shirgall

The point of championing microaggressions is to excuse aggressions in response to them.

The Gay Pride parades in particular come from protests against a police raid into a club. Of course that humble start was co-opted by other interests for other purposes, but that's where it started.

What has been lost is the idea that people should compartmentalize what control they allow other people to have over them. Where problems arise is where such control is consolidated. The shining example is where a family lives in a coal mining town where all business is related to the coal mine, and so everyone's survival is tied to it. Diversification resonates with investors, but few people learn in public schools to celebrate competition among leaders and governments and to never allow consolidation of everything into one entity. Instead they learn the conceit that one entity, one form of integration, will lead to the promised land of efficiency and happiness. People respond to incentives. People don't learn this fundamental in public school. Shocking, isn't it?

I have observed that my ability to remain passive under stress, especially yelling, has a lot to do with being yelled at as a kid.

In negotiation when dealing with someone that is venting it help to visualize "going to the balcony" as if you were watching an actor on the stage playing a part. Venting, displays, and narratives are often important to people in the moment, but you have to reflect on what really is affected. The aggressive senior employee may be invested in the success of the operation you performed for a variety of reasons, and their aggression is a response to the anxiety they feel about that success. You did the right thing by accepting fault, but what helps with these issues is a credible assurance that the mistake won't happen again by indicating how things will be different. "I know now" or "I'll put that in the checklist for next time" etc.

That's great, but this is a philosophy forum. While we have our times for banter, addressing a comment at a person instead of their argument is counterproductive. I'll give The Culture of Critique a look but my argument is still that we want individuals to be treated like individuals and that the solution to conspiracies is to compartmentalize the control any group may have over us by limiting power and opposing consolidation.

Then what was it?

If you are trying to make me feel shame me by using invalid argumentation, it's not working.

Calling me a normie was the name-calling I was calling out, alleging I am mainstream and therefore out of touch with reality. I was quoting an earlier point in this same thread to reference shit-posting.

Is name-calling normally a useful tactic for you? It's not valid with those that use logic, reason, and evidence to evaluate claims. I'm open to evidence for genes that select both positive and negative traits. Have you presented evidence that the trait "sinister conspirators" is genetic?

They have an incentive to loot it.

Not in the same way, but the principle of "remove incentives that attract people whose values are not your own" applies.

1. The positions of influence they occupy are dominated by people with superior verbal skills. 2. Jews tend to score very highly in the verbal component of IQ and other standardized tests. 3. Anyone who seeks government office harbors the conceit that they deserve to wield the gun of government. 4. Everyone knows that increasing government power increases the size of the slice of the pie they control. 5. Singling any group out for attack causes that group to defend itself. Therefore, the solution is to enforce the reduction of government power, not attack some group that coincidentally highly represented. People who waste their time (and asking FDR to waste its time) on the Jewish question are stealing time from productive pursuits.

Any references to the Jewish problem *are* shitposting. There is no Jewish problem.

https://board.freedomainradio.com/guidelines/ Sorry, that's probably too snarky. Most likely you hit a keyword or were too direct in your response. Those are the ones that get my posts "nicked".

I think the term you are looking for is "rigor". Popular science doesn't seem to have it, the masses have no patience for it, and journalists don't seem to understand it.

Any statement taken as a first principle (or axiom, or a priori, or ab initio) does not remove the requirement that first principles must be consistent with one another.

My answer has been that people do find a way to replace one big lie with another one and the real solution is not to indoctrinate them in one in the first place.

Of course, to me it's not a discussion, because Stefan never posted here in the years I've been here.

We don't have a way to predict. Mathematically the answer to your question is "undefined".

Bottom line is that you are applying a classical mechanic view ("general relativity") to a quantum mechanic entity ("photon"). It makes no sense to make a photon an observer. A photon at rest has no mass, but when it travels the speed of light it has enough mass to produce the photoelectric effect. Even so, it is the smallest "particle" in the entire domain...

Some clues here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/339989/what-is-the-speed-of-one-photon-of-a-beam-of-light-with-respect-to-the-other-pho

I think he's pointing out that pointing out that getting to the conclusion white people are depressed is not exactly productive, nor does it call into question any argument that I remember.

NCVS data only goes to 2015 so far: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245 I am, indeed, interested in Ferguson, and Baltimore, and BLM effects on this data for the years afterward too.

Indeed, I get crap for saying that Hillary would have been much worse, and that gridlock generally benefits everyone whether they like it or not.