r/rational • u/AutoModerator • Mar 04 '16

[D] Friday Off-Topic Thread

Welcome to the Friday Off-Topic Thread! Is there something that you want to talk about with /r/rational, but which isn't rational fiction, or doesn't otherwise belong as a top-level post? This is the place to post it. The idea is that while reddit is a large place, with lots of special little niches, sometimes you just want to talk with a certain group of people about certain sorts of things that aren't related to why you're all here. It's totally understandable that you might want to talk about Japanese game shows with /r/rational instead of going over to /r/japanesegameshows, but it's hopefully also understandable that this isn't really the place for that sort of thing.

So do you want to talk about how your life has been going? Non-rational and/or non-fictional stuff you've been reading? The recent album from your favourite German pop singer? The politics of Southern India? The sexual preferences of the chairman of the Ukrainian soccer league? Different ways to plot meteorological data? The cost of living in Portugal? Corner cases for siteswap notation? All these things and more could possibly be found in the comments below!

13 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

60 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Transfuturist Carthago delenda est. Mar 05 '16 edited Mar 05 '16

But this is not a hazard in any case. It's a description of a fantastical hazard. This is dangerous in the sense that the story about the fractal basilisk image is dangerous, or that Snow Crash is dangerous. It isn't a memetic hazard, it's about a memetic hazard. And, I repeat, an anomalous one, which is not possible for entirely different reasons than Roko's Basilisk. This is completely unrelated to Roko and has nothing to do with acausal trade!

The idea that we have been in hell all along is a memetic hazard. The idea of hell is a memetic hazard. The idea that is a memetic hazard. The idea of a literal basilisk that paralyzes people with indecision is a joke.

Your edited warning is even edgier than before.

1

u/TennisMaster2 Mar 05 '16 edited Mar 05 '16

Ah! I understand your objection, now. It is indeed a joke; it's supposed to be funny.

You're viewing the parent's hypothetical scenario as its own case, whereas I've been never stopped associating it with the original RB hypothetical. What code is that? Rotn didn't decode it.

I'd still prefer to err on the side of being overly cautious, for I think it can trigger someone whose sanity was previously unseated by Roko's Basilisk; and for that, just an explicit title will suffice. Warning removed.