Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

This journal entry is shit

Journal by barbara hudson

This journal entry is shit, or at least about shit.

The whole fake Azuma Hazuki 2.0 thing crossed a few lines. Making a bogus account using the identity of one of the few women here, and trying to justify posting racist crap under that look-alike identity was unfortunately typical of what too often passes for thinking.

Trying to justify it as an attempt to "expose censorship" or some other nonsense, should have brought immediate censure. It didn't because to too many users it's "reasonable."

It's not going to get any better. Too many people like things as they are.

So why bother? That's what I've been increasingly asking myself, and the answer is that there is no reason. Turns out there is no reason.

I'd say thanks for all the fish, but not really.

This journal entry is shit | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 66 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday September 21 2020, @05:43PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 21 2020, @05:43PM (#1054526) Journal

    On what basis do you make this claim, since you lack a coherent epistemology of morals?

    What happened [soylentnews.org] when I answered that question.

    [Azuma Hazuki:] What do you know of morals? Jack and shit from what I've seen. What grounds your morality, how do you know what is moral or immoral, and how do you arrive at these conclusions?

    then

    [khallow:] For me a key moral axiom is everyone should be able to make a difference in the world and as much freedom as possible to decide for themselves what and how.

    In addition, I have a bunch of rational maxims as to how to get there. For a few examples, my morals should be consistent (no actions that are both strongly moral and strongly immoral), reflexive (just as true, if I or others swap places in a situation), possible (not trying to confirm reality to my axioms, reduce number of assumptions), aware of the immorality present in myself and others, outcome is far more important than motive, and error happens (so allow for it in myself and others). When looking at problems with the intent of solving them (That is improving them with respect to some basis, not necessarily my own morality), ask "What works better?"

    As for your questions, this is grounded in my choice - nothing more or less. How I decide not "know" what is moral or not is consideration of these things.

    then

    [Azuma Hazuki:] Okay, so you're of a consequentialist bent. And in theory your criteria of consistency, reflexivity, feasibility, and realism re: the imperfection of the human organism all sound good.

    So...how in the name of Aphrodite's 14-karat-gold-plated whalebone corset did you end up as such a walking trash fire? There have got to be things you're not telling me here. I'd like to be charitable and think you're maybe just not great at planning ahead, but your post history speaks to something more dogmatic and more purposeful.

    For bonus disingenuous points, the first paragraph of that last response was a segue into an argument from ignorance fallacy:

    Except I had to categorize those things for you. I don't believe you knew the names of them, nor do you understand how they interact, nor do you, and this is the most important part, *follow them consistently.*

    So yeah, walking trash fire. You claim to be trying to improve things, but see other comments regarding the moral priority-inversion bug you're suffering. You're morally bankrupt because you built this huge rule-based Jenga tower and then pulled the bottom blocks of it out and expect it to stand up under its own weight.

    For most of us, the need precedes the act rather than invented afterward.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 21 2020, @06:14PM (1 child)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday September 21 2020, @06:14PM (#1054547) Journal

    All that happened when you answered that question is you showed that you don't follow your own supposed moral code. Not to mention, you don't really justify or ground your consequentialist ethics. So you're not only immoral by your own code, you've built it on sand. Hallow, you're out of your depth discussing these things with me. You very clearly don't understand some of the words I'm using, for one thing.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday September 22 2020, @02:39AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 22 2020, @02:39AM (#1054759) Journal

      All that happened when you answered that question is you showed that you don't follow your own supposed moral code.

      See what Buzz is missing here? The opportunity to be accused of not following his moral code merely because he answers a question of yours.

      Not to mention, you don't really justify or ground your consequentialist ethics.

      No True Scotsman would do that, surely.

      So you're not only immoral by your own code, you've built it on sand.

      All asserted without the slightest effort at justification, let us note. I already noted sufficient foundation for my moral code, contrary to your assertion.

      You very clearly don't understand some of the words I'm using, for one thing.

      Probably because you aren't using the key phrase of understanding: "Sorry, I was wrong". I doubt anyone, including yourself, understands why you continue so. So it is no mystery to me that I happen to be among the group not understanding why you're using some of the words you're using.