SIAI needed to improve as an organization, so they brought in people who they thought could run a successful non-profit. What they got was a better non-profit plus the whole accompanying spectrum of philanthropy status divas, professional beggars and related hangers-on.
Most of the original thinkers have left, replaced by those who believe in thinking, but only for fashionable thoughts.
Jargon separates the raw value systems I’m talking about from the tribes that cling to them. I figured this would be less mind-killing but still communicative to the sort of person who cares about this thread.
It’s not much better in the US. I live in a fairly Townie area, but there is a University, which has a student body unanimous in its adoration of Brahmin values. All of my young coworkers chattered with glee this morning at the “humiliation” of the “enemy”.
Konkvistador is a concerned Tutsi living in a politico-cultural regime which seems increasingly pleased at the prospect of watching Hutus eat Tutsis.
Isn’t it as simple as the fact that eugenicist ideas, even obviously good ones, assume the reality of HBD and therefore violate Western Universalist taboos?
Assume guilt!
It is a genuine challenge for me to tell if this is a joke.
Is this post meant as satire?
Certainly my good sir.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255/NSECTIONGROUP=2
All the reliable literature I have read says that:
a) Conventional produce and organic produce are nutritionally equivalent
b) Organic produce is more prone to rancidity as fewer preservatives are used
c) Organic produce will make you popular with people who wear glasses with no lenses
The immortal starfarers necessarily go somewhere; the status game players don’t necessarily go anywhere. Hence “winning”.
Deciding that going somewhere is “winning” comes from your existing utility function. Another person could judge that the civilization with the most rich and complex social hierarchy “wins”.
Rationality can help you search the space of actions, policies, and outcomes for those which produce the highest value for you. It cannot help you pass objective judgment on your values, or discover “better” ones.
You’re priveliging your values when you judge which society—the status game players versus the immortal starfarers—is “winning”.
By your lengthy apologetic introduction you’re signaling to me that you know this doesn’t belong here.
I’m receiving signals that people would rather I not comment.
Thanks for engaging, you’ve explained your position well.
I think there’s a decent consensus on food:
“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”
Sure, there are always scare stories about how (insert target food) might be trouble because one study found a mild correlation. However, I think there are many diet choices that people make (myself included) that are conclusively unhealthy.
Do you disagree?
I apologize for the leading questions. I didn’t want to make outright accusations of tone when I wasn’t sure how you had intended your comments. Your comments had seemed brief and chastising, and I wasn’t sure what you were trying to communicate.
However, your answers make sense, and your rephrasing of my second question is fair.
Although, I am still unsure why you object to the use of the “poor diet choices as destructive behavior” analogy. It seems comparable to the drug-use analogy you propose as an alternative.
As a complete outsider to this conversation, it doesn’t look like you’re playing fair.
Can I ask you just to consider a few questions?
1) Do you think you are using a constructive tone?
2) If overeating were the primary cause of most obesity, would you want to know?
3) Is it your goal to shut down any discussion of this topic because of your personal sensibilities?
Tragically no. Sorry I never got back to you last week, I didn’t get your text until the next day.
We both have a super busy fall semester, so we’ve been missing the meetups.
It’s not a written rule by any means, but in order to acclimate to the style and reduce inferential distances it’s usually a good idea.
Your piece isn’t hated, it’s just not good.
If you are actually interested in participating in this community, read the sequences. Then read some of the current frontpage material. Then try engaging us again, with one (and only one) username.
No