Greg Benage

7.6K posts

Greg Benage banner
Greg Benage

Greg Benage

@GregBenage

Combat Systems Analyst CTR NAVSEA. Opinions on sports, games, politics and other things I really don't know anything about.

Atlanta, GA 가입일 Ocak 2012
155 팔로잉194 팔로워
Greg Benage
Greg Benage@GregBenage·
@CptAncapistan Social cohesion in prison is so strong because everyone knows everyone else is a criminal.
English
0
0
0
0
Captain Ⓐncapistan
Captain Ⓐncapistan@CptAncapistan·
Okay, thought of another wrinkle. If red wins by a large margin, then everyone who is alive pressed red. We all know we all pressed red. That actually builds some social cohesion. But if blue wins, people will spend the rest of their lives suspecting people of pressing red. Admitting to have pressed red will make you a social pariah. There may even be calls to find and punish anyone who pressed red. This would create a highly paranoid society going forward. A narrow red victory is still a disaster scenario, but a dominant red victory may actually be better than a blue victory.
Captain Ⓐncapistan@CptAncapistan

Alright, one last post about this after having given it a lot of thought and seeing people's reasonings. I'll give my final choice at the end. Firstly, I don't think you're necessarily stupid to pick blue or necessarily immoral to pick red. I think a lot of it just comes down to what your first instinct is, "we have to save everyone" or "why would anyone pick the option where you can die?" I think most people are sticking with their first instinct and finding ways to justify it. People are wired differently. It's good that society has a mix of these instincts as both compassion and self-preservation serve a purpose in our survival as a species. There are bad people and good people on both sides, and there are dumb people and smart people on both sides. I also think framing matters a lot, particularly when it's reframed as action vs inaction. The scenarios of taking a poison pill or jumping into a blender/woodchipper make it easy to choose red because blue is more clearly taking a suicidal action. The scenario of the red party killing everyone who voted for the blue party if they win makes it easy to choose blue because red is more clearly taking a homicidal action. The rules are still effectively the same in all three scenarios, but the framing matters. The button example is so controversial because the framing is as neutral as it can be, which lets both the blue side frame red side as homicidal and the red side frame the blue side as suicidal. The best argument I've seen for blue is that the only scenario where no one dies is if more than half of people press blue because we can safely assume that a non-zero number of people will press the blue button. On top of that, if a slim majority picks red, that's basically a Thanos snap situation, and it would be far worse than what the writers of Avengers: Endgame were able to fathom, with the added bonus of a selection bias that eliminates all the people with compassion instinct and leaves us only with the people with the self-preservation instinct. For those reasons, I would hope that the majority press blue. That being said, I still ultimately come down on pressing the red button. There are some 8 billion people in the world. The chances that my choice is the deciding button press is effectively zero. If I press blue, I'm just leaving my fate up to the results. My button press is meaningless. The only way I have agency in this situation is to press the red button. Also, I know my wife is pressing blue, but I don't know what my kids will do. If one or both of my kids press blue while the majority picks red, I can't save them by pressing blue. But, if one or both of my kids press red while the majority picks red, I can guarantee that they aren't orphaned if I press red. But hey, maybe I'm just finding a way to justify my initial instinct, just like everyone else. x.com/waitbutwhy/sta…

English
50
6
142
5.4K
Greg Benage
Greg Benage@GregBenage·
@ScottOgden1 @TylerDMcNabb Maybe there are no brute facts *in the world.* But maybe “necessity” and “contingency” are modal categories that apply within a world-model and lose their grip when we try to apply them to the model as a whole.
English
0
0
0
9
Scott Ogden
Scott Ogden@ScottOgden1·
@GregBenage @TylerDMcNabb The thing is tho is there is just brute fact in the world with no cause or explanation then like, it's pretty plain to question literally everything. How do you believe in science, perception, logic, etc. all of it would be absurd. Nietzsche would be right
English
1
0
0
12
712🇻🇦
712🇻🇦@ZealotesChristi·
@GregBenage @bttldog @logiboi32 @kaizen000000000 a beginning just means that the Universe isn’t eternal, the evidence points towards that Borde-Guth-Vilenking theorem supports this and there has been no quantum model that overturns the BGV, at most, some frameworks circumvent its premises or reframe the “beginning”
English
1
0
0
22
么 ꜱ ᴀ ᴍ ꪜ,
么 ꜱ ᴀ ᴍ ꪜ,@kaizen000000000·
"If we say God made the universe, then surely the next question is, "Who made God?" If we say God was always here, why not say the universe was always here? If we say that the question "Where did God come from?" is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then why not say that the question of "Where did the universe come from?" is too tough for us mortals?" ~ Carl Sagan
English
29
5
55
2.4K
Greg Benage
Greg Benage@GregBenage·
@MarkChangizi Cool. You know your child is going to keep giving away “her” life preserver because she doesn’t understand there are enough for everyone and she’s sweet and you taught her to share and she just wants everyone to live. Now what?
English
0
0
2
53
Mark Changizi
Mark Changizi@MarkChangizi·
People seem not able to grasp that the Red/Blue thought experiment is structured exactly so that Red is NOT selfish. THAT’S why it’s interesting. People think that using your own life preserver — that everyone else also has — is somehow selfish.
Mark Changizi@MarkChangizi

— The Red and Blue Buttons: Parables of Humanity’s Enduring Sickness and the Persistence of Collectivism — In a simple thought experiment popularized by Tim Urban, participants face a binary choice: press the Red button or the Blue button. The rule is straightforward: if more than 50 percent press Blue, everyone survives. If not, only those who pressed Red survive. Logically, the rational choice is obvious: press Red. Your survival is guaranteed regardless of what others do. There is no downside to your individual action, no one is harmed by it, and your outcome is optimal without any need for coordination. Yet astonishing numbers of people choose Blue. They opt for a path that requires fragile mass cooperation, risking everything on the hope that enough others will join them in a collective gamble. This is not an isolated curiosity. The same flawed reasoning appears in two sharpened variants. Imagine a flood. Each person has a personal life preserver. Keeping your own life preserver — Red — means surviving independently. Donating it — Blue — means contributing to a collective effort to build one large boat. But the boat can only be completed, and save its contributors, if more than 50 percent donate. If the threshold is not met, those who donated drown. Or consider the Suicide Button. You receive a strange spam email with a button labeled “Suicide.” Pressing it means you’ll be dead by midnight — only press it if that’s what you want. Fine print: unless more than 50 percent also press it, in which case the button’s functionality fails. There isn’t even a Red button. Red is simply ignoring the stupid spam email that introduced you to the Suicide Button and continuing with your life. In all these cases, the decentralized, self-interested choice — Red, or non-participation — is unambiguously superior. Cooperation — Blue — brings no inherent benefit over individual action. It merely introduces the risk of catastrophic failure if buy-in falls short. These variants expose a deeper truth: what appears to be a “dilemma” is not one at all in the classic sense of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. There is no holistic downside to self-interested action. Each Red choice is positive-sum in its own sphere — consensual where it interacts with others, beneficial to the actor, and imposing no costs. Cooperation has no intrinsic advantage. At best, it approximates the baseline outcome of decentralized self-interest. Far more often, it delivers something worse. The entire setup only becomes a dilemma because of human irrationality — an instinctive pull toward the illusion of moral cooperation, even when the math and incentives scream otherwise. And this fragility cannot be overcome by zeal. Even seeming near-universal buy-in leaves the collective gamble vulnerable. The slightest shortfall turns it into collective disaster. This button logic maps directly onto the perennial debate between freedom and collectivism. Decentralized mechanisms — free markets, voluntary exchange, the marketplace of ideas — are the Red button. Or, in the Suicide Button variant, the decision to delete the spam and get on with life. Logic, economics, and empirical history demonstrate that these decentralized systems are vastly superior at generating wealth, discovering truth, and sustaining functional societies. When individuals act on their own incentives, their interactions are consensual and positive-sum: both parties benefit, and no one is coerced into the scheme. There is no need for top-down coordination, central planning, or enforced narratives. Emergent order arises naturally from billions of localized decisions, producing complexity and prosperity no designer could orchestrate. Collectivism, by contrast, is the Blue button. It demands mass buy-in for a centralized vision — whether economic planning, enforced equality, or ideological conformity. Cooperation is not optional. It is the prerequisite for the system to function at all. <1 of 2>

English
40
5
110
2.9K
Greg Benage
Greg Benage@GregBenage·
@G_S_Bhogal @CosmicSkeptic You can have very good reasons for not believing in the classical theist’s conception of God. Great reasons! They will HAVE to be categorically DIFFERENT reasons from those a Christian has for not believing in Allah or Brahman or vice versa. This is not “muddying the waters.”
English
0
0
0
13
Gurwinder
Gurwinder@G_S_Bhogal·
This is just muddying the waters. Gervais’ implied reason for not believing in the theist’s god is not the problem of evil, it’s a lack of evidence. Nor does it matter what kind of exegesis a theist uses to derive their beliefs about their god’s nature; their reasoning fundamentally comes down to faith, firstly because exegesis is subjective, secondly because their exegesis assumes the book they’re interpreting has divine origins, and thirdly because it’s not possible for a theist to have given sufficient attention to all other religious texts in existence. The choice to believe gods have certain natures is made by rationalized faith, just like the decision to believe in gods in the first place.
English
5
0
32
1.3K
Alex O'Connor
Alex O'Connor@CosmicSkeptic·
I’m getting a lot of hate for this reel. What do you think? (P.S.: if you say “but we have evidence for dads I believe you have missed the point.)
English
1.7K
376
9.1K
1.2M
Greg Benage
Greg Benage@GregBenage·
@ZealotesChristi @bttldog @logiboi32 @kaizen000000000 Just wanted to chime in that you’re wrong. The BB is a boundary condition. We have no evidence that the universe had a beginning. Even the “singularity” is just what you get when you try to solve only with GR. We think it’s wrong and that we need a quantum solution.
English
1
0
0
26
712🇻🇦
712🇻🇦@ZealotesChristi·
@bttldog @logiboi32 @kaizen000000000 no, it suggests more than that it suggests that, based on current physics, the Universe had a finite past, it doesn’t have a past eternity, and the Big Bang is the earliest point our physics can describe
English
2
0
0
29
Greg Benage
Greg Benage@GregBenage·
@kaizen000000000 If everything in nature depends on something for its existence, the ultimate ground must be something outside nature. That’s why “God” could be the ultimate ground and “the universe” cannot. (I don’t accept the argument, but you do have to understand what it is.)
English
0
0
0
32
Sy Garte
Sy Garte@sygarte·
@GregBenage "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth". Genesis 1:1. Pretty good prediction, actually. Science eventually caught up.
English
1
0
1
25
Sy Garte
Sy Garte@sygarte·
“The non-theist can appeal to what we don't know, an atheism of the gaps, to avoid what we have learned from science. But...the discoveries that have filled the gaps look a lot like what would be predicted by those who believe in the Christian God.” Dr. Michael G. Strauss, CERN.
English
22
23
165
5.1K
Greg Benage
Greg Benage@GregBenage·
@spencer_askew My brother and I were in an otherwise all-Black riding club and we had a neighbor who would sit on her porch and yell “nigger” and “nigger-lovers” every time we rode by. It happened everywhere. I think you’re lying or you’ve led a sheltered life.
Greg Benage tweet media
English
0
0
0
18
Spencer Askew
Spencer Askew@spencer_askew·
I’ve lived in the Deep South my entire life, and never once have I met a member of the KKK. Never once have I met someone that is openly a White Supremacist. Never once have I seen a white person harass a black person or call them a slur to their face. Do with that (admittedly anecdotal) evidence what you will. The whole world is a stage.
English
27
8
161
4.4K
Greg Benage
Greg Benage@GregBenage·
@K3nB3n I don’t buy it. A leftist would have targeted Democrats.
English
0
0
0
9
Blooper
Blooper@BlooperBraves·
for Bloopy
English
67
212
4K
149.9K
Greg Benage
Greg Benage@GregBenage·
@PositivFuturist Later, in the afterlife: Father: Why did you choose blue, baby? Daughter: I just wanted everyone to live, Daddy. Father: But don’t you see that red is the dominant utility-maximizing strategy given that— ::trapdoor opens::
English
0
0
1
30
Greg Benage
Greg Benage@GregBenage·
@RonnieAdkins I think it’s okay to abandon the “naturalistic look,” however appropriate the scum aesthetic may be for Washington. But we could use a liner that doesn’t make it look like a swimming pool.
English
0
0
0
15
Ronnie Adkins
Ronnie Adkins@RonnieAdkins·
I…are people actually mad that it will look like that? Sincerely. What are the issues with it looking like this I don’t understand literally at all. I live in the DC area and used to eat my lunch there. Looked like a swamp monster was gonna pop out and eat my PB&Hotdog.
Seth Abramson@SethAbramson

I say again... *grotesque*. The Trumpist enshittification of America continues. This is what a formerly beautiful D.C. landmark will soon look like:

English
421
47
2.4K
118.3K
Greg Benage
Greg Benage@GregBenage·
@Danish_SMF Nah. Those who believe in the Christian God live lives that share a grand meaning and purpose with all of God’s creations. They live lives of joy and hope with the promise that all will be made right and they’ll be reunited with the ones they love. It’d be great if it were true.
English
0
0
0
4
Danish Gerd
Danish Gerd@Danish_SMF·
2 You've lived in fear of a judgment that never comes. If there's another God, you might have worshiped the wrong one. Pascal's Wager cuts both ways. I'd rather live honestly with uncertainty than pretend to certainty I don't have. That's not arrogance It's humility.
English
3
0
13
121
Danish Gerd
Danish Gerd@Danish_SMF·
If I'm wrong If God exists and Christianity is true Then I've been mistaken. But I've lived a life guided by reason, empathy, and evidence. If there's a just God, I don't think he'll punish me for using the brain he gave me. What if you're wrong? If there's no God, 2
Salty west Virginian@jarred_gress

@Danish_SMF I have a question what if your wrong

English
16
0
18
546
Greg Benage
Greg Benage@GregBenage·
@KerryMSoileau @Danish_SMF We have people in the year 2026 of the Common Era who believe the earth is flat. Objective facts don’t produce unanimous consensus.
English
0
0
0
4
Kerry Soileau
Kerry Soileau@KerryMSoileau·
In what sense are those "human" values? There have been times in history during which they were not respected or practiced. That suggests that morality is more of a social consensus, varying over time according to current social conditions, than anything innate to humanity. For instance, we now consider it unthinkably evil to abandon newborns that we consider "inferior" to die of exposure, but that was common practice in ancient Sparta.
English
2
0
3
42
Danish Gerd
Danish Gerd@Danish_SMF·
Christianity influenced the West But it didn't invent morality, and it doesn't own it. The values of fairness, compassion, and liberty are human values. They can be grounded in empathy and reason without a god. And my morality isn't "subjective" in the sense of 2
Salty west Virginian@jarred_gress

@Danish_SMF If you live in the west your morality is mostly grounded in Christian values it is the basis of the magna Carta and the bill of rights

English
11
1
11
406
Derek Pederson 🇺🇸🇺🇦🇻🇪
This is very bad. Clearly the question is implicitly talking about *within a liberal democracy* as it’s not controversial that citizen violence is sometimes justified in resisting an authoritarian regime.
OSZ@OpenSourceZone

Is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals? Among Very Liberal: 🟢 25% Among Liberals: 🟢 17% Among Moderates: 🟢 9% Among Conservatives: 🟢 6% Among Very Conservative: 🟢 3% (YouGov Poll)

English
33
3
38
5.5K
Greg Benage
Greg Benage@GregBenage·
@Jaydon225 The classical theist defines God as the necessary ground of being. You can reject that claim (I do, or at least I see no reason to commit to the metaphysics), but you can’t reject it *on the same terms and only those terms* that you use to reject any particular god or gods.
English
0
0
0
13
Jaydon | #YorubasForPeterObi
There is no "category error." This is the precise argument I am dealing with—that the same reasoning that you, a Christian, employ to reject the "gods" is the same reasoning I, an atheist, employ to reject "God." This is the point of the "one god further" claim. Without prejudice to the claim of whether "God" is one of a list of claimed gods or not, the point stands—when somebody says "I'm just like you in rejecting all gods; I just go one god further," they are essentially saying, "You as a monotheist reject the concept of any of these other gods being God. I also reject, in the same vein, the concept of your God being God." In essence, the "one god further" approach professes that not only do those "gods" that monotheists reject fail to exist, but the very god of the monotheist, whom they eponymously refer to as "God," also fails to exist. I don't see how this is a category error. There are no specific claims about whether "God" is "a god" or anything of that sort. No prejudice is adduced for that.
Ransom of Thulcandra@d_poiema

Category error. The "one god further" argument (henceforth, OGF) treats [the] God as though He were a species within the genus "gods", being one instance among others differing only in number or degree. This is not the conception of God, at least classically, by the [Christian]…

English
4
2
6
1.8K
Patricia Heaton
Patricia Heaton@PatriciaHeaton·
I wasn’t happy when Clinton, Obama or Biden won, but I didn’t call them fascist/dangerous/threat to democracy. I didn’t hope someone would assassinate them. I went on with my life with gratitude. Friends on the left, please try this. Your life and our country will be better.
English
6.8K
17.9K
110K
2.7M