3 ms·

I don’t think so. I think some of the healthiest debate for example takes place on 4chan where there is very little moderation and even less civility. People ex

I don’t think so. I think some of the healthiest debate for example takes place on 4chan where there is very little moderation and even less civility. People express themselves in different ways. In the same thread you’ll find scat gifs and schizo posting next to thoughtfully written and well articulated points. Some will engage in the dialogue, some will troll, it’s up to the reader to choose what to look at and how to process the information. Plus, I think civility is an extension of morality and western society no longer has a unified coherent moral framework. What is civilised behaviour to someone can be outrageous to someone else and so on.

barrysteve 4y ago
Western society does have a unified moral framework. Theft, murder, rape, adultery, ect, ect, ect, all end badly. You know the list. The problem is we tied society to consciousness and left moral simplicity behind. There is an explosion of ways to think and be conscious of life and the old rules were setup for a time when doing anything had such a massive cost, simpler moral rules sufficed. There's many many ways to walk a basically moral path and people are discovering what hairs you can split and hold, and which appear to work temporarily but then collapse back into the old rules. 4chan appears less civil, but there's rules you can't break there and certain immoral acts will anger the beehive.
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  > Western society does have a unified moral framework. Theft, murder, rape, adultery, ect, ect, ect, all end badly. You know the list. No. No we do not. Theft has been de-facto de-criminalised in several US states and a few major European cities. It os common to see hordes barging into stores and stealing whatever they please. Attempts to raise concerns about this behaviour are met with complaints about “targeting marginalised groups” and more calls to defund the police. Murder, like the murder of Daria Dugina in what is most likely a state sponsored act of terrorism, is actively cheered by many people. Just go read some comment sections on reddit to see. And it’s on the streets too. This point I can also extend with the abortion question. Clearly there is no consensus on what murder is. Rape doesn’t work either because we no longer have a unified definition of it. If you ask a lefty zoomer what rape is they’ll tell you something really different from what a middle aged men in a conservative area will say. Adultery - are you serious? Just look up the sleazy videos of that coked up chick running finland and see just how accepting most people are of her adultery. I don’t know the list because there isn’t one. Maybe there was in the past, but it sure seems it went away.
  - barrysteve 4y ago
    Oh you mean a moral framework that is perfectly and immediately acted upon to ensure a utopian society? The 'devil' is always going to exist. Sexual sin: Bill clinton sank on a bj, anthony weiner went out on a weiner shot, berlisconi spent years in prison for all kinds of prostitution and sexual scandals. Epstein got epstein'd, harvey weinstein got weinstein'd, #metoo sank many people, twitter cancelled director's careers. That guy on the Expanse got written out cause of a sex scandal. It's basically the norm, that someone's sexual immorality causes them suffering eventually and usually in the act too. I don't really care how politics defines morality. Morality is not decided by politics in the end, you eventually cash out your chips in the faithful rules, no matter your politics. Your description is of somebody getting their morality from politics. It's not gonna end well, cause politics not the start or the end of morality, it's just commentary in the middle somewhere. "That coked up finnish chick" is going to fall too. There's no special exemptions, you have to repent or bite the bullet at some point. I'm not defending the perception of sinners, sinning freely, as proof there's 'no unified morality'. You already know there is a unified morality, because you disapprove of that sinful stuff anyway.
    - throwawayacc2 4y ago
      I am having genuine trouble understanding your comment. So, what my comment did ( or tried to do ) was provide example of large groups of people being morally ok with murder, theft, etc. At least in the case of the Bill Clinton / metoo example, you seem to present a large group of people that, broadly speaking, are again sexual impropriety. But, this goes to prove my point no? It’s a variation of this: > If you ask a lefty zoomer what rape is they’ll tell you something really different from what a middle aged men in a conservative area A large group of people saw the metoo movement as a legitimate protest against sexual abuse while another large group saw it as attention seeking and complaints against normal or not particularly bad behaviour. This is the sort of thing I mean when I saw the west no longer has a unified sense of morality. Large segment of the population look at the same thing and reach vastly different conclusions. Think of machine learning. To me it seems there’s two ( or maybe more ) version of a classifier running, producing different labels for the same input. Not all of the time obviously but sufficiently to be a problem. If there was a website where you could upload an image and the server replied with what it sees in the image, but the answer would be different depending on what machine in the cluster the image detection takes place on, would you call that a functional system? > I don't really care how politics defines morality. Morality is not decided by politics in the end, you eventually cash out your chips in the faithful rules, no matter your politics. Your description is of somebody getting their morality from politics. It's not gonna end well, cause politics not the start or the end of morality, it's just commentary in the middle somewhere. I really didn’t understand this part but I agree morally and politics are different.

barrysteve 4y ago

Western society does have a unified moral framework. Theft, murder, rape, adultery, ect, ect, ect, all end badly. You know the list. The problem is we tied society to consciousness and left moral simplicity behind. There is an explosion of ways to think and be conscious of life and the old rules were setup for a time when doing anything had such a massive cost, simpler moral rules sufficed. There's many many ways to walk a basically moral path and people are discovering what hairs you can split and hold, and which appear to work temporarily but then collapse back into the old rules. 4chan appears less civil, but there's rules you can't break there and certain immoral acts will anger the beehive.

throwawayacc2 4y ago
> Western society does have a unified moral framework. Theft, murder, rape, adultery, ect, ect, ect, all end badly. You know the list. No. No we do not. Theft has been de-facto de-criminalised in several US states and a few major European cities. It os common to see hordes barging into stores and stealing whatever they please. Attempts to raise concerns about this behaviour are met with complaints about “targeting marginalised groups” and more calls to defund the police. Murder, like the murder of Daria Dugina in what is most likely a state sponsored act of terrorism, is actively cheered by many people. Just go read some comment sections on reddit to see. And it’s on the streets too. This point I can also extend with the abortion question. Clearly there is no consensus on what murder is. Rape doesn’t work either because we no longer have a unified definition of it. If you ask a lefty zoomer what rape is they’ll tell you something really different from what a middle aged men in a conservative area will say. Adultery - are you serious? Just look up the sleazy videos of that coked up chick running finland and see just how accepting most people are of her adultery. I don’t know the list because there isn’t one. Maybe there was in the past, but it sure seems it went away.
- barrysteve 4y ago
  Oh you mean a moral framework that is perfectly and immediately acted upon to ensure a utopian society? The 'devil' is always going to exist. Sexual sin: Bill clinton sank on a bj, anthony weiner went out on a weiner shot, berlisconi spent years in prison for all kinds of prostitution and sexual scandals. Epstein got epstein'd, harvey weinstein got weinstein'd, #metoo sank many people, twitter cancelled director's careers. That guy on the Expanse got written out cause of a sex scandal. It's basically the norm, that someone's sexual immorality causes them suffering eventually and usually in the act too. I don't really care how politics defines morality. Morality is not decided by politics in the end, you eventually cash out your chips in the faithful rules, no matter your politics. Your description is of somebody getting their morality from politics. It's not gonna end well, cause politics not the start or the end of morality, it's just commentary in the middle somewhere. "That coked up finnish chick" is going to fall too. There's no special exemptions, you have to repent or bite the bullet at some point. I'm not defending the perception of sinners, sinning freely, as proof there's 'no unified morality'. You already know there is a unified morality, because you disapprove of that sinful stuff anyway.
  - throwawayacc2 4y ago
    I am having genuine trouble understanding your comment. So, what my comment did ( or tried to do ) was provide example of large groups of people being morally ok with murder, theft, etc. At least in the case of the Bill Clinton / metoo example, you seem to present a large group of people that, broadly speaking, are again sexual impropriety. But, this goes to prove my point no? It’s a variation of this: > If you ask a lefty zoomer what rape is they’ll tell you something really different from what a middle aged men in a conservative area A large group of people saw the metoo movement as a legitimate protest against sexual abuse while another large group saw it as attention seeking and complaints against normal or not particularly bad behaviour. This is the sort of thing I mean when I saw the west no longer has a unified sense of morality. Large segment of the population look at the same thing and reach vastly different conclusions. Think of machine learning. To me it seems there’s two ( or maybe more ) version of a classifier running, producing different labels for the same input. Not all of the time obviously but sufficiently to be a problem. If there was a website where you could upload an image and the server replied with what it sees in the image, but the answer would be different depending on what machine in the cluster the image detection takes place on, would you call that a functional system? > I don't really care how politics defines morality. Morality is not decided by politics in the end, you eventually cash out your chips in the faithful rules, no matter your politics. Your description is of somebody getting their morality from politics. It's not gonna end well, cause politics not the start or the end of morality, it's just commentary in the middle somewhere. I really didn’t understand this part but I agree morally and politics are different.