<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">Glen writes:</span></font></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">< These subversive approaches may simply stretch the competencies and energy of the people who would otherwise carry them out. It's possible that it's simply too difficult to do the work, especially if the motivations
and incentives are occult. ></span></font></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">AOC's contrast is nice because the loyal opposition have already done exactly what she said. So why not take the path of least resistance and make Facebook a mis-information battleground? If it further illustrates
the uselessness of Facebook, so much the better.<br>
</span></font></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">Marcus</span></font><br>
</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣ <gepropella@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 28, 2019 10:45 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> FriAM <friam@redfish.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] MoNA</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">I doubt it. I forget who the aphorism is attributed to, but "Never ascribe malice when incompetence will suffice" comes to mind. These subversive approaches may simply stretch the competencies and energy of the people who would otherwise
carry them out. It's possible that it's simply too difficult to do the work, especially if the motivations and incentives are occult. Being paid in anything but money (which can be hidden in havens) is risky ... as the recent flak around RMS and the arc of
Julian Assange demonstrate well enough. Both the Spencer-types and the sucker puncher are "in it" for the cheap thrills because anything more complex is too taxing.<br>
<br>
But my proposition above is only convenient and a direct consequence of my doubt that there are such things as "moral intuition" or (in my other argument) "ethical intuition" [<a href="https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/ethical-intuitionism/">https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/ethical-intuitionism/</a>].
We're always promoting our brain farts (ideas, feelings, faith-based beliefs, etc.) to ontologically dubious Real Things. My guess is there are no deeply ingrained things at all. It's relatively easy to radicalize an otherwise easy-going person. [<a href="https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g">https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g</a>]
Deprogramming cult members seems to consist mostly of changing their environment. Powerstancing may not make you feel powerful. Smiling may not make you feel happy, etc. It seems safer to assume infinite universal plasticity and induce ontology from data than
to assume there exist viscously robust structures and all we need do is test for them.<br>
<br>
On 10/28/19 8:18 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:<br>
> In both situations, putting aside the legal risks, I think this subversive approach violates some deeply ingrained notion of fairness. I can't see an explanation why it isn't happening all the time other than self-censoring. Because if it were happening
all the time, then folks like Spencer would be absent from the world.<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
☣ uǝlƃ<br>
<br>
============================================================<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br>
to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>