The point of morality is not to assert the ways that you are Good compared to others.
The point of morality is to notice the ways that you are not good enough, by your own standards, so you can change to be better.
The only actuator of your morality is you and your own actions.
Your tagging other people's actions as bad or evil is largely epiphenomenal, compared to tagging your own.
If your morality doesn't make YOU more moral than you would otherwise be, it's not helping.
Morality is working when you hear of something bad that someone did, and your thought is "when do I do something analogous to that? Should I do something different instead?"
I would like to get a hard drive or a collection of hard drives that has saved copies of Libgen and Wikipedia, both organized in some sensible, searchable-at-all way.
It seems like this should be doable. All of libgen is only about 33 Terabytes and all of wikipedia is only about 20 Gigabytes.
Is there a service where I can just order hard drives with arbitrary data from the internet? Do I have friends that would be interested in doing this for money?
“If you take an adversarial stance towards your psych bugs, they’ll take an adversarial stance towards you.”
The processes in your mind aren’t just random. They were grown there by meta, optimizer-y processes that were and are steering towards
something.
If you go in and try and uproot mental procedures, without going all the way down to the crux, they’re going to regrow, and worse, adapt to route around your conscious patterns.
In this comment, @ben_r_hoffman claims that some large fraction of the world is implicitly harm-seeking, not out of self interest, but INSTEAD of in self interest.
@ben_r_hoffman On the face of it, this seems like a bold claim that flies in the face of my view of human nature, ie that humans are largely rational, in the strict sense that they respond to incentives.
Am I wrong about that? Is this alternative theory plausible in a way that I'm not seeing?
I don't really stay up to speed with this kind of stuff, so maybe I'm a bad person to evaluate, but this is the most insightful, non-straw-manning representation of the Q movement, and what the world is like from their vantage point, that I've seen yet.
Granted, this is mostly a comment on how terrible the information environment is, more than a comment on how good _this_ reporting is. But this youtube channel seems to me to have the least spin / adhering to pre-set narrative of approximately any "news" source I know.
They're often trying to be funny, but also, they post interviews with people from all different social and political strata, and all different parts of the culture war (etc.), and you can just hear what those people have to say, directly.