/townhall/ - Townhall

One of my projects involves finding the location in space of something like a cell phone.  Google has been playing with various ideas that might get the precision down to 10 cm, although that's best-case and widespread adoption will likely be slow for a lot of reasons.

While I deal in the technology, do you think a 10 cm precision milestone would mean anything politically, as in the power to gain deeper insight into people's patterns of life might have effects beyond giving individual users more precise information about themselves?

Let's say you spent your whole life being an atheist, or maybe at least a good chunk of your life, and then some events happen that make it very difficult to sit with that atheist mindset and be comfortable there. Or, to put it another way, you have seen or experienced too many things that you tried, and failed, to simply explain away with anything rationale. And let's add another layer to this.

Let's say that even if you get to this point, and one day someone or a few people come along, that have the answers to those experiences and can perfectly replicate them or explain them and make them rational for you. But because you had your belief system shook, you now, even with the evidence, still wish to believe in something other than atheism.

Do you believe that you have a moral obligation to still uphold science and modern medicine, psychiatry, and basically the 'best that we got at the moment' tools to deal with our struggles and problems first? Or do you believe it's okay to go full force into this new belief and suggest to other people to say, just for an example, pray instead of making a doctors appointment. Or pray before going to a doctor.

Do we have some kind of moral obligation, in essence, if we want to believe in something that science can't explain, or can't yet explain?
_____________

So that's the prompt. My own personal feeling that I'm willing to discuss if others want to, is that yes I do think we have a moral obligation to use science and the tools that we have either first, or equally as alongside, whatever spiritual beliefs we may have. I have formed this opinion based upon the countless years of history that have shown how much damage religion or spiritual beliefs CAN cause, when not handled carefully or used to fuel a fire. I also feel like there should be a similar checks and balance with science and modern medicine, but that could be a discussion for another thread. I would like to focus on this aspect for the thread first.

Nobody owes you anything.  You owe others respect for their human rights.

States don't owe you anything.  You owe states loyalty and obedience.

Politics is full of contrary ideas and best avoided.

Perhaps this can be a month to focus on modesty, and tolerance of diverse perspectives on various topics, especially topics that seem to divide ponies and humans.  Perhaps we can focus on how everypony can feel safe and accepted this month.

Hasbro Posted on FB: "Today and every day we celebrate everypony’s unique sparkle  Be true to who you are – hoof to heart!"

That sounds like a good message.  Let's debate how to best let everypony be true to themselves!

Ponies can have nice friends.  And if there are no nice friends around, you can have imaginary friends and be friends with yourself, and that's just as good.

Are you worried about deceptively aligned mesa-optimizers?

https://AsTralcoDexten.substack.com/p/deceptively-aligned-mesa-optimizers

Most people I know don't have cars anymore (largely, I think, they can't really afford them).

I gather the most common way to transit in the USA is a private pickup-truck or sports utility vehicle.  I gather some would consider using these vehicles the most American way to get around, and would say anyone wanting anything different is against freedom.

The debate topic is that it's not anti-freedom -- treason to America, perhaps -- to be OK with walking, taking a train, riding a bus, biking, or using a private vehicle that is not classified as a truck.

Should laws and culture try to look out for normal guys who have flaws that can be exploited by MBAs?

https://www.twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1647836562959499265

Facebook has been preferring to show me more of what I would consider hate speech, or perhaps just showing me more hate that I remember as relevant to my...situation.

And maybe rather than getting all bent out of shape, I can think of it as people being free to express their opinions without some totalitarian control structure.  Nobody can be forced to like anyone else, and some people have negative opinions to share.  Knowing how people feel about different groups can be adaptive, and freedom is a positive trait of a community.  Perhaps it would be better yet for people to have freedom and not wish to use that freedom to express hateful opinions about groups historically marginalized, but that's probably fantasy.

Of course, in cases where the speech, beyond a reasonable doubt, is a statement of imminent intent to do credible violence against specific individuals who are your duty and business to protect, then maybe you might get upset.  But opinions and hyperbole are just that, and nobody should be attacked.

Are you worried?

I find myself drawing parallels between the LGBT movement and the civil rights movement [for legal and social equality on the basis of race and/or perceived race].  But it also occurs to me that trying to draw any meaning comparison, especially to further my own opinions, could be a kind of cultural appropriation, even given that race can be intersectional with LGBT issues.  (I am white.)

Should groups facing opposition to their liberty...stay in their own lanes, so to speak, just to be on the safe side?

Something I've been thinking about lately:

We all have a list of things we consider essential to our survival and basic dignity.  For me, it's shelter, food, a correct name, a correct gender, and a capacity to do or attempt to do the work I consider important.  Oh, and not being assaulted or tortured is a plus, etc.

But whoever you are and whatever your list, there are probably people you will become acquainted with who will have an opinion that you should not have these 'necessities.'  I suppose this is an opportunity to ask if you can, in fact, tolerate fewer freedoms.  Perhaps these people have something to add about not being entitled or greedy.

But in most cases you will not want to amend your list of needs, and so you will have to accept that many people do not care for you to exist in a way you find appropriate.  I struggle to feel...good about this, I guess.  To be open-minded and tolerant, since we must give ponies/people the freedom to share opinions.  Maybe some tips would be nice.

This picture is not relevant, I just thought it was nice (https://derpibooru.org/images/2225879).

https://apnews.com/article/trump-arrest-process-what-to-know-02a2ce34e03e25ab2fdd0e81dbcc62c7

The former POTUS has been formally accused of legal wrongdoing and will be processed as a criminal defendant in the State of New York.

My personal point of view is that this is a great attempt at supporting civic morality, promoting the objective rule of law, and resisting attempts to turn the U.S. into a right-wing police state. However, I think it will mean little in the long-run because Trump is completely impervious to all forms of negativity against him: he has been the subject of countless ethical and legal complaints for decades without any form of accountability whatsoever before (always regarded as not guilty of anything). This likely won't change. I halfway believe that Trump literally cannot die and will last until the heat death of the universe because even the Grim Reaper is afraid of him. I have voted against Trump twice and consider his status as a singular personification of America nightmarish (such status has also helped me in leaving Christianity and the Republican Party as well as to stop supporting capitalism, given how he represents all three), so I recognize my viewpoints are unusually hardened and significantly unlike most U.S. voters.

Alternately, of course, one can view this indictment as flatly unjustified. The legal process is coming out of an institution that can be criticized for multiple reasons here. Many arguments are possible. It must be factually noted that Trump labels himself "completely innocent". An American in his status is to be considered not guilty of anything as a default: accusations are not convictions. As well, one can have no opinion on all this. What do you guys think?

I guess I'll do this with a controversial topic.  I could easily be something mundane, as the question is philosophical.

Quote from a news story:
---

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/after-school-shooting-some-trans-tennesseans-face-backlash-2023-03-31/:

'After the service, Bennett, who has a trans son, said one of her congregants had been confronted and "told they were the cause, that this was God's repudiation of gay people, and that 'you and your people are going to hell for eternity,'" she said. "The trans community is going to pay dearly for this."'
---
My perception is that there are identities that we consider, by definition, to be from banal to positive.  Never negative.

So we decide a priori that nothing can be blamed on these identities.

This quote is relevant to both sides of politics, as I understand, because it is begging connections between religious identities or transgender identities and blame, depending on your view of transgenderism.  And in both cases, this is wrong, whether you are saying religious folks are transphobic or transgender identities are evil.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Jacob Chansley has been released from prison, effectively exonerated, due to the exculpatory nature of the newly revealed January 6th footage.  This was footage that the federal government kept under wraps for over 2 years, footage that individuals in government fought tooth and nail to keep from being released, which could have not only been used in his defense but also proven his innocence.  In effect, an innocent man was kept in prison, which included an extended period in solitary confinement, due to a calculated and intentional miscarriage of justice, which was perpetrated and perpetuated by both the media as well as government officials.

Is preserving the narrative surrounding January 6th more important than the rights of an individual?
Do you consider it justice to jail individuals for crimes they haven't committed, simply because you disagree with their politics?
If so, then what is your argument against false imprisonment of people whose politics you do agree with, by those to whom they are opposed, for the exact same reason?