[FRIAM] MoNA

[uǝlƃ ☣]

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.

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" [https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/ethical-intuitionism/]. 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. [https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g] 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.

On 10/28/19 8:18 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> 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.


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ