Subsidiarity

It didn't say anything about alternatives and suggestions. I'm looking for something that is censorship resistant, hence federated/decentralized technologies. Discord is vulnerable to censorship. Some content creators host their own communities, similar to FDR, like Free Talk Live and School Sucks. I will give them a try. And the Skeptic Society has a forums. I will set that up and go from there. Perhaps I will see some of your there. And I will ask those communities for further suggestions.

I'm trying to get off of social media, but I still need community. Where else can I go? Preferably communities that are built on federated technologies, not just a platform that has a liberty community. In the interest of promoting boards in general, the admins may want to promote a few sister boards. Edit: Part of the reason for getting off of platforms is censorship, which is why I am trying to lean more toward federated/decentralized technologies.

I chatted with a gentleman from Zanzibar. He told me there was a major feastival in Zanzibar that some people, mostly government employees, unofficially recognize the festival as a celebration of Freddie Murcury. It cannot be made official because the Muslims have issues with homosexuals.

Primer is a notoriously complicated 80 minutes. It all seems to make sense until you are hit by the last 20 minutes. One of the major themes is the moral failings of the characters and the effect of a major technical breakthrough on the morally imperfect people. They are very clever and technically skilled but ethically they are morons. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/

A possible FDR guest? Philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah discusses honor and its place in social and political movements throughout modern history through his book is "The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen." From Appiah's site:

You could come to such a conclusion in at least two ways. I am interested to know why you think some conflicts may not be resolvable. Consider two children who both want the same toy. It is a finite resource that cannot be shared so at least one child will have to go without the toy. This may be what you mean about a conflict that cannot be resolved. The NVC method is to look past the toy, the 'strategy to meet a need', and look to the need itself. One child may want to connect with the past and the other may want self-expression. Once the needs are identified there are infinitely many, by definition of an NVC 'need', ways to address these needs. NVC assumes there are enough resources locally to have these needs met. That is another reason you may not think that all conflicts can be resolved. Generally, conflicts arise on the level of strategies. We all have the same needs to varying degrees at different times. If we think creatively about how we can meet our needs, and don't merely cling to our preferred strategy, then I suspect that we could use the resources at hand to meet our physical and psychological needs. NVC limits: I wouldn't try to NVC my way out of a tax bill. You can't do creative problem solving with people who are following orders and not allowed to think. The idea of 'need' can be tricky to understand. So, if somebody couldn't figure out how to make the leap from 'strategy' to 'need' the conflict would get stuck. For other psychological reasons some people will not consider giving up their preferred strategy or will not negotiate with 'the enemy'. Those are some practical reasons why a conflict may not get resolved. Otherwise the theory seems sound, and it has worked well for my family helping to repair damage over the last 1-2 years.

In NVC judgement has meaning that is different than the common usage. An NVC judgement is a statement that confuses the world for ones experience of it. Let's consider a statement that is relevant to FDR, 'Mike is evil.' The common usage of this phrase would be similar to 'I don't like Mike, a lot.' This is a statement about the speaker's experience, even though 'Mike is evil' seems to be saying something about Mike. NVC tries to avoid these confusions. On the other hand if by 'Mike is evil' an FDR'er meant that Mike knowingly violates principles of UPB, that really is a statement about Mike. There is no objective/subjective confusion. The statement is in objective form, and the content is about objective characteristics. This is NVC compliant, as I understand it. The main reason to stress this ob/sub difference is for clear ('annoyingly precise') dialogue when going into a confrontation so that it can be meaningfully resolved. If we go into a confrontation with the idea that the problem is that 'I am too angry' it implies a negative prescription to solve the problem. The problem is with me and my excess anger. Less anger will solve the problem. NVC shifts the focus to your experience and needs. Perhaps you feel agitated and disturbed. Then perhaps you need more tranquillity and empathy. You can then turn that into a request, like for me to speak to you more quietly and for us to discuss our feelings daily. Resolving conflict and establishing empathy are the main goals of NVC.

A jackal is merely the confusion of objective and subjective. There are different ways around it. As we have mentioned one way is to define things objectively. Another way is to make it clear that your language show experiences are not objective characterises. Like in the OP Child1 said,'My experience of you is stupidity.' Another way around it is to educate the person you are talking to. If they come to understand that experiences are not a claim on objective reality then you can say 'you are funny' without the confusion. In NVC talk this would be to 'put on your giraffe ears'. As opposed to 'putting on your jackal ears' where a person hears claims on their characteristics despite your language not indicating any such thing.

Yes, objectively 'stupid' does not reflect what these children are doing. The main point there, I suppose, is that it is not a problem with the word but rather a problem with how it is used. For the geeks in the house, in regular expressions some functions are 'greedy'. There is no problem calling something greedy in programming despite some people using it as jackal attack. Note that even 'judgmental' is used as a jackal the way that your ex used it. In NVC 'judgment(al)' is not a jackal because it is being used as a substitute for objective characteristics. Yes, I am assuming that your ex did not objectively define her terms. Note that your use of 'sensible' is a jackal. It can be a difficult habit to break. But if you have strong relationships then it may not be a problem.

I will apologize in advance that I tend to take in core principles then make them my own in practice and so with NVC. As such I am not sure exactly what of NVC is canonical and what I have made my own. One of the core ideas of NVC is the idea of 'judgment' (or 'jackal'). And in defining what exactly is a judgment may be my first break with the canon. I have come to define an NVC judgment as 'language that confuses objective and subjective', or that confuses the world for one's experience of it. And there is little doubt that such language exists and causes problems. We could begin with the statement 'Stef is funny'. This statement is of the same form as 'Stef is human' and yet says something very different. 'Stef is human' is talking about the world, objective reality, specifically Stef's relationship to other humans. (The truth of the statement doesn't change its status. The same can be said of the statement 'Stef is canine' though it is false.) 'Stef is funny' is talking about the speakers experience, subjective 'reality', of Stef while the language suggests that funny is an objective characteristic of Stef in the way that being human is an objective characteristic of Stef. Why does this matter? The simplest example has taken the name 'jackal trap' in my home. Child one: "You are stupid." Child two: "No, I'm not." Child one: "Yes, you are." Child two: "No, I'm not!" 'You are stupid', assuming it is sincere, is confusing Child1's experience of Child2 with an objective characteristic of Child2. This makes it seem like they are disagreeing about something in the objective world. If Child1 were to be to be annoyingly precise and NVC compliant he would say something like 'My experience of you is stupidity.' Child2 could counter with 'My experience of myself is not stupidity'. This language makes it much more clear that they are not disagreeing about anything, merely having different experiences of the same thing. This can get more complicated if words like 'funny' or 'stupid' are defined objectively. 'Funny' could be defined to include anybody that has made Joe Rogan laugh. 'Stupid' could be defined to include anybody that has scored less than 85 on an IQ test.

There is a forum called 'General Messages' and one called 'Miscellaneous'. It seems to me that these are redundant. Though they would seem to be of different priority since one is at the top of the forums list and the other is at the bottom.

37% of working dads would quit if spouse or partner could support the family Another 38% say they would take a pay cut to spend more time with kids Don't be surprised if you see more dads on the playground with the kids during the workday. According to a new CareerBuilder.com survey, 37 percent of working dads say they'd leave their jobs if their spouse or partner made enough money to support the family. If given the choice, another 38 percent would take a pay cut to spend more time with their kids. Nearly one in four (24 percent) working dads feel work is negatively impacting their relationship with their children. Forty-eight percent have missed a significant event in their child's life due to work at least once in the last year and nearly one in five (18 percent) have missed four or more. According to the survey, the time working dads spend on work far exceeds the time spent with their children. More than one in four (27 percent) working dads say they spend more than 50 hours a week on work and nearly one in 10 (8 percent) spend more than 60 hours. In terms of the time they spend with their children, one in four (25 percent) working dads spend less than one hour with their kids each day. Forty-two percent spend less than two hours each day. While more companies today are offering various programs and options to promote work/life balance, some working dads say their employers are lacking in this area. Thirty-six percent of working dads say their company does not offer flexible work arrangements such as flexible schedules, telecommuting, job sharing and more. Richard Castellini, vice president of consumer marketing at CareerBuilder.com and father of three, offers the following tips to help dads gain a healthy work/life balance: 1. Keep in touch -- While you're at work, make a quick call in between meetings and projects and let your children know they're top of mind. 2. Plan a kid-friendly potluck -- If co-workers in your department have kids, ask your boss if you can have a kid-friendly potluck for lunch on a Friday. Not only does this allow the kids to spend extra time with you, but it also gives the employees in your department time to get to know each other better. 3. Give your undivided attention -- When you're at home spending time with your family, turn off your cell phone, step away from the e-mails and give your undivided attention. If you bring work home, do it after the kids have gone to bed. 4. Keep one calendar -- Schedule baseball games and play recitals on the same calendar you use for meetings and travel to make sure you never double-book yourself. Save your vacation days for those special events in your children's lives, so you're there and in the front row. 5. Make time -- At least once a week, schedule a family activity that involves interaction such as a game, bike ride, trip to the playground, etc. Also, make sure to schedule a date night for you and your significant other. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/06/13/dads.work/index.html?iref=newssearch

Day care supervisor Savannah Silvana said the children are learning that police officers are their friends and people they can rely on. Someone they can turn to in times of need. “We talked about the things that happened,” Silvana said. “We try to teach the kids how police protect us.” She said one student asked why the man killed the police officers. And they discussed how the police risk their own safety by trying to protect the people. Asked who is looking after the three fallen police officers now, several children said “the angels.” http://www.journalpioneer.com/News/Local/2014-06-11/article-3758933/Youngsters-honour-fallen-RCMP-officers/1 To be fair children have less to fear from police since they don't have anything to steal.

The Ting Tings - That's Not My Name: The song usually gets me chocked up. I think it reflects the schizophrenic nature of loneliness. Sometimes hysterical and sometimes tranquil. Perhaps even both at the same time. My mother got depressed and left when I was very young. We, 4 kids, had different women take care of us for my first 8 years. I remember getting into fights then but I had no struggles with friends or loneliness. At 8 we moved and I left my friends and I had much less adult supervision. My father continues to be a workaholic. I mostly went from school to home with my 3 elder siblings, oldest 12 years old. That was when I really started struggling. I had some kids to play with but I never connected to any of them. I remember not smiling because I always forgot to brush my teeth. There were other less secure kids than me. I wonder what they went through. Some kids were even picked on by the teachers. How sadistic. I never took friends over. Our house was usually a wreck. When I got a paper route I would go to the corner store and get a microwave meal for supper. I sometimes cried alone in my room, and even sometimes while walking my paper route. I was lucky to be good looking in high school and I was approached by girls. Otherwise I would likely never have made the jump. Now I have a good romantic relationship, a step son and a daughter. I met her on a dating site. Most of the people I spent time with would sabatoge my pursuits and relationships, so there was no chance of meeting anybody through them, or even around them. I still don't have friends other than her. It makes things pretty volatile when we disconnect since I loose most of my bearings. NVC has helped my be more stable when we disconnect and we more easily keep and repair connection. My social skills are improving but I'm still not sure how to make friends. Though I also don't have the same drive to get more people in my life. I am currently mostly satisfied. If you have insights please share.

These numbers seem kinda all over the place. For example, 'To what extent do you fear being a victim of crime in your community?' Atlantic is double the national average; then 'Have you been a victims of crime in the last towo years?' Atlantic is less than half the national average. What?! The RCMP confidence seems to suggest they are default good unless the news tells them otherwise. Does this generally mean that the ancap, non centralising message is not getting out? http://www.angusreidglobal.com/polls/48971/canadian-confidence-in-police-courts-sees-significant-rebound-over-2012-sentiment/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=canadian-confidence-in-police-courts-sees-significant-rebound-over-2012-sentiment

You could reply without explaining. A simple 'Hey' let's her know you are reading her msgs without giving away anything else. I have found it useful on occasion.

Thank you.

Really great help guys. It was me and my wife that were talking to him and I find that we leap into action without proper exploration when working together. On reflection dissecting the movie didn't help as much as talking about what we do to protect the family... We recently got a dog partially for security purposes and we don't entertain violent people. So it would seem like his fear was driven more by perceived insecurity than scary imagery. Thx guys.

In conversations I feel a tension between validating people's feelings and helping them move beyond them. For example my son saw part of a scary movie and later told me he felt scared when thinking about it. So I tried to let him know that I understood how he felt and such validation, but then I wanted to help him put it in perspective. So I told him that it wasn't real, they are actors telling a story and such. When I start this I feel like I am discounting his feelings. Like I am telling him subtly that he should not feel this way. Do you guys ever feel similarly? Have you found a way to deal? Is the entire scope of my perception off? Thx in advance.

My browser spellcheck doesn't work on FDR. It never has. I am a pretty bad speller so it rely on it a lot. If something could be tweeked to fix it I would be more confident in expressing myself on these forums. Thx.

It is a pet peeve of mine that sites don't list the constraints for a valid password until after an error has occured, if at all. I assume there are limits on the length, high and low, and character set limits. My hope is that listing constraints becomes common practice. The new site looks great.

Why are potential moral agents in the same class as moral agents? With respect to morals they can be differentiated. Perhaps those differences don't lead to any effective differences, but until that is demonstrated logically I would not consider healthy adults as moral peers to fetuses. I should further clarify something else. 'Moral peer' is not a description of a thing but a relationship between things. All moral agents would be peers to each other, likewise amoral agents would be peers. As you mentioned potential moral agents may be yet another class of peers. Does the moral class affect what interactions are legitimate? Is it legitimate for a dog to rape a dog? Does their lack of conception about consent mean that dog morals don't exclude rape, or anything really since consent is a central concept. Then for a dog even the concept of rape wouldn't mean anything. The act may be unwanted, but that is distinct from unconsented. If UPB is perfected does that mean that morality becomes a purely rational exercise? And that since psychopaths are capable of reason they are capable of moral action? And yes AI too.

Also in a previous post said it was the mutual exchange that made trade symmetric. I don't think that is quite right. Rather it is the equal ability of the participants to veto the interaction that makes it symmetric. This makes the issue of giving clearer. Gifts are also symmetric as we may equally decline, you the giving and me the receiving.

By retributive punishment do you include making a victim whole? I understand your point about the subjective value of things, but just as a wrinkle what if I throw your gold in the river. Intuitively it seems like you would have a claim to my gold. Or does retributive punishment only mean an extra punishment to invoke general deterrence? To say that all people are moral peers is begging for a definition of 'people'. I tend to side with molyneux on this one that it is the capacity to respect morals, not necessarily even the exercise of that capacity, that gives you moral protection.

I tend to think this kind of vocabulary leads to a more technical discussion rather than talk about personal failings of why a person cannot understand why Bob and Doug cannot rape each other. Molyneux's explanation that got the most traction with me was on AVTM. Watching it a few times I noticed there were 5 people in studio listening to Molyneux and none of them gave any indication that they had any idea what he was talking about. What is it about Bob and Doug that matters, and what is it about rape that matters? I suspect that it is that Bob and Doug are moral peers that matters, and that rape is asymetric that matters. Though I would like to have a UPB ninja confirm this for me. To try to clarify these matters more: There is a question of 'Who are moral peers?' That is a question that doesn't have to be answered in order to make headway into understanding UPB. To practically apply UPB perhaps an answer to that question will be needed. Whatever the answere is to that question you will be left with some group of individuals, moral peers. Since this is a group of equals, morally speaking, only interactions that treat the individuals as equals, symetrical interactions, can be legitimate. Symetrical interactions include interactions where Bob and Doug both agree to the interaction. If we use this analysis to look at murder: Let's define murder as non-consensual non-defensive (aggressive) killing. We will assume that Bob and Doug are moral peers. For murder to exist there must be a murderer, Bob, and a victim, Doug. Bob is interacting with Doug without consent from Doug. If we were to call this interaction legitimate it would put Bob and Doug into separate moral categories, and thus contradicting their being moral peers... that probably needs to be unpacked more. One problem with Molyneux's UPB presentation is that he doesn't define murder as 'non-consensual non-defensive killing', but rather (implicitly) something like 'immoral killing'. It is possible for Bob and Doug to kill each other at the same time. It is possible for them to do so without consent. So if murder is defined as 'non-consensual non-defensive killing' it is entirely possible for Bob and Doug to murder each other at the same time. But Molyneux focuses on if each Bob and Doug may simulateously kill each other immorally. His answer is 'no'. Moral peers and asymetric interaction is my best attempt to untagle the knot as to why this is so. This also begs the question of why is Molyneux doing implicit definitions. Curious: does my name, Chomskyness from back when I was a liberal, start out encounters on FDR with an adversarial bent.