- Ask ChatGPT for a solution.
- Try to run the solution. It doesn't work.
- Post the solution online as something you wrote all on your own, and ask people what's wrong with it.
- Copy-paste the fixed-by-actual-human solution from the replies.
AeonFelis
If it's on fire and the autolocks, you know the doors are strong enough to not budge when you try to kick them open.
And? Did he?
He won't die before releasing Half Life 3, which means he's immortal.
Actually... Yes? People's health did deteriorate due to over-reliance on technology over the generations. At least, the health of those who have access to that technology.
The solution isn’t to address all of the concerns of all the ideologies since that would be impossible.
I disagree. Completely solving all the problems is indeed impossible, but it should be possible to address them. Or, at the very least, acknowledge them. At least the major ones.
And I do agree that ideologies should be treated as tools. More specifically - tools for analyzing the existing and desired structures and for framing the problems. There is no reason not to try viewing the world through the lens of each major ideology in order to get the most complete perspective. These views may not agree, and that's fine - the disagreements may provide some interesting insights.
I remember reading somewhere that one of the main reasons for the USSR's failure was that they immediately shot down any idea that had the tiniest bit in it that could be interpreted as capitalism-related. Even a suggestion that's 100% communist values but was using some capitalist-sounding terminology would get immediately disqualified and place it's supporters in hot water.
I think the USA - even if not as extremely - is doing the same thing but from the other side.
With such a mindset, "using economic policy that was proven to work" is outright impossible. Any policy that works (and not just in economy) will need to address the problems raised by all major ideologies - because even if an ideology got the solution completely wrong, at the very least that problems it was born from are real. Refusing to acknowledge these problems on ideological basis will not make them go away.
Makes me wonder how they are still keeping themselves afloat, considering the abhorrent state and quality their products are.
Their main business model is patent/trademark infringement lawsuits.
Lemmyers
The official term is Lemmings.
Shoot the lock to escape the room, and save the other bullet for whoever locked you up in there.
beat thw shit out of the fascist with the other
You mean ask them for help, or use them as oversized clubs?
The best solution I found for the Paradox of Tolerance (or, more accurately, for a bigger class of problems that contain that problem) is https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/24/nominating-oneself-for-the-short-end-of-a-tradeoff/
The gist of it is that we decide on the following maxim: in conflicts of interest we should favor that cannot easily back off over the side who can.
For example - we want to tolerate a black person existing and we also want to tolerate[^1] a racist person being racist. These two toleration are conflicting. The black person can't stop being black - they were born that way - but the racist person can choose to stop being racist. So we favor the black person's existence, and do not tolerate the racist person's racism.
[^1]: You may argue that we should not tolerate racism at all to begin with, to which I'd say the reason we should not tolerate racism is that there are people who get hurt from it, which is what this maxim is all about.
This maxim is not perfect, of course. It does not apply to all cases, and it does leave up to debate the question of who is forced into the conflict and who is doing it out of choice (e.g. - a conservative may claim that LBGT people are willingly choosing to be so while they are forced, by word of God, to hate them). But I still think it's an improvement:
- It's morally arguable. As long as we don't go into the details, it's easy to defend as a principle.
- The question of who if forced into the conflict and who is willingly entering it can be discussed more objectively than the question of what should be tolerated and what shouldn't (I'm not saying it's always easy to agree - just that the discussion is more objective)
- Even in cases where both sides are forced or cases where both sides are willing, looking at it through the lens of this maxim allows to point at the true perpetrators and/or the true victims, instead of arbitrarily picking one side to blindly side with.