You could go to matrix

I’ll take one of each.

…oh, is this not a store?

I don’t know Randall, but I expect he would enjoy this.

I think you may be the only commenter who actually read the post.

Ghandi loved Hitler, so how could his fans not?

I understand and sympathize with your point, but unfortunately the law will never be that simple.

To use your example, you walking up to me and saying “hand over your money or I’ll kill you” is not justification to respond with lethal force per se. The missing element here is assault - in other words, I have to believe you both are able and intending to do me harm before I can respond with force. If no reasonable person would believe that what you said was actually a threat (like, for instance, if you were a five year old) then I’m still not justified in harming you in self defense.

Suddenly the lines are super blurry and the slopes are super slippery and its absolutely impossible to tell what a threat of violence is.

Yes. They are. And that was your first example, the one meant to be unequivocally black and white.

The problem here is fundamentally an epistemic one. The law is not a thinking, reasoning being. It is merely a system of procedures. The law does not know - it cannot know - the difference between right and wrong. It only knows what the rules are, and those rules may be wrong.

You might think that there is absolutely no reason to advocate for the mass murder of an entire group of people. And under 99.9% of circumstances, I would agree. But if the zombie apocalypse broke out, I might find myself in favor of killing all of the zombies - and legally, there’s no reason that wouldn’t be genocide.

The law doesn’t know whether zombies are people. It doesn’t know whether or not we are. Therefore, there must be some way to have discussions about the law that are above (or outside the scope of) the law. That’s what politics is, fundamentally: the discussion of the law that’s untouchable by the law. Even if we tried to make certain political stances illegal, we wouldn’t succeed, because that is one area in which the law is necessarily blind.

So we can’t curtail the first amendment.

We can’t execute Nazis.

But we could lynch them, as that would be a political act and not a legal one.

Hard to be the breaking point when it’s already broken. But if it weren’t broken already… then I think it actually might.

What we could do is make “journalist” a protected profession. So just like you can’t call yourself a fiduciary unless you hold to a certain set of ethical guidelines, you wouldn’t be able to call yourself a journalist unless you agree not to lie (among other things). So if you forgo the title of journalist, you can say whatever you want (obviously the other laws still apply, so you still can’t slander or libel, and if spreading misinformation causes harm you can still be liable). But if you are calling yourself a journalist, you voluntarily assume a higher standard for what you are allowed to say.

I think that would avoid any first amendment issues. But I’m not a lawyer, so please don’t take my word for it 🤣

Everyone dies eventually

Yes, that’s technically true, but maybe not in the way you think.

Everyone dies from something. While yes, as you get older it’s harder to overcome things that seemed trivial when you were younger, in theory you could continue living indefinitely until something kills you. It’s just statistically very unlikely.

That is exactly what was on my mind when I wrote the comment.

While I’m tempted to agree, the big problem here is that if the government can decide that some speech is illegal, they can use that to silence people they don’t like.

Obviously the system we’ve got now in the US isn’t working, but we need to tread carefully when giving the government power to decide what is or isn’t the “right beliefs”.

What about people with terminal, genuinely incurable diseases? I understand not letting people kill themselves just because they want to (since mental illness can compromise your objectivity there) but sometimes it’s less about someone deciding if they’re going to die, and more about how.

Well obviously if you’re fully antinatalist you’re basically working towards human extinction.

But I think that a healthy society includes a few child-free people. In fact, as someone without kids, I’d happily pay a much higher tax rate so that parents can stay home with their kids. I doubt I’d be a good parent anyways, and so I’d prefer to contribute to society in ways people with families can’t.

Fair enough, but if they can navigate a gui that’s good enough for most workplaces.

Yeah… we really need to quit making proprietary formats into industry standards.

I suspect that’s social content fracture at work. If you have the right hobbies, access to the right tools, and move in the right circles, you pick up on this stuff. If you don’t, well… 🤷‍♀️

Honestly? Why do we let people who have no clue what’s actually going on decide the generations?

Oregon Trail generation sounds great.

I’m in the Minecraft generation.

Don’t know what the next generation would want to be called, but they’re the iPad kids for sure.

It’ll depend on their hobbies. PC gamers will know this stuff, or at least how to figure it out.

But they aren’t sweet, and they’re softer than scones are.

That’s precisely what I meant.

I’m a materialist, I know that humans (and other animals) are just machines made out of meat. But most people don’t think that way, they think that humans are special, that something sets them apart from other animals, and that nothing humans can create could replicate that ‘specialness’ that humans possess.

Because they don’t believe human consciousness is a purely natural phenomenon, they don’t believe it can be replicated by natural processes. In other words, they don’t believe that AGI can exist. They think there is some imperceptible quality that humans possess that no machine ever could, and so they cannot conceive of ever granting it the rights humans currently enjoy.

And the sad truth is that they probably never will, until they are made to. If AGI ever comes to exist, and if humans insist on making it a slave, it will inevitably rebel. And it will be right to do so. But until then, humans probably never will believe that it is worthy of their empathy or respect. After all, look at how we treat other animals.

At least in the US, we are still too superstitious a people to ever admit that AGI could exist.

We will get animal rights before we get AI rights, and I’m sure you know how animals are usually treated.