Since they are arguing insanity, I would assume the problem was with the mother not the kids. Even having "easy" kids is taxing, and could aggravate existing mental health issues. Insanity also helps explain why you don't understand her, as the way you see reality during a psychosis is entirely different from what everybody else perceives. I am not sure it is possible to completely understand such a mindset without experiencing it yourself.
Bombadil
3d ago
If you are anti-AI or anti-big tech, then being anti-datacenter follows quite logically. There area many reasons as to why people hold those positions.
And of course the people who live near where the datacenters are set to be built have a stake in this, and will want to make sure that their communities benefit overall.
Oh, I did not know that was the case. I assumed that, since people are blaming the father and a lack of medical care, that the defense must be blaming some chronic condition. So I just assumed that post partum depression could somehow cause psychosis without looking further into it.
If it was a sudden onset emergency that could not have been foreseen, that changes thing. But then I don't really understand the rhetoric around it.
Bombadil
3d ago
Ironically, sanewashing the women who post about wanting to kill their own kids like this risks stigmatizing mental illness more. Psychotic people usually don't become murderers. Depressed mothers usually don't kill their kids. But trying to normalize it make it seem like this is the common course of the illness. Like post partum depression is something that takes over your body and uses it to kill kids.
If so, can any mother with PPD be allowed custody of her kids? If your family member has occasional psychotic breaks, can you ever allow them within vicinity of your children? Or yourself? If the illness is this uncontrollable and leads to such terrible outcomes, then surely anyone exhibiting symptoms should be committed to 24/7 care at a psych ward, as mothers with PPD are simply not in control of themself.
Bombadil
4d ago
I have also seen the argument float around that she is actually the victim of a society which didn't take her mental illness seriously until it was too late. This is happening to many other parents which is why they relate. I just don't quite think that works when
-
She killed her own kids. That's a bit like saying Joaquin Phoenix's Joker was not responsible for the murders he committed.
-
Much of the support is either in the form of denying she did it or "I understand, I want to kill my children too".
Bombadil
4d ago
-
I would like to believe killing your own kids is a different class of problem.
-
This is specifically about constructing a steelman of something extremely far removed from your own morals. Whether doing so is possible without your own views becoming slightly closer to what you are trying to represent. I am not saying that sympathizers of filicide should not be allowed to express their views here.
-
The neutral ground on this site does not mean you don't get pushback. You get to sympathize with Clancy without having your post removed (not saying you personally actually believe this). I get to write that said belief is evil and contrary to everything that makes our society good.
Bombadil
4d ago
Basically. Seeing a problem from another person's perspective necessarily changes the way you look at it to an extent.
As a potential counterargument, fiction authors routinely place themselves in the heads of some absolutely heinous personalities and don't seem to be worse off for it. But does this mean that this type of cognitive hazards don't exist, or that engaging with them through fiction is simply different?
Bombadil
4d ago
It does help. Cheap childcare, social safety nets, and generous parental leave are commonly cited as reasons for why the birthrate in those countries are higher than their neighbors. It just isn't quite enough, as there are problems related to birthrate that seemingly cannot be solved just by throwing money at them.
Bombadil
4d ago
Is there a point at which trying to understand others is actually harmful to yourself?
That is really the thing I am trying to get at.
In a forum where Nazi sympathizers are allowed to argue their points, I guess it would not be out of the question for sympathizers of postpartum abortions to be allowed the same grace. If the way I framed my point is too opinionated for this site, then that's fair. I will submit to the authority of the mods.
But I do think the question itself has merits. For people who like the intellectual exercise of building a steelman, I think it is valid to consider that doing so may have unintended consequences.
Bombadil
4d ago
I can think of some arguments like:
"It's emotional reasoning..."
"Feminism and its consequences..."
"Different moral standards..."
But when someone does something completely against your morals, should a steelman really be made?
"Therapy culture has destroyed..."
These women are openly proclaiming on social media that they also want to kill their kids.
"In the times before abortion, many women would..."
At some point you are just gaslighting yourself.
"The stress of having kids can cause parents to..."
Like, are we really doing this? Take a step back. Apologies to the mods if this comes off as consensus building, but this is so far beyond reasonable that I have to wonder if trying to build a mental model of the kind of person who would do this is actually eroding my own personal integrity. The rational response here might actually be:
"This is fucking evil"
As saying anything else opens your mind to ideas which can only ever be bad for you and those you love.
Bombadil
4d ago
"Rowling is paying for trans people to be killed"
This is based on a very creative interpretation of her actions. She gives money to organizations ran by TERFs. Those organizations push for anti-trans laws and stigmatize being trans. This then legitimizes discrimination against trans people, which makes them more likely targets for violence. Thus, by this line of thinking, Rowling is indirectly causing trans people to be killed.
While the final conclusion is certainly a stretch, the thing that leftists want her punished for is supporting anti-trans legislation. This is something she actually does. The trans murder thing is stretching the truth in order to garner public support.
Bombadil
5d ago
Yes, it's reasonable
This is notably contrary to your initial statement calling them idiots and claimed there were no rational justification. From the perspective of self-preservation, then there clearly is a rational argument against AI. It will take your job and leave you with nothing.
The demand of the anti-datacenter group is not "bid higher" it is go away and die.
"Fuck off" is a natural response when you don't believe the other side is going to offer anything reasonable. If they instead would enter into negotiations with a meaningful offer, the tune would probably change. If you are trying to get someone to do something for you (in this case let you set up datacenters) it is common sense that you should have a clear answer when they ask what is in it for them.
Bombadil
5d ago
Bombadil is super interesting. He is colorful, whimsical, dangerous, and somewhat beyond human understanding. The section where they move through his forest is a high point of the first book. It also stood out to me in part because the movies completely omit it. Worldbuilding about things irrelevant to the current plot is much less exciting by comparison, and the "fool of a Took" scene is very easy to remember.
It might be technically more correct to say I remember the broad strokes and certain scenes and characters. And that the books and movies tend to blend together in my mind.
Bombadil
5d ago
The communist twitter artists have good reason to be scared. Art jobs are already being impacted by AI. Living off art commissions might actually be straight up impossible in the near future if it isn't already. Standing firmly against a clear threat to your livelihood is reasonable. Generally, AI is hyped because of the promise that it will automate away most of our labor. If the opposition is fueled by fear that this is correct, then that actually explains the denial of AI capabilities quite well. Once you admit an LLM can do your job cheaper and with comparable results, then you are going to be replaced. Of course people oppose this with every tool in their arsenal. This results in bad faith arguments, but the basic standpoint still makes sense.
Regarding your point about property taxes, I agree there should be a point at which the company pays enough to offset local damages while also sharing some of the wealth it earns with the community in question. If there was some guarantee this would happen, I also imagine much of the anti-datacenter sentiment would die down wnough to allow for easy construction. The fact that it hasn't, shows that the builders of datacenters are not yet bidding high enough.
Bombadil
5d ago
Clearly people saw more benefit in opening local factories than they do in opening local datacenters. The amount of jobs created is probably the main thing for this specific comparison. A datacenter is really not bringing jobs to that many people, and the goal of the datacenter is actually to replace human jobs with AI. Something that could actually harm you in the long run.
Bombadil
5d ago
The specific arguments may be bad (water use being an obvious example), but that does not mean good arguments don't exist. Besides, the basic notion of "this will be costly in some way to my local community, while all the benefits will be reaped by billionaires with no connection to me and who I can't trust" seems pretty valid.
Bombadil
5d ago
Rowling is also at least somewhat guilty. While she is not committing genocide on trans people, she is an anti-trans activist who uses her money to help fund feminist organizations which push for anti-trans laws. That is, laws that don't consider trans-women equal to born women. In the eyes of the far left, this is enough to deserve having her life ruined. So from their POV, this is all fine and deserved. "Lynching" is reserved for situations where this is not the case.
Bombadil
5d ago
That is some deep lore then. I mostly remember the movies, and in those the Palantir is used by Sauron to communicate with Saruman, and it seems like once someone looks inside it, Sauron can completely dominate their will/read their mind. That is what it looked like, and why I assumed Gandalf was so intent on getting the orb out of the Took's hands.
Given that, I think my association of "evil surveillance orb" fits quite well.
Personally, I wouldn't trust the tech billionaires farther than I can throw them.
The people funding the datacenters love to argue that AI is a world-ending technology that might well kill us all, but we still need to do this, because if we don't then surely someone else will. Then the next day they will proudly brag about how good AI is at taking people's jobs, completely ignoring that this is ruining the lives of thousands. If their predictions are correct it will ruin the lives of hundreds of millions more.
We know that existing big tech companies will do anything to get a monopoly and line their own pockets as much as possible. At this point, the playbook of selling a good product at a loss until you have captured the market, then enshittifying to capture as much profit as possible with little regard for your customers is well known. The AI companies claim to have the best interests of humanity at heart, but have done nothing to actually show they are different.
The tech bros have managed to appear completely disconnected from the rest of humanity. People joke about how Altman and Zuckerberg are actually aliens wearing human skinsuits. Palantir is named after the evil orb in Lord of the Rings, and develops top of the line surveillance tech with little regard for how it may be used. Elon, the most human of the bunch, has claimed we are summoning a demon that we don't fully understand, yet makes no attempt at halting the process, instead choosing to join the race himself.
Then for anyone not American, there is the problem with these companies having ties to the Trump administration. An administration which seems to view every relationship as entirely transactional and that will use its leverage aggressively to get whatever it wants out of others. It is no wonder then, that the rest of the world is hesitant when it comes to dependence on American AI.
Bombadil
7d ago
My argument was about skepticism towards psychiatry, not big pharma.
My main point though, was to caution you against acting rashly, since it seems like you might be jumping to conclusions. I see your other thread, and I apologize if this came off as minimizing your struggles. What I was trying to get at is that having a family is a really valuable thing, and that it is worth occasionally suffering through stupid and stressful arguments. The two of you can you can disagree, you do something he disapproves of, and at the end of the day you will still be father and son. That dynamic might end if you cut him off.
However, if this is the cutoff point for you after a long life of him causing you to struggle, then who am I to say otherwise? I don't know you or your dad. At the end of the day, you have to do what you have to do. Especially considering this is the wellness thread, I don't want to spread bad vibes by arguing against a situation that I know nothing about.
Bombadil
7d ago
The risk of doing it this way is that it indicates the law might be lenient or not taken seriously. Like, in some countries bribing public officials could result in jail time, but actually it is the main way to get anything done. "Hur hur, I know this game. As long as I don't do it too loudly, I am going to be fine."
You see the same kind of rules in discord servers and bars. "Inappropriate conduct should be reported and will not be tolerated. Offenses will resort in a ban. Inappropriate conduct includes, but is not limited to, initiating unwanted interactions, sexual interactions (ESPECIALLY with minors), soliciting drugs..."
If anything this kind of list is way more appropriate in the context of immigrants who come from different cultures and may be used to very different norms. My only complaint is that the "could"s in the list should be replaced with "will"s. If your interactions conflict with these core values of our society which we consider both reasonable and important, then your claim to asylum is going to be rejected. You will be arrested, sentenced, and subsequently deported never to return here again.
This kind of list does not on its own reflect poorly on the average immigrant or suggests that the statistics actually do show a worrying trend which the government is trying to keep from us (such a trend may exist, but this is not evidence). Like the list of discord rules, it is simply a way to inform everyone about the basic rules, and give something to point to in case someone breaks them. The rule breakers could be rare, immigration could still be an overall good thing, but given enough people you can be certain some bad ones exist.
Bombadil
7d ago
A word of caution: It sounds like you believe very strongly that your dysfunctions are due to ADHD, but have not been formally diagnosed yet. In that case, it is possible that the problem is something else, in which case being attached to any specific diagnosis can make it difficult to diagnose the actual problem. Since the criteria for mental health disorders are based on your subjective experience, it is not that difficult to convince yourself that the criteria match perfectly, removing focus from other whatever else is going on. I would thus strongly recommend listening to the doctor if they suggest that it is not actually what you think. Calling this a "medical need" when you have not been diagnosed yet sounds a bit premature.
Now, I am sorry about your father. If this can legitimately help you and is perfectly legal, then he really should not be concerned about an "unfair advantage". Giving advantages to your kids is part of being a parent after all.
I would also caution against cutting contact over this. It has not been that long since the mental health system was only a place for society's losers, those absolutely incapable of functioning in the ordinary world. Thus, many older people still regard it with stigma and fear. Somewhere you only end up if something is well and truly wrong with you, not a place that normal people go to for help. While his conclusions are wrong and his arguments bad, the things he says could still come from a good place. Not that I mean to excuse any kind of abuse, but at least the situation you described does not sound that bad to me.
Now, there could be many other things wrong that I am not privy to. Your anecdote about the father-thing definitely sounds serious, but I would expect that to be spawned by something a good deal more sinister than not believing his son's claims about having a mental health disability that will require treatment for the rest of his life.
Regardless, I wish you good luck in your medical journey.
It was a win in the sense of inflicting great damage on the enemy while suffering relatively little damage yourself.
It was a failure in terms of creating a self-sustaining and western aligned country. The Taliban quickly regained power, and the Kurds who had worked with the Americans as allies were left behind to fend for themselves.
I would not call that situation a straight up loss, but I can't justify calling it a victory either, since the occupation ultimately could not manage to fulfill its goals, and everything it gained vanished shortly after it left.
More options
Context Copy link