jbeshir said: To read it reasonably (not even especially charitably, it’s just the natural read when looking for truth rather than lulz), he’s clearly suggesting that if it had been built and demonstrated it would be politically acceptable because it’d be the known “schelling point” to turn to when pissed at your government. This is not a *good* answer, but the problems with it are not quite so trivial or risible.
maybe, but only if everyone is pissed at their government for being insufficiently libertarian! there are many other reasons why someone might be pissed in ways that will not be satisfied by telling them it’s okay the government is still defending property owners and student debts.
calling something that doesn’t exist a schelling point doesn’t mean it is one!
I agree that it’s a critically flawed answer and if people were agreeing with it I’d write critique of it, but the problems with it are not the ones being pointed out in the original post, and not quite so trivial or risible.
Even if you are not a fan of the “libertarian minarchist” bit because angry people with problems are probably not going to be thrilled by the government declaring it isn’t going to help them, the core point of “could we create model governments and heavily automated process models that could be pointed at as alternatives to coalesce around” is not *trivially* useless and I think is kind of interesting, kind of done already but probably poorly by ad-hoc assistance from other governments they’re on good terms with.
And there’s no reason they couldn’t include an ordained crisis team whose job was to spend money on resolving immediate needs or similar- there are flaws in that, too, but nothing obviously fatal to arriving at something workable with iteration.
This is a problem with the who-is-mockable based discourse. Since it is more about whose stuff can be mocked rather than who is genuinely failing to produce things of value, it’s basically entirely motivated misreading and error, with a “if you don’t want to be misrepresented, well then, you should have been less fun to misrepresent” attitude, and if one is unwary and takes it at face value one ends up discussing a strawman.
Even if you avoid that, you end up discussing only the flaws and how they indicate the fundamental unworthiness of the person rather than debating the interesting 90% of the idea- which means that anyone discussing questions which probably are too hard for a single person to immediately answer correctly is punished.
It also punishes making novel errors rather than the usual ones- I mean, like half the people making fun of EY here are communists, and while I don’t want to declare that their political philosophy is useless I would suggest that maybe people in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones. But because their errors and huge failures to examine critical problems are routine and EY’s are novel, they can get away with it.
(Not *the* problem with it. *the* problem is what it punishes, and how it is a jackass to people for no reason, as I wrote earlier)
I don’t believe the who-is-mockable thing holds water, as who is not mockable??
It’s not like people mock a proposal because Yudkowsky is fringe; people are mocking presidential candidates and world leaders and university professors and CEOs practically 24/7 around here as you must have noticed.
And yes Communists and Libertarians are both mockable and mocked, at least in the posts I see scrolling hurriedly past.
But I guess mainly I don’t see EY’s failures as novel, because I’ve said similar things! You know, when I was 12, after reading a few sci-fi novels and convinced that I was now smart enough to orchestrate the perfect society. (sorry)
Anyway, maybe someone should kick off a new thread making the proposal in a less risible way so we can escalate the tone of the discourse on this matter.
Anyway, maybe someone should kick off a new thread making the proposal in a less risible way so we can escalate the tone of the discourse on this matter.
You mean like my few thousand words on one version of the basic idea?
1 week ago · 23 notes · source: argumate · .permalink
almostcoralchaos reblogged this from jbeshir
not-even-even liked this
not-a-lizard liked this
trashworks reblogged this from socialjusticemunchkin
metagorgon liked this
blashimov liked this
acertainaccountofevents reblogged this from nuclearspaceheater and added:By that rule, the choice of Grand Central Terminal as a place to meet in NYC with coordination because of its...
timtotal liked this
jbeshir said: @collapsedsquid: For what it’s worth I think that there is a fair critique there.
zeteticelench liked this
argumate said: I agree with you! and yet… “Silicon Valley failed Venezuela” I mean *really*
socialjusticemunchkin reblogged this from argumate and added:You mean like my few thousand words on one version of the basic idea?
- socialjusticemunchkin liked this
- jbeshir reblogged this from argumate and added:
“who is mockable” may have been a poor way to phrase it; “who is most mockable” might be better.To vaguely point at what...
- argumate said: <– THIS
nuclearspaceheater reblogged this from argumate and added:The most important point is that the proposal be restated in a form that does not misuse the phrase “Schelling...
- argumate reblogged this from jbeshir and added:
I don’t believe the who-is-mockable thing holds water, as who is not mockable??It’s not like people mock a proposal...
- argumate said: fight the good fight
- argumate liked this
collapsedsquid reblogged this from argumate and added:So part of the reason this is consuming my posting is I’m doing pushing back against the idea that libertarianism is the...