The Moral Arc

[Lorizael]

I have a very hard time picturing your transhumanism getting you in trouble, except in some impossibly far-fetched scenario wherein you somehow get involved in the vanguard of some eugenic experiment to produce an organic hivemind which goes horribly wrong, and even then I'd picture you as the Albert Speer (Nazi, not Polytubby) of the group. And that would be somewhat incidental to the main political conflict of our time. Christianity is not and cannot be extrinsic to the story. One side are scheming goblins who will not suffer us to live with any manner of integrity, while the other are straight-up orcs but will leave us alone if we don't rock the boat. Which is horrible, because they're even worse than the goblins in many respects, but there you are.

Oh, trouble? I mean, yeah, I don't expect any trouble for me, unless I guess there's some crackdown on non-believers or the mentally ill or Jews. But like, man, the universe is a cold and unforgiving place and it doesn't owe you ****, and people are just a part of the universe. I try (and fail, but I do try) to be as angry at *******s whose beliefs conflict with mine (even violently) as I am at earthquakes: not at all. No matter what institutions exist or what people say they believe, you have no control over whether or not the world is going to **** you over.

The only power you have is to live according to your own principles. If your principles don't really map well onto the weird ass political spectrum that exists in the US or other countries, then **** all that. Don't get caught up in some game where you start to see yourself as part of a persecuted group or trying to defeat the other side, because the more you do that, the more you are forced to erode your own moral code to fit in the game.

If some element of this society doesn't respect some of your beliefs or identity (say, about religion), then disagree with them vociferously on that and continue to agree with them on the stuff you do see eye to eye on, but don't take sides in some fight. If you think you have to oppose them as part of some long-term survival strategy, remember that humans are spectacularly bad at predicting the future and that your actions now might be just as likely to have the opposite effect down the line.

[Elok]

I think this is generally good advice, though it should be noted that I have children and that it is therefore, to some extent, my job to worry about the future. You do not. Check your existential privilege.

(also with Trump at the helm I think the time may come when this will assume practical significance insofar as it will determine who is shooting at me, but even the odds of that are low due to local demographics)

[Kidlicious]

Oh, trouble? I mean, yeah, I don't expect any trouble for me, unless I guess there's some crackdown on non-believers or the mentally ill or Jews. But like, man, the universe is a cold and unforgiving place and it doesn't owe you ****, and people are just a part of the universe. I try (and fail, but I do try) to be as angry at *******s whose beliefs conflict with mine (even violently) as I am at earthquakes: not at all. No matter what institutions exist or what people say they believe, you have no control over whether or not the world is going to **** you over.

The only power you have is to live according to your own principles. If your principles don't really map well onto the weird ass political spectrum that exists in the US or other countries, then **** all that. Don't get caught up in some game where you start to see yourself as part of a persecuted group or trying to defeat the other side, because the more you do that, the more you are forced to erode your own moral code to fit in the game.

If some element of this society doesn't respect some of your beliefs or identity (say, about religion), then disagree with them vociferously on that and continue to agree with them on the stuff you do see eye to eye on, but don't take sides in some fight. If you think you have to oppose them as part of some long-term survival strategy, remember that humans are spectacularly bad at predicting the future and that your actions now might be just as likely to have the opposite effect down the line.

Sartre would say that everyone does live by their own principles. Some people just believe that they need to work collectively for the common good. That's a principle.

[Lorizael]

I think this is generally good advice, though it should be noted that I have children and that it is therefore, to some extent, my job to worry about the future. You do not. Check your existential privilege.

Heh. I knew you'd go kids next. My thinking there is... you don't really know how your kids will turn out. Maybe one will be gay and the other a Buddhist. You can influence them, but you cannot control them, especially as adults. So instead, take the Rawlsian approach of attempting to create a world that will be good for your children no matter who they turn out to be.

[Elok]

I think we're having two different conversations here. I am concerned that our deeply fractured and dysfunctional country is replacing the sober, cautious Obama with the raging, effortlessly inflammatory jackass Trump. This is like an unstable reactor having its mildly defective control rods pulled out and replaced with strings of firecrackers wound around giant rubber dildos. It is entirely conceivable that the results of this will be what is sometimes called "civil unrest" or "disturbances" or "crazy *******s blowing **** up and mounting terror raids." I have no means of evaluating the likelihood of this possibility, but it would seem to be the natural endpoint of Trump's behavior and temperament. I would be much more panicky about this if I didn't live in a location that was about as safe as any territory could reasonably be under such a scenario.

[Kidlicious]

Heh. I knew you'd go kids next. My thinking there is... you don't really know how your kids will turn out. Maybe one will be gay and the other a Buddhist. You can influence them, but you cannot control them, especially as adults. So instead, take the Rawlsian approach of attempting to create a world that will be good for your children no matter who they turn out to be.

It's not that simple. We have to create a strong America. That means a nation that is united, that stands together and doesn't fight each other.

[Lorizael]

Yeah, I share that concern. And in that case, you do have more to worry about than I do. If such a future comes to pass, I'll probably die.

[Kidlicious]

I think we're having two different conversations here. I am concerned that our deeply fractured and dysfunctional country is replacing the sober, cautious Obama with the raging, effortlessly inflammatory jackass Trump. This is like an unstable reactor having its mildly defective control rods pulled out and replaced with strings of firecrackers wound around giant rubber dildos. It is entirely conceivable that the results of this will be what is sometimes called "civil unrest" or "disturbances" or "crazy *******s blowing **** up and mounting terror raids." I have no means of evaluating the likelihood of this possibility, but it would seem to be the natural endpoint of Trump's behavior and temperament. I would be much more panicky about this if I didn't live in a location that was about as safe as any territory could reasonably be under such a scenario.

Well Obama cries a lot in public which is what it means to be a man according to snowflakes.

[Elok]

Hard to say, really. You have a certain knack for keeping your head down, you know. That's as good a survival skill as any other. And of course you'd be welcome at the earthy homestead commune I don't doubt my wife would set up under the circumstances. My older son would ask you all sorts of questions about science. You would step in a lot of sheep poop. There would be almost no technology. On second thought, perhaps you might prefer to take your chances with the war zone.

[Jon Miller]

This thread is an example of some of the problem I was talking about.

I voice support for gay rights positions (oppose the supreme court candidate, in favor of gay marriage), but I lack some of the reasons (I don't think that gay rights (as defined by gay marriage and so on) is as important as african american rights and so on, I don't support a bunch of special protections for LBGTQ?? people, or other groups that aren't African Americans (or Native Americans), I don't think that gay marriage is a right rather I think it is a good social law, etc. And this makes me a person non-grata to many on the left. And they have trouble with African American churches that preach that homosexual activity is a sin and so on....

I am never going to be on the right, but let's consider the right.

I am in favor of increased restrictions on abortion ('pro-life') but not for the right reasons: I think that life begans with brain waves at 16 weeks or so and not conception and I think that the key way to change thing is to change hearts and minds and not make draconian laws. Yet to my knowledge few on the right are going to get upset with me over this (it might be that I interact so little with people on the right, I have seen this last month).

That is so much 'nicer'. So much more tolerant than many of the vocal left.

And probably a significant part of the reason Trump is now president.

JM
(It is actually on BLM that I would get clear condemnation from many on the right.)

[DaShi]

This thread is an example of some of the problem I was talking about.

I voice support for gay rights positions (oppose the supreme court candidate, in favor of gay marriage), but I lack some of the reasons (I don't think that gay rights (as defined by gay marriage and so on) is as important as african american rights and so on, I don't support a bunch of special protections for LBGTQ?? people, or other groups that aren't African Americans (or Native Americans), I don't think that gay marriage is a right rather I think it is a good social law, etc. And this makes me a person non-grata to many on the left. And they have trouble with African American churches that preach that homosexual activity is a sin and so on....

Your problem is not only do you rank the rights of people, you also think that you are an authority on what rank people should have.

[Aeson]

I have roughly the same position on abortion myself. Many on the right would call you or I a murderer for that position. Everyone has a right to voice their opinion.

The difference is those on the left would not force an abortion on your wife, and a large majority actually support reasonable restrictions on late term abortions, while those on the right want to force their view on your wife.

[Ben Kenobi]

My only regret is that I probably won't ever get the opportunity to scream this in your pathetic face.

LOL. Great job making friends, Sava.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yet to my knowledge few on the right are going to get upset with me over this (it might be that I interact so little with people on the right, I have seen this last month).

I don't have a problem with people supporting bans after 16 weeks. The problem is most people don't really believe this. If you actually believed that killing children after 16 weeks was murder, you'd be supporting the 20 week abortion bans.

[Kidlicious]

He is right, that liberals get upset more than conservatives. You'll never get them to admit it though. We're the angry white males to them. Watch the inauguration protests and tell me that you don't see anger.