It's true, there's equal objective "support" for normative ethics claims across the board. So you can prove Nazi fascism is "correct" using the same process that you would to prove altruistic liberalism.

Given that existential nihilism concludes with "it's up to you to choose what is right" my question to you is:

Why would you actively choose a position that would be considered anti-social instead of a position that would be considered pro-social if they have the same objective grounding?

Not everyone is social. Some people want to build what they want even if that means a group of people will be excluded.

This is simply saying that you do not have, and do not desire to acquire, the emotional capacity to be satisfied with the social trade offs of voluntary subordination of a portion of your own personal desires to benefit the desires of others who may also want to commune with you.

So if your proof claim is simply “I don’t want to” then it’s entirely ignoring the question with the idea that it’s not your choice anyway - you’re just born that way - which is not a relativistic statement.

In fact it’s a biological determinism argument and if you would like to go down that hole I think it would yield that your claimed antisocial “preference” is extremely rare historically - to the extent where as an outlier it’s questionable if it is an evolutionary fitness trait or if it’s ultimately supporting a genetic brick wall.

> Why would you actively choose a position that would be considered anti-social instead of a position that would be considered pro-social if they have the same objective grounding?

This simplifies away some crucial details about the actual situation.

For example, I have limited time and opportunities. Spending 200 hours making a piece of software more handicap-friendly may mean 200 hours less of being a good parent to my kids. Or working at a homeless shelter.

We can probably agree that all 3 activities are "pro social" in some manner. But I can't tackle all of them. Part of growing up is accepting that you can't do everything.

I'm open to changing my priorities, but not without good justification.

Well I was actually responding to your assertion that (paraphrasing) you haven’t been convinced that you have an social obligation

That’s what I’m saying, if you can choose your philosophy, why choose one that is antisocial.

He’s saying it’s not antisocial because he’s a better judge on how he wishes to expend himself for society.

When in doubt: choose your kids. Hours in deficit only compound when stability and familial love is concerned.

> Why would you actively choose a position that would be considered anti-social[…]

Isn’t anti-social a very loose and subjective term? Using your own example, wouldn’t it be considered anti-social in Nazi Germany to oppose mainstream culture like military parades, Hitler-Jugend etc?

To be clear when I say “antisocial” Vs “prosocial” it is in the specific context of psycho-social evaluation where:

Prosocial: “benefit other people or society as a whole”

Antisocial: “considered to be disruptive to others in society”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosocial_behavior

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour

I think this is a false dichotomy.

It would be pro-social if I donated my wealth to charity, killed myself, and donated my organs... But I don't want to do that.

Does that make me antisocial? Is there no middle ground?

It’s more like, is each action you take as you go through life more antisocial or more prosocial?

I’m sure even Richard Kuklinski held a door open for someone, at some point

>Why would you actively choose a position that would be considered anti-social instead of a position that would be considered pro-social if they have the same objective grounding?

Because one positions imposes significant costs and restrictions, leaving your life significantly worse off.

Paying taxes to support the welfare of others is pro-social, but it means that I am laboring twice as much, instead of relaxing with my friends an family. It means that I am paying for the children of others using resources I would rather devote to my children. Why should I sacrifice my wellbeing for someone I don't know, and might not even like if I met them.

Many behaviors that fall under the Pro-social labor hurt the individual and benefit others.

If they are actually beneficial to the individual, they wouldn't need to be compulsory or the pro-social rhetoric.

The pettiest example of this is red-green colorblindness (the overwhelmingly most common kind of colorblindness).

Many interfaces, such as git's, use red and green despite the common (?) knowledge that red and blue are the preferred combination for accessibility.

I think most people prefer red and green, though.

So there's incompatible concerns to cater to: do you demoralize most people by switching to blue or do you demoralize the colorblind minority by keeping green? :D

(In the limit, you're going to inevitably hit some bedrock of elitism beyond which it's irrational to dig. Your interface will probably not be usable by dogs, for example.)

>So there's incompatible concerns to cater to: do you demoralize most people by switching to blue or do you demoralize the colorblind minority by keeping green? :D

I'm not sure what to say here to be honest because you're comparing these two things as equal with "demoralized" being the only downside somehow so lets see what the implications to the people are of such a system, using your own example:

- A disabled person not being able to functionally use a system that is often required for their work

- A non-disabled person being able to functionally use a system that is often required for their work, but the text is a less preferable color

In the first case it will take someone with an involuntary disability longer, with more difficulty, to perform the same task (comprehension) as someone without the involuntary disability

I'm not sure how you could possibly equivocate these - and then further double down on lack of empathy by suggesting that making a website easier to use for risks a slippery slope of irrational accessibility requirements

Unreal that this has to be spelled out

Just add a toggle for a colorblind mode

Coming at this from a gamedev perspective - imo, if you can, the best solution is to never use colour alone to convey information. For example, you can have a blue and a red thing, but the blue one also has spots. Or it's a dark blue, and the red is light. Or the blue thing is a diamond and red thing is a circle, etc etc. This has the added benefit that it helps everyone, not just the colourblind.

I assume you mean github, rather than git? It's not reliant on the colors. The "Code" and "New Pull Request" buttons are green, but they also have text on them. Various icons also have assistive text.

There are quite a few variations of color blindness, so ultimately you want color to just be a hint. Handling the most common case is a partial fix.

I think they’re talking about the coloring in `git diff`, `git log --patch`, etc, which defaults to red/green for removed/added lines, respectively. (This can be changed with the `color.diff.*` config options, as seen in git-config(1).) This UI also provides an alternative indication, in the form of -/+ indicators in the left column, but the coloring does help a lot—presuming that you can see it.

Ahh, I guess I've run without color in the terminal so long that I didn't realize it had color.