a gamergater just reblogged that post
what the fuck are you talking about
im not even talking about you
you dropped into my dm and called me evil sans any context whatsoever
oh, oh, maybe it’s about me. unlike you, who are merely some liberal on the Internet, I am a supervillain, and thereby support Gamer National Separatism. I already have ties to the XBox Liberation Front and the Steam Republican Army, and have been supporting their initiatives in Canada with my spielpanzer divisions.
soon Ottawa will be ours, and the first Free Gamer Republic can be established.
This is really about your desire to justify an unjustifiable concept - infinite moral liability for finite beings - despite your guesses about me “being upset over a loss of control”.
Alright, I’ve had my tea, so I’m feeling a bit more charitable.
Your grounding is based on the idea that the root causality is encompassed in the self, and that therefore the self ‘owns’ the results. But the causality passes from outside, through the subcomponents, and then back out again, with the self riding on top in a sense. The subcomponents can radically alter the total outcome, while the self remains riding on top.
You haven’t established why this ownership should not be subsurface. After all, you said it was about causality. You say “but the self is also a whole”, but causally, so is an aircraft, so that doesn’t really help. There are of course many practical reasons, but for your purposes that doesn’t really help, either.
Since I’m weighting on experience, rather than control, I don’t need to establish a perfect sovereign will that re-roots causality locally from the universal level to the individual.
What makes that boundary so special that further recursion is unjustified even though further recursion is causally relevant?
This is really about your desire to justify an unjustifiable concept - infinite moral liability for finite beings - despite your guesses about me “being upset over a loss of control”.
Except you’ve failed to establish that such a concept is unjustifiable. Even your term ‘infinite moral liability’ is essentially begging the question; you’ve not justified how it is ‘infinite’ really, and this all hinged upon your idea that somehow the fact that the thinking mind has various components not always in perfect unity somehow means that moral liability for the self cannot be established.
When you invent a genetic cure that lets me fix my executive functioning properly, since I can’t just forcibly override it (I have tried), then maybe the idea of a unified self of perfect liability will make sense. Until then, because I can’t just forcibly override it, then it isn’t justified to hold all of me fully liable for it. I don’t actually have a choice in the matter.
As for infinity, under AnCap it’s permitted to sell yourself into permanent slavery forever (if the tech exists for it), rather than capping liability and prohibiting that.
Also, it’s up to you to establish that kind of total moral liability for the self which ignores all subsurface concerns. Why does the causal chain stop there? Why does it ignore both what is outside and what is within? Why can it not be recursive?
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.
I swear to god he has some kind of ancient Egyptian curse. There is always, always one of these whenever something happens. He stole an amulet from a tomb or some shit.
Watching these videos of people keeping exotic animals on the Internet.
Then you look it up, and it’s like…
The less smug you are, (and the less unethical you are), the less it stings when your most unethical behavior comes to light.
It’s good standard practice to avoid using “wit” (and snark) on people because they are low-status (”gross,” “smelly,” “ugly,” “fat harpy” and so on). First of all, it’s just not a good mental hygiene habit. Second of all, it cannot then come back to haunt you.
