Hey. Yeah you. No don’t look over your shoulder. I’m not talking to the guy behind you. Look, we’ve been meaning to tell you that you’re doing a pretty good job out there. Proud of you. Keep up the good work.
Donations would be great. I dream of mine would be to get a large enough following to live a decent life off of donations and just make art. Kinda far fetched, but it would be great.
I know one person I’ve found that did that is Chris from Airwindows. His art is a bit technical, but he makes interesting audio software and shares it all open source. I donate a bit to him.
Yeah I’ve given up on making a living off of art. I’ve pivoted to trying to just share it for free as much as I can. Honestly I think big corporate studios would have way less of a market if community art was more of a thing. It’d be nice to have local art and culture around rather than soulless corpo slop. I think those communities would process the world in a healthier way.
I hear you though. It really really sucks ass that literally no one (if you round) gets to make a living doing art. And (if you don’t round) those that do get to make a living on it generally come from a very small subset of the available cultures.
This is a good thing to be mad about. It affects how everyone sees the world.
Though those aren’t really proven real: From that same Wikipedia article:
Although widely used, they are by no means a necessary feature of QFT, but rather are mathematical conveniences — as demonstrated by lattice field theory, which avoids using the concept altogether.[citation needed]
I mean aren’t you saying: “Something can happen without a cause if we just ignore the cause.”
I read ops question as about reality, not hypothetical universes that contain a hand that moves a without an arm or brain attached.
Self defense can apply to systems. Insurance for example. From what I understand United Health Care did change some policies because of Luigi.
I’ve not heard anyone ever complain about it other than in media.
Maybe you need to be more upper class to relate.
(I get this has gone on a while, of ya wanna stop just tell me. That way I’m not waiting on your reply.)
I lean pretty consequentialist, if that’s relevant.
Yeah that’s pretty helpful. It’s nice to be able to look into that without taking up too much of your time.
I guess I should say I don’t really believe in judging people either, per se.
Noted! This lines up with your last paragraph on not being able to use info you don’t have. That sort of reasoning drives a lot of my non-judgement as well.
I wouldn’t distinguish in any sense between a bad pair of shoes and a bad person.
This sort of dryness speaks to me. I disagree, but I like the energy it’s putting out there. I don’t put extra moral weight into humans. I’m no human exceptionalist.
So this all leads me to two questions that have a lot to do with practical application:
Both are obstacles to the world being how I (and most people) think the world should be.
Does this imply that human consensus drives the goodness / badness of an action and therefore the goodness / badness of the actor that brought about that action?
If so, what happens when there isn’t consensus? Sometimes a non-consesus still has intense emotions behind it (abortion for example). Also does that mean minority opinions are morally less good?
If not, what defines an action’s good/badness?
2/3 are not off the hook,
Off what hook? What would being on the hook be for someone?
I would toss bad shoes. But also I know shoes don’t think about being tossed. I guess I could extend an earlier thought and say we do whatever the consensus is to that actor. That way we maximize goodness. Though I think leaving it at that would allow us to justify some radical things.
Yeah we’d need much bigger brains.
You’re doing the lords work.
First off, thanks for answering. I’m a bit obsessed with this kinda stuff.
I mean, there’s all kinds of ethical philosophy out there. I don’t really deviate too far from it.
So vaguely western ethics? I mean some ethics frameworks are quite incompatible.
In practice, there’s a lot that most people can agree on without too much thought, too.
This is a theme I see. It’s fair to not think through it, especially when it feels obvious.
For example, the classical case study for how being agreeable can work against doing the right thing is how ordinary and nice a lot of Nazis were, when not being ordered into atrocities.
This is consistent with the above statements. I sorta agree, but obviously I have a different worldview.
So my best guess given all that is that doing a bad thing from your perspective is: Doing something you consciously know will bring harm to others.
Which I think requires:
Does that sound right?
What does it mean to do a bad thing? (I don’t belive in good/bad people, so I’m curious on how you construct that worldview)
You could define self differently. Buddhism has some fun takes on it.
No. We make choices, we think, but those choices come frome somewhere. And all of the roots are beyond our control. There is no room for free will, it is a magical reduction of why we do things. We don’t say a ball has free will when it is kicked down a hill. I can’t separate myself from the ball in any meaningful way.
True it would have to be physically grounded somehow. Maybe an obscure and uncharacteristically benevolent hyper rich fella sets up camp in the north pole.
I guess if we want Santa to exist historically it would take a religious level of interest and investment in ancient times. He would have to be reveared as a god and donated to. Then the organization can have the resources to get everyones Christmas list and send out presents on Christmas.
I haven’t found him tastless in a long while. He seems to just be vibing living his own life at this point.
Source?
No, but it does sound fun
I agree. Sounds like a didgeridoo with reverb and maybe a resonant low pass.
Does he think that pirates would turn around and buy $1 Trillion worth of media if pirating stopped? Lmao.
My cat died
New cats
One’s anxiety
Is too much