/townhall/ - Townhall

>>13604

yes, or wat about ancient greek?

>>13608
>>13609

...that sounds kind-of like normative cultural ethical relativisism-think to me

>>13601

eh, it's alright

>>13631
>...that sounds kind-of like normative cultural ethical relativisism-think to me

It's just historical linguistics. Like how a lot of European nobility spoke French regardless of their holdings or how Italian is a homonculus a bunch of cities invented to pretend to be a country.

>>13631
When you think about it greek works well as a language of science because of it's highly synthetic nature.

Like. We call it a telephone, derived from Greek τῆλεφωνή. This is not the name of the device the ancient greeks used to call each other. Rather Greek words can be synthesized on the fly without an exact dictionary definition, so you can describe inventions that there is no name for succinctly without being cringe.

>>13495
Pretty sure it's the far left chanting 'death to all jews' these days.
And they're not really all that big on Christianity.

>>13495
Conflating what groups like the NIFB say and painting every denomination found in the States as that is wrong.
I get you have religious trauma, but you need to stop this nonsense.

>>13436
>if I don't agree with you then this place is /pol/

You know for as much as people shit on /pol/, it's a wonder that those opinions seem to be sprouting up in places all over the internet outside of /pol/. It's almost like people are getting sick of radical leftist ideals

>>13509
>reasons for the font choices and color choices
I'm not condemning you or anything. I just don't get it.

>>13467
>>13572

for fonts, i think i mostly just started with the first letter of the group i was representing, and there was usually a good font starting with that letter that appeared to represent that group.... which was interesting. colors i just picked whatever came to mind.... for locations, just whatever came to mind first, mostly.. fairtly arbitrary but perhaps with a grain of truth

I just close my eyes and scribble all over for borders. Then I colour-code every piece of land in the most confusing way possible (white people are black, black people are green, Muslims are white, something like that) and painstakingly assign the land so that, at the bare minimum, 90% of any one group's land is composed of random exclaves that don't border each other all over the place.

I leave a note to cede the Virgin Islands to the Punic people and the mighty nation of Carthage. I deliberately don't say anything about Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska or anything other than the mainland and the Virgin Islands.

Worst case scenario they get someone else to draw the map and I'm not responsible for any fuck-ups that ensue. Best case scenario they try to implement my deliberately stupid ideas and the whole idea collapses like a house of cards.

Moved to >>>/pony/1169579.

>>13582
Well, if you're a rationalist billionaire, say, you could choke an innocent victim to death with your bare hands and then pay the family something like $3 million in a way that makes that family better off in their view of their own circumstances (according to you). Hell, Elon Musk could recreationally nuke whole cities and then rebuild them in a way that long-run utility in those locations is higher. If he was a rationalist. He could do that. IT's all axiology without any higher morality involved.

Eh. The problem for me is I don't really have the ability to operate like a human being with no ethics and no empathy like a Scott Alexander since all kinds of moral things from national patriotism to altruism for one's neighbors to social trust to reverence for tradition and so on that rationalists don't have in their brains and souls I personally have. I still want to understand rationalists all the same though even if they're essentially an alien species from another solar system to me. Tech billionaire rationalists especially have a LOT of money and power currently so I kind of don't have a voice but to get them in some intiuitive way.

>>13585
>Well, if you're a rationalist billionaire, say, you could choke an innocent victim to death with your bare hands and then pay the family something like $3 million in a way that makes that family better off in their view of their own circumstances (according to you). Hell, Elon Musk could recreationally nuke whole cities and then rebuild them in a way that long-run utility in those locations is higher. If he was a rationalist. He could do that. IT's all axiology without any higher morality involved.
LOL WUT?!  Where are you getting that insanity from???

>>13585
>a human being with no ethics and no empathy like a Scott Alexander
Enough with that defamatory nonsense!

>How can one argue with somebody like Scott Alexander from 'LessWrong' when he says that he just doesn't feel any empathy or anything else towards people that he doesnt personally know?

I don't know who that is and I can't think of any reason to care about his opinion.

>>13591
I don't. Israel is evil

>>13594
Do you pay taxes?

>>13538
Doesn't look like it.

>>13540
>>13538
Could be worth notifying this on /canterlot/

>>13541
>>13538
Never-mind, refreshed the page, the quick reply box doesn't appear until you scroll down the thread.

>>13497
Alright so, one we aren't the same person.
Two, I made no claims how a system should be structured or what I want.
Three, my point was your notion of capitalism, or I suppose "pure capitalism" in your words, being impossible or I guess now "a rough battle," nice motte and bailey btw, is a defeatist notion that only further entrench the current power structures.
Four, no where did I mention the use of violence or force. I am not naive enough to purport that violence is not often the only tool that people are left, or feel left with, in the face of our current structure. That said we have the tools and means to make meaningful change and to downplay the work of the people that are fighting for what I would assume is a would you want to live in is repugnant.
My issue with your statement is I've heard it a million times from people, but anyone that holds that notion is just some theory drunk regurgitation.

If you think all hope is lost you lack a spine. If you think things can't change you lack a spine. I hope you advocate for the change you want irl. I really do, because normally those that accept your proposition cloister themselves away and try and drag others into the bog you are in.

Final response to this as the thread is completely derailed.

>>13497
>Capitalists taking people's private properly for their own and otherwise using the authority of the state to crush rivals
Uh, no. Not at all. What?

Capitalism is an economic system of trade between individuals.
It's purely an economic system.
It can, and has, existed inside most any state. Hell, even communism, despite their claims, had capitalism running through. Some stuff was nationalized, but there were always private enterprises still trading some items.

State authority is not required for capitalism.

Fraud corrects for false demand created by marketing and hype in production chains that are strained by lopsided demand pressures. Producers cannot sustain producing *only* extra virgin top quality oil but that is the only thing that their customers are interested in, despite the fact that 99% of their consumers cannot tell the difference and they want it for applications where the "inferior" oil is in fact better suited and cheaper.

Fraud is so rampant because the vast majority of consumers care more about the label on the side of the bottle than the contents, as evidenced by the overwhelming lack of passion the topic incites.

Fraud is a market force, like any other, that corrects for disparities between real and apparent demand, as well as for excessive regulation.

>>13458
I would have exceptional doubt as to that individual's credibility.

As a general rule, soldiers aren't allowed to just speak willy nilly about a conflict, after all.
At bear minimum, they'd risk repercussions when they return to duty.
If not being branded a traitor and incarcerated, should their dialogue not reflect the state's position.

This type of thing reaks of propaganda, to me.

idk. but "people are people," as it says in the song.

Hmm, not sure what to make of this.  I guess both sides have some bad people.

>>13401
>Females with high compassion tend to have low intelligence.
I'd say that high-IQ white women tend to have have *misplaced* compassion rather than *low* compassion.  This is because, in whites, high IQ is correlated with being politically left-leaning.  Leftist politicians in Germany go so far as to defend their own rapists (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3675154/Left-wing-German-politician-raped-migrants-admits-LIED-police-attackers-nationality-did-not-want-encourage-racism.html).  Meanwhile, AWFLs in the US clutch their pearls when people like Daniel Penny protect people from dangerous criminals.

>>13412
Yeah, but I'd say what you call "Misplaced compassion" is what I call virtue signalling or compulsion to submit. Compassion is when you act well to someone, due to the thought of their emotion. Conformity is when you act well to someone, due to the thought of what others will think.

If you've an extremely reduced amount of empathy compared to most men, as well as a far weaker sense of empathy compared to most men, then women will find this unattractive. Because it's inherently unattractive. If you're a gay or bi man looking for partners, then this problem would also exist.

I'm not sure how to explain to conservatives and libertarians that you should have a great deal of empathy and ethics inherently because your fellow citizens who live by you deserve the same rights as you, because this is more or less a psychological thing. A result of brain chemistry and other such things. If seeing your next door neighbor suffering or even dying in public doesn't trigger an emotional response because they're not a family member of yours or such, and strangers being strangers you simply don't care, then so be it. Just know that many people have different emotions.

Can you imagine banning someone over their opinion?

yeah, they are pretty much cosmetic. this was established long ago, and everyone should have learned about it in high school.

>>13367
Racism is healthy. Racism is natural. Racism is what separates man from plant. Has a plant ever called you a nigger? Exhibit A.

>>13391
You're underestimating how well GPT-4 works.  Yeah, it makes mistakes, but it is especially good at simple things like "How do people on the internet use the term 'social justice'?".

>>13392
Oh, you haven't heard of that before?  Here is a web page that goes into it:
https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/the-root-cause-the-insanity-college-campuses-older-you-may-think

>>13393
>it is especially good at simple things like "How do people on the internet use the term 'social justice'?".
It isn't actually good at that. It's good at making what sounds like a reasonable answer to the question.

LLMs aren't actually intelligent, no matter how sophisticated or advanced they are. Despite making a good answer, ChatGPT doesn't know what "justice" means conceptually in the same way a human would understand the term. ChatGPT just knows that words like "justice" is often used with words like "equality" and "fairness" but it doesn't actually know what those concepts mean. ChatGPT is really cool and fun, it just isn't a knowledge source.

>>13394
>It isn't actually good at that.
What failures have you seen on GPT-4 here?

>>13394
>LLMs aren't actually intelligent, no matter how sophisticated or advanced they are.
GPT-4 certainly isn't human-level AGI, but I'd say it certainly has intelligence to some degree.  

>>13394
>ChatGPT just knows that words like "justice" is often used with words like "equality" and "fairness" but it doesn't actually know what those concepts mean.
I disagree with that.  What's a prompt that demonstrates GPT-4 failing to understand what the concepts mean?

>>13372

yeah, but a lot of people are pretty bad at that. they need to gain experience first, and mathematics would help to objectify the measurements

>>13373

>people want to have sex

i always hear this but i question how true it is. do people really want to have sex? highly questionable.

as for your second point, possibly somewhat or mostly true, but would need citations and data to make the point clearer

In almost all circumstances of minors exercising extreme behavior, even to the point of what seems like sociopathy, I think that scientific analysis has generally shown that the young criminals have tended to be mirroring physical and/or psychological abuse that they've been victims of. And what happens is basically a kind of evolution. Or perhaps even literally exact reenactments of what has happened to them previously (only with somebody else chosen to be the victim instead of themselves). This is, however, difficult to explain as an abstract concept.

To pick a specific example that's concrete, look at German dictator and one of the influential figures in modern history: let's talk about Adolf Hitler.

As a child, Hitler received constant maltreatment from a strict, callous, and domineering father in the context of growing up in a very regimented and authoritarian society in which the personal morals that we in 21st Century America view as positive (such as universal health care and freedom of speech) were back then negatives. Being told over and over again that you're a worthless piece of flesh by family took its toll. However, young Hitler had his caring, compassionate mother who totally believed in moral idealism in the Catholic Christian sense as a counterweight.

And then his mother died in an extremely painful and nightmarish fashion of cancer, again with him being a small child unable to rationally comprehend the situation.

It's been documented by historians that adult Hitler actively modeled his life as the opposite of his mother. She was soft-spoken and reflective. He was loud and dominant. She put others before herself and had a religious philosophy based on moral tradition. Hitler thought that he was a demi-god with spiritual abilities and a special destiny, requiring others to serve him. She wasn't focused on her appearance and such. He was focused on machismo and being tough. And so on.

As profoundly weird as it is to express sympathy for Hitler, of all people, it appears pretty clear-cut to historians that the psychological break-up of his mind at directly witnessing the torture and death of his mother caused him in later years to relive and reenact that exact situation by personally causing torture and death of others that he knew. He was a victim. And then he became a bully. The circle closed, so to speak.

While I don't know if this specific criminal case parallels Hitler's journey, the Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>13352
I've never heard of someone being discriminated against due to apathy. That sounds counter productive for a lack of a better word. Greed can lead to discrimination of different classes; as can poverty.

>Like, opposition to disability accommodations can be rooted in devaluing disabled people as being a 'drain' on society (itself rooted in a narrow-minded evaluation of a person's value).
Are you suggesting that if someone owns an establishment and doesn't have disability accommodations that they have a discrimination against disabled people? I tend to disagree.

That said, as someone who is incredibly empathetic and compassionate; my heart does go out to the disabled and I think more places should be accommodating.

>>13353

My point is that the view that disabled people are a drain and thus shouldn't be accommodated for is not rooted in hatred as much as it is greed because accommodations cost money. Granted, it's not a very intelligent position but it appeals to the instinct towards loss prevention and a short-sightedness towards what income they can make long-term by accommodating the disabled.

>>13353
>>>13352 (You)
>I've never heard of someone being discriminated against due to apathy. That sounds counter productive for a lack of a better word.


You're right, it is counterproductive, it's a narrow minded view.

Discrimination doesn't have to be tied to any specific emotions, it can be rooted in prejudice alone, in the sense of the etymology of the word, pre-judgement, judging without sufficient information, it doesn't have to involve any emotion what so ever, or even be concious.

Like if someone building a multi-level mall and not installing elevators alongside escalators because escalators alone is cheaper than elevators with escalators or even elevators alone. Effectively, that space discriminates against people who cannot physically use the escalators to access the shops on the second floor, probably one rooted in simple lack of consideration rather than flat out hatred of the disabled. This not only limits access to shopping, but potential employment too.

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

>>13354
Actually, I think I know exactly what is going on and why your message is muddled and confusing.

Here are two separate definition from Oxford:

[Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
"victims of racial discrimination"
Similar: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness
unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, chauvinism, partisanship, sexism, racism, racialism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, ageism, classism, ableism, apartheid
Opposite: impartiality
2.
recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
"discrimination between right and wrong"]

You are combining the two completely separate definitions into one. You are correct. You don't have to have emotional attachments to discriminate, however when we're talking about groups of people it is almost impossible not to attach some sort of feeling towards it. The first definition is tied to avoidance, aggression, or revulsion/disgust. The only time I can really think of where you wouldn't is if you are simply stating facts. (This weapon type is superior because it's stats are superior.)
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.