@MaiqTheTrue's banner p

MaiqTheTrue

Zensunni Wanderer

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

				

User ID: 1783

MaiqTheTrue

Zensunni Wanderer

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1783

That’s also why nobody really wants to have to be tied down to you. To hand your money to another person and be tied to their rules if they want the money back. China doesn’t want dollars after seeing what we attempted to do to Russia over Ukraine. Disconnected from the banking system, assets frozen, and a massive divestment campaign were attempts to hamstring the economy of Russia once it broke the Western world’s rules. China wants Taiwan. China also known it will get similar treatment if it invades. Hence they don’t want dollars.

Gold I think is less of a Ponzi scheme than government fiat currency. Gold is an established global market, it has uses in industrial manufacturing, and in making jewelry. It’s therefore not dependent on the fiscal system of any single country the way a fiat currency would be. Not only can the country in question take your money back, but it can inflate their currency to the point of worthlessness (see Zimbabwe). They could also end up becoming a failed state if there’s a prolonged political crisis of some sort. If we end up in Boogaloo Civil War, the value of the dollar will fall by quite a lot because the USA will lose credibility as a stable country. The dollars right now is propped up by being backed as the currency that oil is traded in, but this could change and in fact both Russia and China want to change it. If that happens, you lose a major reason that people ever wanted the dollar. To cut this short, to be tied to the dollar means being tied to the fortunes of the USA, which, while it used to be a sure thing, may not continue to be as steady. Gold isn’t tied to the fortunes of any country therefore, no matter what happens, it’s not going to be devalued by the failure of that state.

I kinda hope he’s not being that literal as I think a life with no feelings would be one with little joy or connection or compassion. If I can kill without feeling anything, I’m capable of being a moral monster.

I think in general for me, I want people here who generally want to contribute, are loyal to America over their home country, and aren’t net drains on resources. So I’d want people to learn English, get a job, and put down roots.

Mostly the one weird trick stuff works on two pillars. One, it requires you to pay attention to what you eat. If you’re doing Paleo, you can’t just go buy something that sounds good, you need to read the label and evaluate the ingredients. That alone is a huge help. Second, because the market hasn’t yet caught onto the trend, there aren’t boxed versions of that diet’s foods available. If you were doing Paleo or Keto or Gluten Free when it first became a thing, you had to get the foods and cook them yourself. That eliminates most processed foods from your diet. In early Keto, before the food manufacturers started making hungry man keto foods, you had to get real fresh chicken or steak, real vegetables from the grocery store, and cook them yourself. So you’d end up making marginally better choices even if the new fad diet was based on unicorn farts.

We do. We’re rapidly approaching 50% obesity. We eat like crap and don’t exercise and that by itself I think lowers life expectancy by at least a decade. Add in stress and it’s like nobody should be shocked by the American life expectancy. It’s like asking why the car where you never change the oil needs more repairs than the one that gets regular maintenance.

I get that, and I’ve seen people do it in toxic ways. I just don’t see it as something that always and universally applies to everyone in all situations. Sometimes I think self-improvement ideas can overfit just because the techniques are developed for those settings are developed to rehabilitate the sick and don’t necessarily carry that baggage for those who are not sick. I want to learn formal logic and statistics because I think they’re useful tools for understanding the world. I want to write stories because it’s an interesting and fun hobby. Saying I should study in the context of self study to better myself, or I should work out so I don’t have a heart attack at 50, or I should finish my short story— these don’t necessarily have anything to do with other people.

What’s somewhat worse to me is that in some cases, that kind of assumption can end up being just as much of a guilt trip as the original “should” thought. If everything you tell yourself you should do is really about meeting other people’s expectations, then why do anything to improve yourself? Why exercise if you are only doing it to impress others? Okay, but then you will probably end up obese and are in poor heath. Why finish that story if you’re only trying to impress people? The alternative is another failed project that you started and didn’t finish and then you feel like a loser because you don’t actually do anything. Why learn? The alternative is that you live in Sagan’s demon haunted world where you can’t make good decisions because you have no idea how anything works and don’t have the tools to figure in out.

I think a lot of mental health advice ends up that way: designed to help people with severe problems, and works pretty well there, then gets applied to the general population and not only doesn’t help, but can create the problems that it was intended to prevent. Asking whether you’re doing something to people please is reasonable if you have a severe problem people pleasing. But for most people, shoulds are what gets them off the couch and into motion and doing things that they really should be doing. You should accomplish things. You should study and build a career. You should keep up your house or apartment. And on things like ruminating on your feelings, for normal healthy people, this can make them feel depressed because they focus on the negative feelings produced by events in their lives and over time talk themselves into anxiety and depression.

You are what you actually do, not what you say you are going to do.

It’s a paraphrase of the Last Psychiatrist. The basic idea is that the modern world encourages people to adopt an identity and ideology. You might identify as an athlete or a thinker or a writer or an artist. But a lot of times, it’s about the aesthetics or about being seen to be like that because you see it as cool or interesting or something that other people will like about you. But the quick way to see if it’s actually true of you is to look at whether or not you’re taking action. Are you actually writing or drawing? Do you actually donate to those causes? Do you actively seek out knowledge? And very especially do you do it in ways that you aren’t being seen doing those things? Protesting doesn’t really count, nor does writing or drawing in public places — that can be done to show off. But if you’re doing those things alone with the door closed, then you might be that thing.

Animals are in a sense easy mode. Animals generally don’t want anything beyond food and water and a nonabusive environment. They don’t really have demands beyond that. They don’t judge you or your life, they don’t complain, they don’t make demands, they don’t do things to annoy you or anything like that. People are the opposite. They aren’t happy with the bare minimum. A kid will turn up his nose at the dinner you made. A kid will complain about his cloth not being to his liking. A spouse will complain about the size or upkeep of the home. People judge you all the time. And they know just how to make you made.

I understand the sentiment of “if someone abuses animals, they’re bad news. I just see the cause a bit differently. Loving a being with no needs beyond the basics, one that doesn’t judge you or do things that annoy you, that holds no strong opinions you oppose — that’s easy mode. If you can’t be kind to a creature that exists to be a living teddy bear (which most modern pets are) then you probably have even worse behavior towards the people who do disagree with you and do judge you and do make demands and are annoying.

But I tend to almost give negative credit to people who brag about being kind to animals. It’s not really that hard.

I’m hoping this isn’t a required thing. I can understand compassion for individual students struggling with this stuff, I can understand telling other kids to be nice to people who are LGBT+ and even explaining how that works (age-appropriate and mostly in high school sex ed courses) what they do. But I think it’s a completely different thing to have the school district hold essentially a protest in favor of a political issue. That’s not educational. Education should be about learning and seeking truth, not politics.

They’re generally the ones with the time, energy, and privilege to worry about things that don’t personally affect them. The man has to worry about his job, home upkeep, and so on. Poor people are concerned about baseline survival and meeting their material needs. Upper class women and college students are both pretty unique in that they can afford to waste time on things that don’t affect them personally and generally don’t have a lot of other obligations that keep them busy.

The other thing, which I think slots into the privilege part is that being disproportionately upset by events and situations outside of their personal lives and the life of their community shows off their privilege. There’s almost always a bit of showing off to those things. They always film it, and quite often in their late model cars with an expensive coffee in hand and a fairly fresh manicure. The whole thing stinks of “look at me, even though I’m rich, and have more money in my clothes and jewelry than you make in a day, I’m soooo compassionate that I care very deeply about world affairs. And I’m so highly educated that I know the history of this obscure thing that the plebs don’t care about.” I don’t get the sense that they really do care. I don’t see a lot of evidence that they do anything about the problems they’re filming themselves crying about. They “care” about Palestine? Do they donate to Red Crescent to give humanitarian aid? Have they sent emails to their congressmen? Have they volunteered (and protests don’t count) to do anything about it?

I’m not exactly convinced. For some things, things that are in some way visible to other people, that people see as good things, I could buy it as a good mental model. But I should (study more, eat better, reduce screen time, etc.) I just don’t see where the “worthy of love and respect” comes in. Often, I don’t even bring up what I’m doing to other people simply because it’s not about other people.

True, but there’s a history of leaders who lose wars dying anyway. I think if he’s cornered and he thinks his only options are nukes or being executed, he’ll choose the nukes.

This is exactly why I think in the tactic of blockades must be made illegal and that law must be enforced. There’s a huge escalation in doing that, in taking over public roads because sitting in a vehicle puts people in a somewhat vulnerable position— escape is hindered by the need to first exit the vehicle, and that people naturally threatened when a crowd of people make moving their car or getting themselves out of their cars dangerous. And it’s hardly surprising that people who are trapped in a vehicle and have no way out are going to kill.

Even if true, which I doubt, it’s by the standard of the day erasure. The first Japanese centered AC storyline doesn’t feature a Japanese lead. Imagine the uproar if the first AC set in Africa didn’t feature a black African man as the lead. And really I don’t see Yasuke as that famous. He wasn’t featured in any media or historical documentaries or video games or anything else prior to 2020. This despite Anime and Japanese gaming being huge and samurai being second only to ninjas in the part of Japanese mythology exported globally. I find this impossible to take seriously. If he were that famous in Japan, surely he’d have shown up before the current mania for making visible minorities star in every piece of media made. I suspect that what really happened is that the production team went to Japan and went through the archives looking for a Black Man who they could make the star of their game and then polite Japanese archivists agreed that of course the Black Samurai was super famous and of course was a bad ass until the white people left and they laughed behind their back.

What I’ve never understood is why exactly this sort of thing makes sense to the left. The man is a kicker on a football team. He doesn’t really get paid to be a spokesman for anything beyond the usual shilling for products. I don’t understand why a person isn’t allowed to hold contrary opinions especially when those opinions have absolutely nothing to do with his actual job and he doesn’t seem to be much of an activist at all.

I see this as a blind spot for most of us simply because we are secular and live in a secular culture. To them, religion is a very deep very powerful personal thing. And trying to see this through a secular lens when those involved see it through the lens of religion seems like a mistake. To me, the fact that one person is catholic and another is baptist doesn’t mean much, nor does it mean much to those people. If we’d go back to the time of the reformation, this becomes the most important thing to know about them.

In MENA, religion is not just a sort of interesting thing that is just sort of one of dozens of ideas and hobbies and interests a person might have. It’s important and one of the cardinal things about how that person sees the world. And for that matter it’s a big part of how others see them and they see others.

This largely tracks my understanding, although I think the religions involved. For Jews, not only is this a safe harbor, but from the point of view of Jews, this is *The Land”. They believe Israel is a holy place given to them by God himself. For Muslim Palestinians, Al-Aqsa is a holy site in Islam, and Islam in general doesn’t have a place for themselves being ruled over by anyone who isn’t a Muslim. Add in the concept of Jihad, and they’re all in on taking back the land. There’s no way either religion can compromise here. Jews aren’t going to give up their holy land especially given what happened when Jews didn’t have a safe harbor in Israel. Palestinians aren’t giving up because they believe that this is their land that they took over and giving it up would be bad.

I think they have. Aliens are given either by technology or by psychic powers the abilities of former polytheistic gods. They can create wonders in the heavens, they can gift us ideas and technology and revelations. And because they have an aura of the scientific about them, even things that we know make little sense get brushed aside because they’re advanced.

And like everything else, it’s used by people with something to gain from the belief. Space agencies and astronomers and astrophysicists use aliens to get funding. The military uses them to hide black projects. History channel gets views by claiming that every weird text in sacred books is really about aliens. It’s a cheap trick but it works where credulous talk of angels, gods, demons, fairies, and orcs would be mocked and dismissed as crazy talk. I find it rather instructive to mentally substitute “angels” in places where people are talking about aliens. Most of the time the story sounds insane at that point, almost exactly like a religion.

Assuming our current understanding of physics holds, much of this doesn’t matter. If there are Taelons 100 million ly away from us, it is highly unlikely they’d care about us. We don’t have anything they don’t already have. So hiding makes no sense — it would take them millions of years to get here, for no gain. You can find most of the material in our solar system in thousands of other places much closer to the alien planets and can extract them without having to mess with people or other animals.

And from the other end, it’s all speculative. The aliens are undoubtedly weirder than we can possibly imagine, and our views on culture and government are largely based on our own history. And I’m not sure what these aliens have to do with AI. Maybe they solved the alignment issue, or maybe they destroyed all their AI and have been huffing Spice. They might have stalled on on technology before AGI. We don’t know anything and frankly can’t know anything. We found some odd chemical signatures, that’s it. Trying to pointlessly speculate on what this means for the future of space travel, propulsion, AGI, or alien human relationships is premature in my view. This might be something interesting, but it might not.

I would argue that they absolutely are following incentives. The close-knit and shame-based culture in which having a reputation as a good person is necessary to do well in life simply changes the incentive landscape to promote pro-social behavior. If I can lose face and thus lose out on opportunities that would otherwise come your way if you were doing the right thing.

Now the part you quoted I was actually talking about American society in which everyone is highly mobile and atomized and in which you aren’t shamed for being anti-social. In America, even if someone found out you keep the wallet, you don’t face the prospect of having that information follow you around. You don’t develop a reputation because you aren’t likely to stay in the same place and do the same job around the same people. And honestly the fact the the Japanese have so many words for people who do bad things kinda supports my idea here. Social shaming works to promote pro-social be happy especially when a person is rooted in a community long enough to develop a reputation.

I think it’s at least somewhat true. What modern technological society tends to do is uproot deeper communities. Modern societies are often highly individualized, and often uprooted from traditional culture and extended families. And I think the destruction of those things tend to create a lack of empathy in society. In a traditional society, most people are friends, family or acquaintances— people you’d know by name and greet on the streets. Any decision you made you knew was going to either help or hurt the community you actually lived in. And it does make a difference. If I make the choice to lay people off and I work in that factory and live in that town, it’s impossible for me to completely remove myself from the human side of the equation because I’ve actually met the people about to lose their jobs. Maybe they go to my church, maybe my wife plays cards with his wife, maybe I just pass him on the streets, and I worked with him. He’s a human.

And in most discussion of war crimes and the like one of the first things done is to dehumanize the subjects of abuse. They aren’t real people, they don’t have families or needs or wants. Except that especially in the high up positions in society where those decisions are made, we’ve sort of accidentally dehumanized people in our own society through abstraction. The person deciding to lay people off at a factory he’s never been to and in a country he can’t find on a map only sees them as numbers on a spreadsheet. They aren’t depriving a human of a means of supporting themselves and their families, they’re reducing headcount. It’s impersonal, sterilized of any thought that you’re the cause of human suffering. And a lot of decisions made at the top end up working that way. If you’re fighting a war, you do it by drone and aircraft and long range missiles, not stabbing someone with a sword. Make hurting people distant and done at the push of a button and there’s no pause to think about it.

The other thing is that our relationships are shallower. We have a loneliness epidemic in America where very few people have a close friend (someone they can rely upon to help them and who they’d likewise help if they were in serious trouble). Most people have moved away from family and maybe only see siblings and cousins a couple of times a year. This doesn’t help develop empathy and might make people more comfortable dehumanizing other people. If you’re only talking through the screen and rarely close to other people, it’s easy to dismiss the other person.

I think like all things, the dose makes the poison here. The modern diet has so much processed food and sugar in it that it’s a toxin in that high amount. We probably eat and drink more sugar in a day or two than a farmer in 1500 would have consumed in a month.

I have some observations that support the idea that modern flavors are hyper palatable and probably not only encourage overeating at the time, but also make a normal human diet unappealing. I don’t think olive oil and water actually do anything, my personal suggestion is to simply eat bland unprocessed foods until you get used to tasting the subtle flavors of normal foods.

I think the same is true of entertainment— if you don’t do the hyper-stimulating games and tv shows and so on and just do things that people would have done in 1900 you’ll find books, magazines, board and card games, and radio dramas just as interesting as video gaming.

Hyper stimulation is a real phenomenon and I think it’s generally good to occasionally “fast” from those things, and learn to slow down and get back closer to the kind of lifestyle that was normal for most of human history.

Even if none of that is true, you’re also dealing with the added costs associated with outsourcing child-rearing. Daycare generally costs enough that the second income doesn’t go as far as it would on paper.

I think you’re correct that it’s a selfishness problem more so than a trust problem (the trust problem is developing as a response to the selfishness problem. And I think the cause or at least a major cause of selfishness has little to do with government, but more to do with atomization.

Communities, civic pride, and rootedness in a place have all declined rather rapidly over the course of the last 50 or so years. People don’t stick around the same places, the don’t keep the same jobs, they don’t form deep lasting relationships with people around them. And without a sense of tribe, a lot of pro-social behaviors don’t make sense. Why return a lost wallet when it belongs to someone you don’t know, and you’re not going to get social credit for doing the right thing anyway? Why not cheat Red Lobster? Do you know the owner? Do you worry that friends and neighbors will notice you cheating the system? Even if they do, what social control is there that they could leverage to shame you? Or on the negative end, who in your area knows or cares if you never contribute to society? If you decide to do nothing but game and eat? Who’s going to shame you for being a burden on your family or the government?

The thing that jumps out at me about the so-called high trust societies is the degree of social conformity and shaming that happens in them. There’s a shame to not working hard in those societies, but it’s not the theoretical “grind-core” thing like we have, it’s people you work with (and might work with for decades) noticing that you leave early all the time. Or noticing that you’re not producing as much as they are. In social relationships, they’re close enough that you’ll be shamed if you do something that the society sees as wrong. And the informal social credit system works pretty well most of the time, producing the kinds of pro-social behaviors we actually want. If you want divorces to go down, having a lot of negativity around getting a divorce AND having a network of people willing to gossip and shame you for getting a divorce keeps most people together.

I think shame works for the most part, and the loss of it makes trust-breaking a much more rational decision than it would be in a shaming culture.

The settlers are far right religious extremist so I don’t really see much surprising in the video at all. They’re a small portion of the country, but a fairly large part of the Likud Party base. Personally, I think most of the Gaza overkill wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for the settlers. They’ve been fairly open about wanting to settle in Gaza, in fact I’ll have to find the interview again but one of the settler leaders was a woman who works in real estate, and obviously stands to make a lot of money once Gaza is open for settlement. Bibi doesn’t go after them because they’re his base.