I'm convinced this article's poster never learned about native American history properly. America never had democracy. It has always been a totalitarian country that only benefits upper-class white men who profitably kill and bully people. Authoritarianism was never on the rise. Freedom is an illusion. The American dream is a scam. The C.I.A. targets black people more than white people. The C.I.A. created political coups to bully countries for creating dehumanizing sweatshops that have child slavery. The C.I.A. agents rape people. America's prisons are created to trap working class Americans into poverty, drug abuse, and insanity. America's cops are required to have poor intelligence and low empathy to benefit very rich oligarchs only. America's rulers are attacking free speech and union workers to keep working class Americans enslaved. America's rulers intentionally created broken education systems to enslave working class Americans. America's rulers want working class Americans selling their souls to the American military instead of creating a peaceful world based on reason rather than greedy violence. America's rulers are not interested in creating a society where everyone is compassionate critical thinkers. They are interested in creating mind-controlled weapons living in poverty that make our world burn for profit. It's Sociopathic Capitalism 101.
I Choose Optimism
211–220 of 222 posts
Re: I Choose Optimism
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
The factory owner and the factory worker can look at the same set of data and arrive at completely different world views. The Empire Did Nothing Wrong™ Was Lucifer actually incorrect in his position in the Garden of Eden? I'm pointing out how completely different and valid perspectives can be derived from the same set of data, the same circumstance. The problem arises when one claims their perspective was "inflicted"…
The factory owner and the factory worker can look at the same set of data and arrive at completely different world views. My comment allows for that. Many-sidedness , a/k/a Anekantavada ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada ). But many sidedness is not the any sideness which revealed or blind-faith belief permits. Experiential understanding is bound to and by that experience. Further, the cases you're referrin…
Understood. I reread everything three+ times and understand now. I am in the middle of a huge deployment and was rushed this morning.
> others' beliefs are "wrong" because they are simply adopted
But are they... wrong?
I certainly don't operate as you described, but I see plenty who do. I also choose not to judge their "wrongs".
Re: I Choose Optimism
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solar energy is the cheapest form of energy we have. Storage is a bit more expensive, but judging from the amount of metals the video proposes they want to go all-in on battery storage, whereas most experts I heard from propose to use hydrogen (or methane) as a storage medium, precisely because the amount of resources it needs are much smaller.
>whereas most experts I heard from propose to use hydrogen (or methane) as a storage medium What experts? Power to gas has been really energy inefficient with little sign of improving from what I know. It can't really compete with pumped hydro even where pumped hydro makes less to no sense it seems.
Efficiency (almost) doesn't matter. Cost and scalability matters. Pumped hydro and batteries are wonderfully efficient, but they're a lot more difficult to scale than infrastructure for storing, transporting, and burning a gas.
Re: I Choose Optimism
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, thank god Russia doesn't have the worlds largest nuclear stock pile of weapons to threaten the world with and has to steal others countries nuclear power plants to threaten them with a dirty bomb. On their border. Less than 100km away from the nearest Russian city.
It does make sense because they will claim that the Ukrainians did it, which they’ve already started to lay the groundwork for. Also, nuclear plants can be a target for plenty of states or groups that don’t have nuclear weapons like terrorists.
On your first point: And this would be believed by whom? Just as everyone credible firmly takes seriously Russia's claims that it attacked Ukraine to rid the smaller country of a Nazi threat to Russian sovereignty? Give me a break.
As for your second claim: So can hydro plants, causing enormous destruction. So? Secure the vulnerable asset, create defensive and preventative strategies. You don't go through life not building genuinely useful things because somewhere, somehow, somebody might aim to do them harm. The logic is absurd if taken to any other level. For example, I should never buy or build a house because some group of landless lunatics might coalesce and try to take it from me one day. Better to not have my own useful home in the first place then? Absurd.
Re: I Choose Optimism
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
The factory owner and the factory worker can look at the same set of data and arrive at completely different world views. My comment allows for that. Many-sidedness , a/k/a Anekantavada ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada ). But many sidedness is not the any sideness which revealed or blind-faith belief permits. Experiential understanding is bound to and by that experience. Further, the cases you're referrin…
Understood. I reread everything three+ times and understand now. I am in the middle of a huge deployment and was rushed this morning. > others' beliefs are "wrong" because they are simply adopted But are they... wrong? I certainly don't operate as you described, but I see plenty who do. I also choose not to judge their "wrongs".
It might be more ... useful to think of models, understanding, and/or knowledge (largely interchangeable terms) as having use value rather than truth value.
That is, good models are useful, in some way.
Usefulness, like value, is itself relative and depends on intent, goals, and starting positions.
That said, there are models with greater or usefulness over a wide range of circumstances. Holding to a model which is demonstrably inferior in this regard might well be considered "wrong", in this sense.
Re: I Choose Optimism
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Understood. I reread everything three+ times and understand now. I am in the middle of a huge deployment and was rushed this morning. > others' beliefs are "wrong" because they are simply adopted But are they... wrong? I certainly don't operate as you described, but I see plenty who do. I also choose not to judge their "wrongs".
It might be more ... useful to think of models, understanding, and/or knowledge (largely interchangeable terms) as having use value rather than truth value . That is, good models are useful , in some way. Usefulness, like value, is itself relative and depends on intent, goals, and starting positions. That said, there are models with greater or usefulness over a wide range of circumstances. Holding to a model which is…
Absolutely. This is exactly what I do, actually. I argue from the perspective of many models at once, assign weights and priorities and then arrive at some conclusion with an estimated probability of effectiveness or usefulness depending on use case. Truth simply is and is also unknowable at the same time.
Personally, I would only make one modification here for my own purposes:
> Holding to a model which is demonstrably inferior in this regard might well be considered "wrong" to me.
I know what is right and wrong for me and to me, but stop short of extending that judgement outside my person. That's just me though.
Re: I Choose Optimism
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t even know what this means. Are you saying that we should expect propaganda to not work despite it working since the beginning of recorded history? If so, that is really dumb.
I'm saying you should consume less pro-Ukranian propaganda and think a bit more.
Thanks for making my point for me.
Re: I Choose Optimism
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The answers to those questions are your beliefs. Absent some kind of new insight, could you flip a switch and choose to believe that that code is deeply harmful? These beliefs, from your example, are something I arrived at through reason. They are always subject to change. I could just as easily have devised a moral construct which allowed me to adopt maximal behaviors for accumulating money and wealth, for instanc…
> I could just as easily have devised a moral construct which allowed me to adopt maximal behaviors for accumulating money and wealth, for instance. However, I did not choose that path, in the end. I very easily could have, however. And that was purely my choice. You don't choose your beliefs. You choose your actions. You don't choose to believe generosity is good; you choose to follow a code of generosity. Conversel…
> You don't choose your beliefs.
That's a completely unsupported statement presented as fact; therefore I'll dismiss it with just as much effort.
Re: I Choose Optimism
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no threat, unless you do exactly what I say. Yea, that's the threat. > I should note that I used to have the same opinion as you! No judgement! Common thing to hear. I have never believed anyone has ever gone from a strong atheist who reads the bible and can so obviously see the cruelty and madness, and then suddenly turn around and become a christian apologist? It's just as believable as the bible in the fi…
>There is no threat, unless you do exactly what I say. You do your taxes every year so you can avoid jail time. But you won't simply call out to Jesus Christ with a true heart and ask for salvation? Think about it! That's all it takes!
I pay my taxes because I'm not an absolute monster, not because I fear jail. You are again confused.
Re: I Choose Optimism
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Admitting your stance is lunacy isn't a defense. You should instead ponder why you believe absurdities. "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire (ish). This is the most important quote about how to live in the world. It explains Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, but also the mass rape done by the Catholic Church, 9/11, the current climate change crisis, and on and on. It's the Grand…
if (the_world_is_evil && the_world_hates_the_word_of_god && the_world_hated_jesus_enough_to_kill_him_despite_him_doing_nothing_wrong ){ console.log("maybe it's something you should look into"); } So if you care so much about evil you should ask yourself, who was the only person to walk the Earth who had no evil. That would be Jesus. And what did Jesus say? He said he was God, and quoted the old testament that correct…
Being the literally biggest religious movement of the world and then at the same time saying the world hates the word of god is silly. You are the majority. If you include Islam, you are the VAST majority.
> who was the only person to walk the Earth who had no evil. That would be Jesus.
Of course it wasn't. I've read the bible. I remember "pearl before swines". That was evil.
> He said he was God
He didn't though. "You said that" is what he said. He was very clear. You are now lying about what the bible says. As is common among christians sadly.