YouTube’s leadership is complicit. Fuck them and their blood soaked hands.

I will admit when doing something like buying from an evil corporation that I’m making a trade off. I won’t pretend it’s fine. I try to acknowledge it.

It’s impossible to live in the modern world without participating in exploitation. This phone was probably made in ways that hurt the environment and labor. But I need a phone to participate in modern life. So I got one, and try to hold onto it as long as possible.

I think there’s a big difference between trying, and acknowledging tradeoffs and shortcomings, and just refusing to engage. “But I like it” is refusing to engage. I would respect “I know this milk comes from cruelty to cows, but I don’t care about cows” more. At least it’s honest.

Poor emotional regulation. Poor long term planning. Disregarding facts for emotions.

I imagine most people who are rewilding their lawn are doing so for environmental reasons, which I consider more valid than mere personal preference. If someone was doing so for mere aesthetics, maybe.

With respect to murdering, there is a social contract or a legal “contract” that says you absolutely can’t, so this argument obviously doesn’t work.

That’s kind of the point. The reason why you don’t murder isn’t merely because you like it. There are actual reasons. Personal preference alone is not sufficient to override reasons like social contracts and laws and stuff. So if one side of the argument is “this is good for the environment”, the other side saying “but I like it” should not be compelling.

It is compelling to some people when they consider stuff like the environment non-issues on the same level as personal preferences. Those people are assholes.

Conservatives would hate it so it’s probably a good idea

“Oh my god having a lawn isn’t murder you’re being dramatic!” - some small-minded buffoon who doesn’t understand analogies.

So many people seem to really struggle with analogies. Sometimes I think they’re just responding to the emotional content, and not following the reasoning at all

One of the things that bothers me more than it should is people responding to actual problems with “but i like it”.

You say something like “a ‘basic’ lawn like that is bad for the environment in many ways, in addition to being labor intensive.”

They respond with something that amounts to, “But I like it.”

That wasn’t the question! If someone likes murder that doesn’t justify it, right? Because if so this conversation would take a very abrupt turn. So we can infer that there must be some other justification. Probably, “I don’t care about other people”, which remains an insufficient justification for murdering a whining selfish prick.

The damage to trust in the US’ institutions and government is tremendous, and will not likely be repaired in our lifetimes.

Is he showing any of his work, or is he just making stuff up? Seems like he’s just making stuff up.

Also, everyone should look at the “wealth to scale” webpage: https://dbkrupp.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ . Humans are not good at scale, and this helps visualize it.

It’s not a set, so you can have duplicate values. So no, probably not.

Like you have a list and the range of its values is [0 … 1]. You can have a whole lot of 1s, but none of them are the sole biggest value.

Well, off the top of my head, while it would be nice to live in a world without espionage that’s not this one. I don’t think you could do very good spying if everyone knew who your spies were.

I’m pretty sure loads of other classes have alignment restrictions - notably clerics and paladins

I remember my D&D 3.x DM insisting we follow RAW, so if I wanted to take levels in assassin (who else remembers prestige classes?) then I had to be evil. 3 players went along, and the druid betrayed us to the “good” guys. Had a massive brawl where we (team evil) won, thanks in part to a hail mary “I run around the corner and hide. That’s… a natural 20 for 37” the betraying druid player couldn’t beat.

The class fantasy never appealed to me. They can be powerful, but I don’t have any real interest in being a dirt wizard or turning into animals.

More of a rogue guy, or arcane caster if I can get over spells-per-day being my anathema.

If I ever play D&D again, I think I’m going to spend a lot of time in session 0 getting on the same page about if we’re playing D&D as a resource management game, or as a wacky hijinks game. So many people want to play the latter, but expect a long rest to be as easy as it is in video games.

“I’m out of spells! Can we long rest?”

“You’re out of spells after casting nearly every single round of combat in the past 3 fights, and you want to chill out for 8 to 16 hours here, in the court of the evil duke’s castle, while he’s working on a ritual to summon a demon lord in a few hours?”

I mean, I kind of get it. The game is set up so you have all these cool toys. Of course you want to use them. That conflict is why I dislike per-day resources.

I feel like alignment hasn’t really been a thing in DND for more than a decade, but there’s a steady supply of people who only “know” DND from memes keeping the idea alive.

I mean, have fun with it, but it’s very “how do you do fellow kids” sometimes.

Sometimes.

There’s also digressive victimhood. That’s where someone in a dominant group is accused of wrongdoing, and they claim victimhood on some other axis.

When dominant groups are accused of discrimination against non-dominant groups, they often seek to portray themselves as the victims of discrimination instead. Sometimes, however, members of dominant groups counter accusations of discrimination by invoking victimhood on a new dimension of harm, changing the topic being discussed. Across three studies (N = 3081), we examine two examples of this digressive victimhood – Christian Americans responding to accusations of homophobia by claiming threatened religious liberty, and White Americans responding to accusations of racism by claiming threatened free speech.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103121001360

Wait, what’s the difference between a Nazi and a conservative? That’s a change in degree not in kind.

I’d heard of him but didn’t think about him often.

I’ve known 3 philosophy majors that I know of.

One had a PhD and was absolutely insufferable. We were coworkers, and he’d often say falsehoods to try to be funny. Like, “Did you write that documentation I asked for?”, and he’d say like “I spent all morning writing it as a series of haikus”. I’m like, my guy, just answer the question. I’d ask him to stop being sarcastic so often in professional contexts and he’d be like “I’m not being sarcastic I’m being ironic.” You knew what I meant, Ryan!

He would also use language to say things that were tEcHnIcAlLy true. Like, “I finished that task (or 1 equals 1)”, except he had more subtle ones.

Was it because he was a philosophy PhD? Probably not. Some of his annoying habits he tied back to philosophy stuff, but he was probably just an asshole. But that’s who I think of (other than chidi)

The other one I knew was fine in a messy nihilist rich kid way. Fun at parties. Can’t be friends.

And the last one is one of the nicest people I’ve ever met. Just thoughtful and patient and a really positive person.

Moved to Linux (popos on desktop, mint on ancient laptop). Been fine. Don’t miss windows. Play games and browse the web without issue.