Let's talk about Giantitp Signatures

[Keltest]

Huh? Isn't it pretty much the exact opposite? I thought that "choosing the lesser evil" means choosing the better of two bad (i.e. evil) options, while "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" means not choosing the better of two bad (i.e. imperfect) options. So not choosing one evil over another seems incompatible with not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The idea is that there is a third, non-evil option to be taken. Within the context of the source material, there are two people trying to kill each other, each asking Geralt to help their side, trying to claim that there would be a lot of harm in allowing the other side to live. Both of them claim that helping them murder the other would be "the lesser evil" at which point Geralt tells both of them to shove off, that he isn't going to help either of them, and that they should quit trying to murder each other.

[farothel]

I use mine to remember Sir Terry Pratchett and also to put some quotes I found on the internet a long time ago.

[shawnhcorey]

It's another place to mess with people's minds.

[Manga Shoggoth]

This pleases me.

Let's be fair. You do come up with some very good rejoiners.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

So what do you think? What is best use for Signatures?

I heard most people use it for the complete list of their romantic conquests.







Yes, it's bad, but we all have to make some form of that obligatory joke one day in a place with so many fellow nerds. P.S. I am not a hobgoblinophile. Or am I?...

[veti]

The idea is that there is a third, non-evil option to be taken. Within the context of the source material, there are two people trying to kill each other, each asking Geralt to help their side, trying to claim that there would be a lot of harm in allowing the other side to live. Both of them claim that helping them murder the other would be "the lesser evil" at which point Geralt tells both of them to shove off, that he isn't going to help either of them, and that they should quit trying to murder each other.

Thus guaranteeing victory for the stronger evil. Way to abdicate responsibility, Geralt.

[truemane]

I use mine to provide easy access to my gaming threads so I don't have to keep looking them up or save them somewhere else.

And to thank the person who made my avatar, which is still making me deliriously happy years and years later.

[Keltest]

Thus guaranteeing victory for the stronger evil. Way to abdicate responsibility, Geralt.

That's not the point. Both sides claim the other is the greater evil. He's offended by the idea that he would knowingly and willingly participate in something he considers evil, period. He rejects the idea of it being a binary choice "you have to pick a side" kind of thing.

[halfeye]

That's not the point. Both sides claim the other is the greater evil. He's offended by the idea that he would knowingly and willingly participate in something he considers evil, period. He rejects the idea of it being a binary choice "you have to pick a side" kind of thing.

When it's put like that it may make sense, but sometimes you have two problems that clearly aren't matched.

"If you're not with us, you're against us!" is always in the wrong in my view, and walking away from a pair of that makes a lot of sense.

However there's that trolley problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

It's clear that not choosing is choosing in that. Or it could be there's no one to harm on the other track. Or there is valuable property, which the owner will sue you for damaging if you save the people. There are infinite variations on that trolley problem.

[Keltest]

When it's put like that it may make sense, but sometimes you have two problems that clearly aren't matched.

"If you're not with us, you're against us!" is always in the wrong in my view, and walking away from a pair of that makes a lot of sense.

However there's that trolley problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

It's clear that not choosing is choosing in that. Or it could be there's no one to harm on the other track. Or there is valuable property, which the owner will sue you for damaging if you save the people. There are infinite variations on that trolley problem.

I don't consider the trolley problem to be an example of choosing between evils though, unless you extend the hypothetical to including you having deliberately instigated it in the first place.

[veti]

That's not the point. Both sides claim the other is the greater evil. He's offended by the idea that he would knowingly and willingly participate in something he considers evil, period. He rejects the idea of it being a binary choice "you have to pick a side" kind of thing.

I think it's very much the point. If he considers them both evil, then why not kill them both? How many innocents have to die so that Geralt can keep his precious hands "clean"?

[Keltest]

I think it's very much the point. If he considers them both evil, then why not kill them both? How many innocents have to die so that Geralt can keep his precious hands "clean"?

Neither of them are innocent, and he does indeed get involved when one party attempts a massacre in crowded marketplace to force the other party to expose themselves. But until that point, the fight was strictly between the two parties.

Furthermore, Geralt is responsible only for his own actions. The entire origin of the conflict was the result of one of the parties attempting to take the "lesser evil" and murder the other as a child because she was allegedly the victim of a curse that may or may not have even actually existed. Its an open question whether she would have been anything other than a normal girl if not for the intervention of the other party during her childhood.

[Honest Tiefling]

Zaydos made some items based on me, so I felt it only appropriate to broadcast their work. I don't think anyone would actually use them, but I would be tickled pink if they did.

And hey, if everyone else is using their signature for an ego boost, why not? I am a very good tiefling, thank you.

[Devils_Advocate]

That's not the point.

To clarify, "That's not the point" effectively means the same thing as "I don't care about that", right?

The idea is that there is a third, non-evil option to be taken.

Sometimes one has that luxury, but to choose that third option then isn't "not to choose at all". Isn't it not?

... The grammar may have gotten away from me with that last question.

I don't consider the trolley problem to be an example of choosing between evils though, unless you extend the hypothetical to including you having deliberately instigated it in the first place.

But both options being bad is part of what's meant by "trolley problem" in the broad sense. Are you just making a purely semantic claim about how you use the term "evil"? That's not the point.

:P

[Nifft]

But both options being bad is part of what's meant by "trolley problem" in the broad sense. Are you just making a purely semantic claim about how you use the term "evil"? That's not the point.

"Bad" and "Evil" are different things, though.

Seeing an ugly lose-lose situation in which someone is definitely going to die is bad.

Deciding to sacrifice one person and taking action which directly results in that person's death is (potentially, in some opinions) evil.

-- -- --

As an aside, I think we could formulate morality derails as a Trolley Problem.

Do you prefer to let the misleading ignorance persist, or derail the discussion (potentially causing harm to yourself) to correct the misconception?

-- -- --

Anyway, back on topic -- I use my sig to solicit feedback for homebrew.

[Knaight]

"Bad" and "Evil" are different things, though.

Seeing an ugly lose-lose situation in which someone is definitely going to die is bad.

Deciding to sacrifice one person and taking action which directly results in that person's death is (potentially, in some opinions) evil.

Let's be clear here being in an ugly lose lose situation where someone is going to die and then choosing to let five people die instead of getting involved so that one person dies instead is also, potentially, in some opinions, evil - and while it's often circumstantial the specific context of people already on the track in a trolley problem is the sort of context where that's most likely to apply.

[Nifft]

Let's be clear here being in an ugly lose lose situation where someone is going to die and then choosing to let five people die instead of getting involved so that one person dies instead is also, potentially, in some opinions, evil - and while it's often circumstantial the specific context of people already on the track in a trolley problem is the sort of context where that's most likely to apply.

That's insufficient clarity, though.

Here's what we'd need to say to be clear:

- Some people think that not taking an action means you are beyond reproach: that not taking any action means you are not responsible, and therefore inaction insulates you from any wrongdoing. This is consistent with modern legal codes. These people think that switching tracks -- even if it results in higher global utility -- would make you responsible for the death that followed, and that makes your action more evil than inaction would have been. Again, this is consistent with modern legal codes. If this thing with the trolley is supposed to be happening in real life, then the easily foreseeable legal consequences to the "player" for action vs. inaction are not negligible.

- Some people think that all of the evil belongs to the person who set up the lose-lose scenario, and no action you take can be evil because the whole situation isn't your fault. You can act to maximize global utility (by flipping the switch), or you can refuse to flip the switch. Neither is evil, because all the evil belongs to whoever tied the people to the tracks in the first place with the intent to see at least some of them die. This is internally consistent but difficult to use, because it relies on an omniscient perspective to assign guilt according to off-screen actions -- which might not be known in real life.

- Some people believe that any situation you see which has a solution you can provide is your responsibility. This means you are evil if you don't take action to help others, and it's mostly consistent with comic-book morality: Spiderman & Superman are often blamed for failing or for not acting swiftly enough.

- The most hilarious one I've seen was where the five people were all attempting suicide, and the one person was asleep due to some kind of medication interaction (I think). Not sure allowing five suicides is more evil than killing one man who wants to live.


Anyway, it's still funny how easily the trolley problem can derail.

Something something virtue signaling on the trolley tracks something something.

[Keltest]

That's insufficient clarity, though.

Here's what we'd need to say to be clear:

- Some people think that not taking an action means you are beyond reproach: that not taking any action means you are not responsible, and therefore inaction insulates you from any wrongdoing. This is consistent with modern legal codes. These people think that switching tracks -- even if it results in higher global utility -- would make you responsible for the death that followed, and that makes your action more evil than inaction would have been. Again, this is consistent with modern legal codes. If this thing with the trolley is supposed to be happening in real life, then the easily foreseeable legal consequences to the "player" for action vs. inaction are not negligible.

- Some people think that all of the evil belongs to the person who set up the lose-lose scenario, and no action you take can be evil because the whole situation isn't your fault. You can act to maximize global utility (by flipping the switch), or you can refuse to flip the switch. Neither is evil, because all the evil belongs to whoever tied the people to the tracks in the first place with the intent to see at least some of them die. This is internally consistent but difficult to use, because it relies on an omniscient perspective to assign guilt according to off-screen actions -- which might not be known in real life.

- Some people believe that any situation you see which has a solution you can provide is your responsibility. This means you are evil if you don't take action to help others, and it's mostly consistent with comic-book morality: Spiderman & Superman are often blamed for failing or for not acting swiftly enough.

- The most hilarious one I've seen was where the five people were all attempting suicide, and the one person was asleep due to some kind of medication interaction (I think). Not sure allowing five suicides is more evil than killing one man who wants to live.


Anyway, it's still funny how easily the trolley problem can derail.

Something something virtue signaling on the trolley tracks something something.

Well if the trolley tracks had some kind of signal, they wouldn't need people to pull the lever!

[Nifft]

Well if the trolley tracks had some kind of signal, they wouldn't need people to pull the lever!

Clearly the budget cuts which caused the signals to break down are the true source of evil.

The mustache-twirling fellow with the chloroform and cable-ties was just another victim.

[halfeye]

That's insufficient clarity, though.

Here's what we'd need to say to be clear:

- Some people think that not taking an action means you are beyond reproach: that not taking any action means you are not responsible, and therefore inaction insulates you from any wrongdoing. This is consistent with modern legal codes. These people think that switching tracks -- even if it results in higher global utility -- would make you responsible for the death that followed, and that makes your action more evil than inaction would have been. Again, this is consistent with modern legal codes. If this thing with the trolley is supposed to be happening in real life, then the easily foreseeable legal consequences to the "player" for action vs. inaction are not negligible.

- Some people think that all of the evil belongs to the person who set up the lose-lose scenario, and no action you take can be evil because the whole situation isn't your fault. You can act to maximize global utility (by flipping the switch), or you can refuse to flip the switch. Neither is evil, because all the evil belongs to whoever tied the people to the tracks in the first place with the intent to see at least some of them die. This is internally consistent but difficult to use, because it relies on an omniscient perspective to assign guilt according to off-screen actions -- which might not be known in real life.

- Some people believe that any situation you see which has a solution you can provide is your responsibility. This means you are evil if you don't take action to help others, and it's mostly consistent with comic-book morality: Spiderman & Superman are often blamed for failing or for not acting swiftly enough.

- The most hilarious one I've seen was where the five people were all attempting suicide, and the one person was asleep due to some kind of medication interaction (I think). Not sure allowing five suicides is more evil than killing one man who wants to live.


Anyway, it's still funny how easily the trolley problem can derail.

Something something virtue signaling on the trolley tracks something something.

Yeah, there are legal complications if it was happening for real.

There was a law somewhere in the USA for some time, I think it got changed again, about witness responsibility. What happened was that a woman was murdered, and a lot of people heard it happening, but no-one called the police. So there was a law made that made not calling the police to report a murder in progress an offence, which turned out to be a not very helpful law.

[veti]

There are such things as "good samaritan" laws, which protect you from legal liability if you act to help others. There is also a concept of "duty to rescue", although that's usually restricted to special circumstances. Of course all varies by jurisdiction.

[CheesePirate]

So what do you think? What is best use for Signatures?

I use mine to shamelessly advertise my Yule calendar comic threads.

I did have a quote there before, but recently ran out of characters and had to remove it. I thought about making an extended signature so I could add the quote again, but...do people usually take the time to look at those?

[JMS]

I thought about making an extended signature so I could add the quote again, but...do people usually take the time to look at those?

Well, I like to use others sigs to view parts of the forum from before I joined

[2D8HP]

Well, I like to use others sigs to view parts of the forum from before I joined

I followed a sig to a thread to another thread and then from sigs to threads from 2016 back to 2005!

Made me appreciate this Forum even more!

[Rockphed]

The mustache-twirling fellow with the chloroform and cable-ties was just another victim.

I am fairly certain that that is somebody else's argument. It comes up a lot in the OotS comic discussions threads. I think the recent threads have been about 50% either discussion of that argument, or complaining about the prevalence of discussion of that argument, or snide remarks about how that argument, if applied globally, just leads to chaos and despair.

My signature holds quotes and such that I found amusing when I inserted them. Some of them I don't remember why I found them amusing. At one point my sig was an advertisement for the Nacho Army, who were going to conquer the board and lead everyone to a cheese and corn chip utopia. I think they were opposed by cookie legions, but it was a while ago. After we had started making moves on the Random Banter thread, the mods told us to cut it out, so we did.

[Albion]

My signature is to warn humans of the perils of alcohol.

[Meaphe]

I often see sigs and know who it is, generally a single quote or link is all you really need, anything more throw it in a spoiler

[Eldest]

Letting somebody queer know they aren't alone.

[ForzaFiori]

[posting so I can see my sig, I can't remember what's in it]

Alright, so I have cut my sig down (I used to have a quote and shout-outs to games I was in). Right now my sig is just the credit for my avatar and a shoutout to my alma mater's football team (and other sports I guess, but Clemson is only really good at football). Before, as I said above, I had a quote that I thought was funny and links to the games I was in, but all those games are long dead. I honestly don't remember why I got rid of the quote.

[Devils_Advocate]

"Bad" and "Evil" are different things, though.

Do you mean to assert that "evil" is never a synonym for "bad", even in a context in which it is plainly intended as just such a synonym? More broadly speaking, do you believe that a word's meaning can be independent of things like context and usage? What even is meaning, in that case?

But let's temporarily put all of that aside and suppose that you're correct, just for the sake of argument. Under the assumption that evil and bad are indeed different things, then I expect that in some cases the least bad option is not the least evil option, and vice versa. And as such, in some cases, the more evil of two options is better, i.e. more good, i.e. less bad.

So, if anything, your assertion seems to me to effectively recommend focusing on good and bad over all of this confusing moral stuff, since while the more moral option might be better, it also might not be. So why risk it?