In post 4044, Accountant wrote:I will always call things by the most positive connotation word when it is something that pertains to myself so people won't misunderstand me.
I specifically use words with negative connotations to describe my preferences so that I can't be accused of trying to gloss anything over.
For example: I want state agents to extort money from people who've earned it so they can spend it on other, poorer people.
It's the same thing. Mine just looks nicer.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 4036, Annadog40 wrote:Also, If you have a Utopia country, would it be ok to invade a nearby country to spread your Utopia?
Not only is it ok, it's a moral imperative. We cannot stand by and let evil take place.
Honey, the U.S. already did their manifest destiny and it was really just an excuse to steal some land.
The Utopia is not the US.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 4049, Accountant wrote:I am not content to sit on my hands. The reason I do things like engage with people and try to convert them or to write big posts about why my philosophy is the best is precisely because I think it's best that we, shall we say, artificially speed up the process of catching up.
But whenever anyone points out that nothing you're saying will convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you, you say that's okay because you don't need to convince anyone.
“There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say, ‘There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say there are two kinds of people in this world,
In post 4006, Kublai Khan wrote:I was called a coward if I did not come into this thread and engage with Accountant. Since being here, I've been called stupid, immature, and immoral in various backhanded ways. Where were you then?
But gosh, forgive me for stooping so low as to directly addressing the question asked to me as to why I think robots are inferior to humans.
I don't condone Accountant calling people any of the things you've mentioned. The reason I chose to speak up here is because I believe thinking of people as non-human is a dangerous mindset to have. I didn't see the question you were answering anywhere, so if there's some context I'm missing please let me know.
Part of what prompted me to speak up earlier was that you'd also made this post:
In post 3942, Kublai Khan wrote:Honestly, I've stopped thinking of Accountant as a person because they don't really behave as one.
A person would be able to recognize and explain when they've contradicted themselves. Accountant couldn't.
A person would be able to recognize irony and have self-awareness. But Accountant doesn't seem capable of these things.
Accountant is basically an A.I. or a person troubled enough to take that as a compliment.
Someone not behaving the way you expect or want them to doesn't make them any less worthy of being considered a person. That kind of thinking can lead to all kinds of worrying implications and outcomes.
In post 4049, Accountant wrote:I am not content to sit on my hands. The reason I do things like engage with people and try to convert them or to write big posts about why my philosophy is the best is precisely because I think it's best that we, shall we say, artificially speed up the process of catching up.
But whenever anyone points out that nothing you're saying will convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you, you say that's okay because you don't need to convince anyone.
Let me lay out the functions for you.
There is a evil. My job is to fix the evil. I do this by teaching. If nobody is convinced, that's too bad. I don't need to convince anyone: I've already executed my function by being in this thread and teaching.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 3966, Davsto wrote:Can this not turn into "people with no professional skills armchair psychology with Accountant" because that's just silly and we know it is
Cause it's not like this entire thread is silly and we know it.
This thread is alright for a couple of things, to be fair
a) Regardless of how much you may dislike the views themselves, there is a certain extent to which Accountant's views are intriguing and interesting to learn about to many, and something unique to discuss.
b) It acts as a quarantine so that Accountant's views don't clog up other threads.
In post 3144, Kublai Khan wrote:Fictional characters who have no flaws and have an author who creates successful adventures aren't brave. They are automatons. Puppets. They aren't capable of original thought.
That's how every sentient being in the world should be like. Automatons that execute the correct path. You're just proving my point about how all humans should imitate fictional heroes.
I don't see how Accountant is calling people non-human there. But regardless, Accountant doing the thing does not make it okay for you to do the thing.
He's sayin' that as I consider myself an automaton, him calling me one isn't insulting or degrading.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
Oh, I see. That's missing the point though. Even if you don't consider it insulting, it's a problematic mindset because dehumanising someone encourages stigma against that person, and implies they don't have any feelings or thoughts that matter. On a larger scale, it can become a way of excusing hatred or violence towards minority groups. And of course you can say well saying someone isn't a person on an internet forum isn't going to lead to anything really bad happening it's just the internet Accountant isn't at any risk etc etc but discouraging this kind of thing on a smaller scale is the first step to stopping it happening in other situations. This just isn't something that should be considered acceptable.
In post 3965, Sesq wrote:*tad* more as in thinking slaves escaping is bad
There's no real difference between someone who values order and someone who REALLY values order. They're fighting on the same side and count each other as allies. Trifles like disagreements over how far to take it are minor squabbles and disputes that will be set apart when the real evil come. No matter how much you disagree with me philosophically, if someone that is unquestionably evil like a rampaging chainsaw psychopath, or ISIS, decides to attack us, we would band together without hesitation to destroy the evil.
no because someone who is order-crazy can still agree that the slaves should be allowed to escape
there isnt this universal order v disorder conflict, at least on non-geopolitical terms and stuff
In post 3965, Sesq wrote:not everyone, some people are totally fine under pretty messy conditions, such as myself. what causes this is your EXTREME devotion to this one thing, however, i think is that
you seem not to really have a solid sense of scale
elaborate?
your former post
you literally think someone liking a tidy workspace should be advocating to keep the blacks enslaved
In post 3992, Accountant wrote:No, I don't. There are many people who disagree with me who are very smart. This is the third time you've asked this question or a similar question.
Now, I tell you this. You have no clue what goes on inside my head. You don't understand how I conceptualize the world(that's why I need a thread to explain things to you that are very obvious). You have 0 clue what is inside my brain - thus, there's no way you can judgmentally claim that it isn't empathy. Please don't tell me what's inside my mind again.
Article says from 16 to 18 the teenager becomes decent. I am age 17.
Not long until you abandon this lark then
Hey, hey, hey, the study wasn't done on teenagers with autism
:thinking-but-not-ironically:
also accountant, look into accelerationism
In post 4060, Postie wrote:Oh, I see. That's missing the point though. Even if you don't consider it insulting, it's a problematic mindset because dehumanising someone encourages stigma against that person, and implies they don't have any feelings or thoughts that matter. On a larger scale, it can become a way of excusing hatred or violence towards minority groups. And of course you can say well saying someone isn't a person on an internet forum isn't going to lead to anything really bad happening it's just the internet Accountant isn't at any risk etc etc but discouraging this kind of thing on a smaller scale is the first step to stopping it happening in other situations. This just isn't something that should be considered acceptable.
>weird teenager wants to think of themselves as a robot on the internet
>other people comply
>believing this is a path to oppression
In post 4061, Sesq wrote:>weird teenager wants to think of themselves as a robot on the internet
>other people comply
>believing this is a path to oppression
this is a misrep on multiple levels and against multiple parties
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 4061, Sesq wrote:no because someone who is order-crazy can still agree that the slaves should be allowed to escape
there isnt this universal order v disorder conflict, at least on non-geopolitical terms and stuff
Someone who truly cared about order wouldn't condine the escaping slaves
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 4061, Sesq wrote:your former post
you literally think someone liking a tidy workspace should be advocating to keep the blacks enslaved
what
misrep. I think someone liking a tidy workspace has a lot in common with someone who doesn't want black slaves to escape and will work with them to fight against entropy
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 4004, Not_Mafia wrote:Have you considered giving yourself a superheroesque nickname?
No.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 4000, Not_Mafia wrote:There's a difference between calling someone a subhuman cockroach and calling someone an AI
What if both analogies are equally true?
So you admit to being an AI?
Did I say that? The word if implies a clear hypothetical.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 4061, Sesq wrote:>weird teenager wants to think of themselves as a robot on the internet
>other people comply
>believing this is a path to oppression
this is a misrep on multiple levels and against multiple parties
In post 4054, Accountant wrote:There is a evil. My job is to fix the evil. I do this by teaching. If nobody is convinced, that's too bad. I don't need to convince anyone: I've already executed my function by being in this thread and teaching.
This is a very
selfish
view of ethics. It suggests that the primary reason to be ethical is to achieve the status of I Am A Good Person rather than to achieve a good outcome.
“There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say, ‘There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say there are two kinds of people in this world,
If I am a good person, and there is no good outcome, does that not suggest that the one failing here is you? ie. If I donate all my money to charity and the company embezzles it all, isn't it their fault and not mine?
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 4061, Sesq wrote:>weird teenager wants to think of themselves as a robot on the internet
>other people comply
>believing this is a path to oppression
this is a misrep on multiple levels and against multiple parties
it was more of a joke, and it was pretty poorly phrased but your point still looks totally ridiculous in context with what actually is happening
In post 4060, Postie wrote:Oh, I see. That's missing the point though. Even if you don't consider it insulting, it's a problematic mindset because dehumanising someone encourages stigma against that person, and implies they don't have any feelings or thoughts that matter. On a larger scale, it can become a way of excusing hatred or violence towards minority groups. And of course you can say well saying someone isn't a person on an internet forum isn't going to lead to anything really bad happening it's just the internet Accountant isn't at any risk etc etc but discouraging this kind of thing on a smaller scale is the first step to stopping it happening in other situations. This just isn't something that should be considered acceptable.
I... Seriously, what the fuck, Postie. In this thread Accountant is openly wanting to de-humanize everyone to automatons. She actively preaches for war and oppression of others. She argues that slavery is perfectly okay as long as it's properly codified into law and that slaves are at fault for wanting freedom and should be punished for escaping.
But you're ignoring that massive macro-aggression to focus on my micro-aggression to warn me that it could lead to the exact mindset and behavior that you're currently going out of your way to ignore.
1312