Youtube comments of (@resir9807).
-
I wanna put in a word for the manipulative friendzone guys.
I've often hit it off with a girl, taken my shot and been rejected, then denied her request to remain friends.
The key misunderstanding here is that this is not a ploy to gain anything from her. The girls I end up falling for are awesome people who I'd love to be friends with. However, I can't, for my own mental health. I can't see this person and vibe with them and constantly think, I want more from them. This is not a sexual desire (tho it can be too), it's a deeply romantic one. It's not that I pretended to be your friend to get to have sex. The friendship was genuine, feelings arose, and now I need more and can't continue like this. There is no ultrerior motive, this is just the sad facts.
Edit: This comment keeps spawning a lot of engagement and interesting conversations, so I thought I'd give an update.
So first off, I didn't mention that I HAVE reconnected with some of my former crushes, some of who are in relationships, and we have very nice and meaningful friendships. It just takes a lot of time to process these feelings and get rid of them.
Second, with my most recent crush, I actually tried precisely what Dr K recommended. After a few weeks of meeting in a group environment, I noticed feelings arousing. I spoke to her about it and she was very relived and glad to have it in the open, but shot me down and said she hoped we can continue as friends. I said I'm actually cool with that, thinking I'll stick it out, either until she develops feelings or until I get interested in someone else. Whether we end up as friends or partners, I'll be fine with both.
Well, that failed miserably. I was keeping up my end of the bargain, treating her like any other friend and still going on dates with other women. However, the friendship was still very weird, because she kept holding me at arm's length, reaching out on her own but shutting me down every time I offered to hang out. I know that's not what she intended, but I felt like a sort of toy that you can play with whenever you want, but it itself doesn't get any say. She liked me enough to spend time with me on her own terms, but still had no trust that I knew to respect her boundaries and wouldn't make an advance if I got the right opportunity. Sorry, that's not a real friendship and I don't need this. The whole experience was ultimately very draining and not worth it, but if anyone thinks I did something wrong here, I'm curious to know.
3700
-
1200
-
493
-
353
-
220
-
201
-
198
-
177
-
145
-
142
-
119
-
114
-
98
-
86
-
81
-
73
-
69
-
67
-
62
-
62
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
52
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
39
-
38
-
35
-
35
-
@ficklebar Well first, I had to accept some truths.
Number one, I was overworked. This didn't make a lot of sense because I had been working ~6h a day, but it was true. I did computer science, which was waaay more taxing for me than normal jobs. In practice, this meant that if I felt too stressed or tired, I would simply stop whatever I was doing and try to relax instead, consequences be damned.
Number two, this wasn't working. I needed to switch subjects because CS didn't fit me as a person, I like working with other people and being outside and doing different things.
On the emotional side of things, I had to accept that my family cared about my well being more than my success. I thought that if I got poor marks or switched I would be a failure, which my parents assured me they didn't care about. I had to realize that NOTHING is worse than losing my health. Failing out, disappointing my parents, all of that is better than useless hands and permanent pain.
I started moving my hands again, doing more physical exercise (which had always been a part of my life and which I had neglected during uni). I also started seeing a psychological therapist and an ergotherapist.
A lot of my recovery and choices were enabled by the fact that I live in Austria, which has a great public healthcare system. So I don't know how much you can apply to your own situation, but I wish you all the best.
33
-
32
-
I feel like this is just confirming my theory that all charisma advice is approaching singularity, or in other words, useless.
If you take a look at this channel over the years (and I might be remembering wrong), it started out with "speak like this" and "move like this" and "don't do that". The more Charlie progressed, the more it turned into "think like this", "adopt this mindset" and "handle your emotions like this". The rationale was that ultimately, most of what you physically communicate happens at a subconscious level, and so if you shape your subconscious the right way, you will automatically act charismatically.
Now, in real life, you will observe insanely charismatic people that don't know a single thing about where to put your hands when you speak, or how to walk into a room. That's because this is the charisma singularity: confidence. None of this "move your hands like that" knowledge matters, because a confident subconscious knows to act it out, because how a confident person acts is what DEFINES charisma. It's like trying to fix all the parts of your car that keep getting totaled instead of switching out the terrible driver.
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
My god this has been such a long time coming. I have NEVER incrementally built a habit in my life. I eat healthy, exercise every day, meditate, play piano, study computer science and teach chess, and none of that shit was done because I read atomic habits or whatever.
I was forced into playing piano as a kid, now a kawaii just stand in the living room and it's easy to sit down and play. I never got into the habit of buying sweets or sodas. Exercise was always fun, there was never a struggle. I was depressed and addicted to video games, what did I do? 9 month civil service, full time, no chance to play video games.
To this day, I almost always eat something sweet if I even see it. I get hooked on a video game or series for hours on end. I never built a habit, I never even incrementally beat an addiction, I just introduced drasting changes to my environment that forced me to live a certain lifestyle. Thanks for finally speaking out about this.
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@imacds This is something I've actually noticed, and I'm really actually interested to know why. I am super upfront and communicative, but this isn't something attractive. I have learned that you can never express the full scope of your feelings to a girl or this will immediately turn her off. Instead, as a hetero man, you have to play this game of showing just enough for her to know you might be interested, but still little enough that she can't be sure where this is going. Women, including my psychologist, have confirmed (obviously, some women are different, I'm painting with a broad brush here).
Then, when it feels right, you go in for the kiss. Finally, if she's into it, you can be more upfront.
8
-
8
-
It's funny how many people don't understand the nature of evil at all. They think it's something supernatural, a demonic force that some people are possessed by and others aren't. That's not how it works, and that mentality actually makes it easier to commit evil yourself.
Evil is something very human. Probably, the kid's telling the truth, and he asked the officer about his kid's age for his own conscience. Killers have a conscience like everyone else, except it gets overruled by the most powerful emotion a human can feel, which is fear. The brain is not a single entity, thinking evil or good thoughts, it is a complex structure comprised of many different parts responsible for different motivations and impulses. That's why the only way to combat evil is to recognize that it is within each of us, you and me included. Because otherwise, you can always find a way to justify that evil, because everyone thinks of themselves as a "good" person.
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I'm studying to become a teacher in Austria and I teach chess classes for elementary school students.
There's some people championing teachers here that claim therapizing is not their job, that they're not being paid enough. I agree that teachers in the US are paid abysmally and are overworked, so it's pointless to put that responsibility on them. However, the idea that you signed up to be a "teacher, not a social worker" is laughable. Teachers ARE social workers. That's the difference between them and a didactics scholar. Paying attention to kids' emotional needs is intrinsic to being a teacher. If you deny this, that's fine, stay in academia, but you're not fit to be a teacher. However, the solution is not to expect the impossible from overworked teachers, but create a more humane teaching environment and pay better, like in Scandinavia and central Europe
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
@timxiix3864 Really does sound like 5up. I find it hard to relate though, because personally I'm filled with inner drive to make the world a better place... I think the difference is, I make a lot of effort to get acquainted with the ugly of the world, and to emphasize with those affected. Like climate change, labor alienation, systemic injustice, etc - it makes me feel like if I don't do something, we're fucked. Like, royally fucked, fucked on an unimaginable scale of suffering. This sort of existential feeling overpowers any kind of personal meanderance, and it gives me purpose.
Make of this whatever you will :)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@dragonsreingsupreme1 not only do I know what it stands for, I very likely can pronounce Nazionalsozialist better than you, being austrian and whatnot. Are you trying to explain to me that not only has the term not drastically changed over decades, but also that hitler's followers named themselves accurately instead of trying to pander to the populous? Do you know what Hitler said on this topic? “Socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.” As you can see, he didn't care about policy, just about the public's opinion. He forbid Nazi trade unions and said that distributing private property woul “end all progress of humanity.”
Dude, i was educated in a country that was part of germany during the nazi regime. your adventures on youtube don't match hundreds of hours spent studying this topic. And I "failed" so badly, I never got anything less than a 1 (an A in america) on every single test.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@RealRounaq Thank you, it annoys me how people keep failing to understand this and you've explained it beautifully here. If they still don't get it, no one can help them.
I also want to add that signals themselves not only AREN'T the thing they display, what they display entirely depends on the interpretive structure they pass through.
So in the RAM analogy, it's not only that the binary data encoding the triangle isn't the triangle itself, it's also not inherently "triangle data". If I copied the RAM contents onto a harddrive, then connected that harddrive to a different computer architecture, the data previously representing a triangle would represent something else, because the hardware that generates the machine code would be different, so the machine code would be different, not to speak of the operating system. That's why we also have no real way of telling if the same neurochemical reactions in different people produce the same subjective experiences
5
-
@stanislavspon6846 my guy, you're an intellectual lightweight throwing stones in a glass house. I'm doing my CS major and I suspect that YOU don't understand how computers work.
The other guy was 100% correct. He wasn't alluding to a rendered file (which is still the "data" in his analogy), he was talking about the actual visual of the triangle you see on screen, not the rendered file of the image but the actual image itself. No form of binary data, whether it be a more abstract representation of the triangle or the rendered file, is the triangle itself.
If I were to modify my hardware and display the rendered file, I could just as well produce a square. The only reason there can exist such a thing as "triangle data", is because we have built an interpretive structure for it, a computer atchitecture that could just as well have been built different.
When you see an apple in your head, that apple has an equivalent neurochemical representation. But there is no physical apple in your head. Your brain is generating an image of an apple based on certain electrical signals, but *where is the generated image*? Where is the screen upon which my mental apple is appearing? It's not fuckin physical
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This is exactly what I've been thinking for a long time. If you use ethical pragmatism as a guide for how to define concepts and which discussions to focus on, it really exposes a lot of these conversations as detatched theoretical musings or even just virtue signalling.
Some societies, like the US, are obsessed with a concept of "justice", a sort of metaphysical principle supported by free will, which is ultimately nothing more than a rationalized emotion of vengeance. Other societies, like Norway, prioritize a more humanist (and maybe unintentionally utilitarian) way of dealing with crime: rehabilitation. This is done with the understanding that
1. People can change for the better
2. Rehabilitation is more cost effective
3. Rate of recidivism is lower.
One of these clearly leads to a happier society. But as a prerequisite, it requires that you discard this notion of "freedom" and "justice", recognize it as an instinctual emotional reaction that only leads to more harm and learn to let it go. Because knowing that the murderer of your father runs free is bad, but having him murder your mother too is worse.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Oswald_Thatendswald Well you have to consider that mainstream media (the one funded by bloomberg etc) is held to a higher standard by society. Meaning, if the New Yorker gets something wrong or seems to mislead, then there will be tens of millions of people calling them out on in, researchers and academics all across america protesting. The New Yorker knows this, and they know that if they slip up even one but, they get hell for it.
Do you know who holds steven accountable? teenagers who don't understand politics or data and other ideologues like himself.
Also, it is always possible to just check the data YOURSELF. Even if CNN publishes the most misleading and biased article, an academic can easily check the sources and determine its validity. Well turns, surprise, that CNN publishes WAY more scientifically accurate pieces than Steven crowder, because if you follow HIS sources with statistical understanding, you end up AGHAST. I currently have a course at university which specifically focuses on scientific research, but if you don't want to take it from me just watch some three arrows.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think this framing is highly problematic. This idea that hurt feelings are inherently different from wounded egos perpetuates this notion that it's important to distinguish between the "victim" and the "perpetrator" category. I'm sorry, but that's just anti-progressive.
Homeless people, drug addicts, people with mental disorders, are often some of the most abusive and dangerous ones there are. But we recognize many factors outside their influence led them to that place, and they should be helped for it, not punished.
So as heinous some beliefs that incels hold are, ultimately we can acknowledge that in some sense, they have been victimized to. They weren't socialized as children, marginalized in high school, had no support structure, and so on. As we point out how wrong their beliefs are, we should simultaneously extend our sympathy. That is the only way to make them listen and change for the better.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marcodesalud7034 You're a bright guy, right? And interested in the the truth, a true man of facts and logic? I have a challenge for you, but careful - it's a pretty hard one. What about instead of listening to right wing pundits on Youtube, you rolled up your sleeves and looked at some actual studies yourself? Like, how much other governments spend on healthcare relative to their overall budget, and how extensive and effective it is there?
Or, how much people in say, Germany, spend money and time on transportation, and compare that to how extensive the public infrastructure is?
Your points are laughably easy to debunk, you'd just need to stick your head out of Crowder's ass for a minute
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Ehrill942 I associate romantic feelings with a lot of hurt, as many men do. There is a huge imbalance between the genders in the sense that if a girl really wants a man, she has a huge likelihood of getting him. However, most guys know what it's like to fall in love over and over again just to be rejected. The idea that I might fall in love with a girl and she would reciprocate feels like a fairytale to me.
So you kinda learn to kill that part of yourself. I spend a lot of effort regulating my emotions and shutting down romantic feelings. At the point I'm at, I don't even pursue girls anymore, I just wait till one likes me and then decide whether I want to reciprocate or not.
Romance is also a skill, and not an easy one. Many guys feel it but don't know how to show it. How do you do a romantic gesture?
You can't be too straightforwards, it comes off as crass and overly attached.
You can't be too vague, it comes off as manipulative.
You can't be too touchy, it comes off as creepy.
You can't be too little touchy, it comes off as cold and uninterested.
Girls experience so much more romantic attention that they learn these skills intuitively. Like, when I was 20 and at a party, there was this girl that was into me that kept shadowing me and constantly talking at me. That was the first time I went, holy shit, this is kind of annoying, that's definitely something I've been doing and UNDERSTANDABLY getting rejected for. But you were probably in your early teens when you first experienced something like this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@babydayday your analogy is actually perfect (since brains are just better computers with consciousness attached). To complete the analogy, the BIOS is your subconscious, not your consciousness. This was actually the historical "tabula rasa" debate, whether human beings were born with a completely new slate and no inherent language processing or whether we were biologically preprogrammed for language. Modern science has long since answered the question that yes, we are in fact pre-programmed, we are born with our own language OS.
But once again, the semantic parsing ISN'T cognitive, it's subconscious. But the question you pose is extremely interesting - how do humans learn their first language, if there is no initial data for semantic parsing? This is already so deep and sophisticated that we don't have a clear answer. You can insert metaphysicality at this point if you want to, but I don't see why you need to. Let me explain why.
What is understanding? Huge debate. My personal opinion is that understanding is nothing more than a complex form of knowledge, or data, produced by a memetic entity. Humans are born with innate genetic ability to recognize other humans, and mimick what they do. That's how you learn language the first time - you don't "understand" it, per say, it just starts as a bunch of association. Mommy says "thank you" every time you give her something - giving means thank you. Daddy sees thing flying in the sky and says "plane" - that's plane.
That is basically the entire process of LLMs, large language models like ChatGPT. ChatGPT can probably completely annihilate the turing test at this point. It can hold conversations at a higher intellectual capacity than most humans, but of course, it still doesn't have any consciousness. It's just a program semantically parsing a gigantic set of data, speaking language coherently purely by probabilistic heuristic analysis.
Brains are, at the end of the day, nothing more than computers. Consciousness is simply a metaphysical space where the most surface level calculations of that computer, cognition, are experienced, and given a metaphysical qualia like "good" or "painful" or "red".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's some of the stupidest shit I've ever heard. You probably also believe there's a difference between ADHD and lack of discipline, or between depression and laziness.
The fact is, when people suffer, they need help. Doesn't matter if their symptoms fit into a nice acronym box like "PTSD", or if they just can't get off the phone. This help can often come from friends, family, meditating, hiking, whatever. Yet we have discovered that if we organize a central system of helping (therapy), we can reach those who don't have those things.
The way Gen Z is bragging about mental illness nowadays is disturbing and unhelpful, but they have every right to be mentally unwell. American society isolates and suffers from poverty. Get off the high horse
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulmobleyscience My answer is quite simple, namely that breathing is simply disanalogous to choosing in this way. You say our choices are made subconsciously, by our brain or "divine" interference, but that they can be influenced by our conscious. I disagree to that.
Thinking is not like breathing. It can't go into determinist autopilot, like breathing when sleeping, then jump back into free will mode, like controlling your breathing awake.
Our consciousness is not a seperate spiritual entity, it's simply, awkwardly put, the layer of our subconscious that is aware.
Let's say you decide to stop eating sweets. The next day, you give in to temptation and have a chocolate. You would agree this was not your free will, you WANTED not to do it but innate biological cravings overcame that.
Now, what if you managed to resist temptation? Was that free will? I would argue no. It is STILL your subconscious which made that decision, however your subconscious, consisting of many complex types of neural circuits, had an internal war about it. On one side was craving, on the other maybe shame of failure, and the second happened to be greater. Your consciousness served as spectator to that war, not as participant, but then loudly declared: I did it!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roquemaciel No, and I'm very happy that I've stopped listening to people like you. Disingenuous listeners give disingenuous advice. The more I've talked to my real women friends about this the past year, the more I've learned how much blame I've been internalizing. I used to think that if a woman perceives me as distrustful, I must be doing something wrong and she must be right. Now I realize that I've been taking responsibility for other people's issues.
But I HAVE been doing something wrong - getting too emotionally invested in something that wasn't there, simply due to a lack of experience. The more experience I'm getting, the better I'm getting at reading signs and evaluating situations, and also realizing that there was never any avoiding this process. You start painfully as a noob and become better and better.
So I completely reject this framing of me treating relationships transactionally. I have never lied, deceived, ghosted, disrespected, crossed boundaries or denied anyone an explanation. Take your holier-than-thou guilt tripping somewhere else, this is the kind of shit that's been holding me back for no reason
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FAKE JESUS My experience with right wingers is that they all love broad principles like freedom of speech, but they don't understand that the nuances of a problem are integral to its solution, so much so in fact, that the appliance of grand ideas when dealing with day to day politics is like hitting a nail with a truck.
The church of Scientology funds and owns multiple private schools, where all the indoctrination happens. How do you open a private school? You need a permit from the government. Why? because kids believe anything they are taught, and so teaching them needs to require a certain standard that is also transparent to the public (as is a state curriculum, for example).
Now the government has no trouble issuing permits to the church, because the church is paying them exorbitant sums, and the american government is corrupt as hell.
That's just one approach, mind you. "Shutting someone down" is not a literal expression and is not inherently antithetical to "free speech". It doesn't mean the government takes your rights away, it means it takes the PRIVILIGES that it gives you in the first place away. (rights are also given by the government, btw. In an anarchy, nobody's stopping the guy with the swollest cousins to tape your mouth shut).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dimitris_Half Well rome had great infrastructure. The food was mediterranian, possibly the healthiest diet in the world. A huge part of the roman army were volunteers or conscripts from conquered territories, so as a citizen, you weren't cannon fodder. Rome built stuff like colosseum arenas and public baths for, mind you, not just the elites but the public, who had the free time to make use of them.
Obviously, you had a fair shot of catching smallpox at 30 and dying. That's the big counterpoint.
In the modern USA, if you're actually middle class, of course you live a way better life. But if you're a poor working class Andy, like many are... you spend most of your time inside a building doing some highly specialized menial activity drains the life from your soul. You come home, pump some opioids or numb yourself with alcohol, spend time on the internet or in front of the TV which doesn't give you any happiness. You don't have health insurance or it's shitty, so you die at 50 from a heart attack anyway.
There's a debate to be had here
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billywashere6965 look dude, asking their number isn't a big deal, as some of the commenters are pretending. He's not harming anyone, he's not being creepy, it's fine. The problem is, it's just really ineffective. You can't go up to a random girl and expect you to give you her number, not even the hottest guy on earth could pull it off the way he's doing it. You have to build SOME kind of rapport, at the very least a cheesy one liner. In my experience, if I see someone cute and I want to get to know her, I just strike up a conversation about whatever public setting we're in, and I only ask for her number/insta if she seems to be having fun. Very rarely had any cringe experiences that way
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Crowder is a right-wing ideologue whose sole purpose is to indoctrinate teens into a conservative narrative. He's receiving millions from conservative billionaires like the Koch brother, which is the major reason he still even exists on youtube. He never actually ever plans to change his mind, just to do whatever daddy says so that the money keeps coming in.
Also, watch some of his podcast. Like, does this really, REALLY strike you, of all things, a KIND person?
And everything about steven is pseudo-intellectual. He cherrypicks data, coming to opposite conclusions of studies he cites, misinterprets history and paints himself as "research-oriented". If you don't believe me, check out three arrows' videos on him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I had my first friends with benefits last year. At first I was really hesitant, because it's obviously surrounded by so much stigma and drama, but I thought to myself: hey, as long as I'm honest, what can go wrong?
Oh boy was I ...RIGHT.
Already during the date, as it was going well, I asked what her intentions on Tinder were. We were both on the same page that we're gunning for a relationship but hookups are also fine. We ended up going to her place, yadiyada, and afterwards we had a cuddle session with some deeptalk where we basically discussed the relationship (she already wanted me as a boyfriend, I didn't).
Then a few weeks later, she texted that she found someone willing to commit to her and that meant we'd have to stop. I was like, great for you girl, I understand and wish you all the best. Sadly, they didn't end up working, but we kept in contact as friends (without the benefits). It was all in all a nice experience, just communicate everything honestly and there is no drama
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arxci9402 Arxci how interesting that i see it the other way around!
First off, I'm european, so my political lense isn't really "left" and "right".
Second, being all about "facts" is a narrative the right has spun for themselves. It's a lot easier said than done. Sociology is a highly complex topic which requires scientific literacy a certain understanding of statistics to form a valid opinion on. The likes of ben shapiro, steven crowder, dave rubin are the height of sophistry and they hate facts, but they sure LOVE big donor money.
Just take crowder's claims on transgenderism for example. They're not just scientifically false, the very studies he cites contradict his own conclusion, because he cherrypicks the data. Watch three arrows, shaun, vaush, any if these to debunk crowder. You don't have to be a leftist to understand how fraudulent these "fact-lovers" are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fact: Islam is wrong My friend, you genuinely amuse me. To discard the model of one political axis with the claim that the one with two axes is truly legitimate is hilarious to me, and suggests a shallow understanding of politics to me.
Let me tell you a secret: they're both just crude models and useful in different contexts.
Now, we can argue about technical definitions to no end (which shift across time and space), so to me the interesting question is WHY Nazis are being called socialist.
You may notice that it is only right wingers who do this. The goal is to liken the nazi regime to modern socialist movements in order to discredit them. As long as you see how modern socialist movements have pretty much nothing in common with nazis, you can call them whatever you want, potayto potahto. Notice that whether or not we call nazis socialist is completely irrelevant, as these political terms are too complex to narrow down in practice.
Political understanding is not about how well you can apply umbrella terms like "socialism", "corporatism" or "fascism", but rather in-depth and multifacetted knowledge of specific policies and how they interact together. And when you look at the individual policies of the nazis and apprehend their intentions, you can see that comparing them to Fidel Castro or Venezuela or (idiotically) bernie sanders is useless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@babydayday Well yeah, I agree with the way you formulated your first paragraph.
With the second, I feel like you didn't quite get my point. Of course, the process isn't entirely neurochemical, what's relevant is that it's physical, or material, as opposed to metaphysical, which consciousness is.
What causes my emotion (shame in this case) is certainly physical. The sound waves generated by the girl rejecting me hit my eardrums, which generate an electrical signal in my brain and voila, we're back to neurochemistry. Of course, in a scenario in which I don't have a fragile ego and feel secure, that signal does not trigger shame. Obviously, how these physical signals are interpreted in the brain and the physiological responses they produce vary from person to person, are incredibly complex and happen on many different layers of consciousness, from cognitive to subconscious. Point is, it's all neurochemical.
And yeah, obviously consciousness plays a role, in the sense that it just exists. But it doesn't DO anything. They stage doesn't do anything, but none of the play would even be possible without the stage to play it on. That is the nature of consciousness.
1
-
@babydayday You're right of course, the emotions are not triggered directly by the outside stimulus, they're triggered by the semantic parsing of the outside stimulus. Obviously, this process is incredibly fascinating and barely understood at all, but it's still not done by "consciousness".
Effectively, semantic parsing is like an automated, subconscious heuristic memory analysis. When I ask "What is a chair?", you will be incapable of providing a definition that includes all chairs and excludes all non-chairs. That's because "chair" is not a physical thing, it's a mental abstraction of physical things. So how DO we recognize chairs? We have many heuristics to go by, such as:
• can I sit on it?
• does it have legs?
• does it have back support?
etc, and if we check enough of these boxes, then that thing is a chair.
But once again, this heuristic analysis, which happens instantaneously on a subconscious level, is not done by "consciousness", it is done by the regions of the brain responsible for language processing. In fact, it doesn't even appear as a mental artifact in your consciousness - because it's literally subconscious. It's not the stage, it's the guy writing the script before it becomes part of the performance you're seeing.
And just because there exist higher concepts like "She doesn't find me attractive" doesn't mean they're any less physical than very simple ones like "chair", because as you can see, even something as simple as "chair" is incredibly complex on a neurological level. To your cognitive thinking, the difference in complexity is huge, but it's still just a bunch of neural pathways, it's categorically the same.
1
-
@asmodeus5326 well, not really. Without consciousness, there is no "you" to call upon the data. Consciousness is not your thoughts or emotions, it is that which is experiencing the thoughts and the emotions. Without consciousness, a memory isn't part of a living being, it is in the most literal sense just physical storage of data, computer memory.
What some philosophers and I call thoughts and emotions are "mind artifacts", which means they are things generated by the brain or the body that we experience through our consciousness. When you meditate and turn your focus inward, you can observe all these mind artifacts clearly. If you practice for years and get really good, you can even achieve thoughtless and emotionless states of consciousness, and buddhist Yogis can go even further than that, but this is where my knowledge ends. Point is, consciousness is always there, it is the stage for all of your experience
1
-
@babydayday Well this is an excursion into an entirely different topic, which is genetics. I'm not an expert by any means but I know a little, so I'll be much more vague.
Your DNA is huge. Only a part of it is actually used for proteinsynthesis, the rest is just kind of dead code. The physical expression of your genes can happen in one of two ways: either different sections of the code are activated (Epigenetics) or part of the active code is changed, for example by mutation caused by radioactive exposure.
So yes, our DNA is susceptible to change throughout or lives, though that change ranges from completely unintentional to semi-intentional. So for example, if you spend the rest of your life hiking in the Himalayas, your body will likely rewrite your genetics for you to be able to burn oxygen more efficiently. That's an epigenetic change. You can kind of call that intentional, because your body is doing it to adapt to external circumstances.
The development of intelligence is likely a complex mix of epigenetic and evolutionary processes. So the reason we became more intelligent than apes is because the stupidest apes died and the smartest ones survived and then fucked. Additionally, some apes may have done something that improved the genetic aspect of their intelligence.
It would make a lot of sense to me if you have kept using the terms "consciousness" and "subconscious" as synonymous. As you (and me too) already suspected, our disagreement was likely only definitional, not substantial😄 I actually suspect that ALL misunderstandings are actually of such nature, but that's another huge topic entirely
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1