Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
This one got off to an odd start since we were on a time crunch and Joshua as delayed in arriving. As a result, this one is way more disorganized than usual. We hope it’s fun nonetheless.
Big thanks to David for our intro music! I’ll add a link here for his stuff when I track it down. 🙂
We’d like to thank creators of our new outro music from the Sumerki Project! Check out their stuff here!
Question on Prediction Markets.
I guess I”m not all that familiar with the types of things on Online Prediction Markets, but it seems like you guys were saying that one might bet on a large number of people getting killed in a civil war… and win money if it happened? Did I understand that correctly, and is it morally responsible to bet and benefit from such a thing?
I wonder if there is any tie-in to the mathematics of quantum mechanics? If you don’t let people bet on it, you won’t know it’s about to happen, but then if you act to prevent that from happening, people that made the bet won’t bother to bet on the bad thing happening, and you’ll never know it’s going to happen.
Seems a terrible catch-22.
Should these prediction markets be used to predict truly awful things involving man’s inhumanity to man? Isn’t it feasible that the perpetrator of an atrocity could come in and bet “yes, I’m going to make sure genocide is committed on all these people”, bet on that, and then walk away with a bunch of money?
If you use my question, you can use my name on the air. (Oh, you can use my name any time I write in, if you like.)
Even worse, people can bet on bad things happening and then work towards making that a reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borussia_Dortmund_team_bus_bombing#Suspects
As you can see, that’s already happening.
Re: privilage. I don’t see people doing the mother thing. I am not disputing that others do. But I go to feminist places on the internet and I don’t see it. Where do we see this going on?
My gut instinct is that people see things not ment for them and straw man what they see because of unconscious biases. Which does happen but probably isn’t the situation here. So I am confused.
On the topic of where the men have gone. I am down. It’s tindr now. Or FetLife. It whatever. There is no need to hope people you randomly encounter are down. It is a much more rational system to this way.
I do like the talk about class and the critique of neo-liberalism. I would be related interested to see a socialist on the podcast. This kinda instramental rationalism as it relates to emotionally charged issues is where we are gonna see the best praxis made. I am sure you could get a seccond string communist podcast to visit easily. Street fight radio, discourse collective, or just one of the Chapo trap house people.
I really liked what was said about “homemaker protection policy” I think that’s really the purpose of marriage, FOR THE KIDS. Ideally, that’s what the marriage is for… To assure the kids have a stable home environment as they grow up, and don’t have to worry about growing up until they’re grown up.
I also really thought Josh made a good point about the idea that when women make blanket statements about how horrid men are, they tend to contribute to an environment where men who are concerned about their opinions just stay home. I think there’s a bit too much focus on “condemning the person” rather than “condemning the behavior” on all sides.
Pingback: Rational Newsletter | Issue #5