Its an inconsistency in Mestroyer’s logic. He talks about how social justice types could attract “lawful good” people. But his response, typical of a certain class of rationalist is so offensive to social justice types that one wonders whether it makes sense to attract a group who places social justice so low on their to-do list. It seems to me that it would be counter productive to integrate people such as Mestroyer into the social justice community.
Disagree. Social justice is a set of dozens of axes and deals with issues like the prison-industrial complex. But somehow people caught up in that are being unreasonable when Mestroyer says that existential risk is more important and they take offense? That’s ridiculous.
The net harm done by any number of social justice issues far outweighs the issues Mestroyer considers important based on his comment.
Are you arguing that its merely the intensity of the response that makes them mindkilled?
Are you arguing that its merely the intensity of the response that makes them mindkilled?
The intensity of the response is what makes them mindkilled. Of course, if the social justice people were actually willing to listen to people who disagreed with them, they might realize that Mestroyer is in fact correct about existential risk being more important that their issues.
Edit: In fact, if they listed to more criticism, they might realize that the net harm from most of their issues is at worst negligible and at best negative, i.e., it is the social justice movement itself that is doing net harm.
It might be more important to white upper middle class rationalists, especially in somewhere like the Bay Area. Can’t argue with that.
You’d be hard pressed to convince me that cryonics is more beneficial to people of color than dismantling the systematic bias against people of color inherent in western society. Most existential risks are similarly unconvincing.
You’d be hard pressed to convince me that cryonics is more beneficial to people of color than dismantling the systematic bias against people of color inherent in western society.
Well, there is a very simple reason cryonics is more beneficial than “dismantling the systematic bias against people of color inherent in western society”, namely, that the “systematic bias against people of color inherent in western society” doesn’t actually exist. If anything modern western society has a systematic bias in favor of people of color.
Here’s a hint: the people who told you that there exists “a systematic bias against people of color inherent in western society” believe that lying is justified for the cause, and they were either lying to you or repeating someone else’s lie.
You’re really serious aren’t you? Affirmative action? That’s your argument? And I thought this was a rationalist website. You probably think there isn’t a systematic bias against women either.
I’m tapping out, now that you’ve revealed your true nature.
You’re really serious aren’t you? Affirmative action? That’s your argument?
Yes, and I notice a distinct lack of counter-argument on your part.
And I thought this was a rationalist website.
Yes, and that means we are expected to provide arguments for our claims here.
You probably think there isn’t a systematic bias against women either.
There isn’t.
now that you’ve revealed your true nature.
From my experience, that’s social-justice-speak for “I don’t actually have any rational arguments against your position so I’m going to resort to name calling”.
Its an inconsistency in Mestroyer’s logic. He talks about how social justice types could attract “lawful good” people. But his response, typical of a certain class of rationalist is so offensive to social justice types that one wonders whether it makes sense to attract a group who places social justice so low on their to-do list. It seems to me that it would be counter productive to integrate people such as Mestroyer into the social justice community.
This is a problem with the social justice types being too mindkilled, not a problem with Mestroyer’s logic.
Disagree. Social justice is a set of dozens of axes and deals with issues like the prison-industrial complex. But somehow people caught up in that are being unreasonable when Mestroyer says that existential risk is more important and they take offense? That’s ridiculous.
The net harm done by any number of social justice issues far outweighs the issues Mestroyer considers important based on his comment.
Are you arguing that its merely the intensity of the response that makes them mindkilled?
The intensity of the response is what makes them mindkilled. Of course, if the social justice people were actually willing to listen to people who disagreed with them, they might realize that Mestroyer is in fact correct about existential risk being more important that their issues.
Edit: In fact, if they listed to more criticism, they might realize that the net harm from most of their issues is at worst negligible and at best negative, i.e., it is the social justice movement itself that is doing net harm.
No its not?
It might be more important to white upper middle class rationalists, especially in somewhere like the Bay Area. Can’t argue with that.
You’d be hard pressed to convince me that cryonics is more beneficial to people of color than dismantling the systematic bias against people of color inherent in western society. Most existential risks are similarly unconvincing.
Well, there is a very simple reason cryonics is more beneficial than “dismantling the systematic bias against people of color inherent in western society”, namely, that the “systematic bias against people of color inherent in western society” doesn’t actually exist. If anything modern western society has a systematic bias in favor of people of color.
Here’s a hint: the people who told you that there exists “a systematic bias against people of color inherent in western society” believe that lying is justified for the cause, and they were either lying to you or repeating someone else’s lie.
You’re really serious aren’t you? Affirmative action? That’s your argument? And I thought this was a rationalist website. You probably think there isn’t a systematic bias against women either.
I’m tapping out, now that you’ve revealed your true nature.
Yes, and I notice a distinct lack of counter-argument on your part.
Yes, and that means we are expected to provide arguments for our claims here.
There isn’t.
From my experience, that’s social-justice-speak for “I don’t actually have any rational arguments against your position so I’m going to resort to name calling”.