Why is nazism popular today?

[Logik]

Freedom of a blank kind doesn't actually exist. One can only escape responsibility by giving up all one's freedom, and making somebody else responsible for controlling everything.

So you could've just said "I agree".

We are all arguing for this point.

However, you are nothing more than a cog, Henry. Your society is structured hierarchically; everyone is responsible to some authority, everyone has some power, but basically, people are arranged to perform in a hierarchical fashion.

(...)

No matter what you do, no matter what system you exist in, you must do things you don't really want to do... because of social and financial pressures. And it is someone other than you who tells you what to do.

[Atla]

A big reason is that humanity only has two options: try eugenics, or accept total extinction.

Humanity has chosen death, perhaps it couldn't have done otherwise. Personally I'll never understand why people want to die so badly, as I want to live, but oh well. It's a wonder we even made it this far but I think time is running out now.

So you'll be fine if the eugenicists decide you are a candidate?

If it was a fair global system with the purpose of the betterment of mankind and the planet, then yes I would accept it.

[Logik]

If it was a fair global system with the purpose of the betterment of mankind and the planet, then yes I would accept it.

Define "fair".

[Immanuel Can]

Freedom of a blank kind doesn't actually exist. One can only escape responsibility by giving up all one's freedom, and making somebody else responsible for controlling everything.

So you could've just said "I agree".

Actually, I couldn't have.

I do not agree that "social and financial pressures" make us "cogs" that are controlled by someone who "tells you what to do."

I would suggest we make our own decisions, and are able to resist constraints if we are willing to pay the price of so doing. We are not controlled. We are not "nothing more than a cog." And even "power" is not a decisive "controller." You can disobey power, if you're prepared to fight, flee or take the consequences.

There are lots of options; there are just also a lot of people who refuse to take such responsible decisions on themselves, and thus complain they are victims of controlling forces. Such people are, as Sartre said, not taking on themselves the burden of their freedom.

[Logik]

I do not agree that "social and financial pressures" make us "cogs" that are controlled by someone who "tells you what to do."

I would suggest we make our own decisions, and are able to resist constraints if we are willing to pay the price of so doing. We are not controlled.

OK. So carry on disagreeing then.

What the argument is that you are not in control and that you CAN be controlled.

Observe that your own argument is conditioned on "IF you are willing to pay the price".

What if you are willing but unable to? Because physical limitations. Is there a price you aren't willing-but-able to pay?

Both can be used to control you.

We are not "nothing more than a cog." And even "power" is not a decisive "controller." You can disobey power, if you're prepared to fight, flee or take the consequences.

There are lots of options; there are just also a lot of people who refuse to take such responsible decisions on themselves, and thus complain they are victims of controlling forces. Such people are, as Sartre said, not taking on themselves the burden of their freedom.

There are things you can control and things you can't.
There are things that can control you and things that cant.

And then there's just luck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fooled_by_Randomness

[Immanuel Can]

Observe that your own argument is conditioned on "IF you are willing to pay the price".

Indeed.

What if you are willing but unable to? Because physical limitations.

Is that your situation? It's not most people's.

Both can be used to control you.

Nobody says people won't try to pressure you. Of course they will. But that doesn't merit the word "control." If you're "controlled," then there is literally nothing else you could do but what you are made to do. But in this world, there always is a choice.

[Logik]

What if you are willing but unable to? Because physical limitations.

Is that your situation? It's not most people's.

Oh I don' know about that. The physical limitation I refer to is time.

If you were truly free you'd get all of your work for the week done on Monday.

Who wouldn't work only 1 day a week if they could?

Nobody says people won't try to pressure you. Of course they will. But that doesn't merit the word "control." If you're "controlled," then there is literally nothing else you could do but what you are made to do. But in this world, there always is a choice.

Don't be so naive. You are defining the world "control" to mean "total control". That's just shifting the goal posts to suit your argument.

When you drive a car you say that you are in control. Are you in "total control"? No.

If you were in "total control" you wouldn't need seatbelts.

[Immanuel Can]

If you were truly free you'd get all of your work for the week done on Monday.

You've got a very arbitrary definition of "free" there. Most people don't think "free" means, "free from time."

But time doesn't "make" you do anything. It has no opinion about what you do. It constrains only how long you can do it.

You are defining the world "control" to mean "total control".

What did you mean, then?

[Logik]

You've got a very arbitrary definition of "free" there. Most people don't think "free" means, "free from time."

Then I am not most people.

Which is why I automate myself. The more of my job I can delegate to computers/robots - the less of a cog I am.

It doesn't make me completely free - I still age, I will die.

But it sure makes me freerer than anybody who does a 9-to-5.

But time doesn't "make" you do anything. It has no opinion about what you do. It constrains only how long you can do it.

Why is agency/opinion a pre-requisite of control?

Gravity has no agency yet it controls your movement. It controls the way you have evolved.
The sun has no agency yet it controls your circadian cycle.

You are defining the world "control" to mean "total control".

What did you mean, then?

Control over SOME causal variables.
Not ALL causal variables.

[henry quirk]

Mannie,

L is a big old contrarian of the worst kind (he argues solely for the sake of it). Be mindful, then, this back & forth between you two will go on for pages & ages and you'll still effectively be in the starting gate.

-----

"What the argument is that you are not in control and that you CAN be controlled."

As this specifically relates to me: sure, I can be controlled, if I allow it, but I'm not currently controlled.

-1- sez I'm trapped (we're all trapped) in the vasoline: many are, but each and every one is there cuz he chose & chooses it. Jack does crime, the MAN sez Jack gotta do time. It's on Jack if he's gonna be peacable and go quietly, or shoot the cop in the face. Every man in a cell is there by choice; every man caught on the treadmill is there by choice.

Now, me: I made my choices (continue to make my choices) based on my experience as a poor team player, poor follower, poor leader (I discovered early on I'm a natural anarchist...I can no more 'fit in' and 'tote the other guy's water' than L can rein in his contariness). I work alone, for myself, and turn away as many customers as I take. I keep to myself, raise my kid, go about my business, and fly low. Obstacles (like the vasoline morass), to me, are things to be navigated, not respected or given in to.

Stoppin' myself before I truly ramble.

Anyway: -1- is wrong (about me), L is wrong (about me), and Mannie (cuz he's a cool Jesus-lovin' turbo-injected thinker) is right.

'nuff said, mofos...

[Logik]

Mannie,

L is a big old contrarian of the worst kind (he argues solely for the sake of it). Be mindful, then, this back & forth between you two will go on for pages & ages and you'll still effectively be in the starting gate.

Too bad good ol' Henry confuses counter-factual reasoning for contrarianism.

Yes, Henry! You have figured out that all philosophy is bullshit.
Philosophy never left the starting gate. Thousands of years philosophy hasn't even figured where the finish line is, never mind run the race.

"What the argument is that you are not in control and that you CAN be controlled."

As this specifically relates to me: sure, I can be controlled, if I allow it, but I'm not currently controlled.

And thus becomes evident your apparent lack of understanding of counter-factual reasoning.

Your hypothesis is: I am not currently controlled.
Do you have an alternative?
* I am not aware of the ways I am currently controlled
* I am being controlled, but it's too subtle for me to notice (like boiling a frog)
* I am controlled but I call it something else: incentivised?

But of course, you are way too old to re-write your own narrative now. Your identity is grounded in that which you say about yourself.

So I'll let you keep it

[henry quirk]

like you have any say-so about what I keep or throw away

Mannie, he's yours...be gentle with him.

[Logik]

like you have any say-so about what I keep or throw away

So if I trigger your defensiveness, challenge/attack your identity in order to trigger an emotional response and get you to double-down on your position, do you think you are still in control of your rational thought ?

When the adrenaline kicks in, and when you are in fight-or-flight, not cooperative mode.

You've never derailed an less-than-delightful business partner's emotions during negotiations to get the upper hand?
You've never bluffed in poker ?

*tsk*tsk*tsk* the illusion of self-control

Ask yourself whether I really wanted Walker to apologize or double-down. How else could I make my case if he apologized?
If he actually went and apologised he would've made me look like a proper c.u.n.t, but I was reasonably sure that choice doesn't exist for him.
He can't choose not to feel pride...

Ahhh. The illusion of freedom.

[Immanuel Can]

It doesn't make me completely free

Nobody said it did. The idea of "complete freedom," including "freedom" from all constraints and responsibilities is an illusion. But I already made that point.

The more important point is that volitional freedom is possible. You can choose what you do with what you've got.

Why is agency/opinion a pre-requisite of control?

I didn't say this. I'm not sure how you're arriving at it.

You are defining the world "control" to mean "total control".

What did you mean, then?

Control over SOME causal variables.
Not ALL causal variables.

That's not even controversial...or particularly worthy of note. Everybody knows there are some things you don't control; but you can control yourself, and you control your reaction to the situations in which you find yourself. What I said is that all you have to be willing to do is to accept the cost of so doing, and assume the risks required.

Some people don't. They complain they are "controlled." But they're not.

[Logik]

The more important point is that volitional freedom is possible. You can choose what you do with what you've got.

What would convince you of the alternative hypothesis?

That's not even controversial...or particularly worthy of note.

Why did you expect it to be controversial? It is the most fundamental problem across all complexity theory.
Figuring out which things you have control over and which things you don't.

There is a trivial way to determine whether you know the difference between the two: what risks are you insured against?

Everybody knows there are some things you don't control; but you can control yourself, and you control your reaction to the situations in which you find yourself. What I said is that all you have to be willing to do is to accept the cost of so doing, and assume the risks required.

So you said nothing. What if you do not understand the cost of your decision a priori? If you don't understand the current vs expected value, time discounting, ruin and ergodicity. If you make a naive, rather than an informed choice. Where you mistake noise for signal.


Would you say that's a choice?
Would you say you are in control?

Rule No.1 of risk engineering: all systemic failures are caused by miscommunication