thegrimmest

7 ms·

31.
by thegrimmest 11mo ago
> It's 100% possible. It might not be profitable These are the effectively the same thing. Asking a business to harm its profits is like asking a person to self-harm.
32.
The Axiom of Predictive Coherence(isaacbound.substack.com)
1 points by thegrimmest 11mo ago|0 comments
33.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
This is called "consensual exchange" and it is by far the most ethical way to run society. You don't have to agree to these terms. You can go start your own company. It's a free country. The alternative always seems to
34.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
Making the lists is not the problem. It’s the rounding people up and sending them to camps that crosses the line. We already have laws about the circumstances required for citizens to be detained. Illegal aliens can be summarily deported, s
35.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
Observing and publishing a list of who goes into the abortion clinic is a perfect example of the exercise of free speech. You don’t need a public interest to do so. Restricting what I can publish is a violation of that exact idea. Free spee
36.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
> You will find that some people will react quite badly to it It’s a good thing we have laws, courts, and prisons for people who can’t control themselves. > once you publish information that directly identifies me and contains pers
37.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
I’m not sure I agree that consent should be a requirement for photographing people in public. You have a right to observe people in public. You have a right to take notes about these people and publish them. You have a right to hire a perso
38.
The Morality of Modeling(isaacbound.substack.com)
1 points by thegrimmest 1y ago|0 comments
39.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
I'm perfectly happy for some folks to have trillion dollar net worth. I'm glad to negotiate with these folks and their organizations to provide value in exchange for a comfortable living. > just buy the government they want T
40.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
> for the greater good of all or advancement of society I'm not sure we agree enough on the definitions of these things to justify a democratic redistribution of resources towards them. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny aft
41.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
> The purpose of the state is to be the most powerful organization in the room - to constrain other actors I'm not sure this is a universal definition. Some of us just want a state that maintains a monopoly on violence, and otherwis
42.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
Best only to worry about what you can control, no? If there are external and internal factors to your success then you should spend 100% of your time focusing on the internal ones, since these are the only ones where productive gains can be
43.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
You're asserting that Meta a set of responsibilities towards their users, beyond simply providing a service that users can choose to use or not use. Are these responsibilities enumerated or written anywhere? Honest question, because it
44.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
Why can't reasonable people disagree here? Surely if the utility of some features might outweigh the security concerns for some people. Making features opt-in instead of opt-out significantly changes their discoverability and usage met
45.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
Plotting the highest observable assembly index over time will yield an exponential curve starting from the beginning of the universe. This is the closest I’m aware of to a mathematical model quantifying the distinct impression that local co
46.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
Education describing what cultural artifacts exist and how to produce them isn’t ideology. These are objective areas of study. Though lots of cultural education is ethnocentric, where minority cultures are less represented, making the educa
47.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
I would disagree. Many ideological worldviews are taught in the curriculums of the public education system. For instance, the idea that homosexuality is wrong (not a view I personally hold) is not tolerated. Students are taught that homosex
48.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
Any conclusion that cannot be arrived at cannot be arrived at by a scientific process is inherently ideological. You’re saying flowers smell good. I say they smell bad. Neither of us is any more right than the other, since these are entirel
49.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
For example: What’s the right way to live? How to relate to others? On what basis do we cooperate? What are/are not the overall goals of society? What’s the meaning of life? What is it to be a good person?
50.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
> No, education is not brainwashing. I’m directly responding to your point. Ideological education is brainwashing. In fact “brainwashing” is usually just another way of saying “an ideological education I disagree with”, also known as “
51.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
Having the ideology of the majority taught in schools is the outcome of a strictly democratic process like the one you’re describing. I’m suggesting that the separation between church and state be extended to any ideological teaching.
52.
by thegrimmest 1y ago
I’d love an education system that only teaches scientific consensus, and leaves moral conclusions to parents and households. However I’m sure you’d appreciate that’s not what we have.
53.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
The document does not give any rights to anyone. It is a piece of paper. What it does is describe an idea . The idea is that there are certain unalienable rights. You may disagree with that idea, but you cannot deny its existence. > ma
54.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
> It doesn't exist above society. Yes, it does. Or at least that's the line of reasoning you seem to be disagreeing with. > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
55.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
First of all, I'm not talking about international conflict, where the law of the jungle still effectively applies to this day. I'm talking about domestic liberalism, where ideas like the fundamental equality and the consent of the
56.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
There is an implied collectivism in your statements. The idea that "we choose to reward people who are successful" implies there is a collective with the legitimate authority to make such determinations. I reject this idea. Instea
57.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
You would concede that, as a consequence of imposing involuntary obligations on their citizens, socialized systems are less free ? And you would also concede that reasonable people can disagree about the priorities of their values, and tha
58.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
It’s still an insurance system though, whether it’s publicly owned or privately. There are still bureaucrats who decide what is covered and what is not, and they make that decision for the entire population. Things like cutting edge cancer
59.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
> In some countries if you don't give care to someone who is in danger of dying you are yourself responsible for murder. Certainly not murder , involuntary manslaughter maybe . In any case, what is the basis for this obligation?
60.
by thegrimmest 2y ago
Refusing to pay for medical care is hardly murder. It’s a standard monetary dispute, and we have a due process for these. If you think that so many claims are being unreasonably denied, why not start a company offering bridge loans, and fun

More ›