I think it would be interesting to see a story with the following elements:
1. Someone makes a Faustian bargain understanding the consequences
2. That person is incorruptible in the beginning and uses their bargain to successfully achieve their goals, and
3. In the end they accept the price of their eternal soul or whatever it is because they remain incorruptible and are willing to make that sacrifice as they always planned from the beginning because the good they did is to them worth an eternity of punishment.
Sometimes people make sacrifices, knowing they will be sacrifices, and they pay the consequences of those sacrifices, tomorrow is better. It isn't a tragedy, it's a triumph of the human will.
1. Someone makes a Faustian bargain understanding the consequences
2. That person is incorruptible in the beginning and uses their bargain to successfully achieve their goals, and
3. In the end they accept the price of their eternal soul or whatever it is because they remain incorruptible and are willing to make that sacrifice as they always planned from the beginning because the good they did is to them worth an eternity of punishment.
Sometimes people make sacrifices, knowing they will be sacrifices, and they pay the consequences of those sacrifices, tomorrow is better. It isn't a tragedy, it's a triumph of the human will.
Jesus fucking Christ...
That case had nothing to do with the right to strike. It was about the right to sabotage and damage equipment as a bargaining tactic.
The idea that there's someone on the supreme Court that thinks that you should be allowed as a bargaining tactic to use actions that would be illegal in any other situation is horrifying.
And the logic. "Oh, there were violations of labor code so it was justified" -- where'd you get your law degree, a Crackerjack box?
That case had nothing to do with the right to strike. It was about the right to sabotage and damage equipment as a bargaining tactic.
The idea that there's someone on the supreme Court that thinks that you should be allowed as a bargaining tactic to use actions that would be illegal in any other situation is horrifying.
And the logic. "Oh, there were violations of labor code so it was justified" -- where'd you get your law degree, a Crackerjack box?
One massive problem I have with this framing is that environments are local, and California has a bad habit of exporting its local regulations to the rest of the world as if the rest of the world has the same local environmental issues that California has.
Water is scarce in the desert they've built the southwest on. So they should in fact save water, and it's pretty absurd shipping water across the country to grow it. Practically speaking, water isn't really a renewable resource in these locations given how the water gets there.
But the world isn't the southwestern US. In many places, water is a renewable resource, and a virtually endless one. In the southeast, the weather is humid and there's high rainfall. In fact, early on in American history, malaria was a huge issue in the southeast because the wet humid conditions are optimal for mosquitos.
So just as it would be absurd to enforce an air conditioner ban in Texas just because Alaska has no need for air conditioners, it would be absurd to enforce water conservation in Florida just because Nevada has water shortages.
Environmental stewardship isn't a blanket you can just lay over everyone the same and expect it to make the same sense. You need to do the work to figure out what your local environment needs, and what's going to be helpful and what's going to be hurtful. Historically speaking, environmental engineering efforts done naively have caused huge problems, including introducing invasive species into areas that didn't have them before, or wiping out species that were thought of as pests that turned out to be essential to the ecosystem.
Water is scarce in the desert they've built the southwest on. So they should in fact save water, and it's pretty absurd shipping water across the country to grow it. Practically speaking, water isn't really a renewable resource in these locations given how the water gets there.
But the world isn't the southwestern US. In many places, water is a renewable resource, and a virtually endless one. In the southeast, the weather is humid and there's high rainfall. In fact, early on in American history, malaria was a huge issue in the southeast because the wet humid conditions are optimal for mosquitos.
So just as it would be absurd to enforce an air conditioner ban in Texas just because Alaska has no need for air conditioners, it would be absurd to enforce water conservation in Florida just because Nevada has water shortages.
Environmental stewardship isn't a blanket you can just lay over everyone the same and expect it to make the same sense. You need to do the work to figure out what your local environment needs, and what's going to be helpful and what's going to be hurtful. Historically speaking, environmental engineering efforts done naively have caused huge problems, including introducing invasive species into areas that didn't have them before, or wiping out species that were thought of as pests that turned out to be essential to the ecosystem.
It isn't either/or.
It's undeniable that our DNA is key to fear on some level. Without your DNA, it's impossible to feel fear, since it's something inherited by being human. It's a part of your brain. Moreover, there are fears that children have before they have enough exposure to a culture to learn they're supposed to be afraid. Loud noises, heights, strangers, and separation from parents. They're innate.
On the other hand, obviously some fears couldn't possibly be written into our DNA because things we're afraid of didn't exist on evolutionary timelines. A good example is fears about new technologies and their impact on individuals or society. We know you can train people to be afraid of something through direct action or through society.
So I think it's fair to say that our mental landscape is built on a combination of the reality of ourselves as embodied humans with a brain built through evolution, and the reality that our brains wire themselves in response to the world around us.
That being said, I think there's a lot of things where we're more afraid or less afraid of certain things because we're predisposed through our genetics. For example, some people have hypothesized that some fundamental fears we have as adults are heightened by an innate predilection. In particular, the fear of being rejected, particularly by members of the opposite sex, is so intense it can't be explained by mere societal conditioning. There's a voice telling us that if we're rejected by our tribe, that's a death sentence -- even though in our modern society that simply isn't the case and in fact our entire culture is opposed to that notion. As an example in the opposite direction, we are wired to worry about urgent imminent threats, but we don't worry nearly as much about things that may be just as dangerous but only on a longer time horizon. So for example, a gradually worsening financial condition can be a fundamental existential threat, but we're not wired to worry about it until it's an imminent and urgent problem, which might explain the massive debt burdens people likely can't ever pay back on average and how people don't seem to change their habits despite that.
Neurology and genetics and epigenetics are all almost infinitely complicated when combined together. It's incredible.
It's undeniable that our DNA is key to fear on some level. Without your DNA, it's impossible to feel fear, since it's something inherited by being human. It's a part of your brain. Moreover, there are fears that children have before they have enough exposure to a culture to learn they're supposed to be afraid. Loud noises, heights, strangers, and separation from parents. They're innate.
On the other hand, obviously some fears couldn't possibly be written into our DNA because things we're afraid of didn't exist on evolutionary timelines. A good example is fears about new technologies and their impact on individuals or society. We know you can train people to be afraid of something through direct action or through society.
So I think it's fair to say that our mental landscape is built on a combination of the reality of ourselves as embodied humans with a brain built through evolution, and the reality that our brains wire themselves in response to the world around us.
That being said, I think there's a lot of things where we're more afraid or less afraid of certain things because we're predisposed through our genetics. For example, some people have hypothesized that some fundamental fears we have as adults are heightened by an innate predilection. In particular, the fear of being rejected, particularly by members of the opposite sex, is so intense it can't be explained by mere societal conditioning. There's a voice telling us that if we're rejected by our tribe, that's a death sentence -- even though in our modern society that simply isn't the case and in fact our entire culture is opposed to that notion. As an example in the opposite direction, we are wired to worry about urgent imminent threats, but we don't worry nearly as much about things that may be just as dangerous but only on a longer time horizon. So for example, a gradually worsening financial condition can be a fundamental existential threat, but we're not wired to worry about it until it's an imminent and urgent problem, which might explain the massive debt burdens people likely can't ever pay back on average and how people don't seem to change their habits despite that.
Neurology and genetics and epigenetics are all almost infinitely complicated when combined together. It's incredible.
I had a moment when I was writing my book that made me feel important but also small at the same time.
My parents, grandparents, great grandparents, are an uninterrupted line going all the way back to the first single celled organism on earth.
I'm carrying the torch as the avatar of this inheritance, but part of my job is passing the torch to my son, who will hopefully go on to sire a long line of his own.
So many things you don't realize are part of that inheritance. You're scared of things because your grandparents were scared of those same things and survived where others did not. You like certain things because your grandparents liked those same things and survived where others did not. A multi-billion year line of winners, passing forgotten knowledge to you through your DNA.
Suddenly I realize my generation really needs to understand stuff like this more. So nihilistic (in the sense of no value, reason, or sense) when reality is the opposite of nihilistic. Just being alive today is something unimaginable.
My parents, grandparents, great grandparents, are an uninterrupted line going all the way back to the first single celled organism on earth.
I'm carrying the torch as the avatar of this inheritance, but part of my job is passing the torch to my son, who will hopefully go on to sire a long line of his own.
So many things you don't realize are part of that inheritance. You're scared of things because your grandparents were scared of those same things and survived where others did not. You like certain things because your grandparents liked those same things and survived where others did not. A multi-billion year line of winners, passing forgotten knowledge to you through your DNA.
Suddenly I realize my generation really needs to understand stuff like this more. So nihilistic (in the sense of no value, reason, or sense) when reality is the opposite of nihilistic. Just being alive today is something unimaginable.
It just occurred to me that super saiyan god goku looks an awful lot like Crono. Toriyama will have to sue Toriyama for this.
What even is a "broken window fallacy"? Probably fake news, since I own a window shop amirite?
Sometimes people think "strategic voting" is just voting for the lesser of 2 bad options, but not always. For example, if enough people vote for a specific spoiler candidate, it can deliver a message to one of the two major parties that they need to change. It might contribute to losing the current election, but who cares if the person you're hiring for the job is just as bad but has a different letter next to their name?
You don't always vote for the spoiler, but in certain instances, at certain moments, it can fundamentally change the conversation. If you get 5% of the vote you were supposed to get 0% of, everyone's watching.
You don't always vote for the spoiler, but in certain instances, at certain moments, it can fundamentally change the conversation. If you get 5% of the vote you were supposed to get 0% of, everyone's watching.
One should be very careful about cheering for corruption to be applied to their enemies.
Make no mistake, what's going on with Trump is corruption, whether you like him or not. That's why it keeps on failing, because at least for now, America's legal system isn't completely corrupt (but it's only a matter of time at this rate). The press runs with stuff that isn't true because they don't like the guy(Pretty much everything connecting Trump with Russia was false, and the Clinton Campaign was fined for their cheating in that election), or they frame stuff as if it's really bad when it's relatively common. The same week of the Mar-a-lago raid, it turned out Biden had a bunch of classified documents in his house, and had since he was vice president 4 years earlier.
Equal protection under the law in the US is a constitutional right, so if two people commit the same crime, and are not punished equally, or worse -- if several people commit the same crime and are not punished but one person who is unpopular is, then that's a violation of fundamental justice.
Once a corrupt action becomes acceptable, often the cat is out of the bag and it won't go back in. Assassination was considered unusual in the Roman Republic until 133BC when a group of senators who opposed one tribune of the pleb's policies assassinated him and hundreds of his supporters to prevent the loss of aristocratic power (an early populist!). After that, assassination became a more and more commonplace tool in the late Roman Republic. Another example is the conquering of Rome by a Roman army as a political tool is a good example of corruption that was unthinkable until it was common. General Sulla marched on Rome in 88 BC, and the Roman Republic was gone 61 years later (which sounds like a long time, but Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon much earlier than the republic was gone, and the Roman Republic existed for 600 years and the western Roman empire existed for 500 years). After that unprecedented invasion, it became routine for armies to march on Rome in political struggles for the crown of emperor.
Corruption can also start a cycle of hatred and retribution. The Mongolians came down under Genghis Khan and totally wiped out the ruling class and took over the country, oppressing the Han who lived there, but then later on the Han took back over and the new regime wanted to restore Han culture such as Confucianism, and so marginalized the Mongolians. That example is one where they got lucky.
I recall the story of the Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda, that when the white colonial powers came, they assumed the more "white looking" people were the superior people and so they ended up with power, even though they were demographically the minority. That ended up resulting in tragedy later because after years of oppression under the minority, the majority engaged in some very bad things in retribution.
A similar story occurred in the former Yugoslavia, where Tito kept the communist country made up of the Serbs and Croats in one piece through force of personality (and just a little bit of crimes against humanity). Once he died, however, the balance shifted and people who were previously empowered suddenly found themselves on the receiving end of some very bad things.
History is complicated and a single paragraph doesn't tell the story of thousands of years of history leading to a certain moment. However, the simplified historical examples I provide do serve somewhat to illustrate my core point that one should not cheer for corruption.
Make no mistake, what's going on with Trump is corruption, whether you like him or not. That's why it keeps on failing, because at least for now, America's legal system isn't completely corrupt (but it's only a matter of time at this rate). The press runs with stuff that isn't true because they don't like the guy(Pretty much everything connecting Trump with Russia was false, and the Clinton Campaign was fined for their cheating in that election), or they frame stuff as if it's really bad when it's relatively common. The same week of the Mar-a-lago raid, it turned out Biden had a bunch of classified documents in his house, and had since he was vice president 4 years earlier.
Equal protection under the law in the US is a constitutional right, so if two people commit the same crime, and are not punished equally, or worse -- if several people commit the same crime and are not punished but one person who is unpopular is, then that's a violation of fundamental justice.
Once a corrupt action becomes acceptable, often the cat is out of the bag and it won't go back in. Assassination was considered unusual in the Roman Republic until 133BC when a group of senators who opposed one tribune of the pleb's policies assassinated him and hundreds of his supporters to prevent the loss of aristocratic power (an early populist!). After that, assassination became a more and more commonplace tool in the late Roman Republic. Another example is the conquering of Rome by a Roman army as a political tool is a good example of corruption that was unthinkable until it was common. General Sulla marched on Rome in 88 BC, and the Roman Republic was gone 61 years later (which sounds like a long time, but Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon much earlier than the republic was gone, and the Roman Republic existed for 600 years and the western Roman empire existed for 500 years). After that unprecedented invasion, it became routine for armies to march on Rome in political struggles for the crown of emperor.
Corruption can also start a cycle of hatred and retribution. The Mongolians came down under Genghis Khan and totally wiped out the ruling class and took over the country, oppressing the Han who lived there, but then later on the Han took back over and the new regime wanted to restore Han culture such as Confucianism, and so marginalized the Mongolians. That example is one where they got lucky.
I recall the story of the Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda, that when the white colonial powers came, they assumed the more "white looking" people were the superior people and so they ended up with power, even though they were demographically the minority. That ended up resulting in tragedy later because after years of oppression under the minority, the majority engaged in some very bad things in retribution.
A similar story occurred in the former Yugoslavia, where Tito kept the communist country made up of the Serbs and Croats in one piece through force of personality (and just a little bit of crimes against humanity). Once he died, however, the balance shifted and people who were previously empowered suddenly found themselves on the receiving end of some very bad things.
History is complicated and a single paragraph doesn't tell the story of thousands of years of history leading to a certain moment. However, the simplified historical examples I provide do serve somewhat to illustrate my core point that one should not cheer for corruption.
Certain things should be easy wins where everyone agrees. Outlawing civil asset forfeiture, eliminating daylight savings time. Who's going to look at the stories like parents losing their house because their son sold 40 dollars of weed and go "Yes, this is how things should be"?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-sides-94-year-mn-woman-striking/story?id=99600689
It is *SHOCKING* that this had to go all the way to the supreme court.
Anyone with the slightest shred of a conscience ought to realize that stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few hundred dollar underpayment is simply evil.
It actually shocks the conscience to think that some little old lady accidentally underpays her taxes by a little bit and you take the whole damn house! What the fuck!
It is *SHOCKING* that this had to go all the way to the supreme court.
Anyone with the slightest shred of a conscience ought to realize that stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few hundred dollar underpayment is simply evil.
It actually shocks the conscience to think that some little old lady accidentally underpays her taxes by a little bit and you take the whole damn house! What the fuck!
Chromecast is pretty decent as long as you're in the ecosystem. Unfortunately it's not pure FOSS as I understand it, so even if you're casting using vlc or peertube, you're using non-free software in order to cast to the TV.