bustedbuddha

bustedbuddha t1_jeg1gnn wrote

Reply to comment by Artanthos in The only race that matters by Sure_Cicada_4459

Most of those problem are down to an inefficient system, which could easily be described itself as having alignment problems Even sensible management and governance could support 20bn people if it focused on the environment and survivability.

2

bustedbuddha t1_jclf98x wrote

Reply to Debates in Separating Art and Artist by adarsh_badri

So here's the thing, a lot of the time when I hear this shit, the art itself is actively racist as well. JK Rowlings Goblins are direct Antiemetic stereotypes, Rudyar Kipling's "The gift" comes down to "Just take the present and stop bitching about Christians running everything". R Kelly has songs about seducing under aged girls. Cosby has an episode where he puts something special in his barbeque sauce that makes his wife and daughters horny. Woody Allen and Roman Polanski both have movies about relationships between young women/underaged women, and older men.

​

I'm willing to separate the art from the artist, but most of the time the art is still fucking racist/sexist/whatever.

​

Now, there's some good Cosby episodes, Chinatown and Bananas are both awesome movies, ""Trapped in the closet" is hilarious and musically sound. But typically when I hear "separate the artist" that means I'm going to have to wade through some offensive shit to dig up value.

​

Why bother, why should I go out of my way to reward the art of the offensive when there's plenty of other art out there? What value is there to creating this separation in my mind when it mostly ends up meaning I'm going to have to go through some cringe shit anyway?

2

bustedbuddha t1_j7s8ih5 wrote

Reply to comment by LastInALongChain in I asked Microsoft's 'new Bing' to write me a cover letter for a job. It refused, saying this would be 'unethical' and 'unfair to other applicants.' by TopHatSasquatch

I agree, I lay out a similar starting point in a different reply. A government is seemingly the only way to have society, but as the font of authority it existence is implicitly the threat of violence for those who don't conform.

2

bustedbuddha t1_j7qr7c4 wrote

Reply to comment by crua9 in I asked Microsoft's 'new Bing' to write me a cover letter for a job. It refused, saying this would be 'unethical' and 'unfair to other applicants.' by TopHatSasquatch

As I see it, If there's no society there's nothing to prevent someone from simply forcing you to do what they want, If that's acceptable to you ethically than it is acceptable ethically for people as a whole to do it. The state of nature cannot offer freedom and in fact you do exist in that state of nature, If you choose to live according to what authority can be imposed, you can do so.

edit: to be clear this is the very basis of my stance as an Anarchist in that "society is simply forcing people to do things" is the starting point I think we should operate from. And I think a Just society can only be had if we recognize that Authority does not exist other than as the threat of violence. And I think laws/society should be written/structured in a way to maximize the freedom you describe, understanding that if we actually want to maximize justice/freedom/good there must also be economic justice and therefore complex economic structures.

1

bustedbuddha t1_j7qn89u wrote

Reply to comment by crua9 in I asked Microsoft's 'new Bing' to write me a cover letter for a job. It refused, saying this would be 'unethical' and 'unfair to other applicants.' by TopHatSasquatch

Your problems are with the particulars of who's in power. If you want to have an ordered society, which I would argue is a generally good thing even as I also think authority is a bad thing, you're going to need there to be taxes.

You have to pay for things and to an extent it's necessary for currency to have actual meaning. Of the bad ways of distributing means it is the one we've arrived that that's generally in itself not terrible.

​

(we could have an extended conversation about how someone who's philosophically inclined to anarchism could pragmatically be a Progressive (in political alignment) Liberal (in terms of structure of government) but I majored in political philosophy which rends my personal philosophy somewhat complicated.)

​

also I give no fucks about downvotes, I have plenty of Karma to spare.

−1

bustedbuddha t1_j7qicaw wrote

Reply to comment by crua9 in I asked Microsoft's 'new Bing' to write me a cover letter for a job. It refused, saying this would be 'unethical' and 'unfair to other applicants.' by TopHatSasquatch

No, they're a necessity if you're going to have currency and civilization. Meanwhile asking people for a cover letter (especially for jobs which are not about writing) is a way of asking people to do uncompensated work for you, so you can figure out who is most like you and hire them. They tend to serve to gatekeep jobs to ensure that only people who are already well off, or are already middle class, can have a reasonable chance of getting them.

−3