You either missed the point of the grandparent, or are missing some of the prerequisite concepts needed to think clearly about this subject, it seems to me.
I’m quite certain that Multiheaded is well aware of the law of diminishing returns and its implications, and has a fairly good grasp of how to do expected utility evaluations. Everything else you said in your post was, AFAICT, already all stated or implied by the grandparent, except:
Another important factor is the fact that those who consider themselves victims will never be satisfied, and indeed this whole campaign in their name quickly ceases to improve their lives to any measurable degree.
I find this claim dubious. I consider myself a victim of the oppressive historical patriarchy and dominance of gender-typing, and yet I’m fully satisfied with the current, ongoing efforts and measures that people all around the world are doing to fix it, as well as my own personal involvement and the efforts of my close circles.
You find yourself restricting freedom of speech, religion and association, creating an expanding maze of ever-more-draconian laws governing every aspect of life, throwing out core legal principles like innocent until proven guilty and the right to confront one’s accusers—and even then, success is unlikely.
Those are not particularly convincing examples of Good Principles that we’d want to have in an ideal society that we should aspire towards. My own brain is screeching at the first three in particular, and finds the named legal principles crude and unrefined when compared to other ideals to aspire to.
You don’t think freedom of speech, religion and association are important things for a society to defend? Well, in that case we don’t have much to talk about.
I will, however, suggest that you might do well to spend some time thinking about what your ideal society will be like after the principle that society (i.e. government) can dictate what people say, think and do to promote the social cause of the day becomes firmly entrenched. Do you really think your personal ideology will retain control of the government forever? What happens if a political group with views you oppose gets in power?
I will, however, suggest that you might do well to spend some time thinking about what your ideal society will be like after the principle that society (i.e. government) can dictate what people say, think and do to promote the social cause of the day becomes firmly entrenched. Do you really think your personal ideology will retain control of the government forever? What happens if a political group with views you oppose gets in power?
False dilemma. You’re also strawmanning my argument.
Freedom of religion is trivially equivalent to freedom of anti-epistemology. According to everything we know, it is extremely likely that only one set of beliefs can be true, and if so, there are clearly some that have more evidence supporting them. As such, “freedom to choose” which one set to believe is irrational and somewhat equivalent to trusting word-of-mouth rumours that fire does not harm you when you are naked.
Freedom of speech and freedom of association, in their current incarnations, are similarly problematic, though not as obviously so.
Absolute enforcement of these three freedoms is not required to avoid the failure modes of society that you enumerate, and I never mentioned that said ideal society would even remotely look like what’s contained withing your (apparently very tiny) hypothesis space of possible societies, let alone that my ideology would be the Rule of Law or that this society would even be composed of humans as we know them with all their flawed brains and flimsy squishy bits that give up and die way too fast.
In fairness, the claim that removing these freedoms is extremely dangerous isn’t the same as the claim that no conceivable society could function without them.
You may now continue with your regularly scheduled being right.
You either missed the point of the grandparent, or are missing some of the prerequisite concepts needed to think clearly about this subject, it seems to me.
I’m quite certain that Multiheaded is well aware of the law of diminishing returns and its implications, and has a fairly good grasp of how to do expected utility evaluations. Everything else you said in your post was, AFAICT, already all stated or implied by the grandparent, except:
I find this claim dubious. I consider myself a victim of the oppressive historical patriarchy and dominance of gender-typing, and yet I’m fully satisfied with the current, ongoing efforts and measures that people all around the world are doing to fix it, as well as my own personal involvement and the efforts of my close circles.
Those are not particularly convincing examples of Good Principles that we’d want to have in an ideal society that we should aspire towards. My own brain is screeching at the first three in particular, and finds the named legal principles crude and unrefined when compared to other ideals to aspire to.
You don’t think freedom of speech, religion and association are important things for a society to defend? Well, in that case we don’t have much to talk about.
I will, however, suggest that you might do well to spend some time thinking about what your ideal society will be like after the principle that society (i.e. government) can dictate what people say, think and do to promote the social cause of the day becomes firmly entrenched. Do you really think your personal ideology will retain control of the government forever? What happens if a political group with views you oppose gets in power?
False dilemma. You’re also strawmanning my argument.
Freedom of religion is trivially equivalent to freedom of anti-epistemology. According to everything we know, it is extremely likely that only one set of beliefs can be true, and if so, there are clearly some that have more evidence supporting them. As such, “freedom to choose” which one set to believe is irrational and somewhat equivalent to trusting word-of-mouth rumours that fire does not harm you when you are naked.
Freedom of speech and freedom of association, in their current incarnations, are similarly problematic, though not as obviously so.
Absolute enforcement of these three freedoms is not required to avoid the failure modes of society that you enumerate, and I never mentioned that said ideal society would even remotely look like what’s contained withing your (apparently very tiny) hypothesis space of possible societies, let alone that my ideology would be the Rule of Law or that this society would even be composed of humans as we know them with all their flawed brains and flimsy squishy bits that give up and die way too fast.
In fairness, the claim that removing these freedoms is extremely dangerous isn’t the same as the claim that no conceivable society could function without them.
You may now continue with your regularly scheduled being right.