311–320 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what I'd rather see than bald assertions of "person bad". Can you point to such an assertion in the GP?
The assertion that Frankl is "nonesense" and his ideas were a "schtick". That was the sole content of the comment. If there's a reason to be critical, I want to know why, not be treated to name-calling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No body blankly believes nothing can be changed, or believes everything can be changed. The two extremes are both obviously wrong. It's just important to understand what you can change and what you can't. So the starting point is about understanding how the world works, not just daydreaming.
If you're understanding is based on what's been observed before, you will never progress beyond it. During the Enlightenment, all this science stuff looked extremely stupid. If people didn't persevere through the cynicism, we wouldn't have advanced the way we did.
Lol. Where did you read your history of science? Totally bizarre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What about passionate creators who use advertising as a means to finance their vocation? They need to find new business models. > What about the wide informational and educational value of media? It's great but also a relatively tiny minority of all content. A niche really. And even those tend have ads.
How would a new business or bakery survive if no one knew they existed? Telling people you exist is advertisement.
The problems start when people start trying to sell my attention to the highest bidder. That's unacceptable. My attention is not theirs to sell. Not once did I consent to having information forcibly injected into my mind. I will resist it to the bitter end no matter the consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said as much: it's not inapplicable, just insensitive. TL;DR: I am letting you know how this example made me feel . Take it any way you want. It's so much easier for me to process any realist take on something that may have concerned my own health or my parents' health (we've all had serious health conditions), but shouts of the crowd "hey, we are empathizing" when it comes to premature babies makes me gulp (and my…
To be blunt, your feelings are your problem. There is nothing wrong with that analogy. All yohr comment does is discourage people from trying to relate anything to common life experiences because someone might've had a bad one.
Whether you care about the responses of your audience is your choice. I am not disagreeing that my feelings are my own (though they are not a "problem" for me), but I am sharing them for the benefit of those who might care. If you don't, that's "your problem".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said as much: it's not inapplicable, just insensitive. TL;DR: I am letting you know how this example made me feel . Take it any way you want. It's so much easier for me to process any realist take on something that may have concerned my own health or my parents' health (we've all had serious health conditions), but shouts of the crowd "hey, we are empathizing" when it comes to premature babies makes me gulp (and my…
Hi, With all due respect, and not taking anything away from your painful experience, I don't think a "better example" needs to be found. Why? The incubator analogy works precisely because it is so relatable—even to those who do not have kids. We should not rob people of such powerful analogies. People shouldn't feel like they have to carefully walk on eggshells to use such analogies, all in the fear of offending some…
To be honest, I don't even understand what's the need for an analogy here? Is it not clear to everyone that something can be both "bad" and becoming less bad ("better" or simply improving) at the same time? Does the analogy really help communicate that?
I mean, when I get a regular cold, when my nose starts being heavily congested (instead of leaking), I know I am bad, but improving. When you just get a job out of college, your financial situation might be "bad" (large student debt), but you've finally started paying it off ("bad and better"). Or your house is flooded ("bad"), but you've just arranged for the insurance to send someone to fix it up ("bad and better"). It's really trivial to come up with examples. None of these has any potential to trigger an emotional response the way (non-empathically, to me) talking of premature babies does.
It was used as a superfluous tool to attempt to trigger those "think of the children" emotions in people that the next commenter mentions (though they attempt to attribute that to me: I was actually saying "think of the parents" ;-)).
To me, an unnecessary analogy that does not consider how it will be perceived is anything but "powerful", but I also think it's fine for us to agree to disagree.
> People shouldn't feel like they have to carefully walk on eggshells to use such analogies
I totally agree. I don't see how that relates to me sharing how this particular analogy has made me feel: when we get to all the overly-politically-correct talk, it's usually people jumping to protect someone else who they think might be offended — here, I am sharing my own lived experience. That's a data point, and anyone can decide on their own whether that will influence their choice of analogy or not.
Is it really not valuable sharing these "data points" (all the replies I've gotten are surely making me second guess myself)? How do people learn about how people feel if they are not willing to listen to them? Do you change anything when you learn how you made people feel?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because when we get the opposite, our own behaviour has ultimately driven us into the ground and we end up in hell or dead.
Right, but some might consider the other end of the spectrum as also bad. Extremely stable societies are often marked by low social mobility and oppressive social mores, yet they fulfill every check mark according to your definition of good. It would also deem the emancipation of slaves an evil deed, since it disrupts a stable pattern of social order that's extended for a long stretch of time. I don't know if I would…
Merely persisting is not sufficient for something to be moral, but it is a necessary requirement. We need principles on how to behave in repeated interactions and situations over long periods, or bad things will eventually happen. That's part of the purpose of moral truths you were raising a question about.
I'd just point out that ancient Egypt had developed moral-sensemaking technology that were state of the art at the time. It's the best we as humans could do to live in a large ecosystem and we're standing on their shoulders. It's not surprising that we would find fault.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like people that are highly engaged in online conversations do so because they, consciously or not, think their contributions will pull the universe toward some goal. That goal might be "truth", "freedom", "absurdity", etc. (Uncovering those goals sounds like a really fun project.) I think some of it also comes from status needs. Specifically, dominance. I don't understand the lurker mindset whatsoever. It h…
> I don't understand the lurker mindset whatsoever. It has to be how most people interact with the internet though, otherwise there would be 10's of thousands of comments on every post here. I, for example, simply did not have any interesting thoughts to share most of the time and didn't bother commenting when I did have some. But you just changed my attitude towards that. Thanks! I even created an account here :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your question is big. The answer I've landed on is little. We're just little furry wiggly wombly tubes struggling against the inevitable pressures of entropy. This is true down to the most basic molecule than can replicate. Objective moral truths stem from that. The unending dance with entropy. To be the belle of the ball, we also harness that entropic randomness and turn it into dances that are even more powerful. I…
Right, but I just don't understand how you can generalize your subjective experiences to objective truth, especially in the face of people disagreeing. If a truth requires some particular perspective our outlook to become apparent, then it just isn't objective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like people that are highly engaged in online conversations do so because they, consciously or not, think their contributions will pull the universe toward some goal. That goal might be "truth", "freedom", "absurdity", etc. (Uncovering those goals sounds like a really fun project.) I think some of it also comes from status needs. Specifically, dominance. I don't understand the lurker mindset whatsoever. It h…
> I don't understand the lurker mindset whatsoever. It has to be how most people interact with the internet though, otherwise there would be 10's of thousands of comments on every post here. I, for example, simply did not have any interesting thoughts to share most of the time and didn't bother commenting when I did have some. But you just changed my attitude towards that. Thanks! I even created an account here :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't understand the lurker mindset whatsoever. It has to be how most people interact with the internet though, otherwise there would be 10's of thousands of comments on every post here. I, for example, simply did not have any interesting thoughts to share most of the time and didn't bother commenting when I did have some. But you just changed my attitude towards that. Thanks! I even created an account here :)
I am probably going back to lukering to be honest. I post in good faith, although sometimes I make stupid jokes and probably deserve the responses. But, it sucks when you put time into a comment and it gets trashed to hell with no responses telling you why.
If you think the convos are worth it, fuck it! Let the downvotes flow. Make it a game. But if it is causing you any sort of distress, there's other places online people will eagerly welcome you to.