👁️ autosurveillant 👁️ @pee_zombie@schelling.pt
I've never really abandoned my libertarian persuasions, but have been forced to temper & qualify them w/ piles of conditions & edge cases, as I encountered cases such as the QT
I still believe in liberty as foundational, but we owe more to each other
---
RT @pee_zombie
growing up I was the prototypical Randian libertarian, albeit w/ a more prosocial bent than many of that ilk; but over time, I "learned" & got a bit woke. nothing too c…
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1405677277002833923
should we approve of all a person's choices before we agree to share the burden of their safety net? presumably there's some upper bound past which we don't have to be responsible, but where is it? and how do we attain consensus on this?
much more complex than I used to think
the problem of health insurance and lifestyle is a good example of this confusion; sure, anyone should be able to choose to smoke! but I don't want to have to pay for the medical treatments resulting from their bad choices. but, where does this end?
the trouble arises in the difficulty of precisely defining these terms, and the variety of responsibilities which can be lumped underneath these umbrellas; where does individual responsibility end? nothing is truly independent, so how much collateral damage is acceptable?
the pathways through society should be no different; very little should truly be banned, especially not that which predominantly only harms those who opt for it. a government's role should be twofold: a safety net for the common man, and an economic platform to build on top of.
this is similar to how software is designed with different personas in mind; UIs are typically optimized for the lowest common denominator, and the poweruser features made harder to access; this works, bc the latter class tends to be more resilient in the face of obstacles
the best constraints are stepwise in nature, rather than binary; there are very few questions where the right answer is to categorically ban something
high guardrails encourage regression to the mean; should one desire something else strongly enough, they'll break through anyway
this strongly resonates for me, as my life path has been one of desperately trying to break free from the ties which bound me, only to realize, as I succeeded, how important it was for this to be difficult to do
the default path should be the same one
---
RT @eigenrobot
I hate this conclusion because my fondest desire is for everyone to fuck off and leave other people alone
but a very large number of people are not up to the task of …
https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1411044583941672963
the problem w/ abandoning paternalism is that this assumes a society has meaningful rituals for ensuring one has come of age
when this is not so, people who are de facto children in adult bodies are released to flounder, on the assumption that this is obviously better for them
---
RT @eigenrobot
thinking about the @Chris_arnade story about front row and back row Americans, which really came to mind here
and also that greentext about t…
https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1411036677867401218
if you're too timid & perfectionist to to apply for a job where you don't meet most of the stated requirements, you're likely not going to be a very good employee, requiring handholding and express permission to do anything useful
mb invest a bit more in your theory of mind
seemingly-arbitrary gatekeeping exists for a reason
consider software job listings; anyone in the industry knows they're 90% bs & doesn't pay attention to the "requirements"
but some people do & filter themselves out of the applicant pool
this is called selecting for agency
many will say that wanting to understand something fully is unreasonable in a world full of shades of gray & epistemic limits, and that expecting otherwise IS what pedantry is
nevertheless, I persist
---
RT @DRMacIver
I think a lot of why pedantry annoys people is that it highlights that they're confused. Often when I'm accused of being pedantic it's because I genuinely don't understand the point someone is trying to make, and it eventu…
https://twitter.com/DRMacIver/status/1410916161722720264
type of guy who pentests his cognitive defenses in a simulated adversarial environment (edging) prior to encountering the enemy in the wild (hot girls)
so all of a sudden we're down with IP when the GPL is involved huh
have you tried solving the problem.
through sheer gumption with no fancy tricks? just trying really fucking hard (in a smart way) and solving it like a normal person, rather than trying to find some weird edge case to give you leverage? why haven't you?
the Europeans I work with all do this as well
as revenge I valence match by following with a very aggressive and easily misinterpreted message, also suffixed with a winky
don't play chicken w me
---
RT @ellegist
THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS
had a wonderful colleague whose intentions I could NEVER gauge bc he ended EVERY sentence to me with ;), whether it was asking if I wanted to grab lunch or explaining product updates
literally imposs …
https://twitter.com/ellegist/status/1410550079468019715
they will try to stop us from doing this, in the name of fairness and equity
this will be something worth resorting to violence over
---
RT @primalpoly
The debate over embryo selection using polygenic scores is heating up.
Tldr: the legacy medicine/bioethics system will not let you exercise your rights to reproductive choice if they think it might undermine their political values. https://twitter.com/patrickaturley/status/14103746738…
https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/1410606475794280465
this is why we make great programmers too
---
RT @erin_nerung
crafting is really good if you're hyper disagreeable because you're predisposed to go "OH YEAH? WHY? SAYS WHO?" at every rule or instruction and you *can* just go ahead and break or disregard it and find out
https://twitter.com/erin_nerung/status/1410691449910448143
to those who call this sort of technology "playing god“, be warned; this is not a game
