Kevin Beal

What system are you talking about specifically and in what respect exactly is it a limitation? Because some things are a fact of life. Our being bound by gravity is a limitation, our short lives are a limitation, scarcity of resources is a limitation. People downvoting posts for bad reasons is a limitation?

The show is growing in a big way reaching more and more people. Who knows what kind of impact it could have? You may never have heard of the show if it hadn't gained a certain amount of popularity.

Personally, downvotes hurt my feelings and cause a tiny bit of anxiety. I got a little resentful even. Why does nobody who gets downvoted talk about this? Why is it always about how it's like some sort of petty thing that no one should do without lots of evidence or argument to back it up? Am I wrong, are you completely detached emotionally, and it's simply about what is right? Personally, I think the negative vote should be for everything you guys think is wrong and stupid and bad. The reputation system is a kind of feedback that says how people take what you said, not the rightness or irrationality of your post. It is a kind of popularity contest, and that doesn't have to be a bad thing. What it is is simply more information. I think that you ought to simply trust people to use it the way they feel it ought be used and to argue that they ought use it differently if you disagree, rather than change it as a matter of policy. Trust people to listen and appeal to their shared values. If you don't have shared values with the community, then why would you be here in the first place? Isn't the whole point to try out these ideas and be consistent about them and to connect with other people who share your values? Getting a negative vote is a learning opportunity. Add* And if it's the case that somebody who dislikes the downvote feature on the basis that not enough argument was made, was the person who downvoted Nathan, then I would appeal to the value you place in UPB and rational consistency to tell him what you thought was worth that negative vote. It would be nice if everyone who watched one of Stef's videos gave him a rational explanation as to why they thought the video deserved the downvote, but they don't. In this instance we can technically change the reality of the situation by demanding that JamesP hack the IPBoards software to support the decision you guys come to, but I personally don't want that and this post is my reason why. Also it may be a lot of his time invested in something that turns out to not be that great to begin with. Let's use compelling arguments, appeals to shared values, RTR if the chance presents itself and make the kind of community that is worthy of the trust to use the downvote the way you think it ought be used. Create a community through honest exchange of ideas rather than by policy. It's anarchy, and that's a wonderful thing.

I just finished watching it. I really don't understand the propaganda part that you are talking about. The message of the movie was that these kids' considerable intelligence and abilities, and the main character's empathy were exploited to fight a war that was never needed. The adults who wanted the war were portrayed as insane or sociopathic. The whole idea that there are real bad guys out there to do war with was directly questioned. While the fantasy violence (the laser tag, training etc) were portrayed as kind of fun and cool, the real violence (his brother, Bonzo, the war itself etc) were treated as tragedies. Thinking for himself and refusing to take orders was what made the main character a hero. The takeaway seemed to me to be to use your own empathy and intelligence for your own ends toward positive and challenging tasks. At least that's how I experienced it. I do have that bias though. I thought it was a really good movie minus the awkward relationships and the lame "mind game" part of it.

This is the reality of the world we live in. That's what people do, and I would submit that you do it too, just like I do it. If you have this approach like this is completely unacceptable and they need to be dismissed outright, then I really don't know who your audience is. What I imagine would happen is that you would get consistently frustrated and end up not really helping anyone. Am I wrong? Are you having these conversations with these philosophical heavyweights and getting somewhere like you describe these guys talking football? Because I've seen you get frustrated in another thread already because you "couldn't take it seriously". You didn't explain to us little girls what was so ridiculously erroneous. It was more like a punishment or something. I'm simply trying to suggest that your approach may need some fine tuning. Your conclusions may be entirely correct for all I know, but I'm frankly not too motivated to find out for myself. In fact, I find it really off-putting. But certainly, you can let me know if you are having success changing people's minds and bringing them to philosophy. It may be that it's me who needs to approach it differently.

It happens around the 3:20 mark, but not exactly the same time for everyone, nor is it effecting everyone. Which makes me wonder if the file is actually corrupted or there is some kind of bug with youtube itself. I use the HTML5 version of the video player and so I don't think it's flash that's the problem. A re-upload might fix it in any case. It's a drag too because I really wanted to watch it

And where is it that you see Stef or anyone else excusing behavior like this like it's not his responsibility? If you can't give me an example, then I would appreciate you conceding the point. This is not the position taken by Stef as I understand it, nor anyone else on the boards AFAIK. I appreciate that you've put some thought into when and how people are responsible for their actions, but what I don't appreciate is that you suggest that what Stef is doing is: I speak only for myself, but I think I've explained why this is not a true portrayal of what the podcasts or the thread is about. I would simply ask you to either accept this or tell me what specifically I've said that is in error.

I'm so sorry NeoEclectic. That is monstrously evil stuff. Not everyone survives that kind of abuse. I'm glad to hear that you made it and have made committed to not continuing that cycle. As far as the point you are making, it seems to me that you are saying that it's not productive, healthy or true to say that I beat up my kids because I was beat up by my parents, thereby excusing my own destructive behavior. That is not the position that I take, nor is it what anyone I know is saying (although I haven't asked very many people). It would be a kind of determinism, that like you suggested would only serve to have people excusing their own behavior and avoid responsibility. That would definitely be a problem and is something that I've heard about happening, but there is also the opposite problem where people are not assigning any responsibility to bad parents. Ironically, the result is the same. By justifying, excusing and minimizing the trauma their parents inflicted on them they internalize the message that as adults, they (the adult child) are also excused and are not responsible. Hopefully the result of this kind of work on self knowledge is assuming more responsibility rather than less. By seeing our parents as responsible for the trauma they inflict, getting it deep in our core, we can gain a greater sense of our own responsibility, and have more of a sense of our decisions in this new light. Moral clarity, assigning blame where it's due, is a push to become a more virtuous a person than before by seeing injustices for what they are in our personal lives, and our pasts. I also take issue with the idea that we cannot move forward by staying in the past. I personally have found this to be untrue in my own work. The basis of bringing up childhood in therapy is so that we can have progress in those areas. I actually find it very irritating to hear this from people. Nobody ever argues that it's true, they simply state it like they know what they are talking about, without any reservations or qualifiers like such a statement could be made with any kind of genuine certainty. Very irritating. If you can make this case, I'd be interested to hear it. Hope that clarifies. And sorry again for such a shit hand as a child. I have just the most deepest contempt for people who torture children.

The degree to which you have control over your situation is the degree to which you become responsible. It's not determinism and it does not excuse an adult going around and acting out their dysfunction with other people, what it does is explain the origins of different patterns of behavior we developed as children in order to protect ourselves from bad parents. The anger and contempt is not for the current situation, but the one where our past self who had no choice was wounded emotionally to the degree to which powerful emotional defenses developed, thus making our lives more difficult in the present day. Gaining moral clarity about the past situation means we develop compassion for ourselves, understand our defenses and gain greater control over how we choose to behave now as free adults. And blame is an important part of that process. I would actually go so far as to say blame rather than "assign responsibility". A person is not going to develop narcissistic defenses if they had a loving supportive relationship with their parents. People instead (or maybe it's just me, lol) have a hell of a time connecting with other people because of these defenses that we were forced to develop as children in response to neglect and abuse. And that's a super tragic, rage-inducing, well of sorrow kind of thing that most people don't get anywhere near looking at directly because it's so painful. And they keep that distance by avoiding blaming their parents. At their own expense, to protect people who neglected or abused them when they were the most vulnerable. Hope that clarifies some things. You really ought listen to the podcast series that I posted above.

Hey STer, could you please try and sell me on the idea that peaceful parenting is possible, but peaceful government is not possible? I realize that you don't see it this way, or are at least skeptical, which is fine, but I'd love it if you'd indulge me and try and make this case yourself. How would you argue that peaceful government is not possible, but peaceful parenting is?

And if the state were to decide that this is a no go, then that would be stopped using the threat of violence. Being a monopoly doesn't mean that no one else ever does it. That's a strawman

No. I don't feel that way myself about this, but feelings are what they are. Feelings aren't crazy. I was told that "voluntaryism" is a new word (or new meaning to an existing word) that is meant to sound distinct from "volunteerism". I could be wrong about that though. I would much prefer that people just called themselves "anarchists" to just make it easy. People's resistance to the word "anarchist" in the liberty movement is a little annoying to me. If I'm trying to have a conversation with someone about these ideas, I will accept any definitions they are using so long as it makes some kind of sense and they don't equivocate later. What the actual meanings are of words isn't as important to me as being on the same page as to how they are using them. That's just me though. And I'm just curious, what does it matter to you that people look dumb? I'm sure I look dumb to some people some of the time. I comment on things I don't know very well, and am even sometimes invested in wrong conclusions. Not that you shouldn't ever be annoyed with people who are being dumb, I'm just curious what that's about for you. Cuz I didn't quite get what that was about from your post.

On Truth, and totally. That book had a big impact on me. Bigger than Drama of the Gifted Child. I also want to second Branden's Psychology of Self Esteem. This whole idea that putting others down is bad, but if we put ourselves down it's okay shattered after reading that one.

Drama of the Gifted Child - Alice Miller

What was your childhood like? Were disputes resolved lovingly with win-win negotiation? A peaceful monopoly on violence is a contradiction in terms.

Yea, totally. I actually like the idea of HOA's a lot, but have had no experience of them. If that's the voluntary government, then I'm all for it. I would imagine that in a free society, governance would be some combination of HOA's and DRO's. (And the family of course).

I thought you made a great point, but I want to quibble with this bit. Is it really a government if it's not a violent monopoly?

Not to mention that you can't shake a box full of god parts and get a god. His god then must have been created.

Say you choose to get into a car accident before you can afford to pay for the damage. Lol. It's not pregnancy insurance, it's maternity insurance. Pregnancy insurance makes a lot more sense, but they aren't nearly the same thing.

Right, and that's why buddhism lends itself to dictatorship. It's all self erasing, mystical bullshit.

This is a strawman. MRA's are about more than feminism, and only a minority want the state to impose new laws. The majority it seems to me are libertarian, at least when it comes for men's rights. Many are anarchists like JohnTheOther, RockingMrE and TheCriticalG. And the problems of feminism aren't entirely because we have a state either. Excusing female violence (for example) is championed by feminism but was around long before modern statist feminism. Things that toxic forms of feminism talk about today are not exclusive to feminism, and there is some overlap between MRA's and feminists insofar as they are egalitarians (I personally loathe egalitarianism, but that's beside the point). There is considerable thought going on in the MRHM. There is a lot that is lacking, but so what? The point is that the plight of men and boys needs to be recognized, and the MRA's are just about the only ones bringing this to people's attentions. And in that, they are doing a good job of it. Who ever heard of "male disposability" before MRA's started talking about it?

How about Mike?

These types of gurus claim to want you to get closer to your true self. What the effective result is of this non-dual type work is self erasure. The ego is bad, negative thoughts are you harming yourself and this sort of thing. Ironically it is these types of people who are the most egotistical and have the most toxic kinds of negative thoughts. It has the opposite effect they claim it does. This is no accident. I've never met people so full of repressed rage as the kind of people who make anger out to be a bad thing. Instead of feeling their anger, they suppress it and it gets acted out unconsciously later. And like any "thinker" who has no real methodology, they have no genuine humility. They reject empiricism (as a general rule), the most arrogant of things that I could imagine. What this kind of stuff does is pretend that the false self is the true self. It's a series of easy answers, instant gratification and is so sad. Their manufactured smiles fill me with deep sorrow. I did a sort of socratic journey when I became an adult, asking the "enlightened" people of the large community of new age thinkers in my area what the basis of their conclusions were. And you get the same response you get from any mystical person: passive aggression and rage. There is this quote from that time that has left a big impression on me: Ironically it is those people who have become lifeless, in search of an enlightenment that is actually nothingness.

I've taken the active chemical NN-DiMethylTryptamine. I never did a psychedelic after that :0