NBC/the media really killing it with painting him as a self-radicalised spook.
this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024
103 points (100.0% liked)
SneerClub
1011 readers
2 users here now
Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.
AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)
This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.
[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I found the article gross.
He is a suspect in a murder case, not convicted, and they spend very little space on the case. The cops say he had his fake id, the gun and manifesto on him. His lawyer says he is yet to see the evidence. That is all.
Then they basically go through posts he has made online and ask people he knew about them. There is a public interest in the case, but courts are supposed to adjudicate guilt. What if he is innocent, then they just went through his posting history and showed them in the worst possible light.
Oh yeah to be clear: I also find this kind of reporting to be disingenuous and disgusting.
I think it forces us all to ask an important introspective question -- if I were to become the target of a national manhunt, would my posting history look cringe?
To paraphrase Robespierre, give me five posts by a honest man and I’ll give you something to cancel him for.
I have joked before how people really into stoicism tend to be quite emotional and even a risky, as stoicism always seems to be aspirational and doesnt describe the stoic fans behaviour (a good example is the yter Sargon), but this might be a bit of an extreme example.
I started reading Stoicism as an angry discontented man in my mid-20s. At the time it was very helpful and I still appreciate some of the philosophy but I stopped calling myself a Stoic when I saw how some online communities used it as a gateway to right-wing ideology.
One of the central tenets of Stoicism is that the only thing you can control is your own thoughts and actions. It's very easy to twist that into "the only thing that matters is your own thoughts and actions and no one can ever tell you you're wrong."
Also, it easily morphs into the proposition that attempting to fight injustice or make the world a better place beyond improving one’s own lot (and ability to tune out annoyances beyond one’s control) is a fool’s errand, and can be a call to renounce responsibilities and retreat into an internal exile. Which is a useful ideology for the unfree, but antithetical to the propositions of democratic society.
Petersons Nth rule of life.
Step one is understanding you only control your own thoughts and actions. Step two is learning how to control your anger and use it as fuel for deliberate actions.
Honestly, I think Luigi here just followed this wisdom. Recognised that he was rightfully angry at the system and directed that anger at someone responsible. You only control your actions, and your action can be to shoot a motherfucker on the street ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm not condoning or saying it's morally acceptable, but I don't think it's philosophically incoherent.
Former aspiring stoic here (this was before the internet). I can confirm that it was indeed a coping mechanism for roiling turmoil of emotions masquerading as thoughts constantly entering and exiting stage behind my eyes.
My partner is stoic-adjacent (if that’s a thing; my description, not theirs) and it really bothers me. A lot of “I can control my emotions and choose how I act, you should try that” - yeah stop. We’re human. Emotions are normal. It’s okay to get angry as long as you’re able to vent your frustrations in a healthy way.
Repressing that shit will only make it worse when they eventually do come to the surface. You’re not a machine and you’re not better than those who don’t pretend to act like they are.
I don't think there is a real stoic writer out there suggesting you supress your emotions. My interpretation was that it's easy to be swayed by your own emotions, that it happens to everyone and is very human, and it's egotistical to think otherwise.
Yeah i think this kind stoicism can also be used as an abusive tactic. Im not trying to armchair psych your rel btw, it also is just a really common mistake people make (mostly men) I certainly have made mistakes like that. And yeah repression is not good.
A lot of “I can control my emotions and choose how I act, you should try that” - yeah stop. We’re human. Emotions are normal.
Ye, that's the point? The point is not to suppress emotions but to recognise them as they're happening to you. It's not even that there's objective value assigned to the emotions, it's simply so that you yourself can perform introspection of the kind "I did that action because I was furious. Now is that good or bad?". But it's still entirely okay to make a conscious decision of the form:
- I'm gonna punch that motherfucker
- Okay, stop, I am feeling fury right now, I shouldn't allow just the emotion to guide me. Let's think.
- Okay, I thought this through, I'm gonna punch that motherfucker with purpose.
load more comments
(1 replies)
it's definitely linked to rationalism (and various far right bullshits), which right away means people who get into it are likely to be at least cult adjacent. not the most stable spot to be in, psychologically
tangent, as a callow youth I listened to rationally speaking, which used to be a cohosted show with julia galef and massimo pigluicci. mostly after leaving the show (I think?), pigluicci ended up getting really into stoicism and would post shit about how unhappiness is purely one's own choice etc. when I asked him if jewish people in WWII concentration camps were just choosing to be unhappy he was like yes. so, yeah, that's stoicism for you
when I asked him if jewish people in WWII concentration camps were just choosing to be unhappy he was like yes
oof.
that whole strain of "it's only in your mind" motherfuckers who just outright disregard varieties of concrete evidence.... whether from biochemically-etc originated body- and being-related problems all the way through things like the example you gave.. I've had to deal with a couple of them myself (my can of brainworms include some choice seasonal unfun things) and good god do I often want to boop them on the nose
As a stoic, yeah isn't that the point? It's philosophical therapy (cbt). It's the stuff you reassure yourself while panicking
Well, Jimmy Wales was an Objectivist who even named his daughter after the heroine of an Ayn Rand novel, though that doesn’t seem to have affected Wikipedia.
I think he's doing better these days.
He liked my scone recipe anyway...
effective alteuisim
Uuuuuuugh....I really liked him too.....
The whole internet loves Alleged CEO Murderer, a handsome fellow who is alleged to murder CEOs! 5 seconds later We regret to inform you the alleged CEO murderer is a rationalist.
Effective altruisim is fine on paper, and I'm sure there's people effectively effective altruisim, but most people who champion it are...well...Sam Bankman-Fried and friends. Wearing a mask of doing it for the unfortunate and spending everything on a beachfront mansion robbing Peter to pay Paul, with absolutely no real intention of helping the folk that "effective" altruisim is meant to help.
I liked Luigi, and this is gonna sound a bit rough, because he shot a useless piece of shit drain on society. Effective altruisim is nice on paper, but it's almost always used to fleece the stupid so the rich can get richer.
I went to a university with a big Effective Altruist presence (I think I still have a ruler and a memory stick with their branding on it somewhere) and I found many of the arguments they make quite compelling until I looked into the movement more deeply and saw its repugnant core
Many people who are drawn to Effective Altruism are aware of the state of the world, and their relative privilege, but they feel overwhelmed by how little they're able to contribute to solving problems, relative to the size of the problems. People don't "donate" to EA, they're buying into a lie that helps them to feel less directly responsible for the world.
oh yeah, lotta EAs really care and work their backsides off and live on beans
it's a pity about the ones at the top
large sections of lemmy have convinced themselves that Luigi is a leftist before learning that he's an EA libertarian and all implications and what side effects followed cause brain damage
Getting flashbacks to the people who thought the GameStop guy was a leftist
ah yeah the famously leftist activity: stock trading
difference here is that superstonk is qanon-grade conspiracy by now and here it's luigi who adheres to tpot schizopolitics
He's young. He's still working out his view of the world. Of course he's gonna investigate ideas, accepting some and rejecting others. He's not far off.
CEOs vs dust specks (large ones very fast)
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you don't know any better, ie haven't lived long enough, then it sounds like a logical and compelling ideology
yeah, until they pull out their machine god they absolutely have to build, because otherwise trillions of simulated humans will be tortured forever and that's not mathing in their sum of all happiness. also it never occurred to them that maybe billionaires shouldn't exist and instead post things like this:
totally not a cult btw
I'm with you, but someone who kills the CEO of a health insurance company does not strike me as someone who dismisses real/immediate suffering out of hand.
Ironically the trolley problem meme here is a great example of the objection: the same set up that puts him in the position to pull the lever also requires that people be tied to the track.
Also they could pull a lot more levers, but those other levers are not pulled. See how musk paid 6.5 times fixing world hunger for twitter.
Realistic version: pulling the lever would save five lives but that decision would cost shareholders $7.23. What should you do?
10/10 CEOs fail this test!
No, if you're from the same socioeconomic sphere as him and haven't lived long enough. The only people I've ever met or heard of that are effective altruists are "upper middle class" or properly wealthy.....and younger than 50.....
I guess because I was an idiot cringe atheist rationalist realist (you know the type) when I was his age, and thanks to an open mind and some very patient very wise people in my life, I was able to grow out of it, I give people like that the benefit of the doubt as long as they're otherwise kind and open-minded.
My issue isn't with the basic ideals of effective altruisim, it's with how it's used by the wealthy to fleece people with the idea of helping people.
There's not a single thing wrong with being a starry-eyed idealist. Especially if you act, bring your beliefs and ideals into fact.
I think we're on the same page
Effective altruism? Shame NY doesn't have capital punishment, I suppose.
I can understand being drawn to the concept of effective altruism. There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of wanting to do the greatest amount of hood for the greatest amount of people. Unfortunately, in practice, effective altruists always seem to think the best way to do that is to amass as much wealth as possible.
In their defense you have to make money to spend money ^on^ ^castles^
Time to get really angry, not deny the purchase, but get annoyed they should more be classified as stately homes.
view more: next ›