Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q618-ElijahsBigFrontierDecision: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

Revision as of 22:15, 13 May 2026

Main entries

colonial trolley problem (United States) -> the concept of taking "systems" that anarchists and postcolonial theorists are convinced were only due to a few people making evil decisions and will surely be stopped through Popular Mentality and Education, and reducing those situations down to a scenario of a few people in daily life where the anarchist has a horrifying decision to make.

Elijah, the most important settler

How can Elijah stop colonialism? / Elijah was born on the early United States frontier, and has somehow realized that what the United States is doing is morally wrong. How can Elijah, or whatever group of people he can realistically manage to assemble as his allies, stop colonialism? -> the general case, probably a separate Item from the specific 'trolley problem'.
Should Elijah kill to save the Indians? / Is it okay for Elijah to kill to save the Indians? / There is a camp of American Indians. Elijah is a member of a frontier town. His neighbors are about to go to war with the indigenous people to claim a coal mine. If Elijah kills his neighbors, he can prevent colonialism. (here referring to the personal prejudice that causes individuals to actively subjugate other ethnic groups.) The neighbors are not interested in becoming less racist. Is he ever justified to kill them? [1] ->
to be clear: I think this is a good example of why trolley problems are stupid. I think this is a nice way to challenge the entire concept of trolley problems. trolley problems (and traditional ethics) assume that moral conundrums can actually be solved by single individuals making rational or emotional decisions, when often moral problems arise from complex interactions of two or more separate things behaving at the same time.
Should Elijah kill to save the Indians? -> I guess I did not think too hard about this question when I put it in. the better approach to this question would be to first acknowledge that Elijah can join up with an entire tribe and fight the frontier war with the other army or do whatever action they're going to do that way. that's possible. I wanted to bring out the most shocking aspects of the question but I wasn't meaning to limit the full scope of answers to it.
European land enclosure is similar to frontier wars that took over the home regions of tribal populations because they both involved taking land; this is to imply that both events were equally unnatural because nobility dividing up Europe or early American colonists (U.S., South America) making the move to fight tribal populations was a conscious decision to take a particular path -> this is such a common recurring theme in anarchism and it's wrong every time. the United States has 'democratic control' of the president specifically, but none of the people of the United States have or have ever had democratic control over millions of other people. if 50 people are moving West and claiming homesteads and Elijah is the only one that cares about the impact of the process, Elijah is going to have to fight those 50 other people, maybe with a gun. they don't answer to Elijah. they answer to town sherriffs or whoever is applicable in this situation, and to their own friends and family. because they didn't "consciously decide" not to believe what Elijah believes; they don't know he exists. so for those other people to become accountable to Elijah specifically he has to enforce his will onto them.

Calling something "culture" stops it / Putting "culture" after a bad phenomenon will make it stop (cancel culture; woke culture; purity culture; hustle culture) / (9k)
Random individual Bob Stills can puppet four million people / (9k)
Can Bob Stills choose who is president?
/ Can some random individual Bobbie Stills freely choose as an individual what the result of an entire election will be? / Bob Stills, the United States' most important voter / Bob Stills fallacy / Bobbie Stills fallacy / (9k)
Ethics is an egoistic discipline — although society is a social phenomenon which is almost strictly composed of many people interacting at once, ethics proposes that the future of society on each day lies in the behavior of just one person at a time isolated from everyone else, when really it is impossible to understand society tomorrow without understanding human behavior itself as happening almost strictly through multiple people colliding who do not know each other's choices in advance and cannot decide in advance what each other's choices will be ->
to be fair this is a very challenging thing to correct for, but with a very in-depth analysis of metallic rules, and situations like Stalin versus Trotsky viewed as an ethical problem of political oppression through suppression of movements or imperialist oppression, I think it's not that hard to bring it to a point where a lot of people could understand it.

Ideologies or fields

HAS / ethics
A / anarchism
MX / existential materialism
MX onto A

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 </li></ol>
-== Cases ==
+== Elijah, the most important settler ==
 <ol class="hue clean">
-{{li|start=y|I=M3/MX|tradition=MX onto A, MX onto ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Should Elijah kill to save the Indians? / Is it okay for Elijah to kill to save the Indians? / There is a camp of American Indians. Elijah is a member of a frontier town. His neighbors are about to go to war with the indigenous people to claim a coal mine. If Elijah kills his neighbors, he can prevent colonialism. (here referring to the personal prejudice that causes individuals to actively subjugate other ethnic groups.) The neighbors are not interested in becoming less racist. Is he ever justified to kill them? [https://www.galbithink.org/names/us200.htm]  -><br />
+{{li|start=y|I=M3/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}How can Elijah stop colonialism? / Elijah was born on the early United States frontier, and has somehow realized that what the United States is doing is morally wrong. How can Elijah, or whatever group of people he can realistically manage to assemble as his allies, stop colonialism?  ->  the general case, probably a separate Item from the specific 'trolley problem'.
+{{li|I=M3/MX|tradition=MX onto A, MX onto ES|Q=618|Q2=618}}Should Elijah kill to save the Indians? / Is it okay for Elijah to kill to save the Indians? / There is a camp of American Indians. Elijah is a member of a frontier town. His neighbors are about to go to war with the indigenous people to claim a coal mine. If Elijah kills his neighbors, he can prevent colonialism. (here referring to the personal prejudice that causes individuals to actively subjugate other ethnic groups.) The neighbors are not interested in becoming less racist. Is he ever justified to kill them? [https://www.galbithink.org/names/us200.htm]  -><br />
 to be clear: I think this is a good example of why trolley problems are stupid. I think this is a nice way to challenge the entire concept of trolley problems. trolley problems (and traditional ethics) assume that moral conundrums can actually be solved by single individuals making rational or emotional decisions, when often moral problems arise from complex interactions of two or more separate things behaving at the same time.
 {{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}Should Elijah kill to save the Indians?  ->  I guess I did not think too hard about this question when I put it in. the better approach to this question would be to first acknowledge that Elijah {{em|can}} join up with an entire tribe and fight the frontier war with the other army or do whatever action they're going to do that way. that's {{em|possible}}. I wanted to bring out the most shocking aspects of the question but I wasn't meaning to limit the full scope of answers to it.
-{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}How can Elijah stop colonialism?  ->  the general case, probably a separate Item from the specific 'trolley problem'.
+{{li|I=S2/A|Q=618}}European land enclosure is similar to frontier wars that took over the home regions of tribal populations because they both involved taking land; this is to imply that both events were equally unnatural because nobility dividing up Europe or early American colonists (U.S., South America) making the move to fight tribal populations was a conscious decision to take a particular path   ->  this is such a common recurring theme in anarchism and it's wrong every time. the United States has 'democratic control' of the president specifically, but none of the people of the United States have or have ever had democratic control over millions of other people. if 50 people are moving West and claiming homesteads and Elijah is the only one that cares about the impact of the process, Elijah is going to have to fight those 50 other people, maybe with a gun. they don't answer to Elijah. they answer to town sherriffs or whoever is applicable in this situation, and to their own friends and family. because they didn't "consciously decide" not to believe {{em|what Elijah believes}}; they don't know he exists. so for those other people to become accountable to Elijah specifically he has to enforce his will onto them.
+</li></ol>
+== Related ==
+<ol class="hue clean terse">
+{{li|I=S2/ES|tradition=ES, PT, W|Q=54,46|Q2=5446}}Calling something "culture" stops it / Putting "culture" after a bad phenomenon will make it stop (cancel culture; woke culture; purity culture; hustle culture) / ({{9k|RD/Q54,53}})
+{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=54,45|Q2=5445}}Random individual Bob Stills can puppet four million people / ({{9k|RD/Q54,53}})
+{{li|I=M3/MX|Q=54,49|Q2=5449| h4 = Can Bob Stills choose who is president? }} / Can some random individual Bobbie Stills freely choose as an individual what the result of an entire election will be? / Bob Stills, the United States' most important voter / Bob Stills fallacy / Bobbie Stills fallacy / ({{9k|RD/Q54,53}})
+{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618}}Ethics is an egoistic discipline — although society is a social phenomenon which is almost strictly composed of many people interacting at once, ethics proposes that the future of society on each day lies in the behavior of just one person at a time isolated from everyone else, when really it is impossible to understand society tomorrow without understanding human behavior itself as happening almost strictly through multiple people colliding who do not know each other's choices in advance and cannot decide in advance what each other's choices will be  -><br/>
+to be fair this is a very challenging thing to correct for, but with a very in-depth analysis of metallic rules, and situations like Stalin versus Trotsky viewed as an ethical problem of political oppression through suppression of movements or imperialist oppression, I think it's not that hard to bring it to a point where a lot of people could understand it.
 </li></ol>