That seems likely for most. But on the bright side you have come to a conclusion. Could be a sign that it is not so severe after all.

I was wondering about moral luck. As I fathom moral luck is a moral descriptor of either a Person's willingness to do something that has an unintended outcome (e.g. someone shoots into a crowd (morally wrong) and unintentionally hits an mass murderer hiding inside(arguably a morally good)) or an outcome that happens independently of any willing participants (e.g. economic growth trickle down (if it exists) actually I still find that particular example lacking, regardless- ).

What confuses me is the possibility of the negative version of those. By negative i mean can I declare a non-action (not simply abstaining from acting) a moral wrong/good?

A rather complicated example goes as follows (i appreciate if there would be a simpler less shitty one, but as of right now I cannot think of any): X has child Y. Y likes Ice cream. To give Y ice cream would brighten Ys mood, thus would be good. X is on the way home. Y is already home. Y spots an ice cream truck in front of the building. Unfortunately the truck leaves soon after. X did not spot the ice cream truck, therefore lacked the incentive to increase Ys mood by purchase of Ice cream. As X comes home Y states "It is bad that you did not bring me ice cream!"

I know it seems rather childish, but what do you think is it possible to blame for non-action?

I appreciate the differences in opinion, but if you have read the article, the author himself does imply there is room for subjectivity as much as for objectivity when it comes to handling life situations in general using philosophy. I mean, life itself is too complex, it is a paradox. As the author stated: "there is no formula".

> If you're subtly hinting that I'm a Russian bot, either for pure amusement or some kind of probing, I can tell you that I am definitely not. And that's правда I mean, TRUTH! Truth is what I meant.

Ah, Truth. Glad that's all settled then - we shan't speak another word if it.

> I have had several individuals develop an obsession with me and follow me around Reddit with alts harassing me personally, so I can tell you it wasn't because of leftist censorship, which has become rampant on Reddit.

Oh, don't get me started on Redditors - I know the type.

> I think people don't "do" anything because they're efficiently divided and apathetic. The problem is that the ruling class has kept trying to squeeze every last drop of wealth for themselves and the Marxist have stepped up their game which includes disruption of the basic services of the masses which is far more quickly going to push people to conflict than abortion rights or arguments over people's naughty bits.

Efficiently divided? Ruling class? Squeeze every last drop of wealth for themselves? Disruption of the basic services of the masses? Push people to conflict?

Sir: are you a conspiracy theorist? I ask because advisories have also indicated that we should be On The Lookout for these types of people as well. We've settled the Russian Troll possibility, if it isn't too much trouble, I'd also like to ensure I'm dealing with someone who is speaking In Good Faith (which all Conspiracy Theorists are not, as I assume you well know).

Again: not pointing any fingers, just being On Guard, according to standard protocol.

> You were speaking about how the west optimizes for itself over the world. I was just commenting that yes, of course it does.

What do you mean here by "of course it does"?

> It's competing with the rest of the world.

I thought we were All One People - different races and creeds, of course, but ultimately the same. Is this not True?

> We're not one global entity. We're individual countries.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

> Cooperation is useful but problematic in the long run as a countries needs and leadership change.

Is this a comprehensive list of the underlying reasons, or something more like the top two items from a list sorted by objective causal importance?

> The morality of man is, of course, as subjective as the experience of men. This is why we often attempt to lash it to the observable truth we can agree on.

Observable truth? Is this something like when people say "X is True, because it is clear that it is True"?

> More and more we're seeing a greater amount of fog and shadow being artificially pumped into the world's optics by those who benefit from the obfuscation of morality, making it just as morally deplorable to prevent someone from killing a child as to kill the child yourself.

Now that you point it out, people do seem to behave in a logically inconsistent manner, at least "now and then" anyways. I wonder: could there be more to this theory?

> Which is why appeals to emotion, false dichotomies, and false premises are more common than grounded argument, because they're cheap and effective on the masses who feel themselves more intelligent due to their programming in university. The same people who can't answer basic questions about geography or history or even why they're calling someone racist or voting for someone are the ones gorilla glued to the notion that they're intellectually superior.

Despite sounding a bit conspiratorial, this simultaneously does seem rather true. I feel conflicted on what to believe.

> > > > So when we measure success in terms of government, we once again attempt to bolt it to the observable reality that we share.

When you say "measure", are you speaking literally, or colloquially? (See also: "success", and "government")

> Unfortunately we have 10K resolution on this reality now, where before we were 8 bits on a good day.

Resolution: "the number of pixels contained in each frame".

Hmmmmm....I wonder how well this two-dimensional analogy maps to the ontological nature of reality.

> So there were far fewer metrics to compare and winners were more easily decided.

Speaking of comparing metrics: who decides which metrics make the cut, and which....do not?

And, who is it who is doing the "deciding"?

> I'm not certain the high res view is helping, unless people are going to uncharacteristically shift to being more clear about what exactly they mean, which I severely doubt.

I can't really disagree (much) with your anecdotes, reasoning, or conclusion. It makes me wonder: could it be that we are "doing it wrong", or at least: far from optimally? But then, I haven't really heard any of The Experts mention the notion, so clearly my suspicions are likely to be unsound. But still, something seems.....off.

If you're subtly hinting that I'm a Russian bot, either for pure amusement or some kind of probing, I can tell you that I am definitely not. And that's правда I mean, TRUTH! Truth is what I meant.

I have had several individuals develop an obsession with me and follow me around Reddit with alts harassing me personally, so I can tell you it wasn't because of leftist censorship, which has become rampant on Reddit.

I think people don't "do" anything because they're efficiently divided and apathetic. The problem is that the ruling class has kept trying to squeeze every last drop of wealth for themselves and the Marxist have stepped up their game which includes disruption of the basic services of the masses which is far more quickly going to push people to conflict than abortion rights or arguments over people's naughty bits.

You were speaking about how the west optimizes for itself over the world. I was just commenting that yes, of course it does. It's competing with the rest of the world. We're not one global entity. We're individual countries. Cooperation is useful but problematic in the long run as a countries needs and leadership change.

The morality of man is, of course, as subjective as the experience of men. This is why we often attempt to lash it to the observable truth we can agree on. More and more we're seeing a greater amount of fog and shadow being artificially pumped into the world's optics by those who benefit from the obfuscation of morality, making it just as morally deplorable to prevent someone from killing a child as to kill the child yourself.

Which is why appeals to emotion, false dichotomies, and false premises are more common than grounded argument, because they're cheap and effective on the masses who feel themselves more intelligent due to their programming in university. The same people who can't answer basic questions about geography or history or even why they're calling someone racist or voting for someone are the ones gorilla glued to the notion that they're intellectually superior.

So when we measure success in terms of government, we once again attempt to bolt it to the observable reality that we share. Unfortunately we have 10K resolution on this reality now, where before we were 8 bits on a good day. So there were far fewer metrics to compare and winners were more easily decided. I'm not certain the high res view is helping, unless people are going to uncharacteristically shift to being more clear about what exactly they mean, which I severely doubt.

> No it's a reference to babies :) I realize calling a baby a "machine" is a little...odd. But I'm trying to point out that the line between artificial and natural life is a blurry one.

Aaaaahhhhlol, true dat.

Although, is "making babies" not a bit of a colloquialism? I mean, humans do play a crucially important role in the process, but is it objectively and precisely true that we actually make these babies, at least in the same way that we make a cake, a skyscraper, a B-52 bomber, etc? Sometimes I wonder if the language we use (out of necessity, *or so they say) might cast an illusion of sorts over that which lies underneath.

> Are you saying that a baby created in an artificial womb wouldn't feel or be conscious?

Sir, please use proper terminology: zygote.

As for the question itself: it's a good question! Unfortunately, I have no idea about what the truth of the matter is.

> I'm saying there are some very specific metaphysical scenarios (like a God who actively ensouls every new child) where my assumptions would break down.

Oh, I suspect the scenarios where your assumptions (or, metaphysical framework) break down are far less specific than it may seem.

> But under any kind of physicalist scenario (even weakly physicalist), there's a pretty clear (but long!) path to building an artificial brain.

True. But then: is what is "Clear" necessarily what is True? Take that whole January 6 coup attempt as an example - "both sides" are "clear" on what happened there that day (and what lead up to it, from a causality perspective), despite it being objectively unknown, and unknowable.

I am very wary of predictions (of the future, or otherwise) based on clarity.

> The big question is, how will we know when we've done it? How will we be able to tell if that brain truly feels, even if it's functionally identical to a human brain? Can we rule out the possibility that God chose not to ensoul our artificial brain? Or that we haven't missed some crucial detail?

A plausibly even bigger question: to what degree is it optimal that we are even pursuing this [particular goal in the first place, all things considered? Or maybe an even more important question: have we even stopped to consider that question? Just how is it that "humanity" "decides" what it is that we should be doing, and what we should not be doing, anyways? I don't recall that topic being covered.

> I agree. Most science-oriented people seem to think we'll have concrete answers to my questions above. I think we'll have concrete theories, but they'll rely on some big assumptions.

Considering that, it kinda makes me wonder: how did it come about in the first place that The Science has seemingly ascended to The Throne of Authority (state-sanctioned, no less) on planet Earth? Was a vote of some sort held? Did I miss a news release? Because it sure seems to me that this is now considered A Fundamental Truth.

So many questions, so few answers.

> Is this a reference to sex toys? Those can certainly make a person feel things, but the toy itself is inanimate and non-conscious....at least I think so!

No it's a reference to babies :) I realize calling a baby a "machine" is a little...odd. But I'm trying to point out that the line between artificial and natural life is a blurry one.

> Sure, but also not feeling, or conscious.

Are you saying that a baby created in an artificial womb wouldn't feel or be conscious?

> I don't think I catch your meaning?

I'm saying there are some very specific metaphysical scenarios (like a God who actively ensouls every new child) where my assumptions would break down. But under any kind of physicalist scenario (even weakly physicalist), there's a pretty clear (but long!) path to building an artificial brain.

The big question is, how will we know when we've done it? How will we be able to tell if that brain truly feels, even if it's functionally identical to a human brain? Can we rule out the possibility that God chose not to ensoul our artificial brain? Or that we haven't missed some crucial detail?

> From my vantage point, science seems to be not so interested in those sorts of questions, if not even sometimes downright hostile to them!

I agree. Most science-oriented people seem to think we'll have concrete answers to my questions above. I think we'll have concrete theories, but they'll rely on some big assumptions.

> Not Russian.

Is that knowledge, or merely belief? (I couldn't resist.)

> I see a lot of people who behave badly on Reddit get banned and come back with new accounts. It makes me wary (and weary if I'm honest) of anyone who's account is less than 3 years old but also participates in political or philosophical discussion.

I heard a rumour once that people sometimes get their Reddit accounts deleted for discussing "non-sanctioned" topics. No idea how true it is, but the manner in which freedom of speech is implemented on Reddit and social media in general is....interesting.

> I think this is patently obvious to the most casual observer. Unfortunately most people are stupid and easily manipulated. One of the easiest things to convince people of is that they're smart and hard to manipulate.

Fair enough....but all the people? Like, why does there seem to be nobody that is interested in doing something? Is this not weird on its own, let alone in an environment where most people are involved in doing things at least 8 hours per day, 5 days per week? At the very least, is the dearth of novel ideas in this particular area not rather inconsistent with the whole?

> There are still a bunch of governments and cultures competing on Earth.

A weird detail in itself, from a more absolute perspective anyways.

> The suggestion that they should just "give up" and start working for global good, while all Star Trek universe greater good and all that, is unrealistic.

Give up? Star Trek? Sir: are you referring to something I've said? Because I certainly don't believe in anything like that.

Not only do I not peddle false dichotomies, I am a bitter enemy of them - if I had my way (could you imagine, lol), I would ban them from being used at all!

> Governments, economic systems and cultures compete.

An extraordinarily (I kid, I kid) nice way of looking at it!

> In fact, if they didn't, humanity wouldn't prosper; at least this version of humanity.

Perhaps. But then simultaneously, have we not also been instructed that cooperation is, in fact, The Way to Go? (Well, at least abstractly instructed.)

> Governments are not moral entities.

No argument here! 😂

> Not to say that they cannot act morally or immorally, but a government has a responsibility that surpasses individual morality.

I suppose - but then: by what methodology are the lines drawn? And, do you and I get any say in this, really?

> You, can individually make a decision to give up your lunch to a stranger who has nothing to eat. You cannot morally decide to give up the lunch of your children to a stranger who has nothing to eat.

Are morals objective? Or worse: what is the nature of their existence, in fact? What if morals are mostly just more stories we tell ourselves so we can "make it through the night"?

Also: how well does this methodology scale? To what degree is it optimal? Has it been decided upon democratically (I'm using an extremely literal sense of the word here, not the more popular colloquial meaning)?

> When you MUST SURVIVE (and governments must, foremost, survive)....

Seems reasonably accurate.

> ...and further you must aim for the benefit of the largest group...

This seems....less so, to the degree of wandering into not just wrong territory, but backwards.

> ...it isn't a morality that guides you, but principles of success.

Is "success" objective? Do you and I get any say on the algorithm that calculates "success"? What about dying babies, do they get any say (or, their parents, since babies are typically too dumb to have a substantial opinion, even leaving aside that the babies in question may not being operating at peak cognition, what with their caloric deficit, combined with the fact that the brain consumes ~20% of the body's energy)?

> There is room for morality only when there is surplus.

I suppose. But then: what if humanity never reaches surplus, or is unable to realize (lack of training?) when they have? I mean: do we even have a way of detecting that state? Do we even have a definition?

>I might be one of those Russian Trolls that I've been hearing so much about?

Not Russian. I see a lot of people who behave badly on Reddit get banned and come back with new accounts. It makes me wary (and weary if I'm honest) of anyone who's account is less than 3 years old but also participates in political or philosophical discussion.

>maybe something....not-entirely-organic about the whole package.

I think this is patently obvious to the most casual observer. Unfortunately most people are stupid and easily manipulated. One of the easiest things to convince people of is that they're smart and hard to manipulate.

>I'm of the belief that humanity, particularly "The West", optimizes for numerous(!) variables over and above the happiness of overall humanity.

There are still a bunch of governments and cultures competing on Earth. The suggestion that they should just "give up" and start working for global good, while all Star Trek universe greater good and all that, is unrealistic. Governments, economic systems and cultures compete. In fact, if they didn't, humanity wouldn't prosper; at least this version of humanity.

Governments are not moral entities. Not to say that they cannot act morally or immorally, but a government has a responsibility that surpasses individual morality. You, can individually make a decision to give up your lunch to a stranger who has nothing to eat. You cannot morally decide to give up the lunch of your children to a stranger who has nothing to eat. When you MUST SURVIVE (and governments must, foremost, survive) and further you must aim for the benefit of the largest group, it isn't a morality that guides you, but principles of success. There is room for morality only when there is surplus.

> I mean, do we humans even have a sophisticated (and legitimate, accurate(!), etc) methodology for determining what we should be worried about?

Look, a purely philosophical question. I like those.

Nearly every animal on the planet has developed some mechanism to recognize and cope with danger. Are they all legitimate? Accurate? Etc? To varying degrees.

To answer philosophically, it doesn't matter. The inevitability of death means that, success or failure will be washed away in 200 years anyway. From the perspective of the individual, well, they will have no perspective.

But a slightly less solipsist or existentialist perspective, you have the lab, the workshop and the field. I try to be an introspective person, dissecting my failures and trying to turn them into lessons to be learned for success. I try to test out my philosophy and methodology for approaching complex situations using forums such as Reddit and spirited conversation with strangers IRL. I also practically apply the underpinning principals I've learned through practical exercises in the real world.

I suppose, each person's ability to do these things varies in accordance with how much importance they're likely to place on the reliability of those tools.

> We create feeling machines all the time. Sex is a pretty messy manufacturing process, but on the plus side it feels great.

Is this a reference to sex toys? Those can certainly make a person feel things, but the toy itself is inanimate and non-conscious....at least I think so!

> Biotech has already started to encroach on this process. You don't need sex anymore, and fertilization can happen outside of the body. We still need a womb, but the road to an artificial womb seems pretty well-paved.

Sure, but also not feeling, or conscious.

> I do think there's an open question of how much we'll be able to wrap our arms around the process, and how fast we'll make progress. There's also a really interesting question around embodiment: do you have to make feeling machines out of meat? Or can you make them out of wires and metal?

Good questions. Some other good questions: Can it even be done? What even "is" "it" that we are creating? Has that question been worked through to conclusion yet? From my vantage point, science seems to be not so interested in those sorts of questions, if not even sometimes downright hostile to them! I am surely biased, but that doesn't nullify the question.

> Since we're in r/philosophy, I suppose I also have to admit the possibility that God endows each newborn with an immortal soul, and could choose not to ensoul children that were born of artificial processes.

A very popular, just-so story, if you ask me.

> But barring a fairly extreme metaphysical scenario, it's only a matter of iteration.

I don't think I catch your meaning?

I mean, we already do it! We create feeling machines all the time. Sex is a pretty messy manufacturing process, but on the plus side it feels great.

Biotech has already started to encroach on this process. You don't need sex anymore, and fertilization can happen outside of the body. We still need a womb, but the road to an artificial womb seems pretty well-paved.

I do think there's an open question of how much we'll be able to wrap our arms around the process, and how fast we'll make progress. There's also a really interesting question around embodiment: do you have to make feeling machines out of meat? Or can you make them out of wires and metal?

Since we're in r/philosophy, I suppose I also have to admit the possibility that God endows each newborn with an immortal soul, and could choose not to ensoul children that were born of artificial processes. But barring a fairly extreme metaphysical scenario, it's only a matter of iteration.

I came to the conclusion that I, according to the Dunning-Kruger effect, have a severe cognitive impairment.

Yeah agreed--I kind of slid over this one. To be fair, I did say "apparent" incompatibility :)

> The circuitry of intelligence and the circuitry of feelings are not the same.

I'm pretty sure this is true, but a lot of the scientifically-minded folks I talk to don't seem to agree. They especially don't think you can have feeling without a certain level of intelligence (e.g. a concept of selfhood).

A lot of emergentists I've debated with speak of feeling as something that arises in sufficiently sophisticated information processing systems. I suppose you could treat this as a necessary, but not sufficient condition--but that begs the question, what else is necessary? Any extra requirement seems to break the emergentist approach to consciousness.

I think you're right though--there are other ways of describing emergentism (e.g. a description that isn't based entirely on information processing) which are not in direct conflict with "intelligence that doesn't feel"

From what source did you acquire your knowledge, about the future?

> First, I wonder who you were on Reddit before OCT 2020.

Why? Do you think (just speculating here) that I might be one of those Russian Trolls that I've been hearing so much about? It's certainly possible, that's for sure. And, The Experts have advised us to be on high alert for such goings on. Now I'm not making any accusations here, I'm just saying: it adds up (where "it" is the prospect that I am likely to be a Russian Troll, in that "I" check the necessary boxes, thus it is reasonable to form that conclusion).

> Second, all of Covid is a land war in Asia. It's nearly impossible to comment on the conflict without embroiling yourself in a 5 front war. The problem is that it has been politicized, with Trump pushing for vaccines and Democrats saying that they wouldn't trust them, then switching roles once Biden came to power. Thusly anything you have to say about the vaccines or mandates, pro or con, there's a healthy stockpile of argument and fact that can be used to support your position and it would take forever to unravel that.

Mostly agree, and can't help noticing: isn't it a bit weird? Like, if you were running this show, is the way that it is being run equal to the way that you would run it?

To be clear: I certainly understand that "mistakes happen", especially when things are moving fast - but things weren't moving all that fast before covid ("normal", mostly), and when one realizes there are mistakes/flaws in a system (say, your population is ~dumb, to the point of being highly prone to suggestion), is it not standard convention to address those mistakes? But when you look around, is it not substantially true that there is an absolute truckload of obvious, bi-partisan, non-controversial flaws in our system, and most of them get lip service, at best (if aid to starving children doesn't float your boat (it is rather socialist, to be fair), how about something as simple as single payer medical care, an issue that is both important and is one of those very rare items that has bi-partisan political support, at least among the population of this democracy we live in)? At worst, they get obviously distorted coverage, or not mentioned at all (not to open an ontological can of epistemic worms or anything, just musing). I dunno about you, but I can't shake the feeling that there's maybe something....not-entirely-organic about the whole package.

> Third, the very essence of the discussion was regarding how purchases have a cost in children's lives, so I'm dubious regarding your confusion as to why this is being brought up.

Oh that. Well, I'm of the belief that humanity, particularly "The West", optimizes for numerous(!) variables over and above the happiness of overall humanity. On one hand, this is an extremely unpopular theory, but then on the other hand, I am far from the only person who subscribes to it. In fact, it isn't even all that difficult to find politicians from either party singing the praises of such ideas! And yet, there tends to be not a lot of follow through on these ideas, or even serious, in-depth discussion. It's probably nothing, of course, but it's one of those ideas that sits in the back of the mind and makes you wonder - do know what I am saying, sir?

> Fourth, humans have an amazing ability at storytelling which has served them for both news and entertainment for quite a while.

Indeed - we even get stories in this very subreddit "now and then", often accompanied by an insistence that thinking in stories is the only acceptable approach - and this is a philosophy subreddit!

> Humanity also has the arrogance, imagination, bigotry and creativity to manufacture such irresponsible and damaging lies as to divide the greatest nations on the planet.

Too true, too true.

> And lastly, I'm concerned. That's all. Just concerned.

Well you should be!

I'm curious though: exactly what is it that you are concerned about? And I might as well ask in advance (you know me!): how confident are you that what you are worrying about is what you should be worrying about? I mean, do we humans even have a sophisticated (and legitimate, accurate(!), etc) methodology for determining what we should be worried about?

And if not:

• why not?

• what are we using, in fact, as an alternative?

Not sure I follow--what are you getting at?

Thoughts?

I just have a lot of them. First, I wonder who you were on Reddit before OCT 2020.

Second, all of Covid is a land war in Asia. It's nearly impossible to comment on the conflict without embroiling yourself in a 5 front war. The problem is that it has been politicized, with Trump pushing for vaccines and Democrats saying that they wouldn't trust them, then switching roles once Biden came to power. Thusly anything you have to say about the vaccines or mandates, pro or con, there's a healthy stockpile of argument and fact that can be used to support your position and it would take forever to unravel that.

Third, the very essence of the discussion was regarding how purchases have a cost in children's lives, so I'm dubious regarding your confusion as to why this is being brought up.

Fourth, humans have an amazing ability at storytelling which has served them for both news and entertainment for quite a while. Humanity also has the arrogance, imagination, bigotry and creativity to manufacture such irresponsible and damaging lies as to divide the greatest nations on the planet.

And lastly, I'm concerned. That's all. Just concerned.

This is an awesome post. I'm a huge fan of Sartre and Camus but I always had a hard time putting my finger on the exact difference between Camus' absurdist freedom and Sartre's existential freedoms.

> It isn't artistry that I'm worried about killing anyone.

Why not? If one was to peruse the history books, I think you'd find art's fingerprints all over the place. Consider something as recent as COVID: I presume you subscribe to the theory that vaccines save lives, and that conspiracy theorists' stories contributed to a non-trivial amounts of death (due to the believers of these stories not getting vaccinated as a consequence of ingesting them into their minds). If you read some of these stories, are they not often incredibly artistic, with their passionate descriptions of "reality" and calls to action, creative stretching of the truth, and various other common artistic flairs?

And never mind the conspiracy theorists - how about the mainstream, "responsible and trustworthy" journalism/messaging - did this not also utilize many(!) of the very same techniques, if perhaps with a bit more (on a relative scale anyways, which is how humans perceive reality as luck would have it) epistemic quality to them?

To me, the situation is clear:

• our whole world runs on stories

• all good stories contain artistry

Is it not so?

And if so, should we then not perhaps be at least a little curious about why some just-so stories consistently get the official seal of approval and other just-so stories consistently get the seal of "fake news", when a skilful deconstruction and epistemic analysis of the respective stories would quickly reveal that none of the stories really "add up" comprehensively, and whoever is doing the "official" (despite no vote being held on the matter) categorization is "a little biased"? I mean, come on: there are literally lives at stake here, is some seriousness not warranted?

> > > > I find it interesting that what amounts to a "some assembly required" kit of call to violence manifesto....

Nice.

> ...is justified by the concept that an EA microtransaction is somehow, in some butterfly wings effect, responsible for deaths of children in the third world and proof of some oppression hierarchy built on genocidal white supremacy or some such.

Hold up now....what are you getting at here? Firstly, I don't think I accused anyone of being responsible for any of this. My words were descriptive in nature, I was only describing plausible cause and effect relationships (correlations), I wasn't saying that anyone was necessarily at fault. I mean, think about it: who says that the way things are isn't right, if not righteous? My claim is more so that it is....non-beautiful, and perhaps(!) some other negative things, and I also concede there are many upsides (for us anyways) to this particular way of doing things.

Furthermore, I have no idea what you're referring to with an "EA microtransaction" bearing responsibility for death (what's the cause and effect relationship there?), or anything about proof(!) of "genocidal white supremacy" (I can agree substantially with the "oppression hierarchy" part though).

These are slippery rocks we're walking on, we should choose our words carefully lest confusion beset us, just as our wise leaders do when they are broadcasting into people's minds "how things are" in the world (which at least plausibly influences the way they act in the world, both on an individual and collective basis, and so forth and so on).

> > > > I feel like the philosophically minded might find this ironic.

It seems almost certain, especially if one considers the widespread (ubiquitous?) phenomenon where two minds can observe literally the same thing and come away with extremely confident but completely different knowledge (just ask them, they'll tell you with complete sincerity) about what it was they saw.

That's my take on it anyways - thoughts?

The God of Reading and the God of Writing must be two very different characters indeed, and I believe both together must be some form of autistic primality.

This is a great way to create resentment for children in poorer countries who need "saving".

Very good summary. Thank you. Could you link the complete reference to the Kaufman book please? I shall re-read Sisyphus and The Rebel as it is a distant memory now, and I was more of a Sartre guy in my Uni time. You gave me the needed push.

>And a little artistry more often wouldn't kill us, I don't think.

It isn't artistry that I'm worried about killing anyone.

I find it interesting that what amounts to a "some assembly required" kit of call to violence manifesto is justified by the concept that an EA microtransaction is somehow, in some butterfly wings effect, responsible for deaths of children in the third world and proof of some oppression hierarchy built on genocidal white supremacy or some such.

I feel like the philosophically minded might find this ironic.

Hey, well like Mr. HST would say: when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

I don't think it is too big of a burden to bear to think about such things now and then, we're all philosophers here after all. And a little artistry more often wouldn't kill us, I don't think.

And it's not exactly off the topic of the thread either I would say. Or is it?

Yes, they typically work that way, but again, this article doesn’t have to deal with the premise explicitly in order to not commit a fallacy. “Look they didn’t explicitly defend a premise, therefore they must be trying to pull a fast one! Didn’t fool me because I can identify fallacies correctly!”