4 ms·

I think you're making that comment with the idea that it's self-evidently wrong? Do I understand you correctly? I find it really weird that people are so glib

by Joeboy 4y ago

I think you're making that comment with the idea that it's self-evidently wrong? Do I understand you correctly? I find it really weird that people are so glib about the "hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths" part. I don't get how on earth people weigh that as less important than the financial welfare of relatively well-off people in richer countries. Maybe this is some basic failure of humanity on my part.

OJFord 4y ago
The problem (and I think roughly the point being made) is that if you follow that logic through, then surely almost everyone here should have the vast majority of their possessions & wealth taken, to fund the equalising up-lifting of others. Charity and world aid is in a continual discussion & discovery of what we collectively think is 'good enough', helping people get to something that is perhaps 'not disaster', but nevertheless falls far short of the standards the gifters expect for themselves.
- blitzar 4y ago
  > The problem (and I think roughly the point being made) is that if you follow that logic through, then surely almost everyone here should have the vast majority of their possessions & wealth taken, to fund the equalising up-lifting of others. And if not software developers why not? Who gets to chose which grift is a grift and which is an honest living? > I find it really weird that people are so glib about the "hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths" part. So you agree - software devlopers, who make vastly more than the average person should have their wealth siezed to save those people? Or are you the one being glib aboout saving lives?
  - Joeboy 4y ago
    Have you ever been close to anybody who died? If you have prevented that, and then you multiply that by a few hundred thousand, do you not get close to a place where rich people's investments not panning out doesn't seem like something to get too upset about? It's interesting to me that there's a kind of horseshoe effect here with the "rich people must be protected" on the same side as the "rich people are evil" people.
    - blitzar 4y ago
      > do you not get close to a place where rich people's investments not panning out Rich people like software developers And investments like every cent they earn Absoultely 10000% happy with taking every cent of it and saving as many lives as possible. Why are you against this?
  - FeepingCreature 4y ago
    Humans have very strong instincts against exploitation by peers. I think the appropriate answer here is: "Sure, let's seize the wealth of approximately everyone in a western country." Singling out a particular group, even though it's less seizure in total, raises people's hackles for reasons entirely unrelated to whether redistribution is a good idea.
    - blitzar 4y ago
      Like the around 88% of American drivers considered themselves to be above average at driving - everyone also believes that they are the exception. As for redistribution of wealth, even many multi millionaires consider themselves to be on the poor side of the wealth divide.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    > > I find it really weird that people are so glib about the "hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths" part. > So you agree - You're quoting someone else there, not me (GP).
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  'Possessions and wealth taken' and 'fund the equalizing up-lifting of others' co-occur, but that doesn't mean the latter is justifying the former. People who play the markets know they're taking a risk and willing to gamble on being smarter than their competition, they're consenting to have their money go to someone with better judgement than them and that's what justifies having their wealth taken. The winners of a game like that are exactly who I'd want funding the 'up-lifting' part. That doesn't mean it's kosher for the smartest person to expropriate every above-average person's money when they aren't willing to gamble with it.
  - PebblesRox 4y ago
    Did SBF take the wealth using better judgement or did he take it using dishonesty and fraud? My impression is that it's the dishonesty and theft that people have a problem with, not just being clever and outwitting people in the speculative gambling game. And when those people get the impression that the EA movement is okay with getting money dishonestly as long as it's given it to a worthy cause, they take issue with EA. Edit: Just thought of an analogy. Some charities do raffles, right? You can put money into the pot for a chance to win a prize, knowing that a proportion of all the money people put in goes to the charity. But what if the charity sold a bunch of raffle tickets and then announced that they would not award a prize and all the money would go to the charity? Or what if it came out that the prize was rigged to go to someone affiliated with the charity? In this case I don't think you can say, "Well, those people chose to gamble so they consented to having their wealth taken."
    - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
      To my admittedly shallow understanding SBF was gambling with his clients' money and lost. I wouldn't say any charitable work he did would justify the theft, but I also have no qualms about Binance crashing his token so he'd be caught in the act. To put it in point form, I'd say -SBF had bad judgement and bad morals -SBF's clients had bad judgement and bad luck -Binance had good judgement and good luck, and if the people who make it up do a lot of charity work, they have good morals as well. That doesn't help SBF's clients of course, but I do think they consented to a game where a reasonable person would have known this was a possible outcome. I would think most EA folks would tend to agree with how I've characterized it, but maybe someone more versed in that subculture's overton window can clarify.

by Joeboy 4y ago

OJFord 4y ago

The problem (and I think roughly the point being made) is that if you follow that logic through, then surely almost everyone here should have the vast majority of their possessions & wealth taken, to fund the equalising up-lifting of others. Charity and world aid is in a continual discussion & discovery of what we collectively think is 'good enough', helping people get to something that is perhaps 'not disaster', but nevertheless falls far short of the standards the gifters expect for themselves.

blitzar 4y ago
> The problem (and I think roughly the point being made) is that if you follow that logic through, then surely almost everyone here should have the vast majority of their possessions & wealth taken, to fund the equalising up-lifting of others. And if not software developers why not? Who gets to chose which grift is a grift and which is an honest living? > I find it really weird that people are so glib about the "hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths" part. So you agree - software devlopers, who make vastly more than the average person should have their wealth siezed to save those people? Or are you the one being glib aboout saving lives?
- Joeboy 4y ago
  Have you ever been close to anybody who died? If you have prevented that, and then you multiply that by a few hundred thousand, do you not get close to a place where rich people's investments not panning out doesn't seem like something to get too upset about? It's interesting to me that there's a kind of horseshoe effect here with the "rich people must be protected" on the same side as the "rich people are evil" people.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    > do you not get close to a place where rich people's investments not panning out Rich people like software developers And investments like every cent they earn Absoultely 10000% happy with taking every cent of it and saving as many lives as possible. Why are you against this?
- FeepingCreature 4y ago
  Humans have very strong instincts against exploitation by peers. I think the appropriate answer here is: "Sure, let's seize the wealth of approximately everyone in a western country." Singling out a particular group, even though it's less seizure in total, raises people's hackles for reasons entirely unrelated to whether redistribution is a good idea.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    Like the around 88% of American drivers considered themselves to be above average at driving - everyone also believes that they are the exception. As for redistribution of wealth, even many multi millionaires consider themselves to be on the poor side of the wealth divide.
- OJFord 4y ago
  > > I find it really weird that people are so glib about the "hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths" part. > So you agree - You're quoting someone else there, not me (GP).
SuoDuanDao 4y ago
'Possessions and wealth taken' and 'fund the equalizing up-lifting of others' co-occur, but that doesn't mean the latter is justifying the former. People who play the markets know they're taking a risk and willing to gamble on being smarter than their competition, they're consenting to have their money go to someone with better judgement than them and that's what justifies having their wealth taken. The winners of a game like that are exactly who I'd want funding the 'up-lifting' part. That doesn't mean it's kosher for the smartest person to expropriate every above-average person's money when they aren't willing to gamble with it.
- PebblesRox 4y ago
  Did SBF take the wealth using better judgement or did he take it using dishonesty and fraud? My impression is that it's the dishonesty and theft that people have a problem with, not just being clever and outwitting people in the speculative gambling game. And when those people get the impression that the EA movement is okay with getting money dishonestly as long as it's given it to a worthy cause, they take issue with EA. Edit: Just thought of an analogy. Some charities do raffles, right? You can put money into the pot for a chance to win a prize, knowing that a proportion of all the money people put in goes to the charity. But what if the charity sold a bunch of raffle tickets and then announced that they would not award a prize and all the money would go to the charity? Or what if it came out that the prize was rigged to go to someone affiliated with the charity? In this case I don't think you can say, "Well, those people chose to gamble so they consented to having their wealth taken."
  - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
    To my admittedly shallow understanding SBF was gambling with his clients' money and lost. I wouldn't say any charitable work he did would justify the theft, but I also have no qualms about Binance crashing his token so he'd be caught in the act. To put it in point form, I'd say -SBF had bad judgement and bad morals -SBF's clients had bad judgement and bad luck -Binance had good judgement and good luck, and if the people who make it up do a lot of charity work, they have good morals as well. That doesn't help SBF's clients of course, but I do think they consented to a game where a reasonable person would have known this was a possible outcome. I would think most EA folks would tend to agree with how I've characterized it, but maybe someone more versed in that subculture's overton window can clarify.