SleepyMarxist [none/use name]

Trolling can be funny a bit can be anger-inducing, but the purpose of a bit is to elicit laughs, while trolling seeks to elicit anger.

No, it makes sense in the context it was made for, which is illustrating the difference between deontology and consequentialism.

Consequentialism covers all morality that’s based in the outcomes of actions. Utilitarianism is the kind of consequentialism focused on maximizing happiness. Deontology is rules-based morality.

I think hypotheticals can be useful as long as the example actually is universifiable. In the trolley problem, the real question is “Is it okay to directly cause a bad thing to happen if it will prevent a worse thing (which you did not directly cause) from happening” which is IMO a worthwhile question to ask whose answer is applicable to many different scenarios. I think it’s possible to misapply a hypothetical, since the scenarios might not actually be comparable, but if they are, I think we should apply our principles consistently, and having hypotheticals helps us do that.

I feel like he’s the definition of a lib that CAN be redeemed. Like, if any libs are redeemable (and I sure hope they are, since I used to be one), he’s one of 'em.

Playing with blocks is and always has been dope.

Note that they say “people” when they mean “capital”.

I feel like ICP the band and ICP the prison gang and ICP the group of people who go to a festival to wear face paint and do drugs for free are all different things and this should be acknowledged more often.

Where can I learn more about this? I’ve picked up a good bit of hearsay about the bureaucracy/deep state/whatever but I’ve never seriously studied it.

We denounced the British because they wouldn’t let us be racist enough.

Source? Sounds interesting.

But what about my father’s dragon ? He never hoarded any gold!