Theme: Responsibility

  • “Doesn’t Free Speech also come with the responsibility to listen to the criticis

    —“Doesn’t Free Speech also come with the responsibility to listen to the criticism?”—

    Does it? Listening to criticism? That’s not a property of free speech. That might be a property of utility, or debate or wisdom. But as someone who spends time on social media yourself what percentage of feedback is of any value whatsoever?
    In my experience the only value of feedback is the discovery of opportunities to educate. It rarely if ever contributes anything at all to the discourse.
    In other words the ancestral european presumption of equality that we inherited from the greeks and the steppe, is a presumption that allows for freedom of speech. But it places no obligation on others to listen. Otherwise Karens would overload the discourse even more than the left uses its gossiping, shaming, rallying, moralizing, psychologizing, and propaganda to overload the discourse.

    Reply addressees: @CloudByter @Anarchrist5 @BuzzPatterson @elonmusk @X


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-29 17:05:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873415040021487616

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873412987098484951

  • Binding? No. But like many things that we state as a positive, the origin is a n

    Binding? No. But like many things that we state as a positive, the origin is a negative: self defense. The public is less likely to hang you or worse if you demonstrate paternal consideration and care.
    The same is true for the Chivalric codes which were originated by the church to domesticate the knights who were largely … awful people. But it eventually did take hold.

    The concept of noblesse oblige—the idea that privilege and power come with social responsibilities—has been treated variably by historic aristocracies. While there is evidence that certain aristocratic societies incorporated notions of obligation to the community, the extent to which this was taken seriously or practiced consistently is subject to debate. Here’s an analysis of evidence for and against the binding nature of noblesse oblige:

    Evidence FOR Noblesse Oblige as Binding

    Feudal Contracts and Reciprocal Obligations:
    Feudalism in medieval Europe formalized reciprocal relationships between lords and vassals.Lords provided protection, justice, and sustenance.
    In return, vassals owed military service and loyalty.
    These obligations, though hierarchical, were codified and treated as binding within the feudal system.

    Aristocratic Patronage:
    Aristocrats often supported their communities through patronage, funding public works, churches, and artistic endeavors. Example: Renaissance Italy, where families like the Medici funded art and architecture for civic pride and legacy.
    In England, wealthy landowners frequently built schools, almshouses, and hospitals for their tenants.

    Chivalric Codes: Chivalry imposed moral obligations on knights and nobles, emphasizing virtues like protection of the weak, justice, and honor.
    Texts like The Song of Roland and Le Morte d’Arthur depict these ideals as integral to aristocratic identity.

    Social and Cultural Expectations:
    Aristocracies often justified their privilege by claiming stewardship of the lower classes. Example: The Great Chain of Being in Europe framed nobles as divinely appointed caretakers of society.
    The Roman concept of paterfamilias extended to political leaders, who were expected to act as “fathers” to their communities.

    Revolutionary Backlashes Against Failure:
    When nobles failed to fulfill their perceived obligations, they faced severe consequences, suggesting these expectations were seen as binding.Example: The French Revolution was partly driven by aristocratic neglect of peasant welfare during economic crises.

    Examples of Individual Noblesse Oblige: Historical figures like Marcus Aurelius, Elizabeth I, and George Washington embodied leadership tied to duty and responsibility, reinforcing the ideal.

    Evidence AGAINST Noblesse Oblige as Binding

    Selective and Self-Serving Application:
    Many aristocrats treated noblesse oblige as a rhetorical justification for their privilege rather than a consistent obligation. Example: French nobles prior to the Revolution often maintained lavish lifestyles while burdening peasants with taxes.
    Landowners in 19th-century England frequently displaced tenants during the Highland Clearances or enclosure movements.

    Exploitation of Power:
    Feudal systems often prioritized aristocratic interests over the well-being of lower classes. Example: Serfs in Russia endured severe exploitation with little evidence of aristocratic responsibility until the emancipation reforms of 1861.
    Colonial aristocracies often justified conquest and exploitation as “civilizing missions,” demonstrating noblesse oblige applied selectively to certain groups.

    Historical Hypocrisy:
    Despite ideals of chivalry, knights and lords frequently engaged in rapacious behavior, including pillaging, warmongering, and exploitation of their subjects. Example: The Hundred Years’ War saw widespread destruction of peasant communities by both English and French forces.

    Cultural Variability:
    Not all aristocracies adhered to notions of noblesse oblige.Example: In pre-modern China, Confucian philosophy emphasized hierarchical responsibility, but imperial corruption often left local governance to predatory landlords.

    Modern Historical Revisionism:
    The romanticized view of noblesse oblige may owe more to later cultural reinterpretations than to consistent historical practice.Victorian authors like Walter Scott idealized medieval chivalry and aristocratic virtue, possibly exaggerating the role of noblesse oblige.

    Conclusion

    The historical evidence suggests that noblesse oblige was aspirational rather than consistently binding. Aristocratic societies often used the concept to legitimize their power, but its application was uneven and heavily influenced by cultural, economic, and individual factors. While some nobles genuinely embraced their responsibilities, many failed to live up to the ideal, leading to resentment and revolutionary consequences when obligations were ignored.

    Reply addressees: @juniorwolf @moveincircles


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-28 18:11:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873069324598206464

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873065516518260919

  • Awareness: The recognition or knowledge of relevant facts, conditions, or obliga

    Awareness: The recognition or knowledge of relevant facts, conditions, or obligations.

    Responsibility: The obligation to act (or refrain from acting) in a way that prevents harm or fulfills a duty.

    Accountability: The evaluation of whether the individual’s actions aligned with their responsibility.

    Liability: The assignment of consequences when actions cause harm or violate responsibilities.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-21 02:05:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870289343493091328

  • Because no other people has institutionalize the maximiumization of individual r

    Because no other people has institutionalize the maximiumization of individual responsibility resulting in a high trust polity, the resulting economic and intellectual velocity, the resulting production of competitive commons, and the resulting comparative advantage. In fact,…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-20 23:02:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870243294955155730

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870141152550150283

  • Richard, Yet some of us practice noblesse oblige and we take responsibility for

    Richard,
    Yet some of us practice noblesse oblige and we take responsibility for our moral duty to paternal parenting of the lesser peoples such that they reach their greatest potential regardless of their lesser abilities through maximization of those responsibilities within their capacities.

    Other people (you) instead mother and prevent the demand for and institutional production of responsibilities causing infantilism and maladaption in the population.

    Reply addressees: @RichardHanania


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-20 22:59:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870242729952980994

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869966443363836202

  • “Markets are not just a collection of individual exchanges. If you cultivate a d

    –“Markets are not just a collection of individual exchanges. If you cultivate a dependency, you carry a responsibility for that dependence. Because dependency is power and then you have an associated responsibility so that you don’t abuse that power. If you do you harm the trust, the trust is a commons, and the commons is a demonstrated interest of all.”– Martin Stepan @AutistocratMS

    (brilliant. anti-gouging)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-20 16:16:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870141314232389632

  • Moreover, the primary difference between the sexes and therefore the political b

    Moreover, the primary difference between the sexes and therefore the political biases that reflect the differences between the sexes is the feminine evasion of risk, responsibility and production while pursuing maximization of consumption vs the male pursuit of risk and…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-20 02:37:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869935097316814934

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869932183600660994

  • THE SPECTRUM OF ETHICAL SYSTEMS BY EPISTEMIC DEMAND – FROM THE SELF OUTWARD CHAR

    THE SPECTRUM OF ETHICAL SYSTEMS BY EPISTEMIC DEMAND – FROM THE SELF OUTWARD

    CHARACTER
    Virtue Ethics:
    Epistemic Demand: Low. This approach primarily requires self-awareness and an understanding of what constitutes virtue in one’s culture or personal philosophy. It’s more about character development than specific knowledge of ethical theories.

    Care Ethics (Ethics of Care):
    Epistemic Demand: Low to Moderate. Understanding and accepting their own freedom to choose. It requires knowledge about relationships and empathy but doesn’t necessitate a deep understanding of formal ethical systems. It’s more about recognizing and responding to the needs of others.

    CHOICE
    Narrative Ethics:
    Epistemic Demand: Moderate. It involves understanding the role of stories in shaping identity and ethics, which might require some knowledge of cultural narratives and literary analysis, but it’s still quite intuitive.

    Rule-Based Ethics (Deontology):
    Epistemic Demand: Moderate to High. This involves knowing the rules or duties one must follow, which can range from simple (e.g., “do not lie”) to complex (understanding Kantian ethics). It requires learning specific moral laws or principles.

    Pragmatic Ethics:
    Epistemic Demand: High. This approach demands a good understanding of practical outcomes in real-world contexts, which involves assessing what works best in specific situations based on experience and empirical evidence.

    Outcome-Based Ethics (Consequentialism):
    Epistemic Demand: High. To apply consequentialism, especially utilitarianism, one needs to predict outcomes, understand human happiness or well-being, and often calculate or compare different possible results, which requires significant knowledge about cause and effect.

    COOPERATION
    Contractualism or Contract Ethics:
    Epistemic Demand: High. Requires understanding how to conceptualize fair conditions for agreement (like Rawls’ veil of ignorance), and the ability to abstract from personal interests to consider universal principles.

    NEGOTIATION
    Discourse Ethics (Communicative Ethics):
    Epistemic Demand: Very High. Demands not only a deep understanding of ethical theory but also of communication theory, sociology, and philosophy of language to facilitate an ideal speech situation where all can participate equally and rationally.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-20 02:17:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869930188030783488

  • LET ME HELP YOU: Genetic, Social, and Economic Classes demonstrate capacity to b

    LET ME HELP YOU:
    Genetic, Social, and Economic Classes demonstrate capacity to bear an increasing scope and scale of responsibility for personal, private, shared, and common. The question is only responsibility for what? Maintaining Deception? Entertainment? Validation? Productivity? Reciprocity? Truth? If there is an asset or harm that man depends upon whether, good or bad, there will evolve people who benefit from seizure of responsibility for it. Our goal with institutions, traditions, norms, habits, laws, and regulations is to suppress the harms while leaving open the assets.
    And the central problem is the institutional lag of identifying and suppressing innovations in responsibility for crimes (harms).
    Therefore, as we at NLI argue, the solution is the discovery of a science of falsehood, deceit, and irreciprocity such that the lag between the invention of a new crime and its suppression by the court in its discovery is minimized.

    Curt Doolittle
    NLI


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 20:51:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869485762695106560

  • RT @Fredward1099: @curtdoolittle Responsible people are getting screwed over whi

    RT @Fredward1099: @curtdoolittle Responsible people are getting screwed over while irresponsible parasites are getting enabled.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-17 18:59:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869095067497193655