Anger is predicated on the desire to hurt someone.
Anger is predicated on unmet expectations. That’s why you can be angry at things and concepts.
The desire to hurt someone as a terminal value is pure evil.
No, acts can be evil. Thoughts are just thoughts.
I think about hurting people all the time. Do those thoughts make me evil, or does my choice not to act on them make me good? How about neither? Most of your thoughts and emotions are little more than weather in your mind. One day the weather will be better, the next worse, but every day there’ll be weather.
Furthermore, self defence is valid. Anger can be part of that.
How often a particular person gets angry at me has little to do with me and everything to do with that person.
An interaction is exactly that. You could certainly be a piece of set dressing in that person’s life, but IME people do things they’re blind to constantly. No, you’re not responsible for other people’s emotions, but you are responsible for your own situational awareness.
I think angry people do the same thing. They feel anger before identifying a target.
Not all anger is equivalent.
I can have anger as a product of perceived injustice. This is the anger I use to get just outcomes. This is my vocational/utility anger. This happens as a product of external events interacting with my values.
Then there’s my insanity anger. This is anger that just happens as a by-product of my illness. It is affect anger. I don’t have a choice about feeling this anger, and it fits the case you’re raising here.
The question I ask of all emotion is whether it is contextually appropriate. If you are angry and it makes sense for you to be angry given the situation you’re in then everything is working as it should be. If you’re angry no matter what’s going on then that is disease.
The most undeserving victims of anger are the victims of genocides and such.
The problem with a genocide is that it is a one size fits all solution for a far more specific problem. No genocide ever happens without friction.
If you don’t want people to kill you then that’s ultimately about fitting in where the territory is limited. Genocides are always about us and them and never about just us. So many people don’t get that the goal has to be to become us rather than the tolerated them.
Anger is incompatible with happiness. If you are frequently angry then you are frequently unhappy.
Without anger or depression I slow to a standstill. When I’m appropriately drugged I simply stop wanting or not wanting anything, or doing anything but the bare minimum. When I’m drugged, I don’t care anymore. No investment, no anger (or much of anything else). It’s like I go into power saving mode. At least when I’m angry I have a direction.
People take their normal psychology completely for granted.
Pulling up anger by the roots makes you a gentler, happier person.
Have you ever noticed that there’s never any pop culture advice for people that are the problem that everyone’s trying to avoid? It’s quite irritating. You’d think someone would have written a book on it, but I’ve never seen one.
I suppose the question I would ask you is why don’t you grind to a halt in the absence of anger as I do? Where is this happiness coming from?
Here’s my bit of magical thinking:
My paternal grandmother received an heirloom (a dirk) from her fiancé for safekeeping who then died in WWI. She did not return the heirloom to his family despite the marriage not proceeding, and it being subject to male primogeniture. To this day it has brought nothing but discord to his side of the family as they have pointlessly fought over possession of it (as a of token of symbolic authority).
The object brings ruin to those that covet it. It is cursed.
To me, this is a physical manifestation of the costs of moral wrongs (specifically in the historical context of this type of dirk, as an act of oath breaking). If you choose to do wrong then ruin will come to you (justly, I might add). They all know this thing is stolen, and whilst it doesn’t belong in the family it has even been ‘stolen’ within the family itself. They all still want it.
I don’t believe the dirk to be sentient per se, but I do believe it has an intent and the ability to influence indirectly. It gets in people’s minds. It don’t know if it cares about going back home or not, but it clearly wants to let people suffer the results of their own wickedness. I don’t think it is an accident that this object is literally a weapon either. It is doing exactly what it is supposed to do under the circumstances.
If I had it I’d either return it to its rightful owners, or failing that I would destroy it to put an end to the situation. Given this is a multigenerational curse I think that barring absolute disaster resulting from pissing the dirk off by ‘killing’ it the individual costs of getting rid of it for the benefit of future generations are justified.
On the other hand, there are a lot of crazy people out there and I don’t really want to wade through dumb stuff by flat-earth types.
Well, I might be disqualifying myself by virtue of being mentally ill here, but if you want to avoid crazy but still go to the territory of doubted beliefs with possible merit then I suggest looking at those who are hated.
Being hated doesn’t make you right, but it does make you interesting. The more intense the emotionality of the hatred the more interesting the subject will be. When someone’s wrong you just do what you did with the flat earthers: you say “you’re nuts” and let it go, but when someone has a kernel of truth that you don’t want to accept, that’s when the real venom comes out (and the most potent poison is reserved for apostates. The people who had faith and renounced it possess the most dangerous thing of all: the ability to sow doubt).
As a corollary to that, consider the case of indifference where there should be outrage. Where people talk a big game and then show their true feelings in (in)action. There are no shortage of obvious and intolerable wrongs that nobody gives a shit about in the world. Again, this is a signal of interesting territory.
If you (as a individual politician, or the state as an entity) never have to be responsible for paying back a loan then it is effectively free money.
The best space in the centre is the space for indifference to the cold war.
If you choose to engage then you’re going to be picking sides whether you like it or not, simply because you’ll either be attacked by the other, or you’ll be expected to take part in those attacks. Neutrality isn’t respected.
The extremes of left and right are for likeminded extremists too, not just those fleeing the other.
Government is just another institution that has burned all its credibility. It wasn’t ever great, but now that it is so trivial to exploit that it is worse than useless, being an instrument of power for those least bothered by wielding it.
With the Woody Allen case it’s a lot of “Believe X.” So long as X is describing a human(s), there’s a prior that one kind of human is inherently infallible (or at least substantially more credible).
People do have degrees of credibility.
Isn’t that the core of the entire genre of entertainment at question here: figuring out who’s credible? It’s not really about Allen potentially diddling his kids, it’s about you figuring out (or having a sense thereof, anyway) whether he did or not. Which monkey is the lying monkey?
I think that this particular circumstance could boil down to recognising porn for your evolutionary social hierarchy responses and then deciding whether to consume that porn or not on the basis it is porn. I’m not against porn per se, but it is what it is, and I think if you are stuffing your head with copious amounts of it then that’s an indication that you might have a problem.
In both situations I am more just fantasizing about a single word or term people could use
The obvious problem is that what you are trying to communicate is such a complex compound statement. If I had to pick a single word for that it would be unconvinced.
Everyone shows their passports, and life can resume.
Life can resume to where you require a passport to move around the country you are a citizen of.
I wonder what the next bit of dystopian creep is going to be?
The factor for corporations in assessing care is liability. My understanding is that all the vaccine manufacturers have blanket immunity from all liability for their product here. So it’s pure profit for them.
If you are talking about temperance, abstinence, chastity etc. then what’s wrong with those kind of words here? You are treating your attention as a quantity not to be squandered on unworthy pursuits.
This is a hangover from being a monkey.
We are social primates. All that is going on here is that your brain is madly trying to figure out the social organisation of the apes on TV. This is porn for your evolutionary social imperatives.
Your brain is telling you this is important. It’s not.
Given that it is a maladaptive evolutionary response from being a primate I wouldn’t suggest a word to describe it so much as a sound. Primates have vocalisations, find one that fits.
Pragmatically, the way I deal with these situations is that I just find a precis. Wikipedia is pretty good for that. That way I can get a really quick bearing on how much I care. I cannot even begin to tell you how much popular media I’ve not consumed by this method whilst still being able to understand what people are talking about if they reference it.
The other thing I am a huge fan of is accelerated media. If I can play something twice as fast and/or skip sections then that helps to ingest faster than the default speed. I still haven’t found a solution that removes spaces between spoken words (which is a really useful demo I’ve seen once, and never again), so if anyone knows how I’d like to hear it. Recorded media lets you manipulate time, and that obviously significantly enhances your ability to allocate it.
Reputation has to be shared to have any value. When it comes to untrustworthiness, awareness is the action.
how can we give the maximum benefit of doubt to arguments from (presumably) people from the other tribe?
Treat their ideology as evolutionarily adapted for the niche they occupy. Their thoughts faced the selective pressures they did and those in their head that reflect that process.
If you can understand how they can believe what they do then at the very least you can identify the root of disagreement.
Isn’t there something to be said for recognising members of other tribes and not trying to convert or kill them?
You don’t have to be carbon copies and you don’t have to agree, you just have to figure out how to be in proximity without bloodshed.
I have accepted that irreconcilable differences exist. All that is required after that is to figure out how to share territory. Physical territory. The space to be free from the impositions of the other.
Responsibility follows a cascading hierarchy.
If Alice is my child then I am responsible for managing her allergy, and she is responsible for following my directions. I am responsible for communicating the situation to Bob’s parents, and they are responsible for what happens under their roof from that point onwards. There is always someone as a point of authority in any situation, and handoffs happen all the time as part of normal life. If Bob’s parents are untrustworthy then that means I’m going to yet another kids party and supervising. It wouldn’t be the first time.
If someone doesn’t tell you about a problem they knew about that you cannot be reasonably expected to anticipate then how can you be culpable? Mind reading doesn’t exist. Responsibility without agency cannot work. You agree to take on certain responsibilities, and that is a contract. If parties to that contract misrepresent their position and something goes wrong then they become culpable for the effects of their misrepresentation.
You don’t need to go to the third world for an allergic to everything argument. Both my siblings are seriously intolerant of multiple ingredients (and my brother is at the epi-pen stage on some stuff), and even in the first world you don’t have to list everything on the packet (for example, there are allowable quantities of insect matter in food, pus in milk, e.coli in meat, etc.). The solution to the problem here is simple: you don’t get to eat anything you haven’t vetted yourself. If you have children with the same problems they don’t get to eat anything you haven’t vetted yourself. If something is literal poison to you then you don’t eat it. Who is to be more responsible for what you put in your mouth than you?
I have a major mental illness and the responsibility is on me to manage my own condition. Not only is it impractical and inappropriate to tell everyone you’re nuts in every single interaction you have, how are they supposed to read your mind and figure out what’s a problem and what isn’t? You don’t know me, you have no idea what I think, so you tell me how you’re going to stop me from flipping out? Especially when I have severe difficulty stopping myself from flipping out on a regular basis. If I know myself and I can’t always do it then good luck if you want to try to do better than I can. Four days ago I was literally screaming at someone in the street, so have fun dealing with that level of volatile behaviour.
The world doesn’t change for you, you have to adapt to the world. If you are hoping to rely on the kindness of others then I have a rude shock for you: it doesn’t exist (or rather, it has limits that make the naïve Western idea hollow). There is no kindness for people like me. I am male and I’m mentally ill. I present with aggression. I openly discuss suicide. I have deeply transgressive and anti-social ideology that I openly discuss. I occupy one of the lowest strata in society. I am one bad experience away from situations that ruin and end lives. I am here to tell you that when nobody cares about you then you see the world for what it really is: a place where you look after yourself or you are screwed. All interactions are fundamentally about what the other party can get from you, and it’s trivial to see that when they perceive you as having nothing to offer them. The real world is a giant black pill.
The reality is that I occupy a completely different world to the best and brightest of the Bay Area. How can I possibly take the argument of words are harmful seriously when I live in a world where violence is violence and the thing you teach children as they are learning to talk, use your words, is a foundational principle that these people just don’t get (or worse, reject). I might as well be speaking a different language for all the impact I’m making.
When it comes to modulating speech, the problem with we is that there is no we. There is you and there is me. You get to decide what you want to do and where your limits are, and so do I. If you want there to be a we then that has to be negotiated. I may be in this forum but it is very clear to me that I am not a peer. That’s not a problem for me, but it is a problem if anyone is relying on coordinated action from me.
Good ideas have to be tested to figure out if they are good. You throw things into the crucible and whatever isn’t incinerated is of value. For obvious reasons, when people cannot separate their identity from their ideas they react poorly when you start pouring gas on those ideas. That’s their problem, in the same way you cannot be expected to manage my mental illness. It isn’t possible to know what is a problem for others, and tip toeing around the crucible makes the entire exercise next to pointless. This place isn’t a padded room to me, it’s a lake of fire.
Many years ago it became obvious to me that my symptoms were worsening and effectively untreatable. I could either be silent and housebound or I could lean into my mental illness knowing that I’d be hated and reviled. I chose the latter, and I keep choosing the latter. I have a right to a life too.Nobody has to agree with me and nobody has to like me. Nobody has to associate with me. However, if people choose to associate with me (or anyone) then they get what they are given. I don’t pretend to be nice, but I am honest. If that isn’t what people want then they’re welcome to not engage with me.
I don’t want to pay my sportsballers a bajillion dollars.
I don’t care either way, but I don’t get to decide what other people like, and clearly the sportsballs are a very popular thing.
The market wants what it wants, and the concentration of money always reflects that. The market also decides how much everyone gets paid.
I view the fact that people don’t want to pay for entertainment as an indictment on entertainment.
I view it as a statement about the quality of gates versus the busker’s hat. How much do you pay if you don’t have to pay at all?
Without advertising, the entertainment industry would be much smaller, but it would still be able to present high-quality products.
I do not know of any industry that aims to minimise its size and profits.
It’s not like the entertainment industry merely exists to serve as a platform for ads, they’re using them as a means to an end too. The only thing either party cares about is the money of the other. This is two industries working together to benefit both.
High-quality is a very subjective measure, but I think it is worth noting that all those low budget productions can only exist thanks to the insane amount of money and R&D dumped into larger projects. It’s all well and good to say “let’s go indie on everything” whilst ignoring that indies use a $50K RED camera these days. There are enormous interdependencies and economies of scale going on here.
But I don’t believe businesses as a whole would suddenly become unprofitable.
If you ran a business out of an unmarked shop with no website, email, or phone number, how much business do you think you’d do compared to one that had all those things?
The question is backwards. The question is “Does business as a whole become more profitable with advertising?”.
The biggest shoe companies would lose some cachet and market share, but it would still be profitable to sell shoes.
Yes, it would still be profitable to far fewer businesses to sell shoes. You just wouldn’t have the benefit of consumer culture and cross border arbitrage to drive the prices down. You’d have one pair of shoes, they’d start at $500 for total garbage, and you’d take them to the cobblers until they fell apart. Children wouldn’t wear shoes until school age, and then it would be a procession of ill fitting hand me downs.
If I know I can shift product then I can do a lot of things with my entire logistical chain (especially pricing) that I can’t if I don’t know if I can sell product. If I don’t have a fashion cycle driving purchases then shoes become utilitarian, and utility purchases are much lower volume than discretionary ones. Lower volume equals higher prices.
If you do something that contracts a market then everything about the structure of that market will change.
And while lots of shareholders have an interest in dominant brands staying dominant, I do not view it as a net loss to the economy for some companies to lose market share while others take their place.
The people that own the world do so via shareholdings. They will put three bullets in the back of your head and have it ruled a suicide before you will be able to interfere with their rulership of the world.
As for market forces, I concur. The problem is that the market has already spoken here, and you have advertisement as a result.
Many people seem to think this is a matter of information. It is not. It’s a matter of trust.
TL;DR—You want to get rid of ads? Find the money somewhere else.
If you want to pay your sportsballers a bajillion dollars that money has to come from somewhere. In general, the market has decided that ads are the optimal way of paying for things that people don’t want to pay directly for.
I haven’t been to a theatre in over a decade not because of ads, but because of the other patrons. That was before all the current “Ask me about my garbage woke remake that nobody asked for” school of movies too. There’s literally no reason to go to the movies when you can buy a TV the size of a wall and sit on your lounge in your underwear eating an entire tub of ice cream.
Much of the entertainment for men today consists of games, and the vast majority of those have no advertising at all. Women are a different story, because they play far more mobile, and that’s a cesspit of ads (which makes perfect sense when you consider that women are the primary discretionary spender demographic). Passive entertainment is often far less attractive than active entertainment.
Try doing anything online without an adblocker. At this point it isn’t even about the ads, it’s about blocking tracking and scripting exploits.
News basically doesn’t exist anymore thanks to clicks and the collapse of the business model. You can get punditry with little or no ads if you want it. You can read headlines from aggregators (which is more than enough as the articles are nothing but filler). Besides, short of going straight to Stormfront every bit of ‘news’ is going to be more left than Mao. You’re better off in all measurable ways by classing news as propaganda and rejecting it entirely on those grounds. If something that important happens someone will tell you anyway, because people are a bunch of gossips. Otherwise you’re going to have to read ten to twenty different outlets a day, inclusive of international and preferably non-English, and then cross reference all of it, just to figure out what’s not complete bullshit. Who’s got the time for that?
I contest that nobody likes ads, and the evidence I offer for that are ad reads by Bill Burr and Tim Dillion. The secret to a good ad these days is to stop being wallpaper and start being a dumpster fire. Ad as content isn’t new, half the cartoons I grew up with were invented solely to sell toys (and that is still a viable model). Plenty of product gets shifted after it is featured in general media, so it’s not like this stuff is just for kids. I wonder how much of the complaints about advertising are actually complaints about bad advertising.
The problem I have with the businesses would get by fine without ads is that it is demonstrably untrue. If you look up the biggest companies you will already know their names, their logos, their slogans, any music or sounds they use, etc. You buy from these companies all the time. Advertising works. Today you can quantify the effect of advertising better than ever. Anything on the internet can be tracked, and can be A/B tested.
I think it is a reasonable argument that most media optimises for palatability, and that ad sales are a big part of that. Unless you don’t care about losing money you have to make enough to recoup the budget for whatever you created. That money has to come from somewhere, and ads are a possible avenue for that. They are not the only avenue (merch and web patronage spring to mind as common alternatives). Hell, even NFTs are a thing right now.
The best argument against a you are nothing more than a clockwork zombie governed by physics set in motion at the beginning of time assertion is that we don’t have a theory of everything. Free will could easily exist in the gaps (or far more likely, the entire concept of free will might turn out to be a gross simplification of what’s actually going on).
If we cannot tell if freewill exists then we have to act as if it does. If it doesn’t then we’ve caused no harm, if it does and we made choices as if it didn’t then we may have caused harm. Until someone has some evidence to the contrary (and not just a hypothesis) then I’ll continue to live life with the expectation of self responsibility, for me, and for you.
If you don’t believe in free will then what does it matter what people say or do? I could say every single word and phrase on your forbidden words list because it isn’t my choice at all. Scolding people for something that’s entirely out of their hands is pointless. Everything is pointless.
It’s simple on the do not consent front. You have a mind, it is the product of a physical organ, and if that organ is suitably abused you can be made to think or do anything at all (assuming you don’t kill the support systems first). The issue is how difficult that goal is. Can you make me do what you want? Of course you can, provided you’re willing to do gruesome and unethical things to me and my family. Can you do it just by saying something to me? Good luck with that.
If you are the kind of person that wants to use technology to force your values onto other people via manipulation of discourse, AI driven or otherwise, then you don’t get to complain when state or other actors do it too. You’re only complaining that you aren’t holding the reins.
The real issue with the internet (and social as a subset of that) isn’t state actors fucking with people, it’s that it actually connects people together in a way that isn’t trivial to stop. State actors (inclusive of large companies) want to own you, the last thing they want to do is have you educating yourself and organising with the likeminded. What even is the point of the state when it is undermined by ever more partial interests?
When it comes to social media red flags: If you can look at a bunch of pictograms on the bio and immediately know that someone doesn’t have a single original thought in their head then why bother. Give them a wide berth and let them eat each other.
Consider the idea of anaesthetising you prior to blood harvest. We can paralyse people, stop them feeling pain, and make them unconscious. All of those are distinct elements of anaesthesia. Consider the cases:
You are paralysed but conscious and able to feel pain whilst your blood is taken
You are paralysed and anaesthetised but conscious whilst your blood is taken
You are fully anaesthetised and are conscious of nothing about the procedure
Which of those are acceptable circumstances to take your blood from you, with and without your consent?
Viable organs typically come from a living body with unrecoverable injuries, not a corpse. Scenarios like those above are not academic, they happen. Unsurprisingly, that is just the tip of the iceberg of possible problems when it comes to vivisecting people.
Pragmatically I’m fine with opt-out. As long as there is a choice and that choice is respected then I don’t see cause for complaint. That being said, it’s not difficult to see problems with opt-out over opt-in
As long as choice and consequence are married that’s good enough for me.
You don’t need to know the true risk of an act to know if you’d be okay with being maimed or dying from it. More accurate knowledge of risks increases the granularity of your decision making, but coarse decision making is often acceptable (especially if you err towards caution).