Remove ads

My Random Fiction Bits and Pieces

Reader mode
Trolley trolley trolling... the best answer when someone tries to get you to answer the trolley problem (usually so they can say your decision makes you a horrible person regardless of your answer) is to pick the most horrible, death-causing answer you can find, so they'll stop asking you dumb questions.

Wait until the front wheels of the trolley have gone past the switch, and then pull it, so the back wheels go down the other track, turning the trolley sideways and sending it into a roll, crushing all people on both sides, as well as killing the people in the trolley, and probably yourself. If you can't save everyone, save NO ONE.
 
mp3.1415player said:
... , the Random Person decides fuck everyone else, I'm going to keep on working in this business I know under a false name, even though I know I'm spreading a lethal disease.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If the carrier of a deadly disease, after they were informed that they are indeed a carrier of such a disease, deliberately continues to expose other to said disease than there is no moral or legal dilemma. Locking them up for (attempted) murder or kill them in defense of self or others are both valid options then. And both have happened in real life before.
 
Last edited:
Jadesteele said:
Not the story, but the fact that with access to the chronicle, and thus knowledge of how it was GOING to go, instead of using that knowledge to prevent and fix things, Contessa chose to treat it like holy scripture, and set out to, in the words of Piccard, 'make it so.'
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The chronicle was a guaranteed way to stop Scion. They had not other plans or ideas even let alone one that's guaranteed.
 
Bobismeisbob said:
The chronicle was a guaranteed way to stop Scion. They had not other plans or ideas even let alone one that's guaranteed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Also, they actually did use it to prevent quite a lot of things, if we consider 'canon Worm actually happens without the twist' as an alternative. Behind the Scenes Worm isn't fully detailed, of course, but large parts of the whole crapsack setting are implied to be faked by Cauldron for Taylor's 'benefit' rather than being realities often abetted by Cauldron if not outright authorial diabolus ex machina. It's not strictly pinned down, because the original snippet timeskips the whole plot proper and the Emma follow-up has limited information, but they imply they're aiming to make the entire Endbringer situation fake. And the ending clearly gives away that the Slaughterhouse Nine isn't real.
 
Honestly I just want to see more of QA going all 'BE NOT AFRAID' on people who have every right to be very much afraid. Mp3 has some really fun snippets in that vein that unfortunately never get fully picked up.
 
poit123 said:
Trolley trolley trolling... the best answer when someone tries to get you to answer the trolley problem (usually so they can say your decision makes you a horrible person regardless of your answer) is to pick the most horrible, death-causing answer you can find, so they'll stop asking you dumb questions.

Wait until the front wheels of the trolley have gone past the switch, and then pull it, so the back wheels go down the other track, turning the trolley sideways and sending it into a roll, crushing all people on both sides, as well as killing the people in the trolley, and probably yourself. If you can't save everyone, save NO ONE.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Someone two pages back posted this exact strategy as a way to stop the trolley without killing anyone. I was browsing to make sure no one had posted the multi-track drifting meme yet:
Edit:spelling
 
The tracks are not made of wood or metal, and neither is the trolley. They are much more dangerous and inconvenient to manipulate, for they are made of philosophy.
 
Altyre said:
Someone two pages back posted this exact strategy as a way to stop the trolley without killing anyone.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The problem there is that it's an obstinate philosophy "problem" designed to be a no-win scenario. The asker will always insist that you can not save everyone. Which is why you react by choosing to save no-one. And if they insist you can't do that too, then you tell them "okay, I send the trolley to deal with the larger group, and kill off the smaller group myself. You said they're tied down and can't escape. Nobody gets saved."
 
They insist on it not being possible to save everyone because the examination of the relative morality of action and inaction in such a situation through a simplistic scenario is the point, and insisting on it being possible to save or kill everyone is ignoring the purpose of the problem.
 
Last edited:
No-wins are meant to teach you about WHY you make a given decision. IF it's presented properly. The Kobayashi Maru is a better no-win than the Trolley Problem is. Because quite honestly, in the KM, you can look at the Klingons (or whomever they choose for the baddie in the scenario) and decide to run, and then explain to the instructors later that it struck you as obvious that the KM was there as a lure to kill ships. They might ask you why you didn't go in anyway, and you get to explain your reasoning, such as "If I am correct, then I am likely condemning my crew to death for NO reward, because the KM is dead as well. If I am wrong, then we can at least get warning out to other ships in the area NOT to listen to that distress call." So it is no win in that you cannot save the KM, but you can 'live to fight another day'.

Perhaps it's a better written Trolley Problem. Maybe.
 
Kinsfire said:
No-wins are meant to teach you about WHY you make a given decision. IF it's presented properly. The Kobayashi Maru is a better no-win than the Trolley Problem is. Because quite honestly, in the KM, you can look at the Klingons (or whomever they choose for the baddie in the scenario) and decide to run, and then explain to the instructors later that it struck you as obvious that the KM was there as a lure to kill ships. They might ask you why you didn't go in anyway, and you get to explain your reasoning, such as "If I am correct, then I am likely condemning my crew to death for NO reward, because the KM is dead as well. If I am wrong, then we can at least get warning out to other ships in the area NOT to listen to that distress call." So it is no win in that you cannot save the KM, but you can 'live to fight another day'.

Perhaps it's a better written Trolley Problem. Maybe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't see how letting you decide what the decision is by creating an uncertain space for you to fill in with your imagination is an improvement.
 
Kinsfire said:
No-wins are meant to teach you about WHY you make a given decision. IF it's presented properly. The Kobayashi Maru is a better no-win than the Trolley Problem is. Because quite honestly, in the KM, you can look at the Klingons (or whomever they choose for the baddie in the scenario) and decide to run, and then explain to the instructors later that it struck you as obvious that the KM was there as a lure to kill ships. They might ask you why you didn't go in anyway, and you get to explain your reasoning, such as "If I am correct, then I am likely condemning my crew to death for NO reward, because the KM is dead as well. If I am wrong, then we can at least get warning out to other ships in the area NOT to listen to that distress call." So it is no win in that you cannot save the KM, but you can 'live to fight another day'.

Perhaps it's a better written Trolley Problem. Maybe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I (and Starfleet) liked Sulu's solution: hang back to observe while contacting the chain of command to get permission from the Klingon Ambassador to go in, because he refused to start an intersteller war over a ship with less the 40 people on board.

He had to deal with a mutiny on the bridge, but he did manage to avoid the ambush entirely.
 
Jacen1 said:
I (and Starfleet) liked Sulu's solution: hang back to observe while contacting the chain of command to get permission from the Klingon Ambassador to go in, because he refused to start an intersteller war over a ship with less the 40 people on board.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What about Nog's solution (aka: use his Ferengi cultural background to negotiate with the AI managing the foe to the point it crashed the program)?
 
Kinsfire said:
No-wins are meant to teach you about WHY you make a given decision. IF it's presented properly. The Kobayashi Maru is a better no-win than the Trolley Problem is. Because quite honestly, in the KM, you can look at the Klingons (or whomever they choose for the baddie in the scenario) and decide to run, and then explain to the instructors later that it struck you as obvious that the KM was there as a lure to kill ships. They might ask you why you didn't go in anyway, and you get to explain your reasoning, such as "If I am correct, then I am likely condemning my crew to death for NO reward, because the KM is dead as well. If I am wrong, then we can at least get warning out to other ships in the area NOT to listen to that distress call." So it is no win in that you cannot save the KM, but you can 'live to fight another day'.

Perhaps it's a better written Trolley Problem. Maybe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No-win scenarios are about one of two things - making the point that you can do everything right and still loose, and/or an examination of the reasoning behind the decision(s) made. When done properly in training/ educational settings.

The Kobayashi Maru is definitely both*, the Trolley Dilemma is a bit of both, but more the latter than the former (it appears to presume the former has already been accepted).
The Trolley Dilemma is about saying, I choose to knowingly let one person die/sacrifice one person to save a group of people, or I choose to take no action, knowingly letting a group of people die because acting to save them would cause the death of another. Then why you made the decision you did - ranging from "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in this case", all the way to "I don't have the right to decide who lives or dies".

*what you do and why matters a lot in the Kobayashi Maru scenario evaluations.
 
This is not the place to discuss the Trolley Problem
  • Staff Post
    • back on topic please
    This thread is a place to present and discuss the snippets and works contained within. It is not a place to discuss abstract questions of philosophy (or bits of Star Trek lore that are tangentially related to them). Feel free to take these discussions to appropriate threads, or start new ones about these subjects, but this isn't the place for them.
     
  • Staff Post
    • To totally not change the subject, I would love to see this Taylor, after a nice vacation in the Bahamas and all the therapy, get caught up in an Isekai summoning. Just the reaction to all of the people to summon this ordinary looking girl only for the scintillating unknowable horror to pop into existence and be all 'THIS GIRL IS MY FRIEND, IF YOU HURT HER YOU WILL BE INSIDE OUT FOR ALL ETERNITY. TAYLOR, HAVE FUN ON YOUR MAGICAL ADVENTURE AND LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED ANYTHING.'
     
    Overfic23 said:
    To totally not change the subject, I would love to see this Taylor, after a nice vacation in the Bahamas and all the therapy, get caught up in an Isekai summoning. Just the reaction to all of the people to summon this ordinary looking girl only for the scintillating unknowable horror to pop into existence and be all 'THIS GIRL IS MY FRIEND, IF YOU HURT HER YOU WILL BE INSIDE OUT FOR ALL ETERNITY. TAYLOR, HAVE FUN ON YOUR MAGICAL ADVENTURE AND LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED ANYTHING.'
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    After reading your post, for some reason I remembered - "
    just whistle

    View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUJo1GIzNRM

    And then he imagined a fanfic in which Taylor has cartoon powers like Jerry.
     
    ExaltedNekoKun said:
    (Truman Burbank played by Jim Carey, The Truman Show - 1998)
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I have never and will never watch this movie, no matter how much some people talk about how amazing it is. This is because even just the trailer/basic explanation of the premise makes my skin crawl and is a pretty good approximation of one of my own personal ideas of HELL ITSELF.

    There ain't nearly enough NOPE! in all the worlds to express how much NOPE! I have for this idea. Nope! to the power of NOPE!

    BethofDeath said:
    Yes, I may have thought too much into the movie's plot at one point. Don't worry, I give zero care about that antivaxxer's movies anymore. :)
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Damn, that is really disappointing to hear about Carrey.

    But then, ain't that so much of Hollywood all over? :(
     
    JayDzed said:
    But then, ain't that so much of Hollywood all over? :(
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    The only other antivaxxer there I can think of off the top of my head is Gwyneth Paltrow, but yeah, sometimes it feels like a quarter of the stars have something badly wrong with them. Antivaxxer BS, Scientology, or even that one asshole who won't date anyone over 25, even tho he's like 55 or something now. Or just, y'know, the psychological scars of growing up as a child star, for those who did, which isn't their fault.

    Something's in the water over there. At least it's not so much cocaine anymore?
     
    Jim Carrey, an anti-vaxxer?! Odd to hear that given he's Canadian, but that's me.
     
    BethofDeath said:
    that one asshole who won't date anyone over 25, even tho he's like 55 or something now
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Sorry, you'll have to be more specific. Both Leo DiCaprio and Jerry Seinfeld immediately leap to mind as fitting that description, and I'm sure there's multiple others out there as well. Though admittedly only one of those has much of a career or IMO shown any evidence of possessing actual talent.[/catty]

    BethofDeath said:
    At least it's not so much cocaine anymore?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    That we hear of, at least. :cool::facepalm:
     
    Not only is Jim Carrey an anti-vaxer, he is also an ADD-denier. Didn't know about the creepy dating thing, though. I mean for me Jim Carrey is that guy with ADD who denies it exists and has done a lot of damage for people with it.

    EDIT: I mean at this point -- in the 90's he was that weird american comedian whose jokes mostly didn't register.
     
    Last edited:
    The more I learn about most celebrities, the less I like them. I know that when people get involved in listening to echo chambers they can be convinced of really dumb things (see racism, etc) but isn't there a limit to the stupidity? How are there still people convinced that vaccines cause autism?

    Of course, at the rate things seem to be going, we might as well "diagnose" almost everyone on the planet with being on the autism spectrum. That and ADHD are the two most over-diagnosed (and IMO it's often erroneously) at the elementary school I work at. There's a mom who has self-diagnosed her five kids as autistic and insists that they should be able to wander the building at will in the name of not causing them mental distress. I actually had a kid try to tell me he deserves privileges because he is "neurodivergent". That's NOT a diagnosis! The purpose of having a diagnosis is SUPPOSED to be to help find a way to overcome a difficulty but for so many it seems to be a way to get special treatment. Not all, don't think I'm trying to minimize the actual problems people have, but the ones that are trying to take advantage of things are driving me nuts. I apologize for the rambling but it has been bothering me (and being sick hasn't helped).
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top