On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 1:56 PM WriterOfMinds <[email protected]> wrote:
> @James: > If the one thing that puffs you up with pride is your own humility, then > you're not humble. If the one thing that makes you consider your race > superior is its general disdain for the idea of racial superiority, then > you don't disdain the idea of racial superiority. Nice try. You can climb > up as many meta-levels as you want, and it won't help you move the line > between virtue and offense -- but it will, perhaps, help you obscure the > issue and deceive the unwary. > HA! If I were trying to "deceive" people would I be a "self-admitted 'white supremacist'"? Get real. I'm merely pointing out the harsh reality that people differ in their _beliefs_ about the ir/relevance of genes to society including "morality" and that this is essentially, hence inescapably, _religious_ in nature. "My race is superior in this one tiny dimension, and it's good that we > treat other races as equals in every other dimension" still reduces to "my > race is superior" ... with all the arrogance that such a position implies. > > I also get the impression that this is not a merely academic opinion with > you. You do wish it could affect public policy in some way. Brrrrr. > No, it's not merely academic... it is _religious_ as is your _opinion_ of me and my beliefs. The difference between us is that _you_ insist on imposing your beliefs on _me_ whereas I've been FOR DECADES consistent in my promotion of what I've more recently promoted under the neologism: Sortocracy -- Sorting Proponents of Social Theories Into Governments That Test Them. Violation of this is what is leading to on the order of 100M deaths in the US alone in what I call "Reformation II" and it is people like _you_ that are in violation. Sortocracy's particular aphoristic expression of my _meta_ "supremacist" belief has two sides to it: Scientific and Ethical. The scientific side should be so obvious to you that I don't consider it worth discussing with you. Look up "experimental controls" and "causality". The _ethical_ side quite simply boils down to a single word: "Informed Consent" This does have political ramifications such as "Ending Imprisonment’s Slavery With Border Enforcement <http://sortocracy.org/ending-imprisonments-slavery-with-border-enforcement/> ". For the record, I'll copy that short article below: Capitalism is in a political deadlock with liberal democracy’s tyranny of the majority limited only by vague laundry list of selectively enforced “human rights”. Breaking this deadlock requires empirically grounding the social sciences by sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them: Sortocracy. This means that the current model of “human rights” must be replaced with a single, well defined, right to vote with your feet. This right to vote with your feet necessarily implies three material rights: 1. The material right to land. 2. The material right to transportation. 3. The material right to border enforcement. #1 is obvious since you can’t put your social theory into practice without land. #2 is also obvious as people who cannot practically relocate cannot vote with their feet. #3 _should_ be obvious but, due to the moral zeitgeist, it is not. Incarceration rates, particularly in the US, show us that there are two, fundamentally opposed, kinds of borders: Those that keep people out and those that keep people in. Of the two, the kind that keeps people in is least compatible with the right to vote with your feet. Even the US’s 13th Amendment to the Constitution has provision for involuntary servitude: Slavery for those imprisoned <http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/prisoners-arent-protected-against-slavery.html>. We see a prison-industrial complex arising at the interface of government and capitalism to exploit this loophole in the 13th Amendment. The moral zeitgeist’s mandate is “let people in”. What is not admitted is this *necessarily* entails walls that keep people from leaving who are found to be “criminal” by the admitting society. The moral zeitgeist has to reconcile its moral outrage at imprisonment with its moral outrage at border controls. The only realistic answer to this is absolute enforcement of free emigration combined with absolute tolerance of restrictive immigration. But it is nice to know what sort of people I'm dealing with. > > @Matt: > There's a world of difference between having a subconscious bias that you > can't help and may not even be aware of, and deliberately advocating for > racist ideas. What's happening around here at the moment is definitely the > latter. And I agree that it's off-topic. > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery > options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T234cfbcefa1d1d24-Mcec2245b2b5a03d32c437870> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T234cfbcefa1d1d24-Ma73a916931b55aa046f08e9b Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
