Yeah I think paying the creators generously and allowing them to make a good living is how tiktok got off the ground so fast.
I really love the vine 6 sec sketch format but I only ever watches compilations on youtube. It’s like a box of chocolate, you never know what you’ll get, but eat enough of them… :D PS: Man this makes me nostalgic about those ancient times when everything wasn’t going to shit yet
It would be nice to have a “patreon” like monthy support and then an open accounting - so we know the money is split to development, instance server hosting costs and maybe admin wages. Or maybe can vote on it. I think fediverse is only the first step, we’re going to need some kind of global non profit funded by users to create federated software and content for users.
And how do you determine who falls in this category? Again, by a set of parameters which we’ve chosen.
Sure, that is my argument, that we choose to make social progress based on our nature and scientific understanding. I never claimed some 100% objective morality, I’m arguing that even though that does not exist, we can make progress. Basically I’m arguing against postmodernism / materialism.
For example: If we can scientifically / objectively show that some people are born in the wrong body and it’s not some mental illness, and this causes suffering that we can alleviate, then moral arguments against this become invalid. Or like the gif says “can it”.
I’m not arguing that some objective ground truth exists but that the majority of healthy human beings have certain values IF they are not tainted that if reinforced gravitate towards some sort of social progress.
You needn’t argue for the elimination of meaning, because meaning isn’t a substance present in reality - it’s a value we ascribe to things and thoughts.
Does mathematics exist? Is money real? Is love real?
If nobody is left to think about them, they do not exist. If nobody is left to think about an argument, it becomes meaningless or “nonsense”.
I’m not arguing for “one single 100% objective morality”. I’m arguing for social progress - maybe towards one of an infinite number of meaningful, functioning moralities that are objectively better than what we have now. Like optimizing or approximating a function that we know has no precise solution.
And “objective” can’t mean some kind of ground truth by e.g. a divine creator. But you can have objective statistical measurements for example about happiness or suffering, or have an objective determination if something is likely to lead to extinction or not.
You misrepresent or misunderstood my argument
Comrade pinko barbie!
There’s no such thing as 100% objective morality.
Maybe not, maybe there is an infinity of variation of objective morality. There will always be broken people with pathologies like sociopathy or narcissism that wouldn’t agree. But the vast majority, like 95% of people would agree for example on the universal human rights - at least if they had the rights and freedoms to express themselves and the education to understand and not be brainwashed. Basically given the options of a variety of moralities and the right circumstances (safety/not in danger, modicum of prosperity, education) you would get an overwhelming consensus on a large basis of human rights or “truths”. The argument would be that just because a complex machine is forever running badly, that there still can be an inherent objective ideal of how it should run, even if perfection isn’t desirable or the machine and ideal has to be constantly improved.
There is another way to argue for a moral starting point: A civilization that is on the way to annihilate itself is “doing something wrong” - because any ideology or morality that argues for annihilation (even if that is not the intention, but the likely outcome) is at the very least nonsensical since it destroys meaning itself. You cannot argue for the elimination of meaning without using meaning itself, and after the fact it would have shown that your arguments were meaningless. So any ideology or philosophy that “accidentally” leads to extermination is nonsensical at least to a degree. There would still be an infinity of possible configurations for a civilization that “works” in that sense, but at least you can exclude another infinity of nonsense.
“Who watches the watchers” is of course the big practical problem because any system so far has always been corrupted over time - objectively perverted from the original setup and intended outcome. But that does not mean that it cannot be solved or at least improved. A basic problem is that those who desire power/money above all else and prioritize and focus solely on the maximization of those two are statistically most likely to achieve it. That is adapted or natural sociopathy. We do not really have much words or thoughts about this and completely ignore it in our systems. But you could design government systems that rely on pure random sampling of the population (a “randocracy”). This could eliminate many of the political selection filtering and biases and manipulation. But there seems very little discussion on how to improve our democracies.
Another rather hypothetical argument could come from scientific observation of other intelligent (alien) civilizations. Just like certain physical phenomena like stars, planets, organic life are naturally emergent from physical laws, philosophical and moral laws could naturally emerge from intelligent life (e.g. curiosity, education, rules to allow stability and advancement). Unfortunately it would take a million years for any scientific studies on that to conclude.
Nick Bostrom talks a bit about the idea of a singleton here, but of course there be dragons too.
It is quite possible that it’s too late now, or practically impossible to advance our social progress because of the current overwhelming forces at work in our civilization.
Maybe that is what we need to do. “Decide” on certain moral questions based on best scientific data and our values and sound arguments and then stop debating them. Unless new scientific evidence challenges those moral edicts.
Somehow we keep going round in circles as a civilization.
You forgot the journalists who frame narratives and the intellectuals who secrete the ideology that makes it all possible.
There is a very interesting documentary called “Professor Marston and the Wonder Women” and how they created her in 1940 as a feminist super hero.
William Moulton Marston, a psychologist already famous for inventing the polygraph, struck upon an idea for a new kind of superhero, one who would triumph not with fists or firepower, but with love. “Fine,” said Elizabeth. “But make her a woman.”
Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don’t want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women’s strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.
Honestly, just 90 minutes of Summer Glau beating up annoying MAGA fascists. Quentin Tarantino or Robert Rodriguez could make it work!
Oh sorry I thought you were replying to the image above your comment :D
I want to say fuzzy cops but I think it’s hot fuzz.
But the CO2 emissions of a jet are absolutely negligible if you accurately count them for the concert goers :D Sorry I don’t mean to argumentative.
But yeah, that could be good. But with electric busses you also have the problem that you don’t utilized them well - most of the time the bus would just be parked and the embodied energy of the battery be worse than a ICE bus. Same logic for embodied energy is true for a jet too, you’d want a fleet of rent-able jets that are optimized for low energy use - something like the Celera 500L. That jet is a bit slower but incredibly fuel efficient (possibly more fuel efficient that a bus!). But do you trash the existing jet and throw it away? Because that could be worse because then the embodied energy was wasted. Basically you’d need an expert in carbon accounting to figure this out.
Why don’t we have a fleet of Celera like jets already? If we were an intelligent civilization we’d put massive investments in that. Or high speed rail and have rail cars for bands. But we don’t - and won’t. Partially because of propaganda, because it’s easy to blame the “virgin madonna” and call her a b**** instead of facing the reality that we’re completely and utterly incapable to do anything about climate change. National or civilization level policy is controlled by systems and not by human beings.
Sorry for the rant lol
French Republican calendar time system used in France from 1794 to 1800, during the French Revolution, which divided the day into 10 decimal hours, each decimal hour into 100 decimal minutes and each decimal minute into 100 decimal seconds (100000 decimal seconds per day)
I require about 10 megajoules of energy each day to remain operational
ACAB is just a public relations term
Yeah Sacha Baron Cohen cleans up nicely
Probably evolution. My guess is that there have always been “weirdos” that live at the outside or are especially paranoid. Most of the time it’s just weird, but sometimes it payed off during our evolution.
Basically your great great great great great great great great great great granddad was a prepper. But you didn’t inherit the prepper gene.
I’m feeling a bit of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and a little of 12