Quote from: Zoupa on Today at 03:57:21 PMSounds like justification. Here's what I think: you're not as awesome as you think you are. You're not as rational, smart and logical. You're just another dipshit, like the rest of us.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on Today at 02:06:59 AMWe constitute two broad camps guided by two different moral codes. The camp I identify with i call the rationalists. We believe in cost/benefit analyses, weighing of conflicting principles, and civil discourse as a means of resolving differences, and the primacy of reason, logic, facts and evidence as instruments in that discourse.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on Today at 01:21:45 PMQuote from: Zoupa on Today at 03:43:44 AMCivil discourse.
It's uncivil discourse justified on the *universal* principle of reciprocity. I don't feel the moral obligation to grant you more civility than you grant me. Tit for tat. Don't start shit, don't take shit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on Today at 03:11:38 PMHillay, I think that covers your issues, yeah?
Quote from: Sophie Scholl on Today at 01:59:21 PMhttps://www.axios.com/2025/11/09/deal-to-end-government-shutdown-in-reach
Senate Democrats on Sunday indicated they are ready to advance a package of bills that could end the government shutdown, multiple sources told Axios.
Why it matters: It is the most significant movement toward a bipartisan breakthrough in the talks to re-open the government in over a month.
~ At least 10 Senate Democrats are expected to support a procedural motion to advance a package of spending bills and a short term funding measure, multiple sources from both parties told Axios.
~ The deal would include a promised vote on extending Obamacare tax credits in December, the sources said.
A "promised vote" is what you got out of this? A promise?! The incompetence or complicity is just... there is no bottom, is there?![]()
Quote from: Jacob on Today at 03:38:12 AMThe first thought is that the descriptions are very biased (perhaps understandably so). The Rationalist description articulates how Rationalists like to see themselves; while the description of the Romantics is a collection of all the things that Rationalists find annoying or off-putting about the Romantic positions. IMO a better and more useful version of the model would describe both sides in terms they'd recognize and be willing to say "yeah that's fair, the represents my point of view" (and it's a limited number of people who are going to embrace "it's perfectly fine to lie" and "I think people who don't agree with me are evil and less than human" as the core values of their philosophy).
QuoteI'll also note that I believe the whole rudeness / respectful discourse thing is pure (and incorrect) bias. There are plenty of people who'd consider themselves to be in the Rationalist camp who are rude as fuck (some of them used to post here); and there are people who'd be in the Romantic side of things who are perfectly civil.
QuoteMy main point for now, however, is that one of the biggest weaknesses of the Rationalist camp is their ability to delude themselves and exclude data from their mental models, while convincing themselves that they are in fact being perfectly logical and rational. The classic example of that is the stereotype of the highly educated engineer who is profoundly confident that they're experts in fields they know little about, because they've logically reasoned themselves to a conclusion based on a small handful of facts they've selected; and it's basically just lucky coincidence that the only rational conclusion lines up with the engineers self-interest.
Page created in 0.062 seconds with 16 queries.