zurew

Yeah sure - are you neutral on the holocaust?

He just like everyone else - thinks that his standards are better compared to others and that others should apply and use his standards. I don't know why you imply that neutrality is better in principle compared to non-neutrality. Calling others who are transparent about their biases as "internet trolls" is interesting framing , especially given that Lex is not forthcoming about his baises and he is trying to paint himself to be more correct than others since he can pretend he doesn't have the same blindspots as others. Also the negative load from the word 'bias' won't really work there, depending on how deep we want go down regarding values and principles. In fact, not being biased towards certain fundamental epistemic norms and moral values carries much more negative load than actually adhereing to and being biased towards those things.

You might be able to find some those past posts by using wayback machine. http://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/reddit.com/r/plantarfasciitis This is also another option, but this is slow: https://oldweb.today/?browser=op12#20240901000000/https://www.reddit.com/r/PlantarFasciitis/

None of that happened by these influencers. What I am talking about has little to do with Russia and more to do with grifter influencers, who pretend to be patriots. It just happend to be the case that Russia paid these and now you are all up and arms because you want to defend Russia. This is the kind of grifting I am talking about: https://x.com/xgigglypuff/status/1831709850226536801 He is obviously reading a script that he doesn't fully believe in and he is so fake and dramatic about it lmao.

Actually as Destiny said: When a conservative accuse you of doing something, that is basically a confession from them that they did it or doing it. In short, every accusation is a confession. and they and their followers call themselves patriots. Lmao

https://x.com/BoxLoner/status/1832473253933101112

You are confusing people again because you are equivocating between different notions of consciousness. 1) Is about metaphysics 2) Is about what a person became conscious of or is conscious of right now These are different things and if you are not clear about which time you want to use the term with which meaning - you will confuse people.

For sure. Some of these conversations are 100x more harder than they seem (if we want to actually have a substantive one and not one where we pretend that we talk about something profound when we are not) and most of us are not equipped to have these conversations, but a lot of people won't admit that they don't have their semantics figured out regarding a specific topic and they will jump in anyway. And not just semantics but most of the time they havent even thought about what kind of norms should things be judged by given a particular topic, and that will make the whole conversation confusing and gibberish. You know that people havent thought about it more than 1-2 layer deep about a topic when they cant give answers regarding what certain words they use mean. When you start to stumble after 1-2 questions about your semantics thats when you know, that you need to step back and think about what you actually about and clear up your thinking.

Again, you are wrong on this, and Lex disagrees with you, but you won't change your mind because you are viewing everyone on this forum as lesser compared to you and you start with every conversation with you being right by default, without actually making an argument - you are just asserting your opinions. There are multiple episodes when Trump is brought up in a negative way and Lex isn't just letting his guest to talk, he is providing pushback against a lot of points that are negative towards Trump. One is this: This is the Lex who just lets his guests talk , right Leo? https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1ea48ot/lex_fridman_being_a_centrist/. Also here is Lex literally disagreeing with your characterization of him just being Larry King: So again, let me reiterate - Lex is characterizing himself as a voice of reason, who provides enough pushback and who can see through the biases of the left and the right and who is a responsible platformer - and he doesn't characterize himself as Larry King. Also your comment about "you got your agenda and cant see beyond it"whats the argument for that Leo? Where did I say that you cant do interviews Larry King's style? What I said was, that if you want to do that you should make that clear and own it in a way where you acknowledge the negatives that comes with that style and also own it in a way where your audience knows that you are just a voice amplifier and you are not there to challenge anyone in any kind of way.

You can take that position, but then you shouldn't complain when people give valid criticism ,because that kind of attitude comes with certain negatives as well - such as what some of us already pointed out - you are just a microphone for bad faith people, who can further their agenda, or can literally spread lies without any pusback. I don't know why you have an issue with people who point that out. Also this bias talk is completely and utterly useless, just address the criticism that is made. You always pivot to the meta, and by that you undermine some of your own points as well. And again you are wrong about Lex being a non-judgemental dude - he doesn't hold himself that way. Again in his mind he is a rational dude who can see the limitations in both sides ,and in his mind he is a person who provides enough pushback. So no, from his pov he isn't just trying to be a platform for everyone, it is just that he is bad at giving pushback. But even if he would truly just trying to be just a microphone the criticisms would still stand. If he would want to be that way, he should own it, that that kind of platforming style will come with certain negatives and no one should pretend otherwise.

Lex is just a microphone for anyone who he is platforming and he usually is never prepared enough to have the ability to provide quality pushback. It seems that people here and in other places as well have a distorted view about what centrism is. It doesn't mean that you pretend that when it comes to all issues that both sides are bad the exact same way and you are incapable for any nuance when it comes to your political analysis. It also doesn't entail being non-judgemental , which btw would be false for Lex, because he is judgemental, but he only holds a standard for the left and not for the right. He multiple times downplayed Trump's actions in the past. Centrist either means having values that would put you roughly in the middle, or it can mean that you have the ability to call out any side that you think should be called out. Lex getting criticism shouldn't be labeled as "radical", because nothing is radical for having the spine to actually push Trump on his bullshit. Providing a platform for the guy before the election without almost any pushback obviously is incredibly irresponsible and pretending otherwise would be dishonest and naive. So lets not pretend that pressing Trump should only be expected from the radical left - Any real conservative should call out Trump , let alone a "centrist". In Lex's mind he is not Larry King, in his mind he is a centrist who calls out both sides for their shit and he provides enough pushback when it is necessary.

I don't think talking about spiral dynamics is relevant or necessary or helpful here. You can make arguments why or how practicality can undermine sensemaking or why it doesn't necessarily undermine sensemaking, without needing to bring in all the unnecessary baggage of SD.

Yeah I can agree with that. I guess we can get into the nuance of how one can lie even if one exclusively use facts (by manipulating the context), but I think thats very different from what the right is doing most of the time. I don't have a well thought out process for how good rhetoric should look like, but right now all I would say is that in practice, it would be something like an information reduction rather than sharing actual falsehoods. So basically providing talking points to a targeted audience, where the audience wouldn't necessarily know all the underlying facts about a given argument, but they could still use the talking points as a justification and if they want to - they can still dive deeper into the facts and the arguments, but the truth value of the talkingpoints would still stay the same.

Of course there is such a thing as empty or misleading rhetoric, but I don't think that good rhetoric is necessarily mutually exclusive with truth or with facts.

These things are not in the same ballpark. In one you actually care about consent, in the second, you not just don't care about consent , you actually care about there being no real consent.

But thats not the same, because there they do consent to it and you know that they do consent to it. If you have a fetish where you get hard from an actual lack of consent, then thats going to be different and you aren't going to enjoy it if the other person will roleplay for you. These are different things. You can have a fetish where you do get joy from your partner roleplaying as a rapist and where you two discuss in detail beforehand exactly what kind of dynamics you want to engage in and talk about safe words when to and how to stop vs getting joy from a lack of consent in a way, where you can rape someone knowing that the other person isn't faking the lack of consent part at all.

If you are twisted enough you can get hard from completely overpowering someone.

Of course it does. Its one of the most efficient ways to completely psychologically destroy someone or to showcase how someone is completely under your control and he/she cannot do anything about it. This is probably the deepest/last boundary people have, and when this is crossed, there is literally nothing off the table from here (in terms of what the rapist is willing to do with you). For example, in prison not all people who rape are actually sexually attracted to the person they rape- its mostly about the power move to make someone your "bitch".

Both of them are highly skilled debaters.

I don't have a strong position on preference formation, because it is an empirical question that I haven't investigated at all - all I would say about it is that you can't have a preference for something that you cant conceive of (thats my way to roughly say, what you mentioned about biological ,cultural and tech context) To be clear though, I am willing to grant that the vast majority of our preferences can be explained by the context that you said, im just not 100% sure whether we can have a preference for something that is removed from that (thats why I used 'to conceive of' ) Btw, appreciate the good faith engagement and appreciate that you were willing to lay down your semantics.

Joshua Rasmussen is pretty cool.

Sure we can use that semantics for the purpose of this discussion about moral talk. I think even under your semantics it would be subjective and I will lay out why (and you can obviously correct me if i am strawmanning) . If you can say that your morality is not completely subjective , under the same semantics I don't see how your stance on beauty would be different (how beauty would be purely subjective), because your sense of beauty can probably be explained or at the very least it is informed by biological mechanism and evolution and by even cultural factors as well, so the same things are applicable there (as far as I see it). Lets talk about moral statements, that includes moral language like should. For example: "I think we should maximize human flourishing". Just because that moral statement has an element in it that is basically connected to or informed by outside factors namely by 'human flourishing' which is grounded in biology, culture ,spiritual practices etc, that does not make that moral statement not subjective. The way you check for subjectivity and objectivity in the context of morals is by checking what a given moral statement's truth value is depended on. So given the same statement of "I think we should maximize human flourishing" , this statement's truth value isn't depended on outside factors, it is depended on your own preferences and values and those values and preferences exist in your mind (using your semantics,of subjectivity - it is depeneded on your preferences). Even if there would be no other human that would have the same kind of morals as you, that statement could still be true given your preferences. Just as a sidenote for language kind of problems: I don't have strong views on it, this is why im perfectly okay with using your semantics. I am not a language realist or whatever it would be called (I am not even sure what objective definition would even mean).I only have two main goals in mind with language. 1) I want to make myself to be clear enough for my conversational partner so that he/she can understand what im saying 2) I want to understand what my conversational partner is trying to communicate.

Okay gotcha. Now I understand your semantics a little better on this, but I personally wouldn't use morality in this case, because to me morality cannot not be prescriptive, this is why science alone cant "solve" moral questions . If we are talking about a purely descriptive statement, then thats just gonna be a scientific question. So for example, if we create a descriptive statement about what we mean by human flourishing, then thats not gonna be a moral statement yet, unless we add moral language to it like (should). We can answer the question of what can bring higher and lower human flourishing without any need for morality there. But, if we make a statement like "we should care about human flourishing", now we are in moral territory and now we can use human flourishing as a moral axiom to work towards. Under my semantics - all of this is compatible with moral subjectivism. Subjective just means mind dependent. The fact that we can give a description about how our moral preferences or intuitions developed or from where they came from or the fact that it can be influenced by outside factors doesn't negate the fact that these preferences are still mind dependent . A good way to recognize this, is if we switch moral preferences with taste preferences. So going with taste preferences - We would probably never say that just because there is a cultural or evolutionary explanation for why I have this preference, that my preference for vanilla over chocolate isn't subjective. To be clear, under your semantics (the way you use subjective, it might make sense to use terms like "not fully subjective", but under those semantics im not even sure if you would categorize anything as purely subjective) When you bring comparative statements in the picture, then its should be trivial for everyone that not all moral systems will be equally fit/good for that given thing. So for instance, if by healthy you mean something like "being good for survival" then yeah, it should be trivially easy to recognize for everyone that certain moral systems that don't care or that care less about survival, those will be less healthy compared to others under this definition of healthy , but under my semantics this still wouldn't make one moral system better compared to another. This is just picking a metric you care about and then checking which moral system can maximize it.

Yeah I pretty much agree with this approach as well. To me, these are words that we use to categorize things, and they are useful for that and thats it (not necessarily claims about metaphysics). What do you mean by moral constructivism? how is that meaningfully different from saying that you have your own personal goals and preferences and that is what grounds what you ought to do?

I can agree with this, just from the fact, that I find context independent (or in other words absolute) truth to be pretty much gibberish, the same goes for moral realism. Decision theory is grounded in morality and I think that you are a moral antirealist as well, so these things are either grounded in our subjective preferences/values or we can decide these things in an intersubjective manner (once proper context is provided, what the actual goal is).