Kevin Beal

The definition doesn't apply to just anyone who disagrees. It's reserved for the type of behavior you often see where there is a condescending pretense at concern for other people, which is mostly or entirely wrong, trivial or irrelevant. The purpose of which could only really be to satisfy some end that has nothing to do with the content of their posts: hence the "troll" part. What it actually accomplishes if it's not seen for what it is, is that it shuts discussion down. So, you can see a standard emerging for how someone could be determined to be a concern troll. The fact that it's not a democratic process, is voluntary and compatible with the NAP and other values we and other ancaps share doesn't phase the OP one bit. Therefore it's safe to assume it's not actually about anything he's saying because even if it's disproved, it doesn't matter. Concern trolling is a very commonly accepted phenomena written about in many credible places like RationalWiki. I chose the UrbanDictionary definition because it best fits how I use the term and how I've understood others to use it. Of course if you see that a person's concern trolling as something sincere, of course you would sympathize with them. That's the point. And that's why it's a problem. It's deceptive and meant to trigger other people's insecurities. It's actually quite a fucked up thing to do once you really see it. You are totally free to demonstrate the assertion you've made above with some kind of evidence. That would be appreciated, otherwise I'm inclined to disbelieve that we are concern trolling regarding our interactions with statists. In contrast, here's a kind of concern that is actually about what is being talked about and justly directed at the appropriate people, meant to communicate actual understanding: 2006 – The First Wall Street Protest Manifesto! http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2006_first_wall_street_manifesto.mp3

I did read that one. Why would you assume that I didn't?

I've thought about it some more and I think the distinction you made is totally valid. If there are moral hypocrisies within us, that's not quite the same thing as I was saying. I unreservedly concede that actually those kinds of inconsistencies actually are a measure of philosophical ill-health. And to answer your question, I guess not. It wasn't entirely honest of me to compare the two situations that way.

And why is that a problem? Epistemology is often really boring. Justin Bieber, not as much. It's all philosophy even if it isn't metaphysics. I'm interested in disagreement. That's more interesting to me. I'm sure there is plenty of stuff for me to learn about epistemology, and in which case, start that thread and draw people in showing why it's so interesting or worthwhile. Perhaps your post was downvoted because the implication you are making is that it's shallow or trivial or something along those lines, to talk about Justin Bieber. When it's not. At least not simply because you vaguely imply it.

Well, actually yes it is. It's not a moral issue, but it is a matter of values and it is philosophy. But I'll just change it to fit your analogy: I went to school and I couldn't find anyone that I could really connect with. I had a value around not being around people that I couldn't respect (because of the enabling), and I also knew that I needed at least some kind of allegiances in order to simply navigate and survive. Does that mean I shouldn't have made frenemies with them? (This is a less extreme equivalent to the black guy in the KKK analogy.) The mere existence of opposing values doesn't (alone) say anything about any kind of philosophical ill-health. I pay taxes even though taxes go to fund things like wars and kidnapping and rape and theft and murder. I feel a little tension around that. I know that I'm forced to and thus know I'm not responsible for that murder and rape and kidnapping, but there are still two opposing values. I would submit that life is full of these tensions and that they are normal and healthy, like a resistance to a muscle makes it grow. The exploration of these tensions may reveal inconsistencies worth changing your actions or values over, or they may teach you more about the world and you become just a little wiser. The difference being that in the first it's my own misunderstanding or hypocrisy causing the tension, and in the second it's reality that causes the tension. A goal of no tensions is like how I imagine the Venus Project trying to do away with working for a living, everything being free. The value of philosophy is not as much in the things which are irrefutably obvious and true, but those things which are counterintuitive or subtle. (Which I mean as another way of saying there is wisdom in tension).

Why is having a tension a bad thing? A marker of ill-health? I can value taking it easy on myself, and I can value holding myself to higher standards. There is a tension there, and I'm kind of glad that there is. Does that mean I'm some kind of hypocrite or that my values need serious re-evaluation? No, not really. As much as a tension can describe a logically fatal inconsistency, it can also describe ambiguity or ambivalence. They're all worth exploring, but it's not necessarily a bad thing it's there or a sign of a bad thing.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to compare yourself to others. A couple of potential problems that I see are around evaluating your own self worth based on the judgments of other people, and finding yourself adopting standards on the basis that other people have them. So for example, I would justify drinking every night on the basis that lots of people my age did that away at college or at the bars or whatever. When I was in school, I would feel worthless looking at the guys who had girlfriends or did a lot of flirting. There was an expectation on me that I'd do that same, but I was too overwhelmed with anxieties, fears of rejection and this sort of thing and I was failing that standard. And I thought that I should, that it was a good standard that I was miserably failing. The good part of comparing, I think, is in reference to your own goals. I might feel envy or admiration of someone around my age who achieved something like what I want to achieve, and in comparing I see what skills or experience they developed and potentially adopt similar strategies. Or find out that it was at great cost to them and then reassess my own goals. I think a good distinction is if the comparing is in reference to your own goals and standards or that of others. Hopefully that makes some sense.

Welcome to the boards! How'd you come across the show? How did you stumble upon anarchism?

A person coming in and telling me that I'm anti-philosophical, hypocritical and all in a condescending tone. I'd rather be called a dick, personally.

There is nothing about a thing being subjective or being used for nefarious ends that means it lacks value. Value doesn't mean the moral good or any kind of engineering level of objectivity. Hard work is valuable to the bad guys in the exact same sense that it's valuable to the good guys in your examples. The value of money is ontologically subjective, meaning the value is not in the actual fibers or inks, but that in no way whatsoever means it lacks real value. Your use of the word "intrinsic" here is confusing. Justin Bieber could not have worked hard or worked hard and not gained his success, but none of that is to say that there is not actual, true, real value in his hard work. The effects can be seen and measured with at least some objective measures, in the same way that the value of goods is subjective, but has objective measures in the form of dollar values. Immoral ≠ valueless subjective ≠ fake

"Obvious troll is obvious"

I was singing American Pie by Don Mclean to myself in my car and the part "I can't remember if I cried when I read about his widowed bride" and I thought about how it's often the case that widows receive all the sympathy and not the guy who actually died, who lost the opportunity to grow old and watch his kids grow up and all of this sort of thing. Maybe there is a good reason for the sympathy to be directed that way, I don't know, but it struck me how his life was only of value insofar as he provided benefit to her. I suddenly cried, parked and rested my head on the steering wheel. It was such a strange experience. ...that was this morning. I am occasionally reminded of what value my life may be worth and I feel a bit antsy, rushed motivation to achieve great things (and then forgetting about it as soon as I could distract myself). I've had it my whole life. This whole insecurity around being worthy: worthy of respect and admiration, worthy of love. Having been terribly isolated as a child, born to indifferent and emotionally absent parents. The emotional castration talked about in the video really speaks to me. This desire for romantic love to free me from my own lack of connection, to be deemed masculine by the opposite sex. So I can finally be vulnerably myself, desired for who I am. An escape from the world I felt I was shoved into, devoid of sincerity, encouraging me to protect myself by being stoic, emotionless. A legion of broken hearted men, discouraged and repressed. /thinking out loud ...also, this guy has a very interesting video about female psychopathy worth watching.

It seems to me that if someone is not their character, then for me to criticize their character or their thoughts or their abortion, they should not take it personally, right? Maybe if it's an insecurity, then it has something to do with your identity. That would sort of make sense to me, anyway. I really dislike the Huffington Post and PoMo. I would say that the photos did have an impact on me though. A strange mild horror. Not sure that was the effect the photographer was going for...

2 tensions (7%),... apparently. It does not say where the contradictions or "tensions" are, though. I'm skeptical, but I have an obvious bias, so, maybe, haha.

[media] [/media] Generally if you want to see how someone did something in a forum post, all you need to do is quote them, and if it's still not showing how, then you can toggle the HTML button in the top left of the editor

...and you could re-use the same video as topics seem to come up again, if it's general enough. I'd watch 'em

Of course it has intrinsic value. Gold can be used to make weapons that kill people, therefore it's not intrinsically valuable = directly analogous argument. I'm not certain how you are using the term "intrinsic value", but the fact that people discriminate on the basis of hard work vs laziness, and benefit from doing so is strong evidence of real value. You dork!

I think he's super talented and gets a lot of flack for reasons I don't fully understand. The same thing happened to Justin Timberlake and other male pop stars. There are some things that bother me though. Justin Timberlake for example was proclaimed the "god of sex" by Rolling Stone magazine. And Justin Bieber's shirtless thug thing is pretty lame. J-town biebs has been pumped up by agents and other vain stars from the beginning made out to be like the most amazing thing ever, and with the millions of people who strongly dislike him, that's gotta have some negative effects on his personality. So, in that way I sympathize. He's a young guy still figuring things out and he gets so much intense and conflicting feedback about who he is. Probably jealousy though. I'm a little jealous. The guy has the ladies rushing at him wanting to be with him all the time.

Concern Troll: "A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending." - Urban Dictionary

Haha. Well, numbers 2 and 3 are definitely a major source of frustration for me. It's like an attack on truth itself. I don't even know what to say at that point. It doesn't stop me usually, but maybe it should... Because in the immortal words of Boxy: "They be trollin'"

Stef actually goes into this in the Xmas eve call in show. He thinks it's interesting and doesn't have any particular problem with it generally speaking. 2568 – The Truth is a Bomb - Christmas Eve Call In Show December 24th, 2013 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2568_Christmas_Eve_Show_24_Dec_2013.mp3

Seriously though. I've known many people who've gotten into website design and to have that nice a wordpress setup so quickly is impressive. You really hit the ground running.

I think I disagree. I'm not giving anyone the finger when I decide not to respond to a post someone's written directed at me, or choosing not to pick up a call out of disinterest. Or whatever, something like that. I think that the difference here (assuming I know what I'm talking about) is that the grandmother knows (on whatever level) that he's not interested but persists anyway, and manipulates him into it. In the first case it's a passive indifference (at worst), but in the second, it's an active rejection of him (specifically his preferences).

I don't know that there's enough information here to conclude that your grandma was telling you to go fly a kite, but it may very well be the case. That kind of stuff (especially among family it seems) can be super subtle. Certainly the last quote was projection. I think that the fact that you obviously don't want to have a conversation with her, and yet she still insists, appealing to your pity or guilt (maybe?); that is a kind of "f*ck you", I think. It's hard to imagine that someone wouldn't be able to perceive that lack of interest, so I'd bet that she knows, at least on some level. So that would be her manipulating you to serve her ends and against your own. If that makes sense. That old lady sentimentality, pity thing scares the hell out of me because of my own history, so I could be talking more about me than you. Do you value your relationship with your grandmother? Do you see her often? I never had a relationship with mine beyond a few visits, so it was never like I stopped seeing her, she just wasn't really in the picture (the other died before I was born).

If we don't kill the children first under the weight of an enormous debt. I almost wouldn't blame kids being born today for being resentful of previous generations. But you're totally right about the times we're living in. We're actually getting close to true artificial intelligence, to disease invulnerability, to anti-aging technology, to space colonization, to androids, to all sorts of crazy shit that no one ever thought of. The amount of damage that sociopaths in power will be able to wield will be beyond any sci-fi ever predicted. It's a crucial time for peaceful parenting to be certain. (I'd upvote, but I'm maxed out on that today.)