|
hunh?
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2023 06:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
|
i dont know what this means but here is an essay im typing out on my phone. when we take responsibility for something we often "diffuse" or "defuse" a situation, both words meaning the same thing. this is because no one really wants to blame one person when they could blame a whole amalgated universe. so we acccept that things are such as they are due to some immovable constant of infleible will shared by a grudge team called the hman race. for it doesnt make sense largely to carry a collection of tiny personal hatreds that one would just find more and more additions to. so in other words to say, hey world this was my fault and it sucked is to be absoved into an infinite paradigmy like state where one is the universe and the universe is one so no need to take anything personally. this is what "diffused responsibility" means to me
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 05:56
|
|
|
|
im willing to share the blame if you're willing to give me all the credit
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 11:38
|
|
|
Dumb Sex-Parrot posted:im willing to share the blame if you're willing to give me all the credit Who bought my boss a freakign account lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 11:58
|
|
|
|
"diffused responsibility" is a concept from a broader idea called "homeopathic accountability." this means that, instead of having full accountability for things, you can have tiny traces of accountability diluted in large amounts of neutral material, yet the material at the whole resembles and serves the function of accountability. this works extremely well for things like nuclear disasters, airline crashes, and climate change, in that one can have all the benefits of accountability while ingesting only the least tiny traces of it which have a negligible impact on one's daily life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 13:24
|
|
|
|
I learned this concept as "how many people in the firing squad before nobody's a murderer?" Because that's how the firing squad works, five of you fire but nobody can say "well obviously my bullet killed him" (actually you totally could with basic forensic science but they don't do that at firing squads because it would defeat the point of excusing the killers). So everybody rounds their responsibility down from 1/5 of a murderer to zero. But why stop at 5? If all 8 billion of us shoot someone dead can we really say it's anybody's fault? (yes, yes we can, because being 1/5 of a murderer or even 1/8billionth of a murderer is still awful and wiping your hands of it with convenient Hollywood accounting doesn't serve justice in any way and that person is still dead, also again basic forensic science can match bullets to guns the entire idea is outdated cruel and nonsensical) For a similar phenomenon check out Uncle Henry's old chestnut "plausible deniability". Not saying I didn't bomb those people but youuuuu caaaaan't prooooove iiiit! Neener neener, take that Cambodia! Oh poo poo was this supposed to be a funny thread? Uh...
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:I learned this concept as "how many people in the firing squad before nobody's a murderer?" Don't they load one of the rifles with a blank, so that the shooters don't actually know if they are the one that shot the executionee? Also, assuming the firing squad are all competent marksmen (which I hope so because otherwise your firing squad selection process is seriously flawed), all aiming for the person's heart with a rifle at 10 or 20 meters, I'm pretty sure no amount of forensics would be able to determine which bullet killed the person, because they all did (except pvt. Jimbo who for some reason was aiming at the balls?). |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Don't they load one of the rifles with a blank, so that the shooters don't actually know if they are the one that shot the executionee? Also, assuming the firing squad are all competent marksmen (which I hope so because otherwise your firing squad selection process is seriously flawed), all aiming for the person's heart with a rifle at 10 or 20 meters, I'm pretty sure no amount of forensics would be able to determine which bullet killed the person, because they all did (except pvt. Jimbo who for some reason was aiming at the balls?). I'm not an expert but I thought the way they track bullets is by firing the suspected gun again and matching marks on those bullets to the ones you're investigating. Even so maybe you're right, maybe they just all killed him except the guy firing blanks (and I think forensics could identify that one?) but my point stands, the objective of the exercise is to launder your guilt as a killer via confusion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
|
Looks like the OP has diffused his responsibility for this thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:Looks like the OP has diffused his responsibility for this thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
|
I kid, I kid. Maybe it's diffused like, a square of frost on a lightbox. Drop that responsibility down a stop would ya key-grip?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
"what's even responsibility mean?" - guy that pretends to be me and shifts blame he makes my face move and stuff sometimes it's stupid as heck
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
|
diffusing responsibility across a semi-permeable membrane to create osmotic pressure |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2023 15:36
|
|
|
We all paid our  ; we're all guilty by association.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2023 16:17
|
|
|
|
Buttchocks posted:We all paid our Edgar Allen Poe types furiously at an old TRS-80 How is a forum like a firing squad?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2023 14:06
|
|
|
refuse this pawn's ability |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
when you play chess just refuse to acknowledge they're even there |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
|
frump truck posted:when you play chess just refuse to acknowledge they're even there Opponent: Black or white? You: I'll take black. Please name your pieces. Opponent: What? You: I'll take black, please name your pieces. Opponent: Name my pieces!? You: Yes. I've named my pieces, please name yours. Opponent: I... no! You: You're not interested in a fair game? Opponent: How is it unfair if I don't name my pieces? You: I named my pieces. Opponent: So? You: So, chess is a game of strategy. You sometimes have to sacrifice pieces. Opponent: What does that have to do with naming them? You: It's harder to sacrifice a piece with a name. Opponent: ...I have been playing chess for decades and nobody has ever asked me to name my pieces. You: Well then welcome to the harder version, now please name your pieces. Opponent: You say your pieces have names, what are they? You: Jimmie, Hank, Patsy, Roy, Kitty, George, Marty, Dolly, Brenda, Johnny, Wanda, Willie, Jean, Conway, Loretta and Emmylou. Opponent: Your king and queen are Loretta and Emmylou? You: Yeah you got a problem with that? Opponent: No! I just... You: So you gonna name your pieces or do you forfeit? *Opponent stares at board, newly unsure about a game they thought they'd mastered*
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2023 14:51
|
|