Danske

Specifically the rainy North! I've taken a long and winding road to get here. 29 now, Having spent 20 years in an abusive family and another 9 with abusive people around me because I wasn't willing to face the 'landscape of graves' (as Stef describes in the 'Asshole Proximity' podcast') and instead went around trying to dance with zombies. The first FDR vid I watched was 'How to be a scumbag' a year ago, and it hit me hard. I had never encountered someone defending so well against 'emotional dumping before'. Stef's complete refusal to be erased in the conversation was a revelation, and I had to discover more. What fascinates me is Stef's stripping away of his mental chains, obviously he was very intelligent to begin with, but now with access to his deeper emotions. Something I'm trying to do for myself through therapy. The self-erasure aspect is something I'm currently focusing on, having been so thoroughly erased as a child. I've also moved to a new area recently and am quite lonely, the mushroom cloud of philsophy having detonated on my toxic relationships, and I feel perhaps this could be a good place to meet like-minded people.

Antifragile is a wonderful book if you're looking for a modern classic that will turn your world view upside down and expose many a cognitive bias.

2 it's an open forum. You always engage them in public. Maybe the troll replied in a fallacious way that caused someone else (a viewer) to think they had 'won' (i.e. made a good point), by replying until they reduce themselves to the nonsense at the bare bones of their argument. You may enlighten others to their tactics. 3. You compare troll battles to chess. Well, If another person breaks the chess rules, they are disqualified. They don't win, the people watching the chess match don't think the guy who cheated 'won', he is ostracized. If the aim of a troll is to cause confusion and spread lies (which they can do, as the rules of engagement are totally different and open-ended compared to a chess match), you spray them with the truth. Which is important because as I mentioned before, it's a public forum. A little tip, if you want reasoning, ask. Be curious. Don't do this weak dancing around the point trying to put me in a box as someone who just thinks out loud when we've never communicated before.

Reasons 2 and 3 seem pretty legitimate for me. They've been good sparring practice for moi.

I tend to find race/IQ discussions rather inane. Until severe IQ-shaving child abuse is no longer extremely common, I don't think we can have a clear discussion about race and IQ. And with the rate at which it is being eliminated (i.e. hardly, if at all), perhaps humanity will be entirely racially assimilated by the time that point is reached. Who can say how different races respond to abuse without extremely unethical experiments either? Perhaps (and I'll use alien examples here so as to avoid any triggers) a green alien has an IQ of 90 with abuse, and 100 without. Whereas a blue alien has an IQ of 93 with abuse and 97 without. In a society where abuse is common, the blue alien appears to be smarter, even though it may have a a lower potential intelligence than the green alien.