via: https://lobste.rs/s/hgm2rc/tool_safety_beautiful_soup_zine_2017

Videogame executive Xu Bo, said to have more than 100 children, and other elites build mega-families, testing citizenship laws and drawing on nannies, IVF and legal firms set up to help them

Fucking kill me.

Yeah, I really think I don’t get having children.

Great piece. Especially liked the last two sections.

PIZZARO: But what I can do is build relationships with people who are members of the groups that I might have a slightly negative implicit bias against. I think in my own life one thing that has been a salve for my own racism, for my own prejudices, is to connect with certain people and actually love those people and actually care for those people. And then I feel my prejudices kind of simmering away. And I think that this way I become a better person.

This is a lecture about chapter 14 of Russ Shafer-Landau’s book ‘Whatever Happened to Good and Evil?’ This chapter is about the popular argument that starts from the claim that there is persistent disagreement about moral matters to the conclusion that there are no objective moral facts or laws. Shafer-Landau is able to turn this argument against moral skepticism itself. This is a pretty long video lecture, but I spend a lot of time modifying the argument, which should be helpful in learning how to deal with arguments themselves. This is part of an introductory level philosophy course, Introduction to Ethics.

This video lecture builds off of a reading by MacKinnon & Fiala, wherein they canvas four arguments or reasons that moral skepticism or relativism are attractive. In the video I only discuss two of these reasons : (1) the existence pervasiveness, and persistence of moral disagreement and (2) the diversity of situations in which moral agents find themselves. This is part of an introductory level philosophy course, Introduction to Ethics.

Specifically, Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, “Chapter 3. Ethical Relativism » Reasons Supporting Ethical Relativism.”

This is a lecture about chapter 11 of Russ Shafer-Landau’s book ‘Whatever Happened to Good and Evil?’ It deals with Moral Skepticism, Moral Nihilism, Moral Subjectivism, Moral Relativism, as well as the global versions of all of these views, which are self-defeating. All of the uses of “Moral” are understood as equivalent to “Ethical”. This lecture is part of an introductory-level philosophy course, Introduction to Ethics.

This is a video lecture about chapter 3 (“Moral Error”) of Russ Shafer-Landau’s book ‘Whatever Happened to Good and Evil?’. The argument relies on a distinction between internal and external moral critiques. This is part of an introductory level philosophy course, Introduction to Ethics.

This is a lecture about the metaethical terminology used by Shafer-Landau in chapter 3 of his book, “Whatever Happened to Good and Evil?” The theories distinguished include: moral objectivism, moral skepticism, cultural moral relativism, moral subjectivism, error theory (about moral discourse), and non-cognitivism (about moral discourse). It is part of an introductory level philosophy course, Introduction to Ethics, in the Metaethics unit of that course.

This is a lecture video about a short selection from book 3 of David Hume’s famous work of philosophy, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40). Hume was an empiricist. The lecture of basically a presentation of his argument from empiricism to the conclusion that there are no genuine, objective moral facts residing in actions themselves (rather, there are only sentiments of moral disapprobation or disapproval in us). This lecture of part of Introduction to Ethics.

Part 2 of The Interfaces With Which We Think

I think it’s important to question the script, even if you decide that you like it. You should be able to explain why you like it. This process of questioning is a radical act. A radical, in its non-pejorative usage, is born when someone questions their life and worldview, decides that they want something else, and seeks out others who came to similar conclusions.

As said by a colleague in response to this tweet.

all boys ritually emasculate/are emasculated by other boys as part of showing you are a real man. Trans women do not respond to this phenomenon the way that boys do and, as a result, are treated differently long before anyone realizes they are trans.

Some modern writings on the implications of “On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives” for the Kantian. You cannot lie, but the categorical imperative does not beget you yo give useful information or unnecessarily share your thoughts.

SKINNER: So, it’s no lies for the Kantian, but sometimes misleading truths are in order.

KLEMPNER: In a world where all our choices are determined by game theory (including the choice whether to tell the truth or tell a lie) something precious has been lost, the foundation of our ability to communicate with one another. That’s the point Kant is making.

It is categorically Evil for an object to travel fast than the speed of light, which is why God doesn’t allow it to happen.