Lingum

That was unexpected. So much better than being mad.

I don't think the fact that we don't have new superheroes is a sign of generational squatting. Rather, the reason why superheroes rose to prominence in the last century is the same reason why the West is dying today. The previous generations gladly accepted the idea that progress would come from the outside; heroes to worship, institutions. Childhood has been extended indefinitely, and similarly there are benevolent and paternal forces keeping us out of harm: narcissism. I think the biggest appeal of zombie- and doomsday movies is the eradication of expectations. As an increasingly narcissistic society, people are looking outside for direction, other people to define their identity. These movies offer the fantasy of no longer living for others. You don't have to do things you don't want to fulfill the expectations you believe others have of you. You are free from the bondage of other people. What now? Well, now that everything you know and love is wiped off this earth, you can live. In this way, zombie movies deliver the most poignant critique of the totalitarianism and atrophy of the modern welfare state. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/real_men_want_to_drink_guinnes.html A second appeal is the destruction of civilization and technology. As we get more tools and toys, they demand more of our time and attention. The simple act of enjoying the presence has become an impossibility. We believe that our lives will start when we have finished the current stage, accomplished our current goals. That's when we can be happy. In the meantime, only novelty brings us out of our automation. We go weeks without tuning in, being mindful. Racing toward our graves. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/01/randi_zuckerberg.html

Great! I remember her talking about this on Joe Rogan, and I was hoping for a more in-depth discussion around this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention J.D.

This is not what troll means. Here is an accurate definition of how the term is popularly used today: I find it fascinating that you should choose to redefine the term troll, but make no mention of it. Trolling has no relation to philosophy. Notice also, there's nothing inherently anti-rational as it is described above. It's devoid of moral content. What defines trolling is its intent and the deception required to achieve it. I always become skeptical when I see people redefine terms. It's a common tactic used to take advantage of a terms emotionally loaded nature, without the rigorous standards necessary to apply the term; a sleight of hand. In this case, what is described, is what this community has formerly called sophistry. Hence, fascinating. I can't help but wonder whether this new interest in trolls is directly related to recent forum events. If the standard for branding someone a troll is anti-rationality, you should be upfront about who you consider trolls so that others can judge their arguments on the merit of their rationality alone. Furthermore, what seperates your definition of trolling from someone who has defenses? You state that you've engaged in these behaviors yourself. I think many people here have that same experience, and were lucky enough that someone was willing to engage with them despite this, to help them out.

You are using scientific theories to undermine the foundation of science; the notion that there exists an objective reality independent of our perception. That could be fine because you don't believe in an objective reality and think contradictions can be true, but then why are you using science to make the case? It's the antithesis to your thesis. Why are you even debating this if there's no objective reality beyond our perception? Do you not notice how much you're spinning to regain a claim? You're in a debate, but you've rejected the foundation for language and communication. Apples don't exist because words aren't tangible. I'm sure the scientists whose works you're using had the same standard for the word exist. "Star don't exist. Can't write that. Instead, I have to accurately describe everything down to its atoms for it to be referenced, but even then it's meaningless because language is meaningless." I don't understand why you immediately jump to "there's no objective reality, only perception" instead of "huh, maybe we are operating on different defintions of the word exist." As it stands now, you've put your arguments in the category of insanity. This is not a matter of philosophy or science, but linguistics and communication.

No one changes their mind when they are deliberately provoked. Yet, some people (narcissists, contrarians, media personalities, politicians) use this approach exclusively. It's just a predictable way of making people resistant to fact and issues unsolvable, by upping the stakes. This tells us it's not really about having a rational debate, but rather fulfilling some personal need.

I'm curious. What's the difference between saving and hoarding? In my understanding, it's a loaded term, like describing a voluntary and mutually beneficial relationship as exploitation.

Some questions pop up in my mind: Do you trust your parents judgement? You mentioned that you were rebellious as a kid. Do your parents know what you want in life and care about? I ask this, because a lot of parents give advice without knowing anything about their childrens' inner life. Instead, they use advice to mold the child into what they want. Did they warn you about dysfunctional women earlier in life? How is your parents' relationship? Do you think they opposed your relationship because it lacked what they have, or because they recognized parts of their relationship in yours? I think it would also be helpful if you described your mother; how she behaves in conflicts, what she fills her days with, what she cares about etc. I'm glad to hear you're out of this relationship and fog now.

I just downloaded my first podcast from the Mike Cernovich Podcast, because I've been reading his Danger and Play blog a while. His content tailors exclusively to men, but he talks about different subjects than FDR. There's very little philosophy, but a lot of fitness and wellness. All in all, a good guy. He reminds me of Stefan in that he takes a lot of flack for standing by the issues his audience have, and is similarly unapologetic about it. The Dr. Peter Breggin Hour is a good podcast for getting some insight into all the stuff that is wrong in psychiatry today, and recent developments regarding this. Similar to FDR, The Joe Rogan Experience is a great podcast for getting introduced to a lot of fascinating subjects. Joe Rogan accomplishes this by getting a lot of talented people on his show. Interestingly, when his guests weasel into social justice terminology and anti-capitalist sentiments, without making any case, he provides pushback on this.

This is some really heavy handed propaganda. Implying there are no drawbacks to strictly digital currency Implying there are no benefits to cash over digital currency Claiming digital currency will help the poor and elderly Implying libertarians arbitrarily root for cash, similar to football fans rooting for a football team, instead of a principle at play Implying we're all on the same team, which further implies digital currency is "the common good" And in the article, he talks about how negative interest rates will discourage saving, but never explains why saving should be discouraged in the first place. Nothing new there. I wonder, do economists just cite each others' opinions? That's what it seems like every time I read an article with or by an economist. They never justify their extraordinary assumptions. The people I know that have studied economics, never make arguments or cite research, but rather tell me which prestigious economist was a proponent of a theory or which successful businessmen believe it. This is also how the media propagate misinformation. They have policies that stories need to be corroborated, but consider what they're told by government figures as already corroborated. In other words, they don't corroborate political propaganda, but rather propagate it. That's how the media is only a mouthpiece for status quo. Sorry for the increasingly off-topic rant.

I also think it's a bit of a stretch to claim this could be working for Hillary. All it does for me, is remind me that the facade politicians create is entirely fictional. The media likes to pretend Hillary is a new woman, a clean slate, but this just brings back all the scandals that have surrounded her. I would imagine it's the same for other people.

I don't know if being uncomfortable is related to empathy. You can't really tell why someone is uncomfortable, from their body language, which is why empathy can be confusing at times. I would imagine they rationalize it as "What if a woman wants that seat, but is too shy to ask? That would be terrible because women deserve seats. They do so much already." The dominance (and comfort) aspect of it is probably what it's all about. Feminists want men isolated and submissive. Keep in mind, I was only saying it was a good indication. I don't think there's something wrong with making someone uncomfortable, and certainly, there are times when you have to ignore it out of conviction. Just be on the lookout.

Wuzzums post made me think about something I saw in (I think) BBC Horizon a while back. From Psychology Today Typically, psychopaths exhibit muted facial expressions and body language. What I find fascinating, is that even though studies show time and time again, how much we can read from body language and facial expressions, even how much we register sub-consciously, we are terrible at spotting lying and insincerity. I suspect it has to do with social lubrication and avoiding confrontations and escalation, that there's a barrier between sub-conscious and conscious, as self-defense. While holding eye contact indicates confidence and dominance, breaking eye contact occasionally is considered an empathetic gesture that puts others at ease in our presence. I've read that never breaking eye contact is a trait associated with psychopathy and lack of empathy. I started becoming more aware of my eye contact recently, and started experimenting with it. The first thing I noticed in one-on-one interactions is that you often take turns breaking away. Secondly, the more uncomfortable I feel in an interaction, the more discomfort I feel holding eye contact with people. The person I'm interacting with picks up on it, and becomes shifty. Thirdly, when I feel confident and relaxed, I notice other people breaking eye contact more often. If you feel uncomfortable with someones' presence, I would consider that a good indicator that they lack empathy. They're unaware of how you react to their body language, and don't pick up on your discomfort. Something just feels off. Maybe they gaze at you when you're not interacting with them, sit or stand too close to you, or stare at you without emotion when you're talking. Empathetic people, on the other hand, will pick up on your discomfort, and feel it themselves. They readjust their body language according to their surroundings. In that sense, social interaction is a complicated song and dance of body language, with dominance at stake. Interestingly, there's two guys in my circle of friends that I've always felt uncomfortable around. I used to say that I feel like we're not on the same wavelength, even though I have nothing against them. The first one tends to be overly affectionate and stands way too close to me when he excitedly greets me. The second one has trouble understanding social conventions and dressing appropriately. Both of them overestimate our familiarity and relationship. I was told by my other friends that the first one has a learning disability and the second one is on the autistic spectrum.

He didn't provide any reasoning, but rather uses peer review as magical words. Is there a reason why he should reject non-peer reviewed data on this topic? The fact that he doesn't provide any reasoning for this decision, only serves to tell you he has no idea why peer review is important in the first place. He has only provided an arbitrary standard, peer review, not a principle. The problem here is that he thinks his assertion is limited to this instance. He can't accept information that hasn't been peer reviewed, because peer review is a better standard. Clearly, it's not limited to this instance. It's endless. There's always a better standard. His demand for peer review isn't a scientific one, but rather a complete rejection of science in favor of nihilism. I find that people who have had some exposure to science, but have no understanding of its origins and foundation, commit this fallacy every time they're faced with scientific conclusions they dislike. This is what science is to them, a tool to cower people into submitting to their beliefs, while arbitrarily rejecting information that makes them feel uncomfortable. Consider it an admission of inadequacy. In this case, you can't. His position isn't a reasonable or scientific one. Like Stefan frequently says; "You can't reason somebody out of a position they weren't reasoned into." He is managing the anxieties this topic brings up, by minimizing exposure to it, but without admitting defeat. This way, he can suppress a bubbling epiphany relating to his own life. Discussions like these aren't always pointless, because the opposition you provide him can results in some self-reflection eventually. However, it's important that you be aware this isn't a scientific discussion. You are spending a lot of effort researching, but he will inevitably move the goal post each time.

That is fantastic. It explains so much in society.

Based on these definitions, I fail to see any difference between socialism and communism. In communist theory, they typically distinguish property into two categories; private property and personal property. The former is the means of production (capital, industrial property, land), and should in communist theory only be owned by collectives. Personally, I don't find these definitions to be particularly helpful. Both political ideologies, as you define them, describe (the same) ideological end goals. By insisting we use terms like socialist and communist only for this explicit state of being (societies that have achieved these ideological end goals), we can't attribute trends, cultural values and policies in societies to socialism or communism. This is problematic, when in all of these countries, public discourse happens exclusively in socialist terminology with a collectivist epistemology, and the only accepted, practiced and taught economic theories are Keynesian economics and socialism.

I don't think it's fair to say these countries are not socialist. Your definition for socialism seems to be communism. These five countries all have massive welfare systems in place, economic redistribution and heavily regulated economies. The fact that they may be judged less socialist than other countries, does not change the fact that these countries are organized through what I would call national socialism. I think we need to agree on a definition of socialism then. Consider the fact, that the entire petroleum industry in Norway is socialized. The companies that operate in this industry have an industry specific tax rate and regulations which they agree to, in turn for being allowed to operate in this industry. There is no competition. This is not the only industry that is organized by the State in Norway. For all our biggest export industries, we have specific political departments who is tasked with central organization, and I'm sure licensing is also involved.

I appreciate the detailed sharing. I understand better where you're coming from now. As with whether or not you should apologize, I'm on the same page as Matthew. I can not see what the purpose of apologizing would be. You've mentioned that she's no interested in growing, so I imagine it would be an entirely one-side affair. You say you want to own your failure, but apologies are not necessary for that. It seems to me you're already going through the process of accepting responsibility for your life. I'm very sorry she would egg you on to share your feelings, then call you a pussy. That must've been very painful, even more so because of your history. This kind of behavior is destined to end a relationship. It's completely understandable that you would protect yourself by being emotionally distant and resigned. This makes me curious about how much impact her behavior had on your relationship. You say you look for women who are not like your mother. I suspect that this one had painful similarities. Is the way you behaved in this relationship similar to how you have behaved in all others? If it's not, then I think an apology is counter-productive as she's not taking responsibility for her actions. Lastly, I want to point out that when people make excuses like this, it's an admission that they're going to keep doing it. She already has some idea why it happens, but she still thinks it's an excuse. If it was before, it certainly isn't after she's consciously aware of it. She was telling you that she has no intention to challenge it.

I'm struggling a bit trying to understand what it is exactly you should apologize for. Your regrets, for lack of a better word, are very generic: I get the impression that the things you feel you need to apologize for, are things she has instructed you that you did wrong, because they hurt her feelings. I think that's worth exploring first. The first thing I want to point out, is that there is a difference between you hurting someone, and someone feeling hurt. If I say the same things to two different people, they could have wildly different reactions. One can have no reaction, while the other is feeling hurt. It does not necessarily follow then, that I hurt the second person. According to REBT, our emotional reactions to situations are dictated not by the situations (here, other people), but by our internalized values. This is very important to keep in mind when someone is critiscizing you because of how your actions affected them. A lot of time, people expect you to apologise because they feel bad, even though their feelings are caused by their own dysfunctional values and expectations. Secondly, you wrote that her ACE score is 9. You weren't the only person struggling with dysfunction in this relationship. She would've been dysfunctional by definition, because she chose you as a suitable partner. However, you seem to be riddled with a lot of guilt. If she's not, then I think something is off about you wanting to apologize. Let me highlight a few statements that concern me: Common theme in bold: She is telling you something, but you can't find out what. These statements indicate to me the possibility that you're taking responsibility for your own dysfunctions and hers, and you're unaware of it. When something was bugging her, did she explain it to you, or did she keep things to herself and blame you for her feelings? Did she listen to you expressing how you felt, or did she accuse you of not validating her feelings instead? Did she take responsibility for her own actions, or claim you (or other people) made her do them? Was she direct and honest with you? You also told us you had a bad experience with a girl who pit you against your best friend. This indicates to me that you have trouble saying no to women. Do you have a history of letting women use you? Have your other relationships been equally reciprocal, or have they demanded more from you than they're giving? Does any of this strike a resemblance with your relationship with your mother? This is why I think an apology might be premature. In fact, that your guilt might be as well.

The post you are referring to sounds nothing like rape. He clearly explains that there is an unspoken agreement, and this is nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, this falls perfectly into the description of the most common female sexual fantasy; being "taken". Are you not aware of the fact that women instruct men to "not take no for an answer" frequently? You can find this in the media, in advice columns and from Youtube commentators. This is one of the common complaints women make about men when asked, under the guise of romance and spontaneity. I've heard it countless times in my personal life. You can pretend that words are binding and actions are arbitrary, but you're not the only person in this world. Men have to navigate this jungle. Clearly, your definition of consent is in direct opposition to the standard most women want to operate on, and demand men indulge in. I think sleazy is a better word, because you don't even go all the way accusing him of rape. You just leave the insinuation out there a month later, and then later pretend you didn't. I wouldn't have responded to your post either, because you casually pretend female sexuality is a blank slate, and there's no such thing as non-verbal communication. There's mountains of research on female sexuality contradicting your claim, which is why you don't commit to it. There is no moral grey area, she'd just be manipulating the guy. She specifically chose to half-heartily contradict her actions verbally, just for this purpose. She wouldn't be telling a lie, she did ask him to stop (while consensually proceeding). This way, if the guy finds out, she can mislead him into thinking the situation was different. She will play on his heart strings, and he will absolve her of all responsibility without questioning her. Why is empathizing with the partner being cheated on a part of the discussion? There is no way in which MMX is responsible for the choices of another person, or her relationship. I consider this another segue. You have already backed away from a few arguments so far, without acknowledging it. Instead you claim it was a different argument all along: At first you claim that MMX admitted to something that sounds like rape. Then you assert that your claim was always that people who have to get technical about the definition of rape are not worth associating with. MMX points out that this is an anti-philosophical claim. Later, you claim that you were only concerned that MMX could get in trouble because of the legally malleable definition of rape.

These five countries all have cultures where there's an overbearing social pressure to self-erase and blend in, so as to not be inconvenient. "The Law of Jante" was first expressed by a Danish-Norwegian writer. It's expected that you always consider how your self-expression makes others feel, and suppress all expressions that have the potential to make others feel inadequate. This is well reflected in the media in these five countries, where both journalists and politicians pride themselves on meeting success with skepticism and presenting themselves with modesty. It's considered arrogant to accept compliments without undermining them. This doesn't mean that people in these countries don't stroke their own egos, they just do it under the guise of being modest and considerate - having great intentions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/the-danish-dont-have-the-secret-to-happiness/384930/

The claim is that the coincidences surrounding the measurements are so improbable, they indicate intelligent design. However, those measurements are rounded and inaccurate, which makes them probable. This would mean that, if the theory of intelligent design was true, and symbolism was a factor, then intelligent design would be inaccurate. This means your hypothesis can't prove intelligent design with accuracy to symbolism. The hypothesis is self-detonating. Secondly, I can't figure out why there are lots of man made instances in your claim; freemasonry, skull and bones, card games. How could this possibly have any relevance to intelligent design? In fact, several of your units of measurement are man made, arbitrary or based on natural phenomena. Why would an intelligent creator operate on units of measurements that are man made? Think about it! How could he predict those units of measurement, when if he made some change to the universe, we wouldn't have developed them, or entirely different units of measurement. Apparently, he has solved a linear algebra equation that includes all factors in the universe he's working on, just so you could see some coincidences with your man made units of measurement. I think the notion is sillier the more you think about it. Thirdly, I think most of your claim can be attributed to the fact that you're using simplified conclusions from physics, without the necessary familiarity with mathematics and physics to interpret them. Units of measurements are man made Units of measurements are often based on natural phenomena - often times not accurately (chosen by humans) Equations in physics use units of measurements Equations in physics use constants to describe natural phenomena, to accurately describe the physical world If you're not familiar with the mathematics and physics that you have used to support your claim, you could easily be projecting symbolic significance to what is a byproduct of man made mathematical equations or practices

Why would I take you seriously when you have failed to realize that throwing a few buzzwords into your baseless assertions, doesn't qualify them as arguments? It doesn't even grant you a place at the table of discussions.

Yes. You're relying entirely on rhetoric. Infinite growth is a meaningless term, just like finite planet. Continuous is more accurate, but still just another way of saying growth. You use word play and symbolism to make it seem like you're presenting an obvious syllogism. It's just inaccurate language. Why are you concerned? Begging the question. What does integrity of the society mean (in this context)? What is your definition of equality? How is equality realized?

I doubt this person could change his mind based on reason. He is obviously insane. He hears his own political views echoed by society at large (politicians, pundits, students, teachers), and yet he claims the society he lives is its political antithetical. That's delusional. All of the political policies he believes in already exists, only to a lesser degree. Somehow, that makes them polar opposite. Someone gives you 5 dollars, you were robbed. Someone give you 10 dollars, you were not robbed. Facts don't matter, which is why he has no trouble making extraordinary claims with no qualification. "White privilege is real. Next topic." People that have the capacity to change their minds, will experience some cognitive dissonance when conceptual opposites come out of their mouths in quick succession, and when they struggle to describe something their mind is already made up about. Competition is what any layman thinks of when they hear the word Capitalism. Despite that, he doesn't flinch describing the opposite as Capitalism, as well. This is forgotten when he states He must've applied a lot of selective memory to not remember any advances in science and technology his entire lifetime. He contradicts himself the very next sentence. It's also interesting that he makes a fail-safe statement that would never be wrong. "When you do X, the car goes faster sometimes, and slower sometimes." Nothing compares to the finishing line, which is so bizarrely out of place, that it could only be a direct insight into his life. He has no career achievements or prospects, right? Normally, when people unquestioningly make assertions to me, I just ask questions that undermine each individual assertion. It's pretty easy to do with people who have no experience with critical thinking, because they don't know the difference between sentiment and evidence, rhetoric and reason. Their terms are undefined and their gaps of logic are filled with magic. It's pretty easy to push someone like that off their feet, by just highlighting any obscurity. In this case, start from the beginning: Why wasn't the communism in Soviety true? Where can we find true communism today? Is there a true capitalism and a false capitalism? However, I'm not sure if that's possible to do on Facebook, and with a person this delusional. You could of course try to turn it on its head. Write favorably about capitalism and negatively about communism with the same level of confidence, no explanations, just assertions.