Results of Dangerous Experimentation
-
@yamikuronue said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
@antiquarian Yeah, honestly, I'm happy with the thread, I just...
It doesn't help that a lot of shit's going on in my personal life this week. I'm feeling really lonely and wounded in general right now, and having a reminder that some people I like will never accept me is like salt in the wound, you know? That's the other half of why I don't go in the garage: so I can pretend I belong better than I do.
I love you ;)
-
@kt_ said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
@yamikuronue said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
@antiquarian Yeah, honestly, I'm happy with the thread, I just...
It doesn't help that a lot of shit's going on in my personal life this week. I'm feeling really lonely and wounded in general right now, and having a reminder that some people I like will never accept me is like salt in the wound, you know? That's the other half of why I don't go in the garage: so I can pretend I belong better than I do.
I love you ;)
uh......
thanks?
Are we talking you want my autograph or you want my skin on your wall or what?
-
@darkmatter said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
That, in reference to gays or any other so-called "alternative lifestyle", is the problem, not whether said person finds anything to be within their so-called acceptable level of objectionableness. It belies a fundamental disagreement about the nature of humanity.
Maybe, but I suspect you're missing the point. Are you saying that it's not even worth discussing with someone who disagrees about that? Are you saying that people have no free will? Are you saying that you don't believe that people can separate out their disagreements from valuing a person as a person? Should we examine and discuss the effects of different ways of looking at the world and the decisions that follow?
Now, what if that "alternative lifestyle" is something like bestiality? Pedophila? Is it wrong to have compassion for someone with pedophilic urges but to abhor and punish those who act out on those urges? Will you read this and interpret it as a slur against the sorts of alternate lifestyles you were thinking about when you wrote your post?
I'm going to say that a lot of political disagreements have a root in fundamental disagreements about the nature of humanity.
-
@yamikuronue said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
@kt_ said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
@yamikuronue said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
@antiquarian Yeah, honestly, I'm happy with the thread, I just...
It doesn't help that a lot of shit's going on in my personal life this week. I'm feeling really lonely and wounded in general right now, and having a reminder that some people I like will never accept me is like salt in the wound, you know? That's the other half of why I don't go in the garage: so I can pretend I belong better than I do.
I love you ;)
uh......
thanks?
Are we talking you want my autograph or you want my skin on your wall or what?
Just voicing the
without an emoji. Guess this was a bad idea. 
-
@kt_ Ah, cool. Thanks :) It was the wink that made it creepy
-
@yamikuronue said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
@kt_ Ah, cool. Thanks :) It was the wink that made it creepy
Picture's worth a thousand words:
-
@boomzilla said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
Are you saying that it's not even worth discussing with someone who disagrees about that?
If one was willing to admit that their objection is merely personal bias that should have no impact on another's standing in the community, that'd be something at least. Everyone has personal biases, part of being a decent human being is trying not to let them impact your life and actions.
Otherwise, what is there to discuss? Someone is going to bargain you down on how much you object to them as a person? Where it becomes a problem is when people of authority take actions due to those personal objections - like lawmakers allowing people to be fired from their jobs, preventing them from adopting, preventing them from being able to make legal decisions as a couple, making alternative forms of sex illegal, etc.
@boomzilla said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
Are you saying that people have no free will?
Of course there's free will. Some could choose to be miserable and conform for plusgodpoints. Others could choose not to attempt to legislate or discriminate against things they don't like that are not illegal or damaging.
@boomzilla said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
Now, what if that "alternative lifestyle" is something like bestiality? Pedophila?
The slippery slope argument. One of the 3 things is legal and involves consenting adults. Societal law dictates against the other 2 things because in those cases an unwilling party is being caused harm.
We could slippery slope the other direction? In a good part of the southeast, mixed race relationships are still frowned upon as objectionable. Others find someone simply being Jewish to be objectionable, which must be another perfectly understandable view, right? Those people are like the kind of people that would leave the toilet seat up I guess.
@boomzilla said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
Is it wrong to have compassion for someone with pedophilic urges but to abhor and punish those who act out on those urges? Will you read this and interpret it as a slur against the sorts of alternate lifestyles you were thinking about when you wrote your post?
Not really. Now you're just being absurd too.
@boomzilla said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
I'm going to say that a lot of political disagreements have a root in fundamental disagreements about the nature of humanity.
That is pretty much the root of it.
I feel i may be too harsh, requiring of the floofs. Do know that I tried hard to be restrained and purely passive in idealizing.
-
@weng said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
I also declined to participate because paying the floof tax is impossible on mobile.
??? I managed it a few times.
-
@darkmatter said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
If one was willing to admit that their objection is merely personal bias that should have no impact on another's standing in the community, that'd be something at least. Everyone has personal biases, part of being a decent human being is trying not to let them impact your life and actions.
Otherwise, what is there to discuss?
Well, you could show them that their objections don't hold up so that their objections become merely personal bias.
@darkmatter said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
The slippery slope argument. One of the 3 things is legal and involves consenting adults. Societal law dictates against the other 2 things because in those cases an unwilling party is being caused harm.
The legality of something is orthogonal to its morality. This smells like rationalization to me.
@darkmatter said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
We could slippery slope the other direction? In a good part of the southeast, mixed race relationships are still frowned upon as objectionable. Others find someone simply being Jewish to be objectionable, which must be another perfectly understandable view, right?
I don't understand what you mean by "the other direction" here. Mixed race relationships are frowned upon in a lot of places. Are you opposed to talking to someone like that, too?
@darkmatter said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
I feel i may be too harsh, requiring of the floofs. Do know that I tried hard to be restrained and purely passive in idealizing.
Sure, that's difficult, especially when interacting with familiar characters from the Garage.
-
@boomzilla If you wanted to be even in the ballpark of acceptably objectionable, it would be more like
Likes tomatoes
Wears a weave
Owns a poodle
Licks the bowl
-
@darkmatter Like I said, everyone is going to have a different deplorable line.
-
@yamikuronue said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
having a reminder that some people I like will never accept me is like salt in the wound, you know?
Please don't take this as some sort of personal attack, because it's not intended that way at all. But you shouldn't be feeling hurt by that. Just as a general principle, that's how you know they're your friends.
Some people say that "a friend is someone who will accept you as you are." Those people are full of crap. Unconditional acceptance isn't the mark of a friend, it's the mark of a fanboy. A friend is someone who will love you and care for you as you are, and yet at the same time not accept it. They won't accept you stagnating the way you currently are, not when there's room to improve. A true friend is someone who honestly tries to help you to grow and become better, rather than simply settling for what they see right now.
What really hurts isn't people who don't accept you; it's people who don't care at all.
-
@boomzilla said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
Like I said, everyone is going to have a different deplorable line.
Also do note, you injected the "not worth discussing" part... nowhere did I say that in my original statement. My point was that the offensiveness of the statement is not that some think being gay "isn't that bad", it's that they've defined it as bad at all. There are things you can dislike without having to determine they are inherently bad.
Like tomatoes. Which are VERY close to inherently bad.
-
@darkmatter said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
Like tomatoes. Which are VERY close to inherently bad.
Tomatoes are fine, now cilantro on the other hand
-
@dragoon said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
@darkmatter said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
Like tomatoes. Which are VERY close to inherently bad.
Tomatoes are fine, now cilantro on the hand
Heathen! Burn the heretic!
-
@rhywden said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
Heathen! Burn the heretic!
Yes, I routinely burn cilantro, it is the only way to be sure.
-
@darkmatter said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
Also do note, you injected the "not worth discussing" part... nowhere did I say that in my original statement.
That was the context of my post to which you replied, but I suppose you didn't explicitly reference it and the slight change of context wasn't obvious to me.
@darkmatter said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
My point was that the offensiveness of the statement is not that some think being gay "isn't that bad", it's that they've defined it as bad at all.
Yes, I wasn't disagreeing about that point.
@darkmatter said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
Like tomatoes. Which are VERY close to inherently bad.
Now we fight.
-
I don't know that I learned anything much, but it's been fun to participate and see conversations rather than flamewars.
I haven't completely blocked the garage because I like to try to see the other point of view. Seeing good faith discussion without the insults and shit flinging helps with that. I still think the libertarian view is dogmatic in its view that more government is always bad, and hopelessly optimistic in its view that people will make charitable donations to fund everything if only they weren't taxes so much, but I'm sure my views come across as silly and idealistic too
-
@jaloopa
Personally, I would classify the libertarian view as dogmatic in its view that people should have the right/liberty to determine what social goods they want to contribute to with their money
But more directly, thanks to @Yamikuronue for starting this initiative, and to the people who participated, has been fun and a nice change of pace to the Garage Proper.
-
@jaloopa said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
I don't know that I learned anything much, but it's been fun to participate and see conversations rather than flamewars.
I liked the floof (and I learned that some people have a truly weird definition of floof). We should do more of that, perhaps even on non-hot-topic matters.
-
@jaloopa said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
. I still think the libertarian view is dogmatic in its view that more government is always bad
I agree. That's really extreme.
-
https://i.imgur.com/7zlXqOq.jpg
This was the only Duck-Duck-Go hit for "floof tax".
-
@dkf i also think the floof was good, especially when it had a random connection to the content of the post.
-
@darkmatter said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
@dkf i also think the floof was good, especially when it had a
randomintentionally thought out connection to the content of the post.FTFY
-
@rhywden said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
@dragoon said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
@darkmatter said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
Like tomatoes. Which are VERY close to inherently bad.
Tomatoes are fine, now cilantro on the hand
Heathen! Burn the heretic!
Flagged for cilantrophilia.
-
@boomzilla said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
@jaloopa said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
. I still think the libertarian view is dogmatic in its view that more government is always bad
I agree. That's really extreme.
Actually, the thread has changed my views of you a bit. You're not as far right as I thought, you're actually quite nuanced. I think you probably play it up in the garage for trolling
-
@jaloopa said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
You're not as far right as I thought, you're actually quite nuanced. I think you probably play it up in the garage for trolling
To a certain extent, yeah, I often turn up the vehemence / rhetoric, but I think the substance of my views don't generally change (pure trolls / jokes aside).
One thing that bugs me a lot IRL and in general are how so many things are taken for granted that I see as plain wrong. It seems like people don't question the assumptions behind a lot of things or look very deep into the consequences.
WRT the "extreme libertarian stuff," yeah, a lot of times I play that up. As to the amount of government, I think the direction of change should almost always be towards less than what we have now, and it's sometimes more fun to yell in big terms than to start a wonkfest.
-
@boomzilla said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
it's sometimes more fun to yell in big terms than to start a wonkfest.
It may be more fun, but civil discourse and consensus-shifting can only really happen in wonk territory. There is no defensible middle ground between big terms like FREEDOM and TYRANNY. But a deal can be reached if one side wants a tax rate of 23.5% and the other wants 26.8%. The advocates of CAPITALISM and the advocates of COMMUNISM will never agree on anything. But, there are many of small examples of consensus that have been reached: for example, that it is better for the fire department to be a public service rather than a commercial one. Wonky details like that are where most legislation deals with. It is a rare issue that demands large action on principled terms: the end of slavery, women's suffrage, and other things requiring a constitutional amendment. When more mundane issues are argued in a similar manner, debate and government shut down due to irreconcilable differences..
Most of the yelling I read in the garage is conducted in the "big terms" manner. As such, no two of them are reconcilable, so why bother arguing in good faith when your opponent might as well be Hitler (see Figure 1 below). So, the arguments I see there are trolling for entertainment or lazily assuming bad faith.
In the Dangerous Experimentation thread, where people were instructed to be respectful and to try to have a civil conversation, it was interesting to see what actual reasons people gave for their beliefs:
- X is an inherent good.
- X is a means to achieve another inherent good.
- X is an obvious result of another inherent good.
- X relies more on individual people than alternatives.
- X relies less on individual people than alternatives.
- etc.
When these details are revealed, it allows for negotiation and trade-offs (we can do X to achieve most of the goal Y, then do Z to catch the cases where X fails). In other words, the XY-problem is systemic within political life. In normal political discussions, it always makes me suspicious when someone reasons from an abstract principle to a specific policy position without ever hitting an edge case.
@boomzilla said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
One thing that bugs me a lot IRL and in general are how so many things are taken for granted that I see as plain wrong. It seems like people don't question the assumptions behind a lot of things or look very deep into the consequences.
Speaking from my own experience, foundational beliefs are rarely reexamined in the face of "big terms" arguments. It's too far a leap. Any change only occurs by a slow accumulation of wonky discrepancies between beliefs and observation (see 12 Angry Men).
Figure 1:
-
@mzh said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
It may be more fun, but civil discourse and consensus-shifting can only really happen in wonk territory.
Yeah, we actually do both in the Garage, though it's not rare for wonky to become non-wonky.
-
@boomzilla That floof is awesome. I love the genetic diversity of dogs.
-
@mzh said in Results of Dangerous Experimentation:
In the Dangerous Experimentation thread, where people were instructed to be respectful and to try to have a civil conversation, it was interesting to see what actual reasons people gave for their beliefs:
This is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for when I started the thread. It's nice to know that the dangerous experimentation thread wasn't a total waste of time.
