GYre0ePJhZ

Yeah, it is disgusting. I enjoyed Bruce Fenton's take on it: Strangest thing is that Satoshi can be defined a criminal now depending on the interpretation of the legislation. Do you live in New York Kevin?

Recent scientific article based on project utilizing EEG to measure intensity of humiliation. Snippets of food for thought from the Psychology Today article: Humiliation is defined as the emotion you feel when your status is lowered in front of others. Otten and Jonas ... concluded that the participants' responses to humiliation were both more negative than to anger, and more intense than to happiness. Taken to the extreme, instilling humiliation in a victim is a basic tactic of torturers, prison guards, and certain kinds of domestic abusers. Making sure your criticism or teaching is presented in a way that preserves the other person’s self-respect is the most basic way to avoid causing humiliation. I find it particularly interesting that humiliation was objectively found to be more intense than both happiness and more negative than anger. Links: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201407/the-one-emotion-really-hurts-your-brain http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17470919.2013.855660

I have only read the abstract of the article so I can not say whether it is founded on good science, although the impact factor of the journal is pretty high (1.348 in 2011) which generally means good quality. However, it is from 1990 (meaning old), it has cross-sectional design which can not prove causality, and the sample size is not that great. Nonetheless, thought it had interesting information and theories that you might find intriguing too. From the abstract: Link: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1386461?uid=3738744&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104330173367

I'm thinking accepting valid counter-arguments is kind of the deal at a philosophy-forum and a sign of philosophical maturity. Writing a statement of that acceptance to the person who helped you think more rationally when debates have been civilized has something to do with reciprocity I think.What do you find hilarious about it?

Alright, you have convinced me. Thanks for your input!

Would you argue that it requires a conscious intent to hurt and humiliate for an action to be classified as mean? Would, for example, Stef be classified as a mean person when he put forth arguments which hurt and humiliate bad guys. Is he or is the meanness justified because it is directed towards evil? Also, your definition makes the adjective hard to apply to anyone as it speculates in the state of mind of the acting person. Most claim doing things out of a desire for good. Add to that the question of whether the person does it consciously or unconsciously. Most claim doing something unconsciously if revealed.

Googled it, but was not satisfied. What is it? Thoughts and suggestions:

I want to make this post dedicated to saying sorry to Stef, Mike, and the listeners for what I wrote. It was stupid. I appreciate all your work so much and I owe you guys the world. Edit: I appreciate all the feedback btw. I will improve in the future.

I agree

In terms of popularity, yes. Not necessarily in terms of everything else.

I agree with parts of what you are writing, specifically what you write about thinking it was helpful. I can clearly see that it was stupid and I disagree with my own OP. I think I was clouded by being excited about wanting FDR to be larger than TYT and wanted to share and incite enthusiasm, but I can see that I failed and that is my responsibility. However, I think you are strawmanning me: Prove it through citing me in context and not words like "as if" and "indicate". If you want your post to be a constructive criticism of my post this vague language is not the way to go, the same way my vague language about what i think the community and the producers ought to do to be as popular as TYT was not constructive as well. This is a strawman as well, I think. I have not written that I "think they are so directly comparable".

Why did you got annoyed? In addition, what do you mean by already? My thought was that we all, both listeners and those employed in FDR, ought to do more if we were to become as popular as TYT. That is a big if though, and, additionally, since I have so little insight into the workings of FDR, or the situation of other listeners for that matter, I must admit I am in no position to tell anyone they ought to up their game if FDR is to get as popular as TYT. I think it was a presumptuous thing to write and it doesn't really add any value. I am sorry about that.

I intended to respond to both you and Ryan in the same sentence. I can see it turned out confusing. I am sorry about that! Ryan wrote that it was hard to compare due to TYT being all those adjectives. You (Kevin) wrote that quality is more important then quantity (I am not sure whether you mean quantity in terms of number of videos or in terms of viewers though). I argue that while both of you bring reasons why it might be harder to become that popular, it does not mean that it can't be done or is not a good long term goal to have. For the record, I do not approve of TYT or Cenk Uygur through writing all of this. I can respect that they admit to not being objective and being progressive. I also found the chat between Rogan and Cenk interesting to listen to. Especially when Cenk talks about his history in msnbc and their spinelessness, bribery and partisanship. However, he is full of crap most of the time. This still does not mean it can't happen. An analogy that come to mind is the S-growth curve in economics, social media, and biology. One never knows where one is at, and then suddenly it explodes for reasons that were hard to predict would give such an outcome before it happened

I understand that the task is harder for FDR for the quality and credibility reasons you mention, but I don't get why the adjectives you label TYT are relevant to a goal of being more popular than them. Although a thought came to mind that maybe there are not as many virtuous people as there are TYT subs. I pointed out this in my post as well. What I was curious about was the question of Stef's level of self-expression and what an increase of it hinges on. I am not familiar with this, can you elaborate or show examples?

I watched the Joe Rogan Experience with Cenk Uygur from The Young Turks a couple of hours ago. And then I checked the popularity of their youtube channel. It blew my mind how many views and subs they have compared to FDR.FDR has around 158,000 subs, 32,000,000 views, 1,600,000 views last month, and 5,700 subs last month. TYT has around 1,564,000 subs, 1,415,000,000 views, 33,933,000 views last month, and 36,900 subs last month. That is almost 44 times the views, 10 times the subs, 21 times the views last month, and more than 6 times the subs last month. First, I want to say that FDR has a long way to go. However, while it might be crazy, I see no reason why FDR can't be just as popular as TYT in, say, 5 years. I think this can happen because FDR is closing the gap of the rate that TYT gets viewers and subs. This because the multiplicators of total and last-month views/subs are around 2 times less for the last-month views/subs (21 & 6) than for the total views/subs (44 & 10). Although I know this is a debatable assumption, at this pace, FDR will be more popular than TYT in the long run (the channels were created around the same time). If we are to reach such a goal, the community ought to up its game with donations of time and money. Same goes for Stef and Mike who ought to up their game as well to reach that goal. I do not know the specifics of where that improvement can come from except that Stef has said he is only around 40 % of where he wants to be in terms of expressing himself. I wonder if there is something we as a community can do to help him with this? I don't want to envoke and exploit guilt in people though writing this by the way. My intent is to remind people that we are on the right track, but that more can be done to reach the heights FDR deserves to be at.

Good question! Maybe it makes it easier? I mean, maybe he can better act a hypocritical Christian, as Marty clearly was, knowing religion is used in this way?

I thought I would throw it out there as something to pursue for FDR. Some interesting quotes I found through his wiki page:

Subtitled, "Letting Love in Safely and Showing it Recklessly". I got this book from my step-mom as a birthday present, and I want to share some thoughts I have about it. I have only read the back-cover and the introduction as of yet. Maybe I will read more if I feel like it. In the rest of this post I first want to provide information about the author, and then I will quote two sentences of his before I give my thoughts about it. About the Author: Some red flags appear already to me, but I don't want to spend time on this for now. From the back-cover: I ask whether the proposition in the first sentence is true. As this is what he assumes before he starts to teach how to be an adult in love I think it is very important to investigate it. Maybe he argues for this assumption in the book, but I'm feeling lazy. I see two ways to interpret this, one that I think is false and another that I think is arguable. The false. This life purpose of loving and being loved is something bestowed upon us from the outside. For example from the Abrahamic religions, where every person gets this purpose of loving and being loved given through being created in God’s picture. AKA, this is how God made humans, (endofstorynoquestionsaskedthankyoubyebye) The arguable. Life purpose is not something granted from others, but something that is created by every individual. Every individual who successfully create their own purpose in life find that to love and be loved is it. I'm not totally convinced by the second argument myself. "Successfully" is sort of vague for one, but I am curious what you think of it so do let me know

Milosevic died from heart-failure although some claim it was staged. But he was not executed. Otherwise good presentation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87#Death

Thanks for the info. I added it now. That is totally understandable. I had to turn down the sound completely in the last scenes of True Detective because it got to intense for me. I prefer the darkness to glossy series like West Wing though.

Done. I'll take a look tomorrow

Glad to be of help

Yeah, I agree. I think that is a useful distinction. Then let me rephrase. UPB is still apllicable in life and death situations, but it is reasonable to opt out. How can stealing become universably preferable behavior in a life and death situation? The same logical inconsistency is involved would you not agree? I would still contend that there is still a choice involved, not a very hard one, but still a choice, as evidenced by suicides, which is an action some choose. Quote from UPB:

What is the difference? I mean, they are often intertwined.

I think this summarize the answers to lifeboat scenarios: Most people would commit immoral actions in situations of inavoidability in order to survive. Life and death scenarios do not render the science of morality moot anymore than genetical mutations render the science of biology moot. A science of morality decreases the chance of suffering immorality. A science of morality that can answer to 99.9 % of the worlds evils is good enough. I do not think number 1 invalidates UPB as UPB even in lifeboat scenarios hold that stealing is immoral. The fact that many do something does not make it moral. It just describes that most people value being alive more than being moral, which is optional. I do think that 2-4 are reasonable arguments. However, I don't think they are derived from first principles. Number 2 may by some be intepreted as validation through analogy, but I don't think it makes the argument unreasonable. Number 3-4 are utilitarian arguments, which I find convincing. But I remember Stef ones said that utilitarianism does not have anything to do with philosophy, which would be an argument against it. This is what Block argued when Stef talked about the consequences of spanking as well. I think it still is reasonable to accept UPB due to utilitarian reasons, and because science is not invalidated even with anomalies in for instance biology. I think actually I will make it a goal of mine to make lifeboat scenarios the biggest ethical problem the future face, as that would be a proof that we have done our job through removing 99.9 % of the evils that pester our world today. Gotta have our priorities straight, man I have the impression that UPB is applicable in lifeboat scenarios, but that it is reasonable to opt out in situations of life and death.