Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Erowind's Containment Thread

screw social media erowind

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#41
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands
Just for my understanding, I'm guessing that AWR banned after making that Africa for Africans, Europe for Europeans, and Asia for Asians comment under Sciencerocks's status post on the 10th of Oct. After a period, she was unbanned, and when asking why in this thread:

https://www.futureti...320-i-am-sorry/

Yuli Ban answers that she was using Stormfront copypasta, and maliciously spreading alt-right talking points.

Now, if what I understand is true, and if indeed AWR had been sharing maliciously this information as either troll or propagandist, then we can all agree that the ban may be deserving, however let me now state that AWR is completely innocent in the matter. If we bring up evidence 1a, the supposed initial status post and reason for banning:

https://www.futureti...status_id=22547

We can find that while it's true that AWR brought up alt-right talking points, they were brought up out of true interest and belief. That she responded to Erowind's initial criticism, and that the post itself was in response to Sciencerocks' status post. And while it may true that AWR did not wish to respond to the further criticisms of her beliefs, this would be a seperate issue that could be solved through discussion and not suspension.

So I ask, is it now against this forum to state our opinion? That our beliefs, and our ideas are unfit to be responded to and spoken of? That if tomorrow, I state that I was a 9/11 truther, that I'd be banned and deprived of the right to be corrected on a forum that I'm a supposed welcome member of? All the while another user that shall not be named, but is called PhoenixRu, is able to pull up blatant Russian state propaganda, and not even be criticized by the mods? Nay! Even worse, I can link through the threads where it's even supported!

So I say, now, that we get a response by the mods to ensure that this type of thing may never occur again, and I summon Yuli Ban to the court to explain this transgression of our rights as futuretimeliners.
  • As We Rise, Erowind and rennerpetey like this
Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/QAlMaVYIzqw

IMPERATOR!

#42
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Muslims should be banned from all countries and kept in their backward, backwater plots of land with no foreign assistance or trade. I don't want to discuss my wholehearted beliefs. Please respect that and talk about this stupid, irrational point among yourselves while I sit back and laugh. After i'm banned for repeatedly coming back with the same comments with little effort demonstrated at using the tool of rationality please come and defend me. 

 

Btw I wrote this a while ago: https://www.futureti...chy-in-a-forum/


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#43
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands

Muslims should be banned from all countries and kept in their backward, backwater plots of land with no foreign assistance or trade. I don't want to discuss my wholehearted beliefs. Please respect that and talk about this stupid, irrational point among yourselves while I sit back and laugh. After i'm banned for repeatedly coming back with the same comments with little effort demonstrated at using the tool of rationality please come and defend me. 

 

Btw I wrote this a while ago: https://www.futureti...chy-in-a-forum/

 

There were very very many things that I don't agree with when it comes to AWR's beliefs, but it's unfair to state that what she believes in isn't malicious. Those one-shot post I see as a way to respond to the overwhelming conflicts of opinions she sees not as a way to spread 'stormfront propaganda'. I also defend that the decision to ban her for her own unwillingness to argue for her beliefs ignores the fact that she is a member with history here, and that in no way could it not have been fixed if discussion had been used. And I'd like to add to the point of her honest belief, which is seen in this very thread, where in the first page she responds to Erowind.


Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/QAlMaVYIzqw

IMPERATOR!

#44
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts

I agree with outlooks first post on this page. I'm going to PM Yuli and ask for his position to be posted here if it's not too much trouble for him. We'll go from there, Wjfox directed me to Yuli which makes sense given he served the ban.

 

Well, I agree with one critique. Posting one liners that are mirrored by propagandists is very ambiguous even assuming they are genuine expression. I understand why Yuli banned AWR. I'd request that this not happen again assuming she continues to engage in genuine discourse. If there are just repeated status updates with one liners and refusal to engage I'd probably become apathetic to whatever happens. Not saying that's happening right now, but if it did. With that said, there are other members that just post one liners too, and I have seen Yuli correct one of their sources at least once. Can't recall the thread though.

 

In any case I wouldn't want a policy enforced exclusively. PheonixRu is an example of that, as Outlook pointed out.

 

Also I didn't ignore your request not to contact the mods AWR. I just went to bed and got off for nearly two days, so I never saw it. Considering Will responded and other members are talking about this now--in support of your right to discussion--I think it's worth getting Yuli to respond.


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#45
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts
photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
Sciencerocks
Looks like China stopped its trial of designer babies because of a bunch of whiny fucks. This is why medical science has stalled and it makes me so angry. To many whiners, too many regulations and too many idiots. I guess they like seeing people die from cancer and heart disease and h.i.v.
ipb.png Today, 02:26 AM
    • photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
      Sciencerocks The height of medical science was during the time people took real risk and even want under ground telling the doubters to go fuck themselves. That will have to happen again if we wish to live forever, cure cancer or enhance our species. 
      Today, 02:28 AM
    • photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
      Sciencerocks These pieces of shit will have a mountain of regulations 200 miles tall and it will take 25 years to get it approved before they even consider using it to help people. 
      Today, 02:29 AM
    • photo-3752.jpg?_r=1520967078
      Outlook I too want to risk a genetically messed up and suffering child being tested on to see what went wrong with them, in the name of Science™ of course. 
      Today, 03:13 AM
    • photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
      Sciencerocks Do you really believe it should take decades of bs to even start to consider such things. People are dying. Science is stalled and you better be ready to die of old age if you don't want to push the boundries. 
      Today, 03:37 AM
    • photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
      Sciencerocks It should take maybe a half decade to move forward tops. 
      Today, 03:38 AM
    • photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
      Sciencerocks The truth is we'll be playing with the lab rat and blowing through grants for the next 50 years as people die. Same as with anti-aging... 
      Today, 03:43 AM
    • photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
      Sciencerocks I am not growing any younger 
      Today, 03:45 AM
    • photo-3752.jpg?_r=1520967078
      Outlook There are ethical boundaries you never cross, Sciencerocks, and Utilitarianism has been an outdated moral system for a while now. These boundaries exist not to limit scientific progress, but to ensure that basic human rights don't suffer in the name of science. 
      Today, 03:49 AM
    • photo-thumb-2.jpg?_r=1511991947
      wjfox Yes, let's throw all ethical, legal and other considerations out the window because a random Internet forumer called Matthew is feeling rather impatient about some hypothetical aging cure. 
      Today, 05:23 AM
    • photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
      Sciencerocks I am sure all scientist have studied the issue for decades and have taken the ethical question nto account. When is it ever ok to move forward with human trial on something that could advance humanity and cure great suffering in our world? None of your predictions are going to come true if everything is regulated to the point where nothing can be done...I trust the scientist. 
      Today, 05:38 AM
    • photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
      Sciencerocks I am sure there's a large amount of regulations dictating what is acceptable risk. 
      Today, 05:40 AM
    • photo-637.jpg?_r=1524217401
      Sciencerocks I aint saying do it without a care as that isn't how things are done in science, but even with care it shouldn't take the rest of our lives either. 

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#46
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts

My Response: @ ScienceRocks

 

First, these ethical boundaries have largely been drawn by historical scientists throughout history for a reason. The researchers in China are not scientists if they disregard the basic tenets of why we even study things. Science is much more than the simple set of procedure we are taught in school "the scientific method." Science is a humanistic philosophy that asserts we should pursue understanding everything and enable everyone to collectively pursue that journey. Many "scientists" of the modern day have become so integrated with the capitalist machine that they work against the grandest moral of human history, they hide their work behind paywalls and gawk at the plebeians below as they worship their chosen cult of personality. No good scientist walls off knowledge, no good scientist is so petty as to put their ego before the pursuit of knowledge for all.
 
Second, it's not that I disagree with human trials of almost any form when consent is given. However, most people are not educated enough to actually understand what they're signing up for, so they can't give valid consent. An uneducated yes is as bad as a vehement no. Human trials are also mostly conducted on the economically disadvantaged, capitalism has turn scientific experiment into an exploitation of the poor. There are plenty of people who would volunteer for human trial in experiments they are excited for without pay, me being on of them. Many human trials are unethical on economic grounds alone, nevermind what the study actually is.
 
 
\/ MOST IMPORTANT BIT THAT IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT \/
 
 
Finally, this wasn't regulation like you claim. Good scientists are anarchists in principle even if they don't know it. International standards are established through consensus. There was an international consensus of over 700 scientists in the field of gene editing that all agreed we need to understand if the gene editing trials in question are safe before going through with them. The moron in question (He Jiankui) who conducted this "research" kept his work secret and refrained from publishing a paper until after the experiment had been done in order to avoid honest critique. Not just that, but he lied to the people he was experimenting on. 
 
""The patients were given a consent form that falsely stated this was an AIDS vaccine trial, and which conflated research with therapy by claiming they were 'likely' to benefit," Charo said. "In fact there is not only very little chance these babies would be in need of a benefit, given their low risk, but there is no way to evaluate if this indeed conferred any benefit.""
 
 
Jiankui betrayed the principles of science, he exploited people, and his government let it happen. But no, let's celebrate his "accomplishments" and forget hundreds of years of work establishing ethical standards. Why don't we revive imperial Japan and commit vivisection of live people in the name of medical advancement. It's only right to conduct such experiments on sub-humans of course, the bumps in their skulls show they don't have empathy anyways. 

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#47
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,326 posts

I understand quite bit and that is why I love the idea of china rising as an scientific power  as me and yuli love the idea of someone coming along and telling that census to go to hell. Having a census in the west doesn't mean that they're right and doesn't prove anything beyond ones little fears and even if something bad happened we could abort the fetus before it would ever suffer from the mistake...You progressive support that right?

 

Most of modern science was created by taking a chance..Quite a few risked their lives in medical science to study the human body through out the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th century. Truth is we can spend tens of billions of dollars in some lab testing little rat or after a few years we can move on, but the element that is missing is risk.


  • Yuli Ban likes this

#48
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts

Future historian

When such a large proportion of the human race is in poverty how can we assume AGI will work to help all humanity and not just rich countrys

Hide Comments

photo-3752.jpg?_r=1520967078
04 Dec  
Outlook

It matters on what the AGI sees. It might see equality as the insurmountable right of all intelligence, and become communist. It might see degeneracy, and become totalitarian. I'm hoping it sees things as they truly are, that the universe is nihilistic complexity and that the true enemy of all men is the naturalistic god that controls us, and to end him is the only step to achieve Amaranth.

default_large.png
04 Dec  
tomasth

Because even the rich do philanthropy.

And whitout that , even the poor sometime have ledtover food they give to birds insects est.

 

 

 

My Response @Outlook:

 

That's an interesting take Outlook. I've been thinking about this myself. Our reasoning diverges at the word complexity. Couldn't our part in being the pinnacle of known complexity be that it is our destiny to iterate and create more complexity? Insofar that we continue the process of the universe unfolding upon itself through self iteration? Given that the universe is deterministic, and we are compelled to create through iterative process no matter what we desire, couldn't we say it is actually our purpose to create? Moreover, what is there to stop us from deriving meaning from that action of forced creativity given that it is universal to the human condition? As in, the universe actually isn't absurd, it makes perfect sense even if we can't comprehend it entirely at any given moment. The laws of physics breaking down at the quantum level doesn't mean they're arn't universal laws, just that we don't know what they are and were wrong with our interpretation. We just have to accept our place within the universes processes and give up our anthropocentrism. If the universe makes perfect sense, it follows that we ourselves make perfect sense and are perfect even if we don't know/believe this ourselves. It also follows that we are not just creators, but also creation itself.


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#49
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts

I understand quite bit and that is why I love the idea of china rising as an scientific power  as me and yuli love the idea of someone coming along and telling that census to go to hell. Having a census in the west doesn't mean that they're right and doesn't prove anything beyond ones little fears and even if something bad happened we could abort the fetus before it would ever suffer from the mistake...You progressive support that right?

 

Most of modern science was created by taking a chance..Quite a few risked their lives in medical science to study the human body through out the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th century. Truth is we can spend tens of billions of dollars in some lab testing little rat or after a few years we can move on, but the element that is missing is risk.

 

First. It's "consensus" not "census." Normally I don't care about bad grammar but here it actually matters, those are two completely different things and the particulars matter in this conversation.

 

Census ~ an official count or survey of a population, typically recording various details of individuals.

 

Consensus ~ general agreement.

 

Now, let's look at your argument. "Having a [consensus] in the west doesn't mean that [westerners are] right and doesn't prove anything beyond ones little fears and even if something bad happened we could abort the fetus before it would ever suffer from the mistake...You progressive support that right?"

 

Scientific consensus absolutely does mean the international scientific community is right for the time being, that's the definition of scientific procedure. And this really is the international community we're talking about, not just western countries. If you mean ethics, there's room for debate. But if you're referring to the actual experimental procedure which NPR highlighted flaws in, you're wrong. There's no other way to say it. Jiankui's experimental procedure was inherently flawed. To quote the scientist in article again, which you completely ignored on first pass.

 

""The children were already at virtually no risk of contracting HIV, because it was the father and not the mother who was infected. The patients were given a consent form that falsely stated this was an AIDS vaccine trial, and which conflated research with therapy by claiming they were 'likely' to benefit," Charo said. "In fact there is not only very little chance these babies would be in need of a benefit, given their low risk, but there is no way to evaluate if this indeed conferred any benefit.""
 
To break this down.
 
The subject was at low HIV risk.
 
This means there was no way of knowing that the pregnancy would produce HIV positive offspring had experimental treatment not been administered.
 
Which means there's no way to know if the treatment worked.
 
Which means Jiankui is a fucking moron and doesn't understand the basics of the scientific method.

It also means the people funding him are fucking morons.
 
Moving onto your next nonsensical point.
 
"doesn't prove anything beyond ones little fears" isn't an ethical argument. What are my fears? What is bad to you? Bad to me in a very simplified tl:dr sense is causing harm to sentient life. Pain, suffering, etc. I don't need to define this here because everyone knows what pain and suffering feel like, just keep in mind that both are on an intensity slider.
 
As to whether harm could have or was caused in this experiment? The primary issue is the lack of consent, because not valuing consent leaves oneself open to domination. A society that doesn't value consent is one where nothing is stopping the strongest from preying on the weak. And I assure you, both you and I are individually weak when pitted against multiple exploiters.
 
As for abortion and my politics, you don't speak for me. I don't support abortion in the third trimester. Once a being can experience pain, even if they don't have consciousness of said pain, they have rights according to my ethics. So no, I don't support abortion in all cases and the discussion isn't black and white. Moreover, if complications showed up in the third trimester or after birth harm would absolutely have been caused due to unethical experimentation. That's not even beginning to touch on the emotional trauma caused to the parents from having to abort their child. Abortion isn't just an on off switch that has no consequences, it's an extremely hard thing to do even for people who believe it should be an option. Stop being an emotionally insensitive prick.
 
Secondly, I'm not a progressive and if you haven't figured that out given my history on this forum by now--also being a long time member yourself--you're a moron.

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#50
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,971 posts
  • LocationLondon

I don't think the poor and ignorant should be experimented on, just so us richer people can live longer. I think most of us on this forum (being pretty progressive in our views on technology) would be ok with experimentation on humans who have volunteered and who have been fully informed y an independent doctor of the risks and advantages of the experiment. 

 

Experimenting on people without informed consent is like proper Disney movie type evil stuff. 

 

I've often been amazed about how religion and belief in an afterlife can seemingly allow people to justify horrific and evil acts (the whole "kill the heathens, receive eternal life deal as featured in the Crusades and modern terrorism)

 

Interesting to see SR despite their rejection of mainstream religion (I think, not sure if this has changed?), is still just as quick to sacrifice others in the name of eternal life.

 

I guess they both come from the same "my survival is impacted, quick shut down all empathy" sort of instinct that people seem to fall back on when pressed. 

 

EDIT:

 

Ewolf20 if a godlike AI existed, should we treat it like person rather than a being deserving of worship?
Yesterday, 03:36 PM
  • photo-3752.jpg?_r=1520967078
    Outlook Yea, if the AIs chill, but I can definitely imagine humans worshipping a superintelligent AI like a deified ruler, like a Pharaoh, but most would view the AI with either fear or just another factor in this world. Ever since Jesus, physical gods have been going extinct.
    Today, 03:12 AM

 

 

My desire to worship a godlike AI would increase depending on:

Does it want to be worshipped? (If yes, then I wouldn't want to worship it, if No then I definitely would)

 

Is it funny? (if it has a sense of humour and especially if it finds me calling it a god amusing and plays along* , I'm definitely worshipping it, and probably refusing to admit its a joke until the point where it really isn't)

 

How much it would annoy intolerant religious people. (the answer is always going to be "A REALLY LARGE AMOUNT" so I'm probably going to start worshipping the first AGI available that doesn't want to be worshipped)

 

 

*(as a joke, not if it sincerely wants to be worshipped)

 

EDIT2: 

​Hey Erowind, I hope you don't mind that I'm hijacking your containment thread to discuss people's statuses! let me know in pm or in thread if you'd like to keep things  clear for direct discussions between you and others and I will quit it!


  • Erowind likes this

#51
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts

 

EDIT2: 

​Hey Erowind, I hope you don't mind that I'm hijacking your containment thread to discuss people's statuses! let me know in pm or in thread if you'd like to keep things  clear for direct discussions between you and others and I will quit it!

 

 

You're good :) 

 

Spaces evolves as people interact with it in different ways. If this thread turns into a platform for people to engage with statuses in a more significant way I don't have a problem with that. If I ever want a thread with very defined rules that I plan on policing, I'll make that clear in the initial post. 


  • Alislaws likes this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#52
Erowind

Erowind

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,006 posts
Status is bugged. Have a wall of text :D

No I believe in market economies. I want democracy in everything including businesses, so lots of co-ops. However, some planning by local government is okay and planning that has already proven itself like universal healthcare is okay. I agree with communists that the claim over production that most capitalists have is currently illegitimate.

Saying that, some capitalism is okay when it doesn't make up the majority of the economy because real capitalists are sometimes more inclined to take risk and develope infrastructure/research. I think my ideal economic ratio right now would be 20%capitalism/40%co-ops/40%-publicly owned infrastructure that doesn't rely on the profit motive. I am sympathetic to communists and consider them allies insofar as they displace illegitimate ownership and actually care about the needs of the people.

The market dynamics I like are something for the short to medium term. In the long term I would like eliminate the profit motive which might take a communist form but it could also take a mutualist form. Where communism sees economic planning by the people, mutualism sees equitable trade and market dynamics. Mutualism is markets without profits.

It may be impossible to truly have economies that are 100% one or the other and in that case I desire the most democratic and equitable mix of both. In any case past leftists have been too gung ho and their projects fail because they skip the step of transitioning the economy. I don't think we can just wake up in communism or mutualism, like feudalism before, there are steps in between.

Capitalists in a transitional economy that are chartered by the people to serve the people's interest whether through a federation of co-ops or a confederation of local councils are ethical and would be allowed to maintain their gained wealth but be disallowed from using that wealth to politically lobby. (Just like all citizens, monied interests have no place in democracy whether small or large.)

Establishing a nonprofit is fine, but it also would be disallowed from lobbying. Nonprofits established with legitimate wealth would not be subject to thresholds below. Capitalists would also have their ventures cooperatized or publicized once the objective of the charter is complete unless renewed with new objectives. which means that the richest people in this society would likely only be worth a few hundred million at the high end.

Luxury products would also exist (with environmental regulations decided by co-ops and councils) as cooperization and publicization laws would only apply to ventures with more than 100 employees or more than 5million$ in profits. Any unchartered business over those thresholds must be publically or worker owned.

Outlook is right. I'm an anarchist in the sense that I want to disempower hierarchies and empower individuals and the people as a whole with the ultimate goal of the deconstruction of the state. I believe hierarchy and unequitable power consolidated in individuals is oppressive whether public or private and the large corporations just recreate/mirror the state informally.

My primary gripe with the libertarian right is that they don't understand that corporations today are just little dictatorships and decentralizing dictatorial power through private ownership doesn't make it less oppressive. The Rwandan genocide is a good case study for decentralized oppression as are private mercenaries and Flint Michigan's water crisis.

Another note, all small business and small coops would not be subject to taxation nor would anyone with an income less than 100k a year and or less than 1million in total assets. The primary income for councils would come from taxation on larger coops.
  • Outlook, Alislaws and rennerpetey like this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users