I think people are failing to clearly articulate what the OP really
misses about what Le Guin is doing. Although, I’m certain I could be
missing something here.
The main issue isn’t that Omelas is allegory, but rather that it is a
reductio ad absursdum. It’s an argument against using
net-utility as the sole measuring stick. To attempt to “rescue” the
child from Omelas by re-writing is to ask “but what if the Irish
children aren’t eaten but rather made to labor to feed us instead”?
The “dust specks” argument that Scott re-cast in light of Omelas is
at least an understanding of what Omelas is arguing against, although it
probably still misses Le Guin’s point.
I saw that thread and I knew without having to look at it that it was
going to be a waste of time. Good to know that the reaction was negative
(I’m not super surprised, /r/rational is generally pretty
reasonable).
This is basically that thing someone on Twitter said where Americans
make movies about how sad invading your country made them.
Rationalism has no quarrel with the real-life inspiration for Omelas
and little but contempt for the exploited underclasses across the
planet. When they were talking about a new colony elsewhere they
exclusively looked at wealthy enclaves and places where they would have
as much personal security and potential isolation from the great
unwashed as possible. It’s a movement of snobs by snobs.
Even the whole “look out, the AI!” is just class-warfare. The AI is
supposed to serve THEM, and the ultimate fear is merely that they won’t
be on top of their own pile.
So naturally the assumption of a place that “fixed” the problem of
targeted, intentional suffering was to retain all the suffering but make
it more respectable. Surely if it exists, it NEEDS To exist, just
altered to suit me.
E: read it, lol they made the situation less bad for the kid. Or as
the kids these days say ‘cope’. And wow the OP there is getting really
worked up there. Please don’t make fun of this persons misunderstandings
over there folks. (And kudos for the people at rational for trying to
help this person). E: aw they deleted their post. :(
This is really funny because it comes off less like rational Omelas,
and more rationalized Omelas. Make Omelas seem even more cool
and awesome to nerds, and make the dark secret something people never
even find out about because their lifestyle based on exploitation is so
good that it turns the people into a bunch of inherent anime heroes.
There, moral dilemma solved through the power of wishful
thinking!
No seriously, it really does feel like a lot of rationalist thinking
is less about strictly being rational and coming to rational
conclusions, but concocting elaborate rationalizations for stuff you
already like and want to think is rational.
I have a lot of sympathy for OP in there. There’s quite a bit of
grandstanding (and I started scrolling as soon as I got to the sex
parts) but I do vibe with his response to everyone telling him >
“this is an allegory you can’t just do that it misses the point”
being
“actually, it’s a story and I want to save the shitchild from the
devil room. fuck off”
This is mostly because reading Yudkowsky has made me absolutely
despise allegories though.
I think the people in r/rational were (as far as I had seen) giving a good attempt to try amd steer OP into a better understanding of why and how the Omelas story works, and why his idea with noble intentions (but somewhat poor execution) is flawed.
Also, I’m not sure what it says that the OP in the other thread is
choosing to dismantle Omelas rather than, say, “The Cold Equations.”
(Not that plenty of people haven’t already pointed out problems with the
latter.)
'Fun' detail btw, far right eco fasc types love to call the earth a lifeboat, while I doubt cold equations was directly influenced by that there is some idea overlap.
One of the responses, which was criticizing OP, said the
following
And the writing, oh dear. 80% of it (something like the first 60%,
and half of the remainder) is unnecessary word salad signifying nothing
and can be cut because it contributes nothing to the story. All those
‘question’ lines can be removed and the story would be the better for
it. All those references to sex are unnecessary too. The writing is all
over the place.
Imagine saying this about Le Guin, of all people. Jesus wept.
In fairness the commenter is saying that about the ratfic, which is 50% longer and talks about sex a lot more than Le Guin, has a Tommy Wiseau reference, etc.
But in the original yeah, the "first 60%" is essential and often overlooked for the child problem.
A bright future in Human Resources. 🥰
Yeowch. If I wanted to engage with this person, which I don’t, I’d suggest they read The Ones Who Stay and Fight by N.K. Jemisin.
My amazing sex life is what you’d call an infohazard.
lol. how can you write cringe sex boasts with Omelas as your source material of all things
The r/rational comment section is consistently the best part of the rational community.
I think people are failing to clearly articulate what the OP really misses about what Le Guin is doing. Although, I’m certain I could be missing something here.
The main issue isn’t that Omelas is allegory, but rather that it is a reductio ad absursdum. It’s an argument against using net-utility as the sole measuring stick. To attempt to “rescue” the child from Omelas by re-writing is to ask “but what if the Irish children aren’t eaten but rather made to labor to feed us instead”?
The “dust specks” argument that Scott re-cast in light of Omelas is at least an understanding of what Omelas is arguing against, although it probably still misses Le Guin’s point.
I saw that thread and I knew without having to look at it that it was going to be a waste of time. Good to know that the reaction was negative (I’m not super surprised, /r/rational is generally pretty reasonable).
This is basically that thing someone on Twitter said where Americans make movies about how sad invading your country made them.
Rationalism has no quarrel with the real-life inspiration for Omelas and little but contempt for the exploited underclasses across the planet. When they were talking about a new colony elsewhere they exclusively looked at wealthy enclaves and places where they would have as much personal security and potential isolation from the great unwashed as possible. It’s a movement of snobs by snobs.
Even the whole “look out, the AI!” is just class-warfare. The AI is supposed to serve THEM, and the ultimate fear is merely that they won’t be on top of their own pile.
So naturally the assumption of a place that “fixed” the problem of targeted, intentional suffering was to retain all the suffering but make it more respectable. Surely if it exists, it NEEDS To exist, just altered to suit me.
Me before clicking: I’m so ready for the Omelas expanded universe.
E: this reminds me of old star wars role playing game advertisements. And it fucking worked. (Even worse, is that I can still remember it).
E: read it, lol they made the situation less bad for the kid. Or as the kids these days say ‘cope’. And wow the OP there is getting really worked up there. Please don’t make fun of this persons misunderstandings over there folks. (And kudos for the people at rational for trying to help this person). E: aw they deleted their post. :(
How fucking upsetting.
This is really funny because it comes off less like rational Omelas, and more rationalized Omelas. Make Omelas seem even more cool and awesome to nerds, and make the dark secret something people never even find out about because their lifestyle based on exploitation is so good that it turns the people into a bunch of inherent anime heroes.
There, moral dilemma solved through the power of wishful thinking!
No seriously, it really does feel like a lot of rationalist thinking is less about strictly being rational and coming to rational conclusions, but concocting elaborate rationalizations for stuff you already like and want to think is rational.
I have a lot of sympathy for OP in there. There’s quite a bit of grandstanding (and I started scrolling as soon as I got to the sex parts) but I do vibe with his response to everyone telling him > “this is an allegory you can’t just do that it misses the point”
being
This is mostly because reading Yudkowsky has made me absolutely despise allegories though.
Also, I’m not sure what it says that the OP in the other thread is choosing to dismantle Omelas rather than, say, “The Cold Equations.” (Not that plenty of people haven’t already pointed out problems with the latter.)
One of the responses, which was criticizing OP, said the following
Imagine saying this about Le Guin, of all people. Jesus wept.