Kat and Phoebe discuss the character assassination of the “olfactory ethics” PhD lady, the actual assassination of an insurance CEO, and the anatomy of scapegoating.
Kat's laugh at the suggestion of Dr. Ally Louks moving to Bluesky is sharp, and now it's an act of intolerance to recommend Phoebe there, at least for Jesse Singal.
The doctor, meanwhile, has a blue check. She can expand to both apps, but a move from X is unnecessary.
A wise man once described internet comments to me thusly: “anonymity plus audience equals asshole.” I’m troubled that the anonymity part seems no longer to be necessary.
I think there was something important missing from the discussion of the murder of Brian Thompson. Two kinds of justification are considered: first, murder as a means to enact change toward universal public healthcare in the US; and second, as a way to draw attention to discontent with the current healthcare system in the US.
But there is a non-consequentialist line of justification that arguably does a better job explaining the public reaction to the murder, namely, the view that Thompson deserved to be killed for his active and highly lucrative role in what many perceive as a deeply unjust (if not downright evil) healthcare system. Consequences are not irrelevant on this view, but neither are they the primary determinant in what makes the act right or wrong. As an analogy, take the assassination of Czar Alexander II. The aim was to overthrow the monarchy in Russia, but surely no one involved thought that the rightness of the action depended on its achieving this goal. They regarded the Czar as deserving to die for the system he represented and participated in.
It seems more plausible that the public reaction is based on this kind of moral intuition about desert. We're used to thinking about justice in terms of consequences in everyday life, but many people seem to flip to a desert-based model when it comes to what they perceive to be truly heinous actions. Whether or not this kind of reasoning is defensible is an interesting question, but we shouldn't ignore its pull for many people.
On the social media response to Oct 7 and the CEO assassination; I am guessing that the social media ring-leaders/mean girls-guys initiate and then everyone else follows the leader. The absence of independent morality.
I don't know anything about the writer so perhaps I'm wrong, but I've always thought the meaning of the "what did you think decolonization meant" tweet was a little more nuanced than just celebrating terrorism.
It's the pro-Palestine equivalent of making fun of liberals who expressed surprise that "Defund The Police" actually means defund the police. It doesn't read to me as an end-justifies-the-means sentiment at all.
Nothing good will come from the assassination of Brian Thompson.
Changing the subject ...
I saw the post of the "PhD Lady" on Twitter/X, reposted by somebody I follow. I thought, okay, we all know that PhD really stands for "Finally Done", something anybody remotely connected to someone doing a Ph.D. knows. The title of the thesis is kinda funny, but, okay -- she's done, she's happy, that's fine.
I didn't follow the ensuing outrage, except to note the following:
Virginia Postrel, @vpostrel, a person EVERYBODY should be following on Twitter/X, or on Substack at "Virginia's Newsletter", tweeted:
"For my A.P. English class, I wrote a paper on the sense of smell in The Sound & the Fury. Feel free to treat me like an idiot who shouldn't show her face in public because only STEM matters."
and:
"The quality of intellectual work does not depend on what you can put in the title. You have to actually *read it* to evaluate it. Unless you believe that only STEM matters and literature is unworthy of human beings."
I haven't read the Ph.D thesis and I'll bet nobody who commented has, either.
Also, Meghan Daum, @meghan_daum, another person that EVERYBODY here should also be following, (Substack: https://www.theunspeakablepodcast.com/) put out a request to the Ph.D lady to get in touch so Megan can interview her on her Unspeakable podcast channel. I hope that happens and would look forward to that.
A banger of a free episode, bound to draw in paying listeners.
Kat's laugh at the suggestion of Dr. Ally Louks moving to Bluesky is sharp, and now it's an act of intolerance to recommend Phoebe there, at least for Jesse Singal.
The doctor, meanwhile, has a blue check. She can expand to both apps, but a move from X is unnecessary.
A wise man once described internet comments to me thusly: “anonymity plus audience equals asshole.” I’m troubled that the anonymity part seems no longer to be necessary.
I think there was something important missing from the discussion of the murder of Brian Thompson. Two kinds of justification are considered: first, murder as a means to enact change toward universal public healthcare in the US; and second, as a way to draw attention to discontent with the current healthcare system in the US.
But there is a non-consequentialist line of justification that arguably does a better job explaining the public reaction to the murder, namely, the view that Thompson deserved to be killed for his active and highly lucrative role in what many perceive as a deeply unjust (if not downright evil) healthcare system. Consequences are not irrelevant on this view, but neither are they the primary determinant in what makes the act right or wrong. As an analogy, take the assassination of Czar Alexander II. The aim was to overthrow the monarchy in Russia, but surely no one involved thought that the rightness of the action depended on its achieving this goal. They regarded the Czar as deserving to die for the system he represented and participated in.
It seems more plausible that the public reaction is based on this kind of moral intuition about desert. We're used to thinking about justice in terms of consequences in everyday life, but many people seem to flip to a desert-based model when it comes to what they perceive to be truly heinous actions. Whether or not this kind of reasoning is defensible is an interesting question, but we shouldn't ignore its pull for many people.
On the social media response to Oct 7 and the CEO assassination; I am guessing that the social media ring-leaders/mean girls-guys initiate and then everyone else follows the leader. The absence of independent morality.
I don't know anything about the writer so perhaps I'm wrong, but I've always thought the meaning of the "what did you think decolonization meant" tweet was a little more nuanced than just celebrating terrorism.
What do you interpret it to mean? How is it not very-online-speak for ‘the ends justify the means’?
It's the pro-Palestine equivalent of making fun of liberals who expressed surprise that "Defund The Police" actually means defund the police. It doesn't read to me as an end-justifies-the-means sentiment at all.
Nothing good will come from the assassination of Brian Thompson.
Changing the subject ...
I saw the post of the "PhD Lady" on Twitter/X, reposted by somebody I follow. I thought, okay, we all know that PhD really stands for "Finally Done", something anybody remotely connected to someone doing a Ph.D. knows. The title of the thesis is kinda funny, but, okay -- she's done, she's happy, that's fine.
I didn't follow the ensuing outrage, except to note the following:
Virginia Postrel, @vpostrel, a person EVERYBODY should be following on Twitter/X, or on Substack at "Virginia's Newsletter", tweeted:
"For my A.P. English class, I wrote a paper on the sense of smell in The Sound & the Fury. Feel free to treat me like an idiot who shouldn't show her face in public because only STEM matters."
and:
"The quality of intellectual work does not depend on what you can put in the title. You have to actually *read it* to evaluate it. Unless you believe that only STEM matters and literature is unworthy of human beings."
I haven't read the Ph.D thesis and I'll bet nobody who commented has, either.
Also, Meghan Daum, @meghan_daum, another person that EVERYBODY here should also be following, (Substack: https://www.theunspeakablepodcast.com/) put out a request to the Ph.D lady to get in touch so Megan can interview her on her Unspeakable podcast channel. I hope that happens and would look forward to that.