@mojitoblooms @Misandrist2000 People should not make agreements they can't stand by. When you unilaterally violate a contract there are consequences.
If you think marriage is about how it serves you, you shouldn't be getting married.
English
LifeAfterTech
320 posts
LifeAfterTech
@ALifeAfterTech
One man's journey from tech industry to modern luddite.
เข้าร่วม Haziran 2023
17 กำลังติดตาม11 ผู้ติดตาม
@ALifeAfterTech @Misandrist2000 People should be able to leave marriages that don’t serve them. And not have their lives blown up for it.
English
You want to protect women in traditional roles?
Give them pension rights for domestic labor. Make marital assets legally equal from day one. Criminalize spousal abandonment. Fund maternal healthcare.
Or admit you don't actually want to protect her. You just want her to stay.
jezz@ABmrJutt
Hot take: Real feminism doesn’t shame women for enjoying motherhood, homemaking, or traditional roles.
English
@RdHdSteppeson Well we don't value human life the same. We don't have the same expected value. We'll never have the same calculation on how to vote.
English
@ALifeAfterTech I don't apply infinite value to human life and neither do you.
English
Important factor about this is that last line. But without coordination there can be even less responsibility (and there already was basically none!)
So many folks defending the Blue Button do so on the premise that they are acting to save various folks (Children, imbeciles, blind people, etc, I've seen these and more) from having hit the blue either randomly or accidentally or the like, but because you can never know any of these people actually exist, and you cannot make any coordinated effort to actually intervene to save them either there can be no moral responsibility to intervene.
No matter how you theorize, or 'estimate,' which is really just guessing, the framing makes it clear that you can never actually know any of these people even actually exist to be saved, and so the implication you have a moral responsibility to risk yourself to save theoretical people is just absurd.
And, importantly, not the way anyone ACTUALLY lives!
🌘ʀᴇᴠᴇɴᴀɴᴛ⚡@revenant_MMXX
"Everyone will not just" applies, but not the way blue pressers think it does. When you're hoping that half of 8 billion people will do something, you might as well be hoping all 8 billion do it. You don't even get a chance to convince any of them, either.
English
@RealDianeYap Not is not supposed to make you want to save them. You are a sociopath. We don't expect you to want to save anyone but yourself.
English
The funniest thing about the blue button pushers is that they keep telling us about all the other people who are going to push blue: the illiterate, the illogical, people who have dementia or choose their favorite color...
And that's supposed to make us want to save them!
English
@ckjd @DellAnnaLuca The math does lie, because the math that matters is the excepted value.
Voting red has a near 100% chance of costing something of infinite value.
Voting blue has a 50% chance of saving something of infinite value.
The expected value is negative infinite vs positive infinite.
English
@ALifeAfterTech @DellAnnaLuca If it was a coin toss, I would agree with you.
It's not a coin toss though. You have a 1 in 8 billion chance of changing the outcome in a positive way. The math doesn't lie.
English
Red voters advise their kids (and others) to vote red, so they’re saved for sure.
Blue voters advise their kids (and others) to vote blue, thereby gambling with their lives.
But somehow red voters would be those caring less about their kids and others in general?
The idea that blue is the moral choice hinges on the unwarranted assumption that blue wins with certainty.
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English
@TheRealPigman2 @ywomendeservles That second part is highly underrated.
English
@ywomendeservles Because most of us don't want to play dad to someone else's kids? And if you do, and get emotionally attached to them and the relationship goes south, you will lose them even more than a biological dad would. It's a bad deal in every way.
English
Why do men view single moms as less valuable in the dating market ?
English
@Review_bra The online disinhibition effect is pretty clear evidence you have it backward.
But if you are actually a sociopaths you probably think everyone else is as well.
English
Twitter poll thats extremely weighted in favour of blue with zero chance of actually dying and blue STILL almost loses
Not to be cynical but if this actually happened in the real life its gonna be like 85% red
Danielle Fong 🔆@DanielleFong
get game theory mogged once again, game theory advocates. everybody lives, and now you're in copeaganda about how you're not mean and wrong
English
@ckjd @DellAnnaLuca If you think they are they same then that explains where the issue comes from.
Pushing red to vote for killing your child and each of the other 8 billion people on a coin toss is psychopathic.
English
@ALifeAfterTech @DellAnnaLuca It is the identical scenario. If you think the scenario is different, that's possibly where the issue comes from.
Pressing Blue and voting to kill your child's parent for a 1-in-8 billion casino gamble is pretty negligent.
English
@ElizabethGMat @shig23 @MaryCarmenOrd Actual this is the point. You can't trust the choice anyone will make. So either you don't care about the lives of this who select blue, for what ever reason, whether you understand it or not, or you care about someone and they might have pressed blue.
English
@shig23 @MaryCarmenOrd If you have to trust anybody, it’s a bad decision.
English
If everyone pushes red everyone lives. So why would anyone push blue?
Wilfred Reilly@wil_da_beast630
In the classic ethics-textbook scenario, where everyone in the world has to press either a red button or a blue button and: (1) If 50+% of people pick blue, everybody lives, but... (2) If 50+% of people pick red, only red-pushers live.... Do you pick blue or red?
English
@ckjd @DellAnnaLuca That's a different scenario. You wouldn't know you're last. You don't know if more blue votes are needed or it its impossible.
But even if you did know you were last but didn't know the current vote, voting blue is still the correct moral choice.
English
@ALifeAfterTech @DellAnnaLuca Imagine you are the very last person to press. There is Blue, a 1-in-8-billion chance you can affect the outcome and a real chance of death; or Red, a 100% chance your child will still have a parent to look after them.
English
@bloodstreamrunz Except that don't to the online disinhibition effect we know that people are more empathetic offline than on. So more people are likely to select blue in the real world.
English
there is absolutely no chance that blue would get more than 15% in a real scenario, the odds of it winning 50%+1 of the vote are ridiculously minuscule. voting blue isn't even a gamble, it's plain suicide, blue is a death cult of suicidal idiots
Sam || Crafting Vegeto@CraftingVegeto
Okay, so after thinking about this red blue button dilemma for hours, here is where I landed lol At first glance, the correct pragmatic answer is obviously red. You survive no matter what. That part is still 100 percent true. Red is the logical self preservation move. You do not die no matter what the others do. But once you think deeper, you realize that blue actually has a strong moral and collective argument. Blue only needs "just" over 50 percent to save literally everyone, while red basically needs 100 percent for no one to die. So blue is the gamble that gives humanity the best shot at universal survival with the lowest bar. At the same time, tons of people are emotional as hell, not logical or pragmatic, and sadly a lot are straight up virtue signaling kings. That means there is a real chance we end up in that dangerous 40 to 49 percent blue zone where billions die and society collapses anyway. Even the survivors probably would not survive long after that. Good job everyone. So yeah, red is the logical self preservation move, and blue is the more morally correct gamble to try and save everyone. Both sides have a solid point. Having that said... Everyone on Twitter furiously shitting on the other side is an idiot. Blues calling reds selfish monsters are idiots. Reds who cannot even see the collective blue argument are idiots too. But here is the most important part imho. All of this is bullshit. This is just a Twitter thought experiment where everything is easy and fake. If this was real life, an actual button in front of you, and pressing the wrong one means you actually die, everything changes. Heart rate at 180, adrenaline spiking, shitting your pants. I firmly believe there is near 0 percent chance blue gets over 50 percent in a real scenario, which I am not saying is a good thing. All the virtue signaling idiots on the internet would secretly press red in a heartbeat. Sure, some actual idealists who care about the collective more than pure survival would still press blue, and sadly they would die. In a real terrifying dystopian situation like that, red is the only solution, and it sucks.
English
@mojitoblooms @Misandrist2000 Correct, but they have to stay together and not blow up their familly. And if the man blew up the family the women would be provided for for life.
English
@ALifeAfterTech @Misandrist2000 No fault divorce did not remove any of this because it has never existed. People have always been and are still able to make family health plans etc.
English
@KrispiLargo2 @Misandrist2000 It's exactly what was said you just don't want to believe it. You've been sold a bill of goods. Convinced life is better now.
10 times as many women need welfare today than prior to no fault. Go back before that and women were nearly universally provided for.
English
@Maeve0330 @HandyGingerGal 1 is the correct answer. People where just taught in correctly that a number next to parenthesis is synonymous with multiply.
English
@CollinBrown85 @HandyGingerGal Parenthesis does not mean multiple. Never has.
Parenthesis means expand, and you don't clear the parenthesis until you expand.
8 ÷ 2(2 + 2)
8 ÷ (2 x 2 + 2 x 2)
8 ÷ (4 + 4)
8 ÷ 8
Replace the inner 2s with x and y and you'll see why this matters.
English
@HandyGingerGal I was always taught you do parentheses first. You get (4). And then work whatever is outside the paranthasees. In this case, it's a simple 8÷2=4.
4(4) = 16.
The parentheses mean multiply.
English
@PattersonSonny @DellAnnaLuca Morality is not based on being the deciding vote.
Imagine the vote is simple kill 50% vs kill no one. It doesn't mater who actually wins, voting to kill people caries the same moral weight.
English
Every vote has a 1 in 112,100 chance (the probability of 8 billion coin flips coming to an exact tie) of being a deciding vote that determines the outcome. That is the only viable meaning of "saving everyone".
So pressing red actually has a zero chance of "saving everyone", a 1 in 112,000 chance of triggering the death of all blue pushers, and a 100% chance of saving oneself.
English
@realDarkElation @uncatherio Nope, not at all. Many just believe suicidal people are worth saving. A concept that is alien to psycho/sociopaths.
English
@ALifeAfterTech @uncatherio Every blue button pusher is suicidal.
English
I keep finding it surprising that people do not understand that choosing red has a side effect: it increases the number of people that must choose blue.
English
@realDarkElation @uncatherio I hope you never have a loved one with depression.
Yes, us blue button pushers would try to save the lives of the suicidal.
English
@uncatherio That implies that as a red choice I care about your choice to kill yourself. Who am I to judge your decisions?
English