a medical reason to avoid it on the grounds that losing herd immunity could cause widespread harm. Similarly, one could agree with body ownership but be anti-abortion because they believe that the fetus is a person and being aborted harms that person. For most things short of actual slavery, the body ownership argument is pretty weak. It really just sets the default rule for cases where there are no other people involved, but once you get societies more complex than very small isolated groups of people there are almost always other people involved.

15 points by lettergram 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

> Why can’t I be anti-vaccine and pro-choice? That is not a box others want you to be put in. People want a justification for their views. There are the nazis and the people that think they are better than nazis (hint: not hard) and build their raison d'être around that. Well, nazis are quite unpleasant. Still, anything that might convince them of being wrong, which a position that cannot put you into firmly defined groups will do, will result in hostilities. Furthermore the tactics of both opponents will become the same with time. In the end there isn't even much difference between fascists and their opponents. Again, you fight the former most effectively by ignoring them and see the rights of people protected, that are target of the mobs. Those involved will quickly loose any conscience. It is the result if you believe you were wronged because people are somehow oppressing you. That is also when you loose your believe in meritocracy/fairness. I don't think your perception of people not working in your interest is true. You should differentiate between public statements and deeds though. Meritocracy will still prevail in the long run.

mgamache 6y ago

We've (in the US) have been captured by two parties that are exploiting us to prevent democracy from breaking out. How does the elite stay elite? Take the anger that people have from being in a rigged system and focus it on the other party or someone else instead of the people that write the laws. I would argue that Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party, Trump 2016, and the latest social unrest are all symptoms of an unresponsive political system. People are angry, and looking for someone to blame. With social media amplifying the anger, the whole situation may get out of control and damage the US for years to come.

AnonC 6y ago

Some rambling as I try to figure out what I intend to convey. During normal times, humans behave in irrational ways. During testing times (with a pandemic, unemployment, violence, corruption), humans seem to behave irrationally and exhibit frustrations akin to taking it out on someone/some group even though the cause and the resolution (or the ability to bring a resolution) lie elsewhere. Somewhere in this mix, from well intentioned and otherwise logical or educated people, we see utterly incomprehensible support for certain non-progressive ideals, bigotry and outright violence. I don’t know what could really help. But there seem to be some fundamental problems (in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) that have become exacerbated and are snowballing and manifesting in many other areas. To those on the fence or amenable to change their views, solving some of these problems could help bring them to the table and be willing to listen (and then change).

Kednicma 6y ago

Meritocracy is incompatible with justice. Either some people are better than others, and deserve more, or they aren't and they don't.

raxxorrax 6y ago
I disagree. Meritocracy is an euphemism for fairness for the vast majority of people valuing it. Is that incompatible with justice? It is not a value judgement of people. If you work harder, you earn more. Some don't even want to do that and are not lesser beings for it. freedom is incompatible with equity is a response on the same level, but there is much more truth in it.
- Kednicma 6y ago
  As explored in the original book [0], it is hypocritical to both succeed because of a meritocracy and also support the idea that the meritocracy is just. The underlying principle is that justice empathizes with everyone, not just those with merit, in determining a path forward. To quote the author, > Educational injustice enabled people to preserve their illusions, while inequality of opportunity fostered the myth of human equality. To get a glimpse at true justice, please consider the following thought experiment, which leads to what I call "algorithmic justice." There is a traditional game that children play where there are two children and a cake. The first child cuts the cake, and the second child selects which piece goes to whom. Let us do the same, but more broadly. Take the resources of our society, the raw inputs and the processed goods and the man-hours of labor, and apportion them to each person as seems fair and just, by asking each person to apportion them amongst each other, and going to the iterated minimization of disagreement and regret. This is a game that many political ideologies have attempted, but they have all failed because they chose to take a shortcut and use some sort of heuristic rule for judging people. However, it turns out that people are too unique to be judged as a single collective group fairly by any single metric. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
  - raxxorrax 6y ago

BJBBB 6y ago

"Unfortunately, many of our would-be leaders have opted out or have been pushed out of this system. They've become engineers, scientists, bloggers -- too scared to share their opinions (even shutting down). To hold a nuanced opinion different from the "socially accepted" by one group or another will get you "canceled". In this case, "canceled" can mean anything from losing your job, to losing financial platforms/instruments (i.e. PayPal, VISA, YouTube revenue, etc.), to receiving threats on your life." Our consulting consortium is, not by design, a freakin UN assemblage of engineers. About 1/3 are female and includes two Indians, one Iranian, one Canadian, one Irish, two Mexicans, one Brazilian, one Polish, and the token Texan. With the exception of the guy from Texas, we are all the offspring of immigrants. The guy from Texas talks a bit funny, but being from a distant and strange land, that is to be expected; and his great grandmother was born into an enslaved family in the Carolinas. All except three have served in the military. The one rule we have is there will be no sexual, political, racial, or religious discussions once at the client's site; that is, we only talk about solving the customer's problem. We do not have lunch or take breaks with clients, we do not accept invitations to any client's social functions, and we have 'physical protection' clauses in each contract. During the last five months, all members have seen clients' technicians, engineers, or managers either sent home or fired for sexual, political, racial, or religious comments. The workplace has become a very hostile environment, which probably reflects the generally polarized and intransigent American environment. We have decided to give the U.S. another 10 to 15 months to see if America is lost (not my words); otherwise, were splitting up and heading to other places. Also, one of our Indian engineers was being recruited last year by a political committee to run for a local position, but decided the risk to the family was not insignificant.

RickJWagner 6y ago
I can totally understand that US life looks crazy to an outsider right now. I work for a company with employees around the globe. The Americans are polarized-- on the left, they mostly seem to support 'cancelling' people that don't agree with them. On the right, they are mostly silent, but quite upset. Colleagues in overseas locations are likewise polarized. Some hold liberal opinions and agree with the left-side views. I've been especially surprised by some people that come from former Soviet-block countries, though. They are mostly horrified at the statue toppling, language 'cleansing', etc. They believe it looks too familiar and is leading to worse things.

apta 6y ago

> You would suspect everyone would agree that we “own” our bodies. No they don't. This is one of the causes of many issues we see in the US today, and it seems to be infecting many "Western" countries, particularly English speaking ones.

tzs 6y ago

>By and large, I believe this is due to the “absolute” nature of our current social strife. Take the question: >> Why can’t I be anti-vaccine and pro-choice? > You would suspect everyone would agree that we “own” our bodies. If that were true, then you would effectively have to be pro-choice AND support people’s right to choose what to put in their bodies; That's only true if you believe that ownership of something means you are the sole determiner of what can or cannot be done with it, regardless of how that affects others. One could agree that we "own" our bodies but still be in favor of mandatory vaccination of people who do not have a medical reason to avoid it on the grounds that losing herd immunity could cause widespread harm. Similarly, one could agree with body ownership but be anti-abortion because they believe that the fetus is a person and being aborted harms that person. For most things short of actual slavery, the body ownership argument is pretty weak. It really just sets the default rule for cases where there are no other people involved, but once you get societies more complex than very small isolated groups of people there are almost always other people involved.