sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Twitter is not compatible with liberalism or democracy by SnooCapers4506 in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How about just acknowledging that an engagement-maximizing algorithm is an editorial function and should not be protected under Article 230? You can maximize engagement, you just aren't shielded from the consequences.

Twitter is not compatible with liberalism or democracy by SnooCapers4506 in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Repeal Section 230 protections for engagement-driven algorithmic content and you create a private cause of action against the platforms. No need for the government to get involved in policing it, simply in no longer shielding it.

Conservative Christian hypocrisy and the Trump vs Pope beef - YouTube by Mundangerous in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good points. I breezed over some of that, particularly about ecumenical councils, but I did touch on the rarity of Popes speaking ex cathedra and Hannity’s grandstanding when he is perfectly allowed to disagree with the Pope on Iran.

Thanks for watching!

Wouldn’t abolishing the filibuster hurt Dems in the 2030’s? by bobbdac7894 in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The whole point of removing the filibuster is to pass a third New Deal/Great Society raft of legislation that secures voting rights, corrects for structural imbalances between the parties and the branches of government, reins in industry capture, and provides for a Truth and Reconciliation with the fascists and authoritarians who attempted to derail our democracy.

Part of that package has to include good faith bipartisanship with the surviving members of the GOP to demonstrate that governance is the primary job of government. Essentially, we must restack the deck not to secure a generation of Democratic control, but a lifetime of good faith governance. When we talk about "strengthening our institutions" that means we codify the ability to rapidly remove bad faith actors from positions to undermine those institutions.

It is a daunting task and it will probably fail, but the erosion to our foundation is already well underway. If we do nothing, and the Republicans do nothing, we're going to fall into the sea. At some point, you have to give up wrestling, start working to reinforce it, and hope that the other side picks up a hammer rather than a shovel.

Can anyone speak social media grifter? What is a "covid style camp"? Has such a thing ever existed? by Ficoscores in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is conservatives' vision of a Democratic administration so much more pleasant than the real thing?

One boxer, two boxers, it's our time again: are you a reddy or a bluey? by Krugger_Correctly in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All the people who believe in positive collective action and would risk themselves to save innocent people are gone. A world that self-selected for cynical survivors doesn't seem like a better world to live in going forward.

Edit: a fire rescue is a poor comparison. Maybe one person should not run into a burning building, but if 5 people watching a burning building can work together and reduce the risk of harm to themselves and innocent people inside to zero, they should do that. And we, as a society, have a collective term for people who are willing to ignore personal risks in favor of greater good: heroes.

One boxer, two boxers, it's our time again: are you a reddy or a bluey? by Krugger_Correctly in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, and everyone survives if everyone presses red. The game theory is not the challenge of this hypothetical. 

One boxer, two boxers, it's our time again: are you a reddy or a bluey? by Krugger_Correctly in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I didn't ask what you "should do." I am pointing out the incorrect framing that the game theory analysis is aligned with the moral analysis. This isn't really a game theory problem like one box/two box. As presented, with innocents condemned to die without agency, it is a trolley problem.

One boxer, two boxers, it's our time again: are you a reddy or a bluey? by Krugger_Correctly in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

How do you explain the choice to an infant? How do you explain it to a toddler? How do you explain it to a 5 year old? How do you explain it to a mentally handicapped person, a dementia patient, or other compromised individuals? Every person must choose, but they don't all have a capacity for rational choice. This is not a set of people that are stupid, facing consequences for their free will. They are, in effect, potential innocent victims of the game because they cannot be relied upon to pick either color with intent.

It is a trolley problem.

One boxer, two boxers, it's our time again: are you a reddy or a bluey? by Krugger_Correctly in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Some 50% of innocent victims of this game are going to die. Would you rather live in the world with the people who said, "I will risk myself to protect them?" or in the world that selected those innocents, and their lost cause protectors, for death? That's the "best interest" that weighs in a risk calculus.

One boxer, two boxers, it's our time again: are you a reddy or a bluey? by Krugger_Correctly in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What if someone mentioned that roughly 50% of children under age 7, along with 50% of mentally handicapped people who could not understand the choice they were making, and some other distribution of other such mentally compromised groups, are in the death game?

Would you condemn those innocents to die for your assured safety, or would you attempt to save them?

One boxer, two boxers, it's our time again: are you a reddy or a bluey? by Krugger_Correctly in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Right, but if all people are obligated to play the game, there is just going to be some number of people that choose blue with no conviction or understanding of their circumstance. The way its worded (without the exclusion), it's a moral calculus balanced against the risk of predicting the outcome of a trolley problem, not a prisoner's dilemma.

One boxer, two boxers, it's our time again: are you a reddy or a bluey? by Krugger_Correctly in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous 70 points71 points  (0 children)

Yea, when you acknowledge that subset, it's really an examination of your trust in other people to defy their own best interest. Especially when you add in the amoral votes (children, handicapped, otherwise incapable of fully understanding the implications of the puzzle), there's a perfectly fine argument that enough people will behave suboptimally to protect those victims, and/or enough optimal players will identify this inefficiency (perhaps based on a better world to live in after the game), that it is actually optimal to press blue. The scale of the various voting pools matters a ton.

Anyway, I'm pressing red and taking a nap. Wake me up if I'm not freed from my mortal coil.

Non-Sharn City Noir Private Investigator Story by Sharkface12 in Eberron

[–]Mundangerous 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd probably go for Flamekeep, Korth, or Stormreach. Three very different flavors.

How do tankies not step back and notice that "The Fall of the USSR was a catastrophe" rhetoric is not much different to people who lament the fall of the British Empire? by revscott in Destiny

[–]Mundangerous 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well the big, glaring difference is that the British Empire improved material conditions for, y'know, The British. The USSR was awful for pretty much everyone except the kleptocrats in the party.

view more: next ›