So I've taken a deep dive into the mind of the local fentanyl dealer. I feel every emotion he has. I'm motivated by his motivations. He doesn't want to go to jail for dealing fentanyl. He doesn't care about the people who die from using his fentanyl. What was the point of this exercise?
To demonstrate that you are in fact unable to deep dive into the mind of the local fentanyl dealer, who is probably a much more fascinating human being than the role you have attributed him in your thought experiment (or in your society) would ever permit you to comprehend.
Well, considering her son ended up on fentanyl, probably not very able to tell some things, yeah.
"I'm sorry kid, I know you probably have aspirations and all that shit, but due to a host of technical reasons we don't care about any of that. Here's this fentanyl instead, either shoot it or go sell it to the next loser. And say hi to your mom from me - she's an absolutely remarkable woman."
No, there's no Poe's Law involved; it's just that you're unlikely to permit yourself to empathize with anything else besides your ingroup. (Exactly as unlikely as you're meant to be; congratulations - there is some safety in numbers).
That's all rather revealing as to what this so called "empathy" actually is, and why of all possible ethical values this is the one which epitomes of uncaring choose to pay lip service to.
Circling back to your original strawmonster - no, I don't believe any particular disaffected youth has had any voice in whether society should go through an opioid epidemic. As to the actual people responsible, I'm sure you'd perceive them as having vivid, rich inner lives, not unlike your own.
> you're unlikely to permit yourself to empathize with anything else besides your ingroup.
But in your example you described an attitude of depraved indifference, which is exactly how I described the motivations of many drug dealers, including ones I know and that you do not.
>But in your example you described an attitude of depraved indifference, which is exactly how I described the motivations of many drug dealers, including ones I know and that you do not.
You're pointing at a contradiction in "unlikely" or in "ingroup"?
>attitude of depraved indifference
We stock two flavors of indifference in the indifference truck, we got callous and then we got depraved. Callous is sans empathy, weighs one `compartmentalize()` call. Depraved is the one with the extra sprinkle of empathy, more precisely a dash of empathy with the victim in the very moment the indifferent person is screwing them over with their sheer indifference. So, not very indifferent anymore, but what some people go for anyway. Empathy is very poignant after all. Plus, observers are none the wiser. Now, how much flavor you prefer, that's kind of career-deciding innit
don’t worry, account age and moral viewpoints are only correlated, not linked causally! for instance, i’ve had an account for a long time and i also believe peter thiel is an evil man. it’s an easy logical fallacy to fall into! don’t feel bad for messing it up.
And yet, nobody feels that so viscerally that they feel compelled to write these schoolyard-level insults directed at its leadership every time it comes up in a HN thread.
I remember that quite well. However, the backlash was very specific; as far as I remember it was never directed at the company as a whole, let alone the person of, say, Eric Schmidt.
Eric Schmidt didn’t present as a creepy weirdo.
He also didn’t make the company a reflection of himself. That kept the glasshole backlash compartmentalized.
Strange things happen when a leader merges the company brand and with his personal brand. It can strengthen the company brand (in the case of a plucky can-do technologist) but the company brand starts to get colored by the personality of the person (in the case of a person who goes off the deep end and starts saying weird and inflammatory stuff).
No, it's rhetorical to ask you "Why are you framing it as if it ever was?"
If happiness were a competition we should all be lining up for lobotomies and buying/finding as much sand as we can to bury our heads as deep as we can. But it's not. Conservatives haven't cracked any sort of code, and this line of questions was intended to draw you to this realization of your own accord. Instead, this.
Full stop? Lol. The right-wing groyper theory is completely dead. Tyler Robinson is a leftist who killed in the name of his leftism. None of the evidence contradicts it.
What evidence do you have that he "killed in the name of his leftism?"
As far as I know, there is no evidence of a specific "leftist" motive and no connection has been found to "leftist" organizations. Bear in mind that many Christians were opposed to Charlie Kirk's politics, and right-wingers didn't feel he went far enough. So that alone isn't evidence of "killing in the name of his leftism."
The memes aren't hard evidence either, since they're just memes.
This article appears to be about another person, I was asking about the person who shot Charlie Kirk. I know you only see an undifferentiated mass of "radical violent leftists" in your head but people actually are individuals and can have individual motives even when performing similar actions. Kirk's shooter did actually use memes, 'ANTI-ICE' as far as I know isn't a meme.
Also I thought you were leaving the thread. Here, let me show you how to actually do that.
> At this point his political views are still not clear.
Clear as day. Deranged leftist. No question. As someone who is even now wrong for the right reasons, I wonder if you think maybe the right-for-the-wrong-reasons crowd might have heuristics that are useful and lead to good decision making, and that you have rejected.
Finds evidence of cheating.
"Try not being so paranoid."
reply