Like from a utilitarian harm mitigation perspective the occasional blatant murder of outgroup during kerfuffles is good, actually.
Show this thread
Even bad people have rights, but from a game theory perspective it is sometimes important that members of outgroup get shot to death, to raise their frequency estimation of the number of armed ingroup, and so it's a tremendous bonus if the deceased was asking for it.
-
-
-
The precise formula probably takes into account outgroup's propensity to respect ingroup's rights and raises perceived frequency of armed ingroup to an amount not exceeding the difference. That's why LOW IQ groups need to know ingroup is armed; they are more impulsive.
Show this thread -
But midwit and high IQ groups can signal disrespect for rights also, requiring sometimes bloody adjustment
Show this thread -
The functionality of tit for tat erodes as epistemic uncertainty increases, so the death of consensus reality bodes poorly for such finely tuned solutions unfortunately.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
arguably martyrdom is the more compelling force. heather heyer's death didn't send future counter-protestors fleeing; it ended mass public demonstrations like the unite the right rally.
-
Who cares what "protestors" due to each other though. "Protestors" are just a petri dish in which proportions and catalysts and reactants and so forth are determined.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.