War Room Lounge v135: Accidental Meme Thread Click

[Sketch]

It's the Grandmaster. Very fitting.

Ok, here comes a tough one. How about the man in your av? What is his name?

Hard mode: His name can't be from a dream.

 

[Lord Coke]

Well done. Were you expecting it?

I had a suspicion that it was going to happen soon but I didn't know and I didn't know it was happening today. We normally have a ceremony with everyone but they had a small surprise one for me since all the covid stuff screwed up the schedule.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

On what principled basis can we conclude that one moral intuition is 'vestigal and unworthy of being a serious moral influence'?

Philosophically. That some emotion or other is moralizing doesn't imply that it should be or needs to be.

Isn't this just post-hoc rationalization of our own preferences as to moral intuitions?

Hopefully not.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

OH SHIT, THIS IS MY JAM

 

[Lead]

I had a suspicion that it was going to happen soon but I didn't know and I didn't know it was happening today. We normally have a ceremony with everyone but they had a small surprise one for me since all the covid stuff screwed up the schedule.

Nice. Not sure how frequently that occurs in your gym but that's a huge deal at the one I go to. Really a big accomplishment imo.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

Philosophically. That some emotion or other is moralizing doesn't imply that it should be or needs to be.



Hopefully not.

Naturally, is-ought distinction and all of that, but all of your conclusions will flow from your premises, which cannot themselves be rationally justified.

 

[Sketch]

Nice. Not sure how frequently that occurs in your gym but that's a huge deal at the one I go to. Really a big accomplishment imo.

Any Wrestlers at your gym?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

OH SHIT, THIS IS MY JAM

Good to see @HereticBD enjoying his visit to the USA

 

[Lead]

Any Wrestlers at your gym?

Yea, I'd say we have a pretty good mix of wrestlers.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Naturally, is-ought distinction and all of that, but all of your conclusions will flow from your premises, which cannot themselves be rationally justified.

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

I'm not sure what you mean.

which part? The is-ought distinction, or the bit about premises, or both?

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

which part? The is-ought distinction, or the bit about premises, or both?

The premises part. Like I know of the general problem you're referring to, but I fail to see how it becomes an immediate issue in the context of evaluating the moral efficacy of disgust.

 

[Sketch]

Yea, I'd say we have a pretty good mix of wrestlers.

How do you deal with them?

 

[JDragon]

I have to avoid that Chomsky thread or I'll catch a ban with the quickness lol. Can't slip up and let some of these people know what I actually think about them.

Do you wish to genocide?

 

[Pseudo Sane]

There's two kinds of people: people who like, then quote and people who quote and then like. Giving a like is like giving an approving nod. Imagine someone says something smart, and then you reply and at the end of the conversation you show your approval for his comment.

Then there's people like @Trotsky and @K1levelgrappler who hardly like anything, they're too self absorbed.

Take note, @Trotsky; tonni knows to tag people when having a go.

 

[Lead]

How do you deal with them?

What do you mean? I don’t think they all roll similarly and a lot of open mats are crowded so they don’t often start on the feet.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Thanks for clarifying. Your original statement is ambiguous on this point, since you don't say anything about world view in that post, simply about understanding what other people think or 'getting into the heads of people who disagree with them', which could apply equally to moral intuitions or worldview. I think that on occasion you believe you are being more precise than you are in fact, which can lead to confusion.

Thanks, but I do think that in this case, the issue was more on the reading than in the text. Note that I preceded the comment that you're responding to with an example. Surely, no one's moral intuition is leading them to believe that the comment that was falsely attributed to AOC was something she could plausibly believe!

It certainly applies to your point as you originally formulated it. Less so now that you clarified what you meant, I suppose.

I can quote it again if you'd like.

I don't think you've done much to demonstrate your central claim that conservatives can't get into the heads of people that disagree with them.

Hmm. I made a comment based on my observations, including a specific one that I had just mentioned. It wasn't a position paper where I think I even have any obligation to demonstrate what you imagine my central claim to be.

To the extent that moral intuitions inform worldview, which they do, I would even argue that Haidt's research is still some evidence for the proposition that conservatives are more capable of understanding liberals than vice versa, since if you can't understand the moral intuitions which informs the worldview, the worldview itself will necessarily look less coherent.

I disagree here. What's called for here is understanding a thought process, which I think comes from education and deliberation, rather than empathy.

I may be misunderstanding your position again, however; you may think that leftists suffer from a similar failure of imagination. I could certainly agree that a general inability to fully inhabit the mental space of those different from us is a general human failing, but you are making a strong claim without much evidence beyond an anecdote of people resharing a fake tweet. Finding people on all parts of the political spectrum spreading fake news is trivially easy, so you'll forgive me if I don't consider this particularly persuasive.

I think I do need to quote it (cutting off the example and the suggestion). "Same thing happens with all the people who say that they used to be liberal. They can't fake it effectively because they don't actually get in the heads of people who disagree with them."

Not a particularly strong claim as written. There are a lot of people who try to fake being liberals or ex-liberals but can't do it because they don't understand liberalism, and they really think that liberals are basically monsters who sit around thinking of ways to be evil. Are there also conservatives who don't do that? Yes. Never said otherwise. Are there also liberals who try to fake being conservatives and don't understand conservative thought. Very likely. Never said otherwise.

I'll have to think of a good one. There are always good old mainstays like immigration, criminal justice, abortion, free speech, or foreign affairs, but I think it might be more fun to pick a more specific issue and give your own opinion and the opinion on the issue you ascribe to your opponents.

For this to work we'd need a few people to join in, however. If enough people left and right express interest, I'm game.

OK. I like the idea. And I'd love to take on immigration. I think there's a kind of dumb populist version (more workers = less demand for workers = lower wages, for example) that some people really buy, and another version that people don't like to talk about that is more well-thought-out.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

The premises part. Like I know of the general problem you're referring to, but I fail to see how it becomes an immediate issue in the context of evaluating the moral efficacy of disgust.

I'm probably not explaining myself well. Let me try again.

'moral efficacy' is fraught with assumptions the way you are using it. What does it mean for morals to be 'efficacious'? You actually need to justify why loyalty, authority and sanctity are not equally valid moral considerations when compared to care and fairness. In order to do so, you will have to at some point rely on premises which cannot themselves be logically justified.

Unless you are going to posit some sort of underlying natural law to the universe, naturally.

Have you ever met philosophy students? They are just as bad as the caricatures describe them, maybe worse.

I meant they should literally drink hemlock and fucking die.

Edit: I assume this is tongue-in-cheek enough that people realize I'm not actually calling for the death of philosophy students, but just in case, I'm not really.

 

[Sketch]

What do you mean? I don’t think they all roll similarly and a lot of open mats are crowded so they don’t often start on the feet.

I hope you guys train to start with them standing. Wrestlers are not using what they know if you BJJ nerds insist on guard starts etc.

 

[senri]

Self absorbed or absorbing their selves? @senri

Mr. Trotsky has some deliciously refined juices circulating deep inside of him. That can only be contained by such a tight existence. It prevents the tasting, but it also sheaths his trans-mutational beauty. All will splay for The Nexus...