It’s basically laziness on my part for relying on AI to occasionally straighten out my jumbled thoughts and I’ll abide by whatever decree is imposed upon us.

About chess, that actually shows how dimwitted and lazy I am. Given how many games I’ve played I should be much better than I am, and I’ve never really studied to improve.

I don't believe that one can make such a 'hard distinction' between scientific truths and moral truths. — boundless

The Count was quick to point this out and I agree.

I think human reality is largely shaped by human needs or purposes—and human values. We don’t share the same values however, so if there are objective values, who is right and who is wrong? And what is the purpose of insisting that one set of values is Correct? It provides the means to harness collective power.

@Jamal @Baden

Regarding the new policy, sometimes when I’ve written something that comes out clunky I run it through an AI for “clarity and flow” and it subtly rearranges what I’ve written. Is that a non-no now?

Interestingly, geocentrism most definitely expressed anthropocentric values and Galileo paid the price for extracting those values from astronomy. In the end it's all about power.

Clear to whom? A great many philosophers reject the fact/values distinction. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And many of them argue against objective values.

There was a time when most people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. Yet we know that geocentrism is 'objectively false'. So, it would be not surprising that we might in a condition that we do not know what is truly good for us and nevertheless, in principle, we could know it. — boundless

This is clearly a bad analogy. Scientific truths are a different category of knowledge than moral truths or values.

In a 'virtue ethics' framework what is sought is what is truly good for a human being and the reasonable assumption that is made is that a human being might misunderstand 'what is truly good for him or her'. — boundless

We will absolutely misunderstand — even about ourselves — so how can there be objectivity?

Relative to the perspective of the individual.
— praxis

So when a child feeds their cat antifreeze because it looks like a fun drink. Cats love antifreeze too. Is it thus truly good for the cat to drink antifreeze because all the individuals in question think it is so? — Count Timothy von Icarus

They'll both think it good until they learn that it's not.

The tiger enjoys a satisfying monkey hunt and meal—which is good.
— praxis

This is simply changing the subject to what is good for the tiger. Again, is it false that is "bad for the monkey to be eaten?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I'm sure monkeys dislike being eaten.

Monkey consumption is still good or bad relative to the perspective—whether one is the eater or the eaten.

Apparently the death of woke is a bit premature.

‘I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat

Relative in what sense? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Relative to the perspective of the individual.

What exactly is: "All else equal, it is bad for a monkey to be eaten," relative to? Certainly not the tiger. To the extent that the tiger has beliefs, I don't imagine it thinks what it is doing is good for the monkey either. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The tiger enjoys a satisfying monkey hunt and meal—which is good.

Or for: "having access to proper water and sunlight are good for my plant," if this is relative, in what context is it false? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is false for anything that may compete for your plants water and sunlight.

My personal orientation to good and bad is that it's subjective 100% of the time: when the tiger eats the monkey, it's good for the tiger, bad for the monkey. The tiger gets nourishment, the monkey feels unpleasant and dies. The tiger can't be "morally wrong" because it can't question its behavior. However, this subjectivity gets extremely complex when you have humans who believe in free will and compatibilism.
— ProtagoranSocratist

Right, but is it not a fact that "being eaten by a tiger is bad for monkeys?" It seems to me that this is obvious. What monkeys are tells us at least something of what is good for them.

Likewise, is it not a fact that it is—at least all else equal—better for human to be strong rather than weak, agile instead of clumsy, intelligent instead of dim witted, courageous instead of cowardly, knowledgeable rather than ignorant, prudent instead of rash, possessing fortitude instead of being weak of will, healthy instead of sick, etc.? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Good for the tiger, bad for the monkey—demonstrates that good and bad are relative, doesn’t it?

I’m about half way. Love the writing, and the mystery.

Let's say I'm doing a "solo non-assist run" as far as the life I live goes. :grin: — Outlander

AI can be used as a tutor for learning and improvement—for things like—oh, I don’t know—chess. :razz:

I think the point is that you can’t let your guard down anywhere, and you never could.

I read Nexus last year, btw. What I recall seems like a mild forecast compared to today’s predictions.

I am not going to outline all the possible dangers of AI—people can educate themselves about that by undertaking a search in whatever search engine they use or YouTube or whatever. — Janus

I am not going to outline all the possible dangers of people educating themselves by undertaking a search in whatever search engine they use or YouTube or whatever.

:love:

Sorry, I was in an emotional frenzy.

You might as well, it doesnt look like your going to make any headway with Praxis. — DingoJones

Oh yes, please. Don't hold back on my account.

You've called him [Charlie Kirk] a bigoted grifter — AmadeusD

He was a culture war grifter, yes. Everyone needs to make a buck or two, or 12 million.

You are all over the place and don’t explain yourself very carefully. Your judgment of what I am trying to say keeps coming out of nowhere to me. — Fire Ologist

As I said, I read Stock's book so I'm familiar with the conflict. That's why this branch of the topic interested me.

If you insist on being limited to 'woke eat woke', well then, you do you.

There still seems to be no reason for you to avoid agreeing with the basic fact that trans and feminist ideology are both aligned, and in conflict. — Fire Ologist

I haven't avoided agreement. In fact I wrote:

I agree that some trans activists, such as Judith Butler, refuse to compromise with the proposals put forward by material feminists like Stock.

I say there are many other examples within wokeness of these irreconcilable identities. — Fire Ologist

Why don't you point them out?

And if you admit this problem is there for trans and feminists, then we might be making some sort of connection. But you don’t want to build any bridge. — Fire Ologist

This is truly hilarious. Classic Fire. :lol:

If Wokeness is a religion, who is the greater heretic, Sock or Butler? If I were to indulge the ignorant notion that wokeness is a religion, I would say that Butler is the heretic for rejecting allyship. Yet, generally speaking, Sock is regarded as the heretic within wokedom and was effectively cancelled for her heretical speech acts; resigned her position at the University of Sussex.

The punchline here is that Stock built a bridge that was rejected by the wokest of woke, and by you. You might see her as a champion of reason within the woke community, but no, all you see is 'woke eating woke'.

The notion of allyship, offered to address this problem (which you now seem to recognize is still a problem), is one way to go. — Fire Ologist

When did I not recognize it as a problem?

Biological essentialism cannot be integrated into woke ideology. Feminists think there is something specific and persistent about the biological female that relates to the category of woman. Trans can’t think that. So the two identity types cannot agree on what gender must involve and what gender need not involve. — Fire Ologist

:roll: If Stock were a biological essentialist she would have titled her book The Essential Girl or something. She explicitly rejects biological essentialism.

But my point in raising this is that woke ideology affords no means to satisfy what feminists call unjust oppression while at the same time satisfying what trans call unjust oppression. — Fire Ologist

I already mentioned allyship. I guess you don't believe in it.

My point is, it is the nature of woke to be unable to develop a coherent and just resolution of the conflict between internally warring identity groups. (Just like it is unable to fathom the concept of a white male employed middle class person being victim of a racist black woman.) — Fire Ologist

For a few years in grade school I was a racial minority and experienced racism – physical attacks – for merely being a blonde haired, blue eyed, middle class white kid, though I was unemployed at the time. If I were woke at that time I wouldn't have experienced racism, what?

“Systemic Power Analysis”, “Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category” and “Language Shapes Reality” - these properties or aspects of woke breed the type of conflict that woke cannot resolve between its own identity groups. — Fire Ologist

How does systemic power analysis factor into the material-feminist/trans-activist conflict?

So it seems to me here that, if you wanted to be open and honest, the quote just above means that, to some degree, you see what I am saying, or at least agree with it’s factual basis. You agree that there is no allyship of Trans people with anyone who doesn’t agree with what they say, (like traditional feminists don’t agree). — Fire Ologist

I agree that some trans activists, such as Judith Butler, refuse to compromise with the proposals put forward by material feminists like Stock.

Contrary to what you may believe, wokeism is not a religion with sacred tenets carved in stone by the woke Goddess. It's not even a social movement, lacking organized leadership, structure, or unified goals.

This is supported by nothing and could only make sense to someone who has only engaged with Charlie through a lens of left-wing, hateful rhetoric. — AmadeusD

What is hateful about recognizing that Kirk was heavily invested in the culture war?

In part two of The Magus by John Fowles.

“Beware of the waiting room.”

Yeah, but you said you addressed it.

And it took you 30 pages to define your thoughts on woke. (I think they are your thoughts.). — Fire Ologist

I clearly presented them as Stock’s thoughts and that she addressed the conflict. Are you high?

Looking into it further, apparently trans activists reject Stock’s compromise.

A couple of Judith Butler quotes…

“The category of woman can and does change, and we need it to be that way. Politically, securing greater freedoms for women requires that we rethink the category of ‘women’ to include those new possibilities.”

“The TERFs [trans-exclusionary radical feminists] and the so-called gender critical writers have also rejected the important work in feminist philosophy of science showing how culture and nature interact … in favour of a regressive and spurious form of biological essentialism.”

So the more renown trans activists are uncompromising and reject the woke principle of allyship. Well, no one’s perfect. :brow:

That defines the problem. That doesn’t address anything. — Fire Ologist

Defining a problem is the first step in addressing it.

Stock’s core proposal is epistemic, about how we think and talk about sex and gender.
She argues that feminism must continue to recognize biological sex as real and politically salient and that society can respect gender identities without pretending they replace sex. Policy, law, and medicine must be built on empirical reality first, and social identity second.

“We should acknowledge both sex and gender identity, but not conflate them.”
– Kathleen Stock

Wokeness eats the woke, and has no principle upon which to adjudicate between disputing wokeists. — Fire Ologist

The core woke principle to adjudicate the dispute would be allyship: support marginalized groups’ definitions of justice. Stock doesn't deny the validity of gender identity or that trans are a vulnerable group. Trans activists may also respect this principle and act accordingly.

Keep insulting me too. It makes me look good. So thanks. — Fire Ologist

Don't be a whinny bitch. You're welcome. :lol:

The democrat candidate for governor in Virginia tells everyone to “let your rage fuel you”.
— praxis

Looks like a good statement for those willing to defend the will of God. Hitler and Trump built their campaigns on people's fears and anger. It is psychological warfare before action is taken. — Athena

Her Republican political opponent uses that line in their campaign, promoting fear and anger indeed.

Why do we need to change the topic? How are you going to make any significant point about woke and how does it refute what I said about woke being contradictory for you to ask the above?? — Fire Ologist

I addressed the material-feminist/trans-activist conflict. You did not comment on that other than to openly admit to relying on equivocation of the term “woke” to make poor arguments against woke.

The purpose of your feigning ignorance of what woke is wasn't clear until now, page 30. Definitive proof of how slow and dull witted I am.

But fine, all social movements are perfectly consistent in theory and practice – only woke social justice contradicts itself.

I’ve given 10 times more analysis to chew on here than you have. WTF is this insult for? — Fire Ologist

I am just talking.

No need to think critically is one of the tenets of wokism. — Fire Ologist

I looked up the tenants of wokeism which are supposed to be as follows:

• Social Justice as Central Moral Priority
• Systemic Power Analysis
• Identity as Moral and Epistemic Category
• Language Shapes Reality
• Moral Urgency and Activism
• Intersectionality
• Historical Accountability

Woke social justice contradicts itself in theory, and in practice. — Fire Ologist

What social movements do not contradict themselves in theory and practice? Oh, and no need to think critically, just say whatever you feel.

I think woke’s fetishizing of “implicit bias” is onto something good (just over reified). — Fire Ologist

Over reified? Wokeness is concerned with both implicit bias and social organization, but the modern form emphasizes structural inequality more than individual prejudice. It's more accurate to say that woke fetishizes "systemic racism".

Do you think concern with systemic racism is onto something good?

A perfect example of woke’s infectious nature: The way the Trans rights folks (woke) are angry with the Feminists (also woke), and vice versa. They are both correct about themselves according to woke and yet they are both wrong about each other according to woke. And so they fight each other, decaying themselves and each other, due to wokeness. — Fire Ologist

I mentioned earlier in the topic that I read Kathleen Stock's book Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism. It addresses this conflict in detail from the material feminist point of view.

In her own words: “I’m not ‘anti-woke’ if by that you mean caring about social justice — I just don’t think justice is served by denying reality.”

Both material feminists and trans activists claim to defend vulnerable groups — but define “vulnerability” and “justice” differently when it comes to policy-level consequences (sports, prisons, language, healthcare, etc.).

Your argument commits the fallacy of division, relies on equivocation of the term “woke,” and employs a false cause to link internal disagreements to “wokeness” itself. Are you actually a lawyer?

I don't see how the second image is possible from the first. — Outlander

My next move was knight to a6, forcing your king to c8. My next move after that was the other knight to d5. If your bishop were in “kill position” your queen could have zipped across the board unobstructed to checkmate. Of course I may have seen the threat, but maybe not, I’m easily distracted.

Your fatal move was here:



Not placing your queen side bishop in kill position.

Checkmate. Thanks for the game!

I am seeing my instantiated life (starting from the moment the game was initiated) flash before my eyes. Come to think of it, I won't be missing very much. — Outlander

Brick your pipi! I don't know what that means but it's fun to say.



Your move.

Your move.

Check!



Your move.

Your move.

But his character is clearly, and inarguably, not one of malice or hatred. — AmadeusD

It is inarguable to closed minds only.

He was a culture war grifter and deliberatly cultivated social conflict for profit. You can see how his views became more extreme over the last 10 years with his income growth.

Do you mean the Oxford debate society video where he utterly trounces everyone who speaks with him (or insults him) and has recently elected a president who celebrated the Murder? Wow. Cool. — AmadeusD

I don't remember if it was Cambridge or Oxford. And of course you're persuaded by logical fallacies.

Your move.

Your move.

That’s is insulting, right? I mean yeah, I like parrots and yeah I’m pretty stupid, but you don’t really need to make this point here. — Fire Ologist

You and Dingo were pushing the point for some reason that I don’t get. Dingo mentioned something about injecting levity into the topic. It doesn’t seem funny to me either.

What did he [Charlie Kirk] say and do right on the surface, right before your eyes. — Fire Ologist

I liked that he openly debated people whose views were very different from his own. Many culture war grifters (both left and right) just sit behind a keyboard or mic and don’t engage.

What matters is he was killed for talking. — Fire Ologist

In my opinion, what matters is how his killer became a killer and addressing that. Is he just crazy? Oddly, he was raised in a family situation that Kirk celebrated, and even graduated from a religious school. Did society fail him or is it biological?

Woke debaters don’t debate with conservatives. If they can’t crack the conservative in 5 minutes, they dismiss the conservative as a lost cause parrot. — Fire Ologist

Kirk disproves this claim. Shortly before his assassination I watched several videos of him debating Cambridge students. I think he used every logical fallacy known to man.

I do view woke as a secular 'religion'. John McWhorter's "Woke Racism" is great on this issue - he refers to the leaders as "The Elect" - a self-appointed priestly class. — Jeremy Murray

It always cracks me up when people demean religion like this.

I'm sure that everyone at Fire's law firm has religious reverence for their DEI officer, and that the insurance discount they got for having a DEI officer wasn't an effort by the insurance company to lower risk but as a form of religious penance. :lol: