LukeZaz's recent activity
-
Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society
-
Comment on A Dialogue on Freedom in ~humanities
LukeZaz (edited )Link ParentThe thing about the utility monster is that it was originally conceptualized by Robert Nozick, a man who believed in property rights so thoroughly that his philosophy considered the concept of...utilitarianism is genuinely trying to make universal claims about morals and ethics. [...] By contrast, only the most unhinged sovereign citizen would take such an absolutist view on property rights that they would say that there should be no limitations ever,
The thing about the utility monster is that it was originally conceptualized by Robert Nozick, a man who believed in property rights so thoroughly that his philosophy considered the concept of selling yourself into slavery to be entirely just, provided you "freely" (free as in free market) made that deal. So yes, we are dealing with an extreme libertarian here.1
You could construct almost any scenario of something that's fine in moderation but becomes abhorrent when taken to an extreme.
Yes. That's what the bottom-left panel of the comic is saying. Meanwhile, the author's question regarding real-world, smaller-scale versions of the property monster is posed because, unlike the thought experiment, that issue actually exists. "Logical extremes are unhelpful because they do not happen" doesn't work as an argument when the scenario starts actually happening.
Crucially though, one of the points of this comic is to make the case that endless theorizing to the point of absurdity is not a good use of time, so you're agreeing with it a lot more than you realize.
1. Nozick believed this less later in his life, and in a way, even acknowledged the concept of a "property monster" by admitting that his entitlement theory could lead to "inequalities" that he said "seemed unfair." This lead him finding inheritance taxes agreeable, if only to a degree.
-
Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society
LukeZaz Link ParentI'm a little worried the fact that I'm responding out of concern is not making it through in my comments, so I'm just gonna back off. For what it's worth though, I hear you. This shit is exhausting.I'm a little worried the fact that I'm responding out of concern is not making it through in my comments, so I'm just gonna back off.
For what it's worth though, I hear you. This shit is exhausting.
-
Comment on A Dialogue on Freedom in ~humanities
LukeZaz LinkA favorite of mine from Existential Comics. Most of the site's comics are comedy-oriented with philosophy as more of a framing device. But every now and then comes a comic that makes a point. This...A favorite of mine from Existential Comics. Most of the site's comics are comedy-oriented with philosophy as more of a framing device. But every now and then comes a comic that makes a point. This is one I found particularly convincing.
For convenience, and because it can be easy to miss, here's the author's elaboration on the point from below the comic
Like all the dialogue comics, the two characters don't represent any philosophers in particular, but merely discuss an idea.
Robert Nozick's concept of a "Utility Monster" was a thought experiment aiming to criticize Utilitarianism. He imagines a "monster" with a capacity for happiness so much greater than our own, that we would be morally obligated to sacrifice everything to give the monster pleasure, as that would result in the most overall happiness. Most people recoil from this conclusion, due to its apparent unfairness. Nozick uses this idea to argue against the redistribution of wealth, because it would be unjust. He favors a society based on free exchange only, where wealth is justified based on not how fairly it was distributed, but on how fairly it was acquired. So if someone becomes very wealthy through voluntary exchanges with other human beings, "redistributing" that wealth is effectively denying the ability for people to come to voluntary exchanges - denying their freedom. Even things like minimum wage laws he saw as restrictions on freedom, because after all if two people consent to the exchange, who is the government to say that they can't? Freedom, unlike total happiness, Nozick thought, could not be subject to a "Utility Monster" because your freedom does not take away from my freedom. The ability for people to make contracts isn't a finite resource that can be "sucked up".
However, Nozick's conception of freedom is based largely on contracts revolving around property rights. That is to say, freedom for Nozick is freedom to own and control not just your own personhood, but any property that you own. Property, like resources devoted to increasing "utility", is a finite resource that could theoretically be entirely owned by a single "Freedom Monster", or maybe "Justice Monster", but perhaps best named "Property Monster". Like the comic imagines, a monster that lived forever and bent its entire will to owning more and more land could, theoretically, through entirely voluntary transactions, own all of the land. If this situation arose, the monster would have infinite leverage in any negotiation that it entered into, because everyone on earth would starve unless they made a deal with the monster. From Nozick's point of view, because neither party was physically coerced, and the monster's property came from a history of free transactions, the monster's ownership of all its property is just and free. However, the situation that it leads to seems to be one that severely lacks freedom. The monster could make any rules it wanted, and everyone on earth would be more or less "freely" forced to [oblige] it. Most people would not describe this situation as one where humanity is more free.
Of course, if we find this situation abhorrent, we have to question why we do not find it abhorrent on a smaller scale. For example, millions of people are born without property today, and find themselves having to obey the rules set by their landlord or boss, and this obedience to property is described as "freedom", but structurally it is the same freedom enjoyed by people obeying the monster's arbitrary rules in order to live. The business owner or landlord can control others by having far greater leverage, not infinite leverage as the monster does, because they have to compete with other business owners or landlords, but far more leverage than the person with nothing. Worse, if we look at the situations in terms of class rather than individuals, the property owners as a class do have the infinite leverage of the monster, because they quite literally own everything. So far as they have common interests, they will naturally exploit that leverage to advance those interests with great ease, since the class with no property relies on the use of their property to survive. As to what a real freedom might look like, where one or more individuals couldn't use their massive leverage to exploit others in any manner they saw fit, well, that is as they say a question beyond the scope of this essay.
-
A Dialogue on Freedom
23 votes -
Comment on Why the New York Times [sometimes asks] stupid questions in ~society
LukeZaz Link@rosco posted this video in the, ah, contentious thread about a New York Times op-ed that got posted recently. I found it to be a very good video, and felt it deserved its own post. So here it is....@rosco posted this video in the, ah, contentious thread about a New York Times op-ed that got posted recently. I found it to be a very good video, and felt it deserved its own post. So here it is.
This one's from Lily Alexandre and is about how articles like "A Voice of Hate in America's Heartland" (which normalized a card-carrying neo-Nazi) or op-eds like "Did Women Ruin the Workplace?" (I don't have to explain why that's bad) are getting published in the NYT.
Regarding the title: The other thread this was posted in was argumentative in part because the title the NYT gave their article may as well have been deliberately provocative. While Lily Alexandre's title isn't that bad, I've elected to temper it anyways to avoid the same here. I'm fine with any changes that preserve this goal.
-
Why the New York Times [sometimes asks] stupid questions
11 votes -
Comment on Did wokeness leave us worse off? (gifted link) in ~society
LukeZaz (edited )Link ParentBefore I say anything else: I agree with you fully about the article. That said... A problem I have with one part of your comment, put in a collapsible since I don't want you to have to view it...Before I say anything else: I agree with you fully about the article. That said...
A problem I have with one part of your comment, put in a collapsible since I don't want you to have to view it unless you're feeling alright
One offhand comment about frat houses is all it took for you to disagree with everything? Really?
...this is a knee-jerk reaction to a small part of gary's comment, and because it's knee-jerk it leads to a very bad interpretation of what they wrote. They never said nor implied that what they quoted was why they disagree with your comment, much less the sole reason why. Your later edit, by contrast, is doing a much better job.
As much as I agree with your feelings regarding the article, it's pretty clear this is causing you enough distress (very understandable!) to the point of making comments off-the-hip, as it were, which isn't very healthy for anyone. I mean only kindness here when I say: Maybe a break is due?
-
Comment on US will revoke passports for parents who owe child support in ~society
LukeZaz Link ParentThat's just it though, isn't it? None of us trust this administration to do that at all.Though, the law should be understanding to people struggling economically and should ensure recipients are good stewards of the money.
That's just it though, isn't it? None of us trust this administration to do that at all.
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
LukeZaz Link ParentWe aren't: If you're genuinely confused, just go back to the original phrasing, to whit: "Purpose of a system." I only used the word "intent" as you brought it up, and it is often used as a...we should be more cautious about attributing intentions to a system.
We aren't:
whereas a system – being as it has no will – must have intent applied to it from without.
If you're genuinely confused, just go back to the original phrasing, to whit: "Purpose of a system." I only used the word "intent" as you brought it up, and it is often used as a roundabout way to refer to the same thing.
The people working on a system (or as part of a system) may have intentions, and sometimes they conflict.
My previous comment was about how the intent of people and the purpose of a system were different things.
At this point however, this discussion is getting very unnecessarily focused on semantics. I find that's often an indicator as to when a discussion has lost its value, and I'm circling my points a lot besides. So past this point, agree to disagree.
-
Comment on US will revoke passports for parents who owe child support in ~society
LukeZaz Link ParentI'm inclined to agree. Encouraging those can afford to pay child support to do so before they enjoy, say, luxury travel sounds like an enticing proposition, but this is very heavy-handed and I can...I'm inclined to agree. Encouraging those can afford to pay child support to do so before they enjoy, say, luxury travel sounds like an enticing proposition, but this is very heavy-handed and I can see a thousand ways this would catch others in the crossfire.
There's a bunch of ways I could be wrong about this, given I do not know much about how child support works. But my gut feeling is that I could see this preventing someone from ever leaving the country due to poverty — or worse, given our current government, it could prevent someone from proving their citizenry to avoid being arbitrarily deported.
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
LukeZaz Link ParentPeople and systems are very different things. People's intentions are applied differently than the way systems intentions are applied; a person can generate an intention independently and tell you...People and systems are very different things. People's intentions are applied differently than the way systems intentions are applied; a person can generate an intention independently and tell you it, whereas a system – being as it has no will – must have intent applied to it from without.1 This brings us full circle to why the phrase is useful, though: It lets us easily point out how a given intent is inappropriate to apply to a given system.
Naturally, you'll get awkward results if you try to apply a systems-focused rhetorical device to a person instead.
But suspicions aren't proof and repeating a catch-phrase doesn't actually turn it into proof.
Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't. Luckily for POSIWID, it's supposed to be a heuristic, not a proof. Secondarily, a great deal of rhetoric people use is not proof, nor does it come with any. That's pretty normal, and is not specific to this. Nevertheless, analysis does not require proof to be meaningful.
1. People operating within or for a system still qualify as this, as they are not themselves the system.
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
LukeZaz Link ParentYou are taking the parts of my post designed to point out Scott's poor rhetoric1 and then responding to them as though they are my primary argument defending POSIWID, while ignoring the parts that...You are taking the parts of my post designed to point out Scott's poor rhetoric1 and then responding to them as though they are my primary argument defending POSIWID, while ignoring the parts that are actually my primary points. As a matter of convenience, I'll quote the important parts in question:
The entire point of POSIWID is that you cannot claim a system is intended to do something which is constantly fails to do. It's not a matter of meeting 99% of a goal instead of 100% of one, it's a matter of "you say you want to do this, but your efforts are negligent if not outright counter to that." Courtesy of Wikipedia, we get a far better example than anything Scott has provided:
For example, an organization that has a high rate of accidents and illness may claim that its values are health and safety, but applying POSIWID shows that the organization's practices contradict those values.
The word "high" is present in that sentence, and it is relevant. Am I to drop POSIWID as a concept entirely, just because a qualifier like that was needed? No, because I can still recognize the utility of it. And as for the article's deeply flawed examples, I can understand that any axiom can be found to have holes if you create a ridiculous environment specifically designed to fail it.
POSIWID has utility. It is a recognition of a large disparity between stated goals and actual results. Just because you could theoretically extend it to an absurd situation doesn't make any of that untrue.
1. Incidentally, I don't actually find my rephrasings of those terribly unfair. A for-profit cancer hospital really is exactly that, for example.
-
Comment on Valve has released CAD files for the Steam Controller in ~games
LukeZaz Link ParentIf they did it going forward? No, I don't think they'd have to be concerned about Epic or anyone else. The network effect they have is extremely strong, and that's not even accounting for Steam's...If they did it going forward? No, I don't think they'd have to be concerned about Epic or anyone else. The network effect they have is extremely strong, and that's not even accounting for Steam's excellent featureset or Valve's own extraordinary titles being nigh-exclusive to it. The profit they make by way of customer volume is absolutely immense.
Prior? Who could say. Even in the past, Valve's own games were extremely strong contenders that could've buoyed them even if they didn't manage to get the same market share. If you ask me, they might not have been as successful as fast, but they could've easily taken a lead eventually just waiting for competing services to shoot themselves in the foot as they so often do.
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
LukeZaz Link ParentI don't think relevancy is a good reason to share a bad article.I don't think relevancy is a good reason to share a bad article.
-
Comment on Why I find woke criticism of veganism and effective altruism so outrageous in ~society
LukeZaz (edited )Link ParentThis article starts by imploring me to consider various, deliberately unfairly constructed claims,1 and expects me to immediately drop my positions from that alone. This is a reversible argument:...- Exemplary
This article starts by imploring me to consider various, deliberately unfairly constructed claims,1 and expects me to immediately drop my positions from that alone. This is a reversible argument:
The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure two-thirds of cancer patients.
The purpose of a cancer hospital is to make money off cancer treatments.
The purpose of the Ukrainian military is to get stuck in a years-long stalemate with Russia.
The purpose of a military is to defend state power by sending the nation's people to die at the government's discretion. This one's extra loaded, because by making a counterpoint, I am made to seem as though I like Russia.
The purpose of the British government is to propose a controversial new sentencing policy, stand firm in the face of protests for a while, then cave in after slightly larger protests and agree not to pass the policy after all.
The purpose of the current British government is to test the waters over how it might further increase state control over citizenry, and back off to find subtler ones if sufficiently severe opposition forms.
The purpose of the New York bus system is to emit four billion pounds of carbon dioxide.
The purpose of the New York bus system is to emit whatever carbon dioxide it shall, without care for improving it.
The entire point of POSIWID is that you cannot claim a system is intended to do something which is constantly fails to do. It's not a matter of meeting 99% of a goal instead of 100% of one, it's a matter of "you say you want to do this, but your efforts are negligent if not outright counter to that." Courtesy of Wikipedia, we get a far better example than anything Scott has provided:
For example, an organization that has a high rate of accidents and illness may claim that its values are health and safety, but applying POSIWID shows that the organization's practices contradict those values.
The word "high" is present in that sentence, and it is relevant. Am I to drop POSIWID as a concept entirely, just because a qualifier like that was needed? No, because I can still recognize the utility of it. And as for the article's deeply flawed examples, I can understand that any axiom can be found to have holes if you create a ridiculous environment specifically designed to fail it.
The purpose of effective altruism is to justify inequality. Maybe you didn't want it to be that. But what people have done with the label is more important to its meaning than your personal beliefs are — if you wish to adhere to the principles that no longer fit that term, that's your prerogative, but I recommend using different words.
1. Scott's attempt to reinforce his list as fair by failing to find substantive discussion on Twitter of all places is doing nothing to improve my perception of his article.
-
Comment on Valve has released CAD files for the Steam Controller in ~games
LukeZaz Link ParentI'd prefer this to taking the 10% for it's own sake, yeah. But I kinda feel that Valve is able to pursue these things without that 10% – again, Gabe is a billionaire – and so I think we could have...You know, that extra 10% could also go toward charting a new way forward for games, be it through seed funding novel ideas, incentivizing development in cutting edge, yet under supported areas (maybe this is just my pet VR love speaking, IDK) or at the best least, building up their own library of novel IP.
I'd prefer this to taking the 10% for it's own sake, yeah. But I kinda feel that Valve is able to pursue these things without that 10% – again, Gabe is a billionaire – and so I think we could have both. Even besides though, I lean towards a lower cut regardless, as there's a whole lot of "established company/rich person plays sole deciding factor in what gets funded" going on today and I think we could do with less of that, you know?
As for the why, I find #1 believable as a factor (if not the whole), but I have doubt for #2 and #3. The latter because of the scale they operate at while also being a de facto monopoly (and also, again, Gabe is a billionaire). The former because I don't think Valve would want to sell to begin with, and is in too good of a position to be threatened by attempts at force; Amazon and Google both failed miserably, and Epic put a much better effort forward and is still failing badly. Even Microsoft didn't do a great job challenging them, and is practically giving up at this point.
Personally, I think it's mostly #4. I think the company is insulated enough from the consequences the rest of us are facing that they've become accidentally ignorant regarding the severity, and thus they just don't think of 30% as being a big deal. Or, put another way, they want to think about games and hardware instead of finance, much like we often do. But unlike us, they don't have to think about finance due to their success, so they don't.1 It's understandable, but ends up kinda negligent.
1. As an aside: This tracks with stuff I've seen their employees say before, too. I don't have a link, but I remember a talk they once gave in which they described... I think it was anti-cheat stuff? ...as "treadmill work," which they didn't want to have to do because it was boring or something along those lines. So they tried to find more permanent solutions, which is what the talk was about. Outside the talk though, those solutions don't really work, because they don't really exist. Good anti-cheat in most PvP games is unfortunately an unavoidably endless tug-of-war with cheat developers.
-
Comment on Valve has released CAD files for the Steam Controller in ~games
LukeZaz Link ParentThe 30% is worth it, yes. This is because Steam is a huge platform with massive reach and provides lots of useful tooling. But that's a distraction from what I'm actually concerned about. The way...The 30% is worth it, yes. This is because Steam is a huge platform with massive reach and provides lots of useful tooling. But that's a distraction from what I'm actually concerned about.
The way I see it, there are a lot of small developers who're struggling to survive, and the 30% cut is hindering that. It doesn't matter to me here if the cost/benefit calculations work out writ large — what matters to me is that Valve does not need to charge that high of a cut, even after accounting for what they provide, and by doing so regardless they are being greedy. It's unjustified, and they should stop.
Incidentally, other stores also do not need to charge 30%. I'll grant some leeway to Patreon because they're not as gigantic, but Apple could absolutely afford to lower their cut significantly.
-
Comment on Valve has released CAD files for the Steam Controller in ~games
LukeZaz Link ParentI love Valve for all the many genuinely wonderful things they've done for their customerbase. And a fair chunk of nice things they've done for developers too. They are easily one of the best...I love Valve for all the many genuinely wonderful things they've done for their customerbase. And a fair chunk of nice things they've done for developers too. They are easily one of the best companies in gaming today, by far. All that despite being a monopoly, which makes it extra impressive.
But I love them despite their cut. I obviously don't know the finances myself either, but I do know that Gabe's a billionaire, and I find it extremely unlikely that they need that 30% for almost anything they're doing. If anything at all. Of all that Valve does, the store cut is among their biggest vices, and the only thing I consider worse is their various lootbox schemes. If you ask me, they could take 20% and still be just as wildly successful, if not moreso — the only thing required would be that "success" not be the business definition of "having the most amount of money."
-
Comment on What does Tucker Carlson really believe? I went to Maine to find out. (gifted link) in ~society
LukeZaz LinkSo... alright. I hate posting this after the boil-over that was the other NYT article's thread, but I really think it needs to be at least mentioned. Since I know you're exhausted from that thread...So... alright. I hate posting this after the boil-over that was the other NYT article's thread, but I really think it needs to be at least mentioned. Since I know you're exhausted from that thread OP, I want to be clear that I am not mad at you or trying to sling shit. With that disclaimer out of the way...
I don't think it was worthwhile to platform Tucker Carlson here.
This reminds me of that piece the Times ran a while back titled "A Voice of Hate in America's Heartland," in which they interviewed an open neo-Nazi. This is a great tactic for normalizing an otherwise despicable figure, and I'm not exactly jazzed that the Times has chosen to do this kind of thing again. With all the hate he's spewed and damage he's done over the years, Carlson doesn't deserve this.
Thanks. I'm having trouble figuring out who's replying to who here. When their comment was marked as "new" to me, it was shown as a reply to my comment here. But when I open this thread again, it's not even present. I'm confused as hell.
EDIT: Figured it out. Had to disable an extension.