diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'blog')
| -rw-r--r-- | blog/index.org | 6 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_01dc37ba9cb224fc1886e1715ba5f33de9b7f603.png | bin | 1153 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_2338f8065c912f0a4b08f98a341f34f4f939b215.png | bin | 236 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_27b41ada4696293a6bd443c0a30fdc16190f62dd.png | bin | 496 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_469970f5e27ef5fb41f5e5ddd73a4c22779636c5.png | bin | 781 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_b2fb642980fc48ddee06a936c0c589a0a7e7d28d.png | bin | 752 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_ca69a7a62a6c2964d5c3f60e541d65013a3993bf.png | bin | 244 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_d94302badc90e0e1a1f129fc8a2742326d5a1753.png | bin | 234 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_eb8ac71900afa4ed5497de468503d3ee67396901.png | bin | 276 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | blog/tech-bros.org | 92 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | blog/you_dont_matter.org | 123 |
11 files changed, 221 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/blog/index.org b/blog/index.org index f8abcc4..26e36c8 100644 --- a/blog/index.org +++ b/blog/index.org @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +# -*- org-publish-use-timestamps-flag: nil; -*- #+TITLE: My Blog #+AUTHOR: Preston Pan #+DATE: <2023-06-14 Wed> @@ -29,9 +30,14 @@ Blog Articles: #+RESULTS: - [[file:automation.org][automation.org]] +- [[file:cognition.org][cognition.org]] - [[file:crypto.org][crypto.org]] - [[file:machine_learning.org][machine_learning.org]] - [[file:nixos.org][nixos.org]] +- [[file:private_keys.org][private_keys.org]] - [[file:stem.org][stem.org]] +- [[file:tech-bros.org][tech-bros.org]] +- [[file:voting.org][voting.org]] +- [[file:you_dont_matter.org][you_dont_matter.org]] @@html: </div>@@ diff --git a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_01dc37ba9cb224fc1886e1715ba5f33de9b7f603.png b/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_01dc37ba9cb224fc1886e1715ba5f33de9b7f603.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b74e101..0000000 --- a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_01dc37ba9cb224fc1886e1715ba5f33de9b7f603.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_2338f8065c912f0a4b08f98a341f34f4f939b215.png b/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_2338f8065c912f0a4b08f98a341f34f4f939b215.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 479f396..0000000 --- a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_2338f8065c912f0a4b08f98a341f34f4f939b215.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_27b41ada4696293a6bd443c0a30fdc16190f62dd.png b/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_27b41ada4696293a6bd443c0a30fdc16190f62dd.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 5b72b73..0000000 --- a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_27b41ada4696293a6bd443c0a30fdc16190f62dd.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_469970f5e27ef5fb41f5e5ddd73a4c22779636c5.png b/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_469970f5e27ef5fb41f5e5ddd73a4c22779636c5.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 3db4c01..0000000 --- a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_469970f5e27ef5fb41f5e5ddd73a4c22779636c5.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_b2fb642980fc48ddee06a936c0c589a0a7e7d28d.png b/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_b2fb642980fc48ddee06a936c0c589a0a7e7d28d.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index f781457..0000000 --- a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_b2fb642980fc48ddee06a936c0c589a0a7e7d28d.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_ca69a7a62a6c2964d5c3f60e541d65013a3993bf.png b/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_ca69a7a62a6c2964d5c3f60e541d65013a3993bf.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 64464f9..0000000 --- a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_ca69a7a62a6c2964d5c3f60e541d65013a3993bf.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_d94302badc90e0e1a1f129fc8a2742326d5a1753.png b/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_d94302badc90e0e1a1f129fc8a2742326d5a1753.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b03d945..0000000 --- a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_d94302badc90e0e1a1f129fc8a2742326d5a1753.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_eb8ac71900afa4ed5497de468503d3ee67396901.png b/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_eb8ac71900afa4ed5497de468503d3ee67396901.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 854d021..0000000 --- a/blog/ltximg/org-ltximg_eb8ac71900afa4ed5497de468503d3ee67396901.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/blog/tech-bros.org b/blog/tech-bros.org new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2d027c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/tech-bros.org @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +#+title: Tech Bros +#+author: Preston Pan +#+description: and other people that other people hate. +#+html_head: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../style.css" /> +#+html_head: <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="/apple-touch-icon.png"> +#+html_head: <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="32x32" href="/favicon-32x32.png"> +#+html_head: <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="16x16" href="/favicon-16x16.png"> +#+html_head: <link rel="manifest" href="/site.webmanifest"> +#+html_head: <link rel="mask-icon" href="/safari-pinned-tab.svg" color="#5bbad5"> +#+html_head: <meta name="msapplication-TileColor" content="#da532c"> +#+html_head: <meta name="theme-color" content="#ffffff"> +#+html_head: <meta name="viewport" content="width=1000; user-scalable=0;" /> +#+language: en +#+OPTIONS: broken-links:t +* Introduction +People use the term "tech bro" in a pejorative manner. This blog post is meant to be a cultural analysis +of why people hate tech bros, and, in general, this blog post is meant to be a cultural analysis of tolerance and intolerance +towards groups of people. In general, I believe that progressive or liberal cultural values are just as intolerant +as conservative cultural values; progressives will tell me that this is wrong for many reasons, and I will try to give +my best explanation as to why the common retorts are made from a misinformed stance. + +I think related to the culture of hating tech bros is hating self proclaimed smart people. Many like to make sarcastic +or ironic remarks after people self-report intelligence, even though downplaying identity in any other context would +be culturally unacceptable. In general, this is the case for people that are confident in any conventionally useful +identity trait. People are, generally speaking, much more tolerant of "punching up" -- a concept that /shouldn't exist/ +if you take a postmodern outlook on identity. The rich are often made fun of in various ways, for example. In response +to the statement I just made, someone might make fun of that fact, say, "oh no, not rich people!", or some sarcastic +or ironic statement to that effect. I think this cultural phenomenon is toxic -- the statement "these people are doing +better, therefore I can make fun of them" is not logically valid. A does not imply B -- "these people are doing better" +does not imply "therefore, I get to be mean to them". It is just not a good reason to punch up. Ideally you'd consider +the fact that the quality of categories of people doesn't matter in the face of individual people. + +Now, I understand the mentality of people that do this. There are common arguments that this is to be expected because of +they themselves are a part of many marginalized groups; punching up seems to be an empowering way to use that against +those same people who punch down. What people in general don't understand, I think, is that there are no groups of people, +only individuals inside those categories. People that others in general make fun of aren't a monolithic group, and even +progressives seem to not be able to register this fact at times. +** Sexism and Feminism +Now, I will also point out that sexism literally exists for everyone, not just women. +I've heard the statement "I hate men" many times throughout my life, genuinely unable to tell whether +or not they are being ironic. Obviously, one could say they are expressing their own personal life +experiences, many of which may be negative, but people who are otherwise sexist or racist also do that. And, no, +I don't think it's because "men lose out from the patriarchy too"; I think most people that subscribe to feminist +analysis in practice don't pay attention to this after giving some minor lip service to this. +I have no problem with feminism; it's a useful tool for observing the world, and the patriarchy is just a descriptive +term (it is a model of the world that can be correct or incorrect, just like other +models), and people may have their opinions about what is happening in the real world based on said descriptive models. +But for most people, I don't think having said prescriptive opinion is useful because most people can't meaningfully change +other people. If that is the case, it makes more sense to create a descriptive model than a prescriptive model. Unless, +of course, your goal is to appear morally righteous to your peers. If that is the case, I'm not even judging you -- +I'm just calling this behavior out because it doesn't currently get enough attention. + +I'm not a feminist, but I'm not an anti-feminist. There are interesting points to be discussed regarding feminism, +but I think there is value in using the same descriptive outlooks and coming to different conclusions. Yet, +something tells me that there are some things that people would not like to actually think about from a morally neutral +perspective (I am personally favorable to the argument that patriarchy is a /bad/ thing -- but then again, I think +Capitalism is a /good/ thing, and apparently [[https://www.thegazelle.org/issue/199/capitalism-patriarchy-inseperable][Capitalism implies patriarchy]]. Wait, what does /good/ or /bad/ mean +in the first place? Well, I actually think those terms are ultimately /meaningless/ -- but that's for another article). +** Race +The only race of people for which there is no slur is white people. Now, the term "cracker" might be seen as a slur, +but many don't consider it to be, and the fact that I'm able to put it in quotes and just put it there as opposed +to the N-word or the C-word might tell you that there's a special status assigned to "cracker" (note that I myself +am allowed to say the C-word, or "chink", as I am asian. Yet I don't think this rule "should" exist either). + +Using the same "punching up" mentality, you can make the argument for assigning this special status. Yet, it's kind +of psychotic in my opinion to make fun of someone's race. I've heard people say, "I hate white people" in the same +way I've heard people say, "I hate men". I think they use irony to mask what they think in the same way ultra +white-nationalist people do. Not to compare them in any other way, though. + +Not everyone that has white privilege feels it. Depending on your definition, not all white people may even have +white privilege. It's not very empathetic or progressive to just say you hate white people. In truth, it is pretty +deranged. The same is true for saying you hate men. +** Confidence/Intelligence +People who are confident about their intelligence or some other form of personality trait generally considered positive +often are the butt of jokes. You get the point already, "I am oppressed, they are not, therefore let's be assholes" is +not a logically coherent reason to just be an asshole to someone i.e. mock them when they are trying to tell you something +that probably reflects some reality. +** Class +Same argument applies in almost the exact same way, read above. +* Conclusion +This is to say, tech bros are one of the most well-paid, intelligent, disproportionately white and male populations on +the planet. I believe this is why they are also the most hated people in the progressive sphere, and one of the more +misunderstood classes of people in my culture as a result. That statement might /sound/ really wrong to you. I don't +want any conservative audience either championing anything that I say, because I think the conservative/"libertarian" +crowd is one of the main sources of people shutting their brains off. Still, conservative /sounding/ statements are just +tasteless to the progressive culture, even if they point to some reality. I wish to live until the day we ask ourselves +/why/. + +And everything that I've said applies in the opposite direction, obviously. This should go without saying, but +saying that you "hate women" is even more deranged than saying you hate men, and the same with race as well. Though, +I didn't include this because everyone in my culture already knows. They need to desperately hear the other side of +the story. Not to say that I have any influence over culture, anyway -- but it's fun sometimes to try. diff --git a/blog/you_dont_matter.org b/blog/you_dont_matter.org new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7bed3ec --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/you_dont_matter.org @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +#+title: You Don't Matter +#+author: Preston Pan +#+description: Ideas aren't real, and morality is a spook. +#+html_head: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../style.css" /> +#+html_head: <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="/apple-touch-icon.png"> +#+html_head: <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="32x32" href="/favicon-32x32.png"> +#+html_head: <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="16x16" href="/favicon-16x16.png"> +#+html_head: <link rel="manifest" href="/site.webmanifest"> +#+html_head: <link rel="mask-icon" href="/safari-pinned-tab.svg" color="#5bbad5"> +#+html_head: <meta name="msapplication-TileColor" content="#da532c"> +#+html_head: <meta name="theme-color" content="#ffffff"> +#+html_head: <meta name="viewport" content="width=1000; user-scalable=0;" /> +#+language: en +#+OPTIONS: broken-links:t +* Introduction +You don't matter. This should be entirely clear, yet I don't believe people actually get some of the implications +of this idea. Your ideas aren't real. This, too, is something that everyone intuitively understands yet in practice +seems to be not further extrapolated on. In this blog post I attempt to explain peoples' impact on the world, and +peoples' ideas as it pertains to greater society. Note that I talk about my progressive culture because that is what I know. +This is almost certainly the case (maybe even moreso) for other cultures around the world. +** Morality is a Spook +People in my progressive culture are pretty quick to realize that their sense of morality is not "real", and that +peoples' moral sensibilities may not always be in line with other people. In other words, it seems perfectly acceptable +to say that morality is subjective, or that in some sense it does not pertain to the real world, and it is made up +by people. This is a statement which seems to be true from an empirical standpoint, and even if you don't agree that it +is, there seems to be truth in the statement seeing as how the term morality would seem to have no meaning without conscious +beings, or, depending on your outlook on animals, morality would seem to be a useless term without humans. + +Now, if you're a progressive and don't "believe in" any particular god, this subjective sense of morality seems to be +quite viable. Given that morality is not real, it is still true that people in general have some in-built goals or desires. +Now the question to what you "should do" in life remains clear. It seems perfectly clear that from your perspective, your +goal in life is to try to achieve some in-built goals or desires. This could include being conventionally moral, or it +could not. In either case, you decide. + +Said in-built goals or desires are not permanently fixed. You can start caring about more things, or stop caring +about other things. In other words, giving up on a goal achieves the same effect as achieving said goal with respect +to fulfilling all your desires. In this sense, one should evaluate all goals as a cost-benefit analysis of giving up +on them versus actually working on them and achieving them. In the future, when I tell you, the reader, that you +"should do x", it is in this sense I mean it. I mean that it is likely that if you do the cost-benefit analysis for your +own goals, it is probable that x will achieve your goals, either by way of giving up or by otherwise changing your +circumstance, in the most "painless" way possible (takes the least time, least effort, basically the most efficient way +to get to where you want to be). In this sense, "should" is highly tied to prescription which is tied to moral outlook +(you "should" do x if and only if it is moral to do x, and it is moral to do x if and only if it is efficient +towards the goal of achieving your needs). Let's take this idea and expand on it in several practical examples. +** Your Ideas Aren't Real +Think about democracy. Is it a system which is moral in and of itself, or is it a system which is used to achieve some +objectives? Many people would say the first, except if you take the previous section as fact it seems wildly incoherent +to say that some idea, democracy, can have any inherent moral worth at all. Instead, it seems plausible to assume that +what we mean by some statement like, "democracy is moral", is actually a proxy for some sort of cost-benefit analysis +of the pros and cons of democracy existing totaling to it being a pro. Now let me ask a pretty obvious question: if you're +an individual person, what does weighing the pros and cons of a system /mean/? Of course, the individual need not consider +/systems/ in order to simply achieve their goals in most cases, it is sufficient to just focus on your own life. + +You could say you're weighing the pros and cons with respect to /society/. Okay, depending on your definition +of society, it seems as though the definition of a statement like, "democracy is moral" has restored its meaning. Yet, +I can point out something else that seems pretty obvious to say, which is that /you are not society/. In fact, you have +/little to no/ influence over broader society, and you make no significant portion of society. You may have friends that +you can count on, as well as a family, but democracy is an idea that pertains, in many cases, to nation states. + +Your ultimate goal in life could be that you want to influence society as much as possible. I am telling you that it +/shouldn't be/. That is to say, it is a lot easier to have influence over your own actions than influence over society, +so it is easier to give up on that ambition than to actually satisfy that ambition (I would argue that this is unambiguously +true in almost all circumstances). If you're not convinced, there are most likely a couple million people in your society, +and you're only one of them. The empirical probability that those millions of people should listen to you either directly +or indirectly is objectively low (drops off proportional to 1/n), else you are delusional. + +So to recap, what does it mean to make a statement such as, "democracy is moral"? Well, it seems logical that it means +something like, "it is better on average for society to have democracy than to not, weighing the pros and cons". Yet, +this kind of statement is useless to say for nearly every individual who says it, if it isn't said for fun or for some +goal which you should probably give up on anyways. Speaking of democracy, let's run a social experiment. +** The Democracy Experiment +The gain of voting in an n player game involving two candidates +and popular vote drops off at 1/n, but the time it takes to be informed and vote has a constant value. The decisions +of individuals in this game most likely, in real life, at most influence the decision making of one or two other +people (in total, from the whole chain reaction), +so the effect of influence is not very significant (so you can't argue that you have an influence over the crowd to vote, +because you don't). Given all these conditions, for a large n, voting should not be +worth it for most people, because the choice of you voting is independent of everyone else voting. You voting or not voting +has no bearing over the crowd. Yet, the common retort is, "if everyone thought like you...". This logic is dead on arrival, +because /not/ everyone's going to think like you. The character of the system is that other people irrationally vote +regardless of if you do, and your decision to vote or not vote has no bearing over the crowd voting or not voting. + +This simple fact is what I call IEEDI (if everyone else did it) syndrome; people are quick to conform rather than +think about the personal cost-benefit analysis, even if the logic stops working for large societies. +*** Activism +Activism is another example of IEEDI syndrome where people irrationally calculate the cost-benefit analysis of going +to protests, divesting, engaging in violence, etc... and go along with the crowd, even if it does not benefit them. +Again, it is much easier to give up on the ambition of doing activism rather than incurring all the costs of doing +activism, most likely. "If everyone thought like you, nothing would change" is another instance of IEEDI. You have no +control over what others think. +** Politics +When people say, "do you think we should do x", it is clear using this analysis that this means something like, +"do you think the cost-benefit analysis for society weighs in favor of doing x?". It is worth pointing out whenever +someone does this that your opinion on any analysis for broader society doesn't matter, as your opinion cannot change +anything. People can get divided over political opinions even though it seems to literally not matter what +political opinions you have from an impact perspective (even if someone is /literally hitler/, they can't do anything +to change broader society in practice). One could argue that there are some personality traits that are associated with +political opinions. For everyone inside the acceptable range of discourse right now, the personality trait differences +are probably really low on average, even though they can be shown to exist. Anyways, if it's really the personality +trait differences that matter, it seems irrational to comment on the politics of the person, because it's actually +the personality traits that you're filtering for. + +That is to say, despite how useless politics is in every day life, people irrationally commit a lot of their personal +lives to it and operate suboptimally as a result. This is another case of IEEDI. +** You Don't Matter +Perhaps a common theme in this blog post is that you don't matter. More accurately, you /do/ matter to yourself and people +around you, and you should try to maximize your life around that, if that is your goal, because it is an achievable goal. +On the other hand, trying to influence society in any way, or treat society as something more real than you, is a lost +cause, in the sense that in most cases you should either look to give up on your goals of influencing society, or you +are making some category error that I've just demonstrated is irrational given the premises. + +Another sense in which you don't matter is the sense in which your identity is malleable. You don't have to care +about nearly anything, but there are some things which are hard not to care about, such as the people around you, +your own well-being, and maybe one or two divine or ultimate purposes at a given point in time (I personally +fulfill this by trying to get people around me and people on the internet to seriously consider opposing viewpoints, +which I myself find satisfying). Note that there is nothing wrong with having such a purpose, so long as it is harder +to get rid of than to fulfill, or it's just fun. In my case, it is pretty fun to do what I'm doing. +* Conclusion +Unless you are a millionaire or a billionaire or are doing it for fun, it's pretty hard to have control over millions +of other people, so you should probably give up. You don't matter, ideas aren't real, and morality is a spook. And +I can't promise you anything: this advice disguised as a rant may help you, or it may hurt you in your case. If it helps +you, I also can't promise your situation will become well after you take my advice. I /can/ promise you that you'll +start to actually improve your life. |
