<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: No Right but the Alt-Right	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://didacticmind.com/2017/06/no-right-but-alt-right.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://didacticmind.com/2017/06/no-right-but-alt-right.html</link>
	<description>Strategic Defence of the Mantle of Responsibility</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2020 20:31:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: LastRedoubt		</title>
		<link>https://didacticmind.com/2017/06/no-right-but-alt-right.html#comment-2634</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LastRedoubt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 22:08:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-2634</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://didacticmind.com/2017/06/no-right-but-alt-right.html#comment-2632&quot;&gt;LastRedoubt&lt;/a&gt;.

Yeah, and thanks. And that is why we are.

Too bad so many &#034;biblically aware&#034; types insist that the golden rule is the &#034;nice&#034; strategy without realizing the deeper implications in conjunction with jesus other parables, or what allowing people to abuse you says.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://didacticmind.com/2017/06/no-right-but-alt-right.html#comment-2632">LastRedoubt</a>.</p>
<p>Yeah, and thanks. And that is why we are.</p>
<p>Too bad so many &quot;biblically aware&quot; types insist that the golden rule is the &quot;nice&quot; strategy without realizing the deeper implications in conjunction with jesus other parables, or what allowing people to abuse you says.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Didact		</title>
		<link>https://didacticmind.com/2017/06/no-right-but-alt-right.html#comment-2633</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Didact]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 17:48:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-2633</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://didacticmind.com/2017/06/no-right-but-alt-right.html#comment-2632&quot;&gt;LastRedoubt&lt;/a&gt;.

Yep. I read it- good post, by the way.

With respect to your point about game theory, what you referred to is the &#034;one-shot&#034; Prisoner&#039;s Dilemma, in which of course it is possible to &#034;turn the other cheek&#034;, once.

But doing it over and over is, as you say, simply stupid. Neither the Old Testament nor the New commands this.

The iterated Prisoner&#039;s Dilemma is an interesting exercise in mathematical Game Theory when studying games of imperfect information. In such cases, &#034;turning the other cheek&#034; repeatedly is punished, over and over and over again, by the incentive structures of the game.

The solution to deviant behaviours in such games is to resort to what are known as &#034;grim trigger strategies&#034;,  whereby being betrayed by the other party from the &#034;optimal&#034; outcome results in swift, severe, and repeated reprisals, which in terms of incentives impose such a high cost on deviating from optimal behaviour as to force a rational actor to take the cooperative path.

That is what the Alt-Right is doing. And that is why we&#039;re winning.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://didacticmind.com/2017/06/no-right-but-alt-right.html#comment-2632">LastRedoubt</a>.</p>
<p>Yep. I read it- good post, by the way.</p>
<p>With respect to your point about game theory, what you referred to is the &quot;one-shot&quot; Prisoner&#39;s Dilemma, in which of course it is possible to &quot;turn the other cheek&quot;, once.</p>
<p>But doing it over and over is, as you say, simply stupid. Neither the Old Testament nor the New commands this.</p>
<p>The iterated Prisoner&#39;s Dilemma is an interesting exercise in mathematical Game Theory when studying games of imperfect information. In such cases, &quot;turning the other cheek&quot; repeatedly is punished, over and over and over again, by the incentive structures of the game.</p>
<p>The solution to deviant behaviours in such games is to resort to what are known as &quot;grim trigger strategies&quot;,  whereby being betrayed by the other party from the &quot;optimal&quot; outcome results in swift, severe, and repeated reprisals, which in terms of incentives impose such a high cost on deviating from optimal behaviour as to force a rational actor to take the cooperative path.</p>
<p>That is what the Alt-Right is doing. And that is why we&#39;re winning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: LastRedoubt		</title>
		<link>https://didacticmind.com/2017/06/no-right-but-alt-right.html#comment-2632</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LastRedoubt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 17:16:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-2632</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As I said in my post recently on the golden rule: 

&lt;b&gt;A bully advertises they&#039;re willing to use force to get what they want. They&#039;re not likely to stop just because someone asks nicely. Is it any more moral to proclaim through your actions and choices that you&#039;re willing to be beaten and be stolen from because you won&#039;t hurt those who clearly are fine with doing you harm?

Are you willing to demonstrate that you accept the strong and abusive taking advantage of those they deem weaker?&lt;/b&gt;

Yeah, you can claim the &#034;high ground&#034; - and per game theory and the iterated prisoner&#039;s dilemma, you may do it once.

If they come back to attack you again, they see you as prey, your forebearance as weakness, and you can natter on about taking the high road all you want, the practical matter is that you&#039;re choosing a course of action which allows the bully, the rapist, the thief, the tyrant, to keep on.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I said in my post recently on the golden rule: </p>
<p><b>A bully advertises they&#39;re willing to use force to get what they want. They&#39;re not likely to stop just because someone asks nicely. Is it any more moral to proclaim through your actions and choices that you&#39;re willing to be beaten and be stolen from because you won&#39;t hurt those who clearly are fine with doing you harm?</p>
<p>Are you willing to demonstrate that you accept the strong and abusive taking advantage of those they deem weaker?</b></p>
<p>Yeah, you can claim the &quot;high ground&quot; &#8211; and per game theory and the iterated prisoner&#39;s dilemma, you may do it once.</p>
<p>If they come back to attack you again, they see you as prey, your forebearance as weakness, and you can natter on about taking the high road all you want, the practical matter is that you&#39;re choosing a course of action which allows the bully, the rapist, the thief, the tyrant, to keep on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
