Rater's Ridiculously Rambunctious Random Ranter #229

[Peelee]

More "I can and will infinity War your asses if you, every school Admin in the world, do not do what I say."

Well, that's called tyranny. And it's generally frowned upon.

All life advice can be gleaned from Chidi Anagonye.

[Rater202]

Well, that's called tyranny. And it's generally frowned upon.

All life advice can be gleaned from Chidi Anagonye.

It's only tyranny if your policies hurt more people than they help.

"Fire all the teachers who abuse their students and replace them with teachers who will do something about bullies and rewrite policies so that kids don't get in trouble for things that aren't a big deal and are allowed to explain themselves and the majority of school funding is used to find, pay for, and equip decent teachers who know what they're talking about and aren't just there to flex on people who can't fight back" isn't exactly an unreasonable request.

On the contrary, the fact that it hasn't already happened tells me that I'd be the good guy in a situation where I could force it to happen or else, as I m actively preventing children from suffering potentially debilitating psychological damage from situations that are 100% preventable if people just gave a damn and did their fricking jobs.

If the threat of "I will bend reality so you don't exist anymore" is what it takes to make people whose job is to think of the children actually think of the god damn children, then that's not me being a tyrant, that's using extreme measures to force people to be functional.

[Peelee]

It's only tyranny if your policies hurt more people than they help.

Funny thing, few tyrants would acknowledge themselves as tyrants. Everyone is the hero in their own story.

[Rater202]

Funny thing, few tyrants would acknowledge themselves as tyrants. Everyone is the hero in their own story.

And on the contrary, there are plenty o people who would have been considered "good" leaders who were considered tyrants by their detractors solely becuase they prevented their detractors from performing immoral acts.

I'd provide historical examples but I'm not sure what the cutoff point between "this is history" and "this is still politics" is for its forum so...

[Peelee]

And on the contrary

That's not contrary. And, to wit, you yourself claim with surprising frequency how you should not be trusted with power like that, so I'm just reinforcing what you yourself have previously admitted to.

[Ajustusdaniel]

It's only tyranny if your policies hurt more people than they help.

Well, the usage has trended that way. Funny thing that; comes of the folks writing dictionaries living under non-tyrannical governments, I suppose.

But I think in terms of discussing various governmental structures, it's more useful to think of tyranny as power wielded without legal restraint. And that's attractive, certainly- one imagines that it would be easy to get good works done if one could simply ignore, overrule, or I suppose, as in your example, murder everyone who might otherwise get in your way.

The problem comes when you realize that the same structure which makes it impossible to restrain someone from doing good works prevents their restraint when it comes to doing something bad- whether for misguided, petty, or just plain evil reasons. I'm not sure there's anybody I would trust with that sort of power, whatever their argument for the good they could accomplish with it. Not myself, certainly, and, without offense, not you either.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm being. slowly driven mad by paper Warhammer terrain adverts. Which is annoying, because I was watching two people opening advent calendars.

[Fyraltari]

It's only tyranny if your policies hurt more people than they help.

[Rater202]

That's not contrary. And, to wit, you yourself claim with surprising frequency how you should not be trusted with power like that, so I'm just reinforcing what you yourself have previously admitted to.

Well, yes, I'd inevitably go mad with power and my example is partly motivated by a desire to spite people who've hurt me as much as it is to prevent that from happening to others.

But that doesn't change the fact that it would still be a net good, regardless of the extremeness of the measures, and that I think that if I could do such things that I could do a lot of good in the world before I inevitably went mad with power and had to be put down.

The people who I am forcing to do their jobs properly on pain of death would call me a tyrant, but I think everyone whose ever suffered becuase of the incompetence of malice of someone who never should have been put in charge of caring for or educating minors would call me a hero.

It would only be in hindsight that people decided which opinion was correct.

Unrelated: I think that being able to conjure and banish pillows, blankets, and futons ex nhilo would be an awesome superpower.

You never know when a spontaneous blanket fort could come in handy.

[Peelee]

Well, yes, I'd inevitably go mad with power and my example is partly motivated by a desire to spite people who've hurt me as much as it is to prevent that from happening to others.

But that doesn't change the fact that it would still be a net good

According to you. And, again, this would not necessarily be a fair and objective view.

[Xyril]

It's only tyranny if your policies hurt more people than they help.

According to Merriam-Webster:

1: oppressive power
every form of tyranny over the mind of man
— Thomas Jefferson
especially : oppressive power exerted by government
the tyranny of a police state

2a: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler
especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force
living under the tyranny of the clock
— Dixon Wecter

4: an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act

Obviously, this is only a small sampling of accepted definitions, but it's telling that "helping more people than it hurts" can still occur under pretty much all of those definitions.

What's telling to me is that, under your definition of tyranny, a state-enforced slave society is tyrannical of the owners/free people who benefit outnumber the slave population. But if you kill off enough of the slaves or suppress its population enough, the situation is no longer tyrannical (by the numbers.)

To me, the tangible, material harms of tyranny aren't necessarily inherent to the system, just a common outcome: When you have absolute power vested in a small group of people, there is no institutional pressure compelling them to act competently and in the interest of those outside of their circle of power. By its very nature, authoritarian governments lack safeguards and tend to slip into a situation that causes massive harm, but that doesn't mean an effective, benevolent dictatorship is theoretically impossible.

The other problem comes from the intangible harms: Some people simply can't be happy living under that level of oppression and fear. Sure, it seems great when the "benevolent tyrant" is executing child molesters without due process, but what happens if he decides that the public good is being undermined by the pesky dissidents constantly pointing out his mistakes? Also, what happens when the most vital jobs don't attract enough applicants because "any mistake invites summary execution" isn't a particularly attractive condition of employment? Is the tyrant then going to force people into a job they might not have wanted to do in the first place, only to execute them if they don't do it well enough? I mean, it would be great to live in a society where your kids are (theoretically) 100% safe from predatory teachers or medical malpractice, but does that outweigh the cost of living in a society where your kids aren't free to find their own place in the world, and their lives might be snuffed out for the public good because some tool tyrant deems it necessary?

I'm comfortable limiting my freedoms in specific ways in service of specific, legitimate goals. If the people, through some arguably democratic process, decide that we can't have backyard gun ranges because the noise and risk of harm is unfair to our neighbors, and that's put into law in way that gives everyone fair notice, I'm cool with that. I'm far less comfortable with a government that starts with the proposition that we don't have any freedoms beyond what the government decides we can be trusted with, and that the government will just generally run around deciding arbitrarily on a case-by-case basis how everyone should be acting, and sending undesirables to the punishment box.

[Rater202]

What's telling to me is that, under your definition of tyranny, a state-enforced slave society is tyrannical of the owners/free people who benefit outnumber the slave population. But if you kill off enough of the slaves or suppress its population enough, the situation is no longer tyrannical (by the numbers.)

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

A slave society is never going to help more people than it hurts. There is no level of benefit that justifies the harm it causes.

Unfortunately, explaining how it does so requires an in-depth explanation of economics to illustrate how there is no possible way for a slave economy to benefit more people than it hurts, and extended discussions of economics inevitably become political so I can't actually explain how you're wrong without risking an infraction point.

So no, my definition of tyranny does not justify slavery or whatever it is you're trying to say.

As an aside, I'm sick and tired of people trying to pick my words apart and use them to make me seem like I'm trying to justify something inhumane and pointlessly cruel.

"abusive teachers don't get to keep their jobs and school funding is spent on things that actually help people learn and anyone who doesn't like it is either out of the job or doesn't exist anymore" is not "hey, let's reinstitute slavery."

[Fyraltari]

Long story short, an enlightened tyrant is still a tyrant. That's in the name.

[Anonymouswizard]

I though tyrants were insect vehicular enthusiasts?

[Peelee]

I though tyrants were insect vehicular enthusiasts?

Only in the commonwealth.

[Ajustusdaniel]

I though tyrants were insect vehicular enthusiasts?

No, you're thinking of tire ants.

Tyrants are excessively long and angry speeches about neckwear.

[Xyril]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Several things, but the main point is this: Most people define tyranny not in terms of outcome, as you have, but rather structure and institutions. Tyranny is about power resting in the hands of one person, or very few people, while the governed have no meaningful say in how they are ruled. It is essentially authoritarianism, except with with a more overtly negativism connotation implying that said power is exercised excessively harshly and capriciously, without due process or any other institutional safeguards providing effective limits on how government power is used.

A slave society is never going to help more people than it hurts. There is no level of benefit that justifies the harm it causes.

Unfortunately, explaining how it does so requires an in-depth explanation of economics to illustrate how there is no possible way for a slave economy to benefit more people than it hurts,

So basically, your definition of tyranny only precludes slavery based on a conclusion you've drawn from esoteric economic theory? In other words, in a hypothetical situation where we reevaluate economic theory and come up with new economic institutions that literally enslave a small minority population in a way that doesn't hurt overall GDP, it wouldn't count as tyranny anymore?

and extended discussions of economics inevitably become political so I can't actually explain how you're wrong without risking an infraction point.

Economic discussions happen all the time without anybody getting dinged for politics. It's your choice whether or not you bring up politics while explaining your view of economic theory. You can't control what anyone else does, but guess what? If they decide to bring up politics, then they get the infraction. The worst thing that can happen is that the mods ask everyone to stop the conversation before you fully defend your point. And in that scenario, are you actually any worse off than having never tried to support your assertions in the first place?

So no, my definition of tyranny does not justify slavery or whatever it is you're trying to say.

You're taking this too personally. I'm not saying that you're pro-slavery or anything like that. I'm simply pointing out that maybe "It's only tyranny if it hurts more people than it helps" perhaps isn't the best way to frame the limits of tyranny, and that maybe it would be worthwhile for you to reconsider how you articulate your thoughts on the topic.

As an aside, I'm sick and tired of people trying to pick my words apart and use them to make me seem like I'm trying to justify something inhumane and pointlessly cruel.

It's not "picking your words apart" when we're literally addressing the main thesis of your post. You literally said

It's only tyranny if your policies hurt more people than they help.

I mean, if you're going to argue that you meant to say "It's only tyranny if your policies hurt people more than they help," and you're willing to concede that your original wording didn't accurately reflect the point you were trying to make, then go for it. To me, it's still doesn't fit the definition of tyranny (as others have posted, it's less about where power rests than outcome), but that would be more consistent with my views on utilitarianism.

[Qwertystop]

No, you're thinking of tire ants.

Tyrants are excessively long and angry speeches about neckwear.

No, that's torc rants.

Tyrants are metal-reinforced legwear.

[Rater202]

Economic discussions happen all the time without anybody getting dinged for politics. It's your choice whether or not you bring up politics while explaining your view of economic theory. You can't control what anyone else does, but guess what? If they decide to bring up politics, then they get the infraction. The worst thing that can happen is that the mods ask everyone to stop the conversation before you fully defend your point. And in that scenario, are you actually any worse off than having never tried to support your assertions in the first place?

I have twice gotten hit for breaking the "no religion" for mentioning the religious or spiritual origins in passing of a concept being discussed in neutral/fictional terms solely for the sake of argument. I am not taking any chances.

You're taking this too personally. I'm not saying that you're pro-slavery or anything like that.

You took something I said and used it to justify slavery. Hypothetically, maybe, but you might as well have literally called me a slave apologist.

Especially becuase slavery is inherently tyrannical based on my definition of tyranny.

I mean, if you're going to argue that you meant to say "It's only tyranny if your policies hurt people more than they help," and you're willing to concede that your original wording didn't accurately reflect the point you were trying to make, then go for it. To me, it's still doesn't fit the definition of tyranny (as others have posted, it's less about where power rests than outcome), but that would be more consistent with my views on utilitarianism.

This is an accurate reading of my sentence, but what I literally meant is that it is physically impossible for slavery to benefit more people than it harms.

Slavery is economically inefficient. You have to have many times more slaves than free people before it becomes viable. Therefore, more individual people are being harmed than can possibly benefit, therefore a regime based on enforcing a slave economy is inherently tyrannical.

"it's not tyranny if it helps more people than it harms" is incompatible with the idea that slavery can be non-tyrannical, becuase slavery automatically harms more people than it helps in any situations where it might be considered viable.

The only possible exception is that Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal where world peace is achieved by enslaving Superman and forcing him to turn a crank all day as a clean source of power but that can't really be called slavery considering that at any time Superman could have just flow off and let people deal with the consequences of being jackassess to him, which isn't exactly an option available to a typical slave.

[Xyril]

I have twice gotten hit for breaking the "no religion" for mentioning the religious or spiritual origins in passing of a concept being discussed in neutral/fictional terms solely for the sake of argument. I am not taking any chances.

And I have been hit for [forbidden topic] solely for saying "You don't have to become a [person works in forbidden topic for their entire career] to effect more change than the average individual." That hasn't stopped me from discussing history, economics, or the general idea that an individual can have a huge impact on the world without changing their entire career--it just taught me where the lines are, and to stay away from them.

Heck, visit the Johnny Depp thread. People have spent pages debating the intricacies of defamation law for pages. The why of defamation law being the way it is in different countries come from highly political origins, yet people have been able to geek out on the related, but distinct, topic of how defamation law actually works in different countries all without anyone being tempted to take a steep turn into forbidden territory.

You took something I said and used it to justify slavery. Hypothetically, maybe, but you might as well have literally called me a slave apologist.

Except I didn't. The fact that you read it as otherwise is on you, not me.

It's called reductio ad absurdum. Strictly speaking, it's a concept from formal logic, but it applies informally as well. The idea is to point out the limitations of a certain articulation of an idea by showing that it implies something that everyone knows isn't true. For example, if I define a cat as "Any four legged domesticated mammal often kept as a pet," and Bob points out that a St. Bernard would fit my definition of a cat, then no reasonable human being would think that Bob is implying that I believe St. Bernards are cats. Instead, Bob is assuming (correctly) that I know a St. Bernard is a dog--by pointing out the contradiction, he's showing me that I've worded my definition of "cat" too imprecisely.

Especially becuase slavery is inherently tyrannical based on my definition of tyranny.

Well, nobody can actually know what your definition of "tyranny" is because you've never articulated it beyond that one post where you tell Pelee what tyranny isn't. And you lash out at people who look at that post trying to understand your definition of tyranny.

This is an accurate reading of my sentence, but what I literally meant is that it is physically impossible for slavery to benefit more people than it harms.

If you believe you have a flawless argument why something is physically impossible, and you can't find a way to articulate that argument without bringing in politics, then I suggest that maybe your logic isn't as sound as you imply.

You have to have many times more slaves than free people before it becomes viable. Therefore, more individual people are being harmed than can possibly benefit, therefore a regime based on enforcing a slave economy is inherently tyrannical.

I guess we'll just have to take your word for it, since you decline to support that point, or to even articulate your assertions with any specificity or detail. How do you define "viable"? In Rome, the slave population peaked at something like 30%, IIRC. Even the higher estimates never put them at even a slight majority of the population. If you want to argue very strictly (and, IMO, in terribly bad faith), then I suppose you could claim that since the Roman Empire fell eventually, that proves that their slave system wasn't viable to begin with. However, that "small" scale slave system supported one of the most powerful economies of its day for centuries, until numerous factors brought down both the economic system and the government.

Beyond Rome, slavery existed in various forms at various points in history. Sparta had a slave system that you'd consider viable: A small, heavily militarized minority of citizens controlling a much larger slave population that supported their entire economy. However, the enslavement of conquered peoples was commonplace throughout history, often in cultures who didn't have Sparta's overt and total dedication to militarism. While it's certainly possible that some of these cultures sustained a majority-slave population, avoiding mass revolts without a Spartan-like focus on military training would have been challenging. Thus, I would be very surprised if Rome were the only society to have exploited a minority slave population.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Topic change.

[Rater202]

So, does anyone else ever wish they could just spend all day sleeping in a blanket cocoon and send a shadow clone or something of the like to do all of the "things you have to do to be a functional adult" stuff?

[Mystic Muse]

I frequently wish I could just have a week off or so with no obligations, and only interact with people I want to interact with.

That basically means people on my Discord friends list, select family members, and my D&D group.

[Sermil]

So, does anyone else ever wish they could just spend all day sleeping in a blanket cocoon and send a shadow clone or something of the like to do all of the "things you have to do to be a functional adult" stuff?

No, because I like programming. See previous post.

On the other hand, if I could send a shadow self to all my meetings, and then it would merge back with me and I could get all the knowledge I needed without needing to actually sit through the meeting... Ya, I'd do that in a second.

IMHO, I'd program for free, the company is paying me to sit in the boring meetings.

[Fyraltari]

So, does anyone else ever wish they could just spend all day sleeping in a blanket cocoon and send a shadow clone or something of the like to do all of the "things you have to do to be a functional adult" stuff?

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.

[Cazero]

So, does anyone else ever wish they could just spend all day sleeping in a blanket cocoon and send a shadow clone or something of the like to do all of the "things you have to do to be a functional adult" stuff?

Who doesn't?
Sadly, this would happen and nothing would get done.

[Anonymouswizard]

I mean, it stops eventually. But unfortunately the one doing the work is the one that was too stupid to create a shadow clone.

Not that I've been abusing magic to avoid therapy sessions. I mean who'd do that?

[Rater202]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.

Who doesn't?
Sadly, this would happen and nothing would get done.

I remember back in high school. Naruto was still going strong and it was when they started to establish that "Pain" was actually six puppets being controlled remotely and I'm like "oh, that would be nice. The real me could stay home, send a Path to school in my place, and then have the other five on standby for anything that needs doing."

Further experiments in cooking: Munster and provolone together go on the list of cheeses that take well to the "grilled cheese with dijon mustard fried in canola oil" treatment.

[Sermil]

Who doesn't?
Sadly, this would happen and nothing would get done.

Or this: https://www.gocomics.com/comics/list...licator-comics

Remember, kids, always add an ethicator to your duplicator!

[Anonymouswizard]

While some people wish for power or the ability to destroy cities as a giant lizard, I find myself wishing for Tedd's spell from El Goonish Shive. It's just a gender morph spell (permanent for myself, temporary for others) with optional 'extra manly/girlish twist' extra, but it would be amazing to have.