3 ms·

I find 'yummyfajitas arguments painful to read. Most of the time, they create an annoying feeling of knowing he must be wrong, via a sort of deontological spide

I find 'yummyfajitas arguments painful to read. Most of the time, they create an annoying feeling of knowing he must be wrong, via a sort of deontological spidey-sense, but not knowing exactly how to rebut him. Part of the reason for this is that my underlying values are nearly the same as yours. In terms of values, I'm nearly a standard NY liberal [1]. For example, you probably favor either Basic Income or a Welfare State - I prefer a Basic Job. Our underlying reasons are the same (don't let people starve), we just differ on which policy will actually achieve the best outcome for the lowest price. In contrast, someone with libertarian values would be fine letting people starve, even if he preferred a Basic Job to other policy proposals. [1] The only big points where my values differ are on inequality, which I don't view as an intrinsic problem (maybe it's an extrinsic one, but I'm unconvinced). I also don't buy into the racial/sexual collectivism of modern liberalism - I.e., I don't believe "women" have rights, I believe only an individual woman does.

tptacek 13y ago
Maybe. You seem at heart to be a consequentialist. Although I wouldn't call myself religious, morally I sort of see myself as a straightforward product of Catholic school. Also: perhaps because you're better at math than I am, you come across to me as somewhat astringently rationalist. It's noticeable in discussions where logic and orthodoxy conflict, for instance in discussions about race and IQ. I get how that's a result of the issues selected for discussion on HN, and the way they tend to get discussed; you could be mistaken for a libertarian in the same way I could be mistaken as a shill for NSA. Happily, in neither yummyfajitasland nor tptacekland will anyone be starving, although tptacekland also has single-payer health care.
- khafra 13y ago
  > Maybe. You seem at heart to be a consequentialist. Although I wouldn't call myself religious, morally I sort of see myself as a straightforward product of Catholic school. Interesting--normally I see neo-reactionaries linking progressivism with christian tradition; and it's not meant as a compliment. I don't think I've ever seen a progressive endorsing that link before. Also, I should note that I'm a consequentialist (although in practice I try to use virtue ethics), and closer to tptacekian politics than yummyfajitian politics.

tptacek 13y ago

Maybe. You seem at heart to be a consequentialist. Although I wouldn't call myself religious, morally I sort of see myself as a straightforward product of Catholic school. Also: perhaps because you're better at math than I am, you come across to me as somewhat astringently rationalist. It's noticeable in discussions where logic and orthodoxy conflict, for instance in discussions about race and IQ. I get how that's a result of the issues selected for discussion on HN, and the way they tend to get discussed; you could be mistaken for a libertarian in the same way I could be mistaken as a shill for NSA. Happily, in neither yummyfajitasland nor tptacekland will anyone be starving, although tptacekland also has single-payer health care.

khafra 13y ago
> Maybe. You seem at heart to be a consequentialist. Although I wouldn't call myself religious, morally I sort of see myself as a straightforward product of Catholic school. Interesting--normally I see neo-reactionaries linking progressivism with christian tradition; and it's not meant as a compliment. I don't think I've ever seen a progressive endorsing that link before. Also, I should note that I'm a consequentialist (although in practice I try to use virtue ethics), and closer to tptacekian politics than yummyfajitian politics.