Sure, petition to rename it. I don’t think anyone would care, except the folks feeling suppressed by American exceptionalism.

Or, idk, start your own world news instance with super strict rules, zero US stuff. No one is stopping you. Isn’t that the point of this platform?

😉

I “barged in” to a thread on Lemmy, a public forum where all are supposedly welcome? Are you seriously trying to exclude me based on my identity or background?

Do you think “supress” simply means “not up voting non-US content?” Okay, maybe I got that one wrong.

But you really don’t get how hostile you guys come off toward US folks who are just existing?

I mean, your comment is the very embodiment 9f the anti-US sentiment I see from so many. What are people supposed to do to appease you?

I would love to see some examples of these minority topics being down voted or suppressed since it seems to be deeply affecting international users’ experience.

To me, it seems like you and the OP resent US users for simply existing in an online space without putting forth any solutions to the issue. Are you sure you’re not trying to find ways to justify anti-US bias?

If you want the space to have more equal representation, why not produce high-quality content that appeals to your fellows rather than moaning about people who by your own admission mean no harm?

Same. But I don’t think the Russians or Chinese would give two shits what I think about them dominating an online space lol

Also pretty sure Iranians are struggling to get online rn let alone take over an instance

So, you’re saying that US users on lemmy.world are keeping other nationalities from talking about issues or viewpoints relevant to them?

I don’t get it. Are you saying that lemmy.world has too many US users? Why would that matter?

Saying there’s no real-world use for thought experiments or theory is like saying tricycles are useless because they’re slower than jogging.

Better the devil you know than the Jesus you don’t

Perspective: shoebox.

Values: likely shoebox-based, or perhaps worshipping the ever-present AC

Science: science as a set of principles and methods for understanding the physical world wouldn’t be affected by a man or men in a shoebox.

I wasn’t really sure what you were talking about, so I looked them both up, and I think there’s a really good chance your optician gave you Nazi-tinted lenses by mistake.

Mozel tov, may your love enemy forever crawl on his belly

Yeah, I feel that. I tried to find a happy middle ground with my add-ons, but the reality is that the game evolved with the expectation that (at mid-to-high levels of play) you use them. That sucks the fun out of it for me when I know the game itself is pushing me to plug in extra crunchy stuff. Sometimes I just wanna be a cool panda monk. And just hanging in Goldshire isn’t really the experience I want, either.

In regards to ASPD (Antisocial Personality Disorder), one of its hallmarks is challenges in starting or maintaining relationships. Doesn’t mean they don’t have them, just that they’re really really bad at beginning and keeping them. Meanwhile, those with ASPD are unlikely to consider the viewpoint of another person due to their impaired empathy and struggle to acknowledge others’ inner lives. I don’t think a sufferer would even consider having a conversation about this with another person.

Narcissistic personality disorder, on the other hand, often includes the pursuit of higher status by getting close to those with desirable attributes or characteristics. Unlike those with ASPD, people with NPD don’t display an impaired ability to empathize or consider others’ mental states (though they do struggle with relating to anyone else’s experiences).

A narcissist would have zero qualms in telling someone the conditions under which they would abandon them; it would reinforce their (perceived) superior value and demonstrate their power over the other person. Of course, I doubt they would love hearing their partner’s evaluation of them, and this would probably be a mostly one-sided conversation (as I imagine it often is in real life, should it happen).

But yeah, I think it’s safe to say that if you’re a climber who thinks so highly of yourself that you can put hard and fast digits on your loved ones, you’re at least a pre-narcissist.

All I’m saying is, much like using a litany of addons for World of Warcraft, that it’s possible to optimize yourself out of happiness. I don’t trust myself (or anyone else) enough to say what “percent” better someone would need to be to ditch a long-standing partnership, and anyone who does is probably a narcissist.

No shame in that! It is actually pretty well-written, and it has some engaging points. I’m not “anti-rationalism” or anti-this-guy or anything like that. LessWrong did more for global altruism than I ever will.

I’m just pointing out that a person who has dedicated their entire public persona to an ideology (or lack of one) is probably not joking when they start evaluating romantic partners with supposedly objective percentages.

I wouldn’t call 10% of the time “often,” but let’s entertain the idea that it’s a popular concept regardless. We’ll say 100% of people are like this. And they’re constantly trying to trade up. What does that look like? Would most relationships be based on mutual trust and compassion, or would they be cynical cycles of mercenary evaluation?

Meanwhile, though you seem very rational, even the most rational person isn’t free from their subjective experience or perception. It begs the question: how much do you trust your partners’ assessment of you, or themselves, to stay the same for years to come? I can promise it will not. In this paradigm of value-over-commitment, all relationships (even poly ones) are doomed to fail.

When you make a proper commitment to someone (or multiple someones), you’re not shirking the negative possibilities by leaving your “trade-up threshold” unsaid. You’re saying, “I accept the good with the bad.”

And no, I’m not saying people should stick with an abusive partner or someone they don’t like or love. I’m saying that the “trade-up” model is an oversimplified view that places the onus of being “good enough” on another person while shedding the fundamental responsibilities of growing both as individuals and together.

Sure, “happily ever after” is a fantasy, but working toward a lifelong partnership isn’t—unless, of course, you’ve got one foot out the door from day one.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to poke at your anxieties! I was remarking on the arbitrary nature of the original post.

While you’re probably right that Eliezer is open to dating poly people, the post in question definitely appears to take a monogamous stance—that is, the question of whether to exchange one person for another of “higher value.”

Saying that you’re cool if

one my partners meets someone else they want to date at least as much as me, they do

is different from

I’d trade up if I found somebody 10%/25%/125% better than you

which is what the original post said.

If they meet someone they want to date more than you, why would they keep you around? You’re 75% less ideal. What are you bringing to the table, besides a lower average score for the polycule?

Yudkowsky is well-known for his work in AI. He occasionally makes jokes, but it’s usually about AI (not relationships). I know that on his profile, it says something like “when I don’t use punctuation, it’s a joke,” akin to Reddit’s /s.

And yeah, he left off a period on the first post, though not the other two. But that said, he rarely makes multi-part jokes. It’s pretty clear to me, having read his posts and articles for a while, that he means this.

To further clarify that this is a “rationalist” of the highest order, consider that he wrote a half-a-million-plus word fanfic of Harry Potter, but with Harry studying science instead of magic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality