Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Thoughty2"
channel.
-
27
-
This isn't true, foremost because negativity doesn't breed negativity inherently, only unjustified negative responses do so, you can test this with adults whose parents punished appropriately when they were younger, in most cases you'll find in the short term the children would resent the parents but as they grow older and wiser they come to understand more often then not that the punishment was for their benefit. Its common in more traditional regions for this behavior to consistently repeat, praise too likely assists the children come to better conclusions for the future, but sociological behavior would present that the older we get, the more we get stuck in our ways and the more arrogant we become, the more necessary negative consequences are required over positive ones. Especially since adults regularly coast on positive reinforcement that they can't do so with negative consequences. Children don't embody this and alongside likely having a bit of a harder time following negative consequences, they also aren't set in arrogance and their own ways like an adult and thus will be less likely to pick a way they made up. They are also more sympathetic and caring (generally) of others then adults (least for relevant cases) and especially to their parents. This means they are more likely to consider positive reinforcement, especially since they are continuously adapting, improving, and changing whereas adults aren't. This alongside traditions, cultural and religious standards, which also report generally that child is more susceptible to these behaviors say to disagree with positive reinforcement as a generalized justified standard. (I also can't personally think of anyone still that resents negative reinforcement because of the negative reinforcement, in every cases its because the person was overly harsh, was retarded, or was straight up wrong and was totally unjustified at the start)
8
-
@thisin. That's an invalid comparison, specifically because if your mother calls you useless, then that's not punishment, that's straight up abuse, regardless of how mild the abuse is it is pure and simply abuse that. If she is of decent moral character, and a even the least a suitable mother, she would soon repent from such statements to her children, otherwise she is despicable in both counts and probably shouldn't have ever become a mother in the first place. (it doesn't matter the circumstance is, if she is incapable of understanding where she went wrong and retracting her wrongs, she is of terrible character and a very poor mother) Punishment does not necessitate any form of forgiveness or repentance because it is a necessity to dealing with charges and nobody that appropriately punishes anyone, children or adult, is capable of being wrong. (the only vague exception is when the one responsible for the charge lacks information that makes the punishment incorrect, but then the forgiveness is not given because they were wrong, but because they couldn't make an optimal decision instead) No one you are charged for can be left without this form of guidance.
"No, I would just recognise that as personal issues of mum, and try to think back and see if this instability has influenced me in any way."
A child is generally incapable of recognizing this for multiple reasons, at best they might be resentful of a problematic mother, but they will never have enough self-awareness and capable psycho-social skills to determine that their mother is unstable and that they are probably causing the child social, mental, and physical instability. I will actually say this with high confidence because I have gone through this alongside my siblings, and while some of us could point out our mother was crazy, none of us were willing to see the effect it had on us and none of us were capable of dealing with it. Extreme as an example yes, but the same deal applies, resentment alone does not form that type of awareness, it won't be until after they grow up that such contemplations may arise. (and that's only for those who partake in internal investigation and contemplations, many people will never do that and be trapped in that broken headspace)
"If you're having to force yourself to do something, then you're going against your nature"
I don't see how this is wrong, there are a massive amount of things in our nature that we should not partake in for many reasons. It is better to working towards productive and positive behaviors even to the detriment of the individual nature as it does not represent a moral nor ethical good to follow, in cases where no such judgement can or is specifically made, it must be examined then to see if such a case could scale into such moral or ethical dilemmas, if not then it can act. Of course that requires having a concrete objective morality, which I correlate with Biblical principle.
"In the end it all evens out and only the most efficient/effortless qualities remain."
I'm not so certain that's the case, that's only if left alone without capability for self-control and regulation of the individual. Any decently raised person however should be capable of self-improvement incrementally, it is massively the fault of the parents (or guardians) if this does not happen. So if that actually is to happen, that's a sign of bad parents, I would say society should be harsh and spiteful even perhaps towards parents that create those types of people. Not that it ever will, but in an optimal environment is would.
4
-
Just gonna point out your both logically and statistically inaccurate in a lot of places:
1. If the core of an idea is humility through contentedness then it inevitably requires the reduction of individualism. If the concept of Janteloven isn't to be content and humble then the argument for it not being a collective mindset is correct but otherwise you can't reach a content humility without shutting down individual evolutionism. By expressing the idea as believing you are not better then others it proves that the concept is a reductionist ploy at best. Of course its a bit less relevant if its a dying idea but its still collectivist then.
2. The more "equal" women get in the right to work and act the less time they will spend working, its one of the female paradoxes that is consistent throughout the world, its a focus of many form of anthropology and biologic behaviorism these days. Of course us old time social conservatives understand the truth behind the matter but nobody else wants to accept that answer so they need a new one they'll never have.
3. The showing of emotion wasn't really that relevant an argument, it was more a point about how subjective the concept of happiness is.
4. The suicide rate is actually really high for such a small population with welfare systems.
5. Quality of life is still subjective.
Also freedom of press: not really
Democracy: kind of, but that's a misnomer, also not a evidencal good thing, democracy is not any more moral then any other political system because of the evil of the human heart, its just dumber (also none of the Nordic nations are special on that front)
Safety and low crime rate: For now, and this is technically also a misnomer.
High salaries and protective worker's rights: This is what creates those safety and low crime rates btw, its not special to have that otherwise, once this fails you lose them. This won't save you either, decedent societies don't tend to last that long no matter how small and the collective methodology doesn't tend to keep a functioning society forever, if you continue to operate how you are then time will consume you like it did Rome, Egypt, and the United States.
Social security: State enslavement while buying votes. Interestingly it'll suck all the kids it can dry before then.
High levels of equality: This is the funny thing, the only equality you can really afford is female equity, because you're a feminism by force nation, however the funny thing is the more you do that the less women participate. And in a free society with a welfare state women have incentive to stay away from it. Then again with declining birthrates, its makes you wonder if you'll have native Nordic kids by 2080. Good luck having a great society today when you have no one to take care of you tomorrow. Of course no western nation is better, we have all succumb to murder the next generation-itis, for we are the hedonists judged to die.
Infrastructure: eh, nothing to really brag about after everything else is considered.
Healthcare and education: For now, but your time is running out, and who shall be picking up the tab, cause it won't be your kids.
You consider these objective factors? I consider them incidental, they don't prove anything more then provisions. But they are become more infantile then ever before, at least the Vikings were hearty raiders, but their children not so much, inherited just to burn it down, its interesting that the ideal is still to feel entitled to something though.
Also nice strawman, but he never said you lived in an authoritarian regime smartass, though I will, one predicted by Huxley and proclaimed as the King of submission, hedonism. One of your own making and enslavement.
And you cherrypicked and strawmanned your statements as well. Don't be surprised that I didn't take you seriously.
3
-
3
-
2
-
@ollierkul Good job strawmanning again, impulsive are you to react but not understand, perhaps you didn't read what I said at all, (in fact I bet on it) I said humility in the subject of contentedness, not humility overall smartass, perhaps you should read what's said not what you want to read in someone who opposes you. Your criticisms otherwise carry no weight. You know the funny thing is I even explicitly addressed the subject of misinterpreting it to mean be humble, to which it is not to be treated the same as reduction in the individual. If you're too blind to figure truth then perhaps you should assume the submissive position of live and learn. But you carry your arrogance to the high places to ward it on others instead. You can never learn with such a hostility towards those who only speak truth.
As for women working more hours that's not statistically true, women already tend to underwork men in multiple avenues even despite quotas to the point that its not even remotely fair game, this is actually the source of many forms of the claim of the gender wage gap (which doesn't exist do to liberty, it only exists as a result of freedom itself) which also exists in Norway. It's just a natural behavior of women who are less assertive, less engaged in most fields, and prefer against performing non-people focused employment. Unless you pull from anecdotal cases, you're evaluation of the world from this perspective is incorrect, and anecdotes don't define reality anymore then opinion does. If you want to claim ideology then that's your fault, reality however does not subscribe to the facts as you see them, it only subscribes to truth and what we see in it is irrelevant.
Then you have no idea what the term "in context" means and thus are purposely trying to conflate idealism just to prove people wrong, an opinion to interpret the world not as it is but as you desire it was.
You are wholly wrong on so many measures in this subject, first off being in the top 100 is already very bad, but the smaller the population the less prevalent suicide is suppose to be, those who have a high suicide rate despite low populations are definitely a suffering population. That aside while lower forms of sunlight can be correlated with disorders that can instigate depression, that doesn't entirely correlate. Not to mention that doesn't apply in the southern region of Scandinavia at all and doesn't work as a justification. (especially when the regions that would suffer such problems already have an immensely tiny population that its unlikely to drastically impact the rates nearly as much to push it as high as the Nordic nations are)
Availability of water and food is not an achievement to celebrate. (unless maybe in Africa) Safety is a lie and one that doesn't ensure anything if all you care about is pleasuring yourself anyway. Modern education would've been thought of as slave education 3 centuries ago. These days training for specialized work independently is more important and teaches you more anyway. There is no teacher like experience. Also most healthcare systems actually suck even when they make people feel complacent. Cushy survival makes no more a good life if you still live for yourself anyway. Also you have no idea what a right is do you? Because a right isn't just something you have, its not something the government lets you have just because, otherwise its not a right but a privilege. A right is given by God to ensure the autonomy of every man, nobody has the right to anything more then what he earns and no less then what he can achieve, anything given to you is thus not a right but authoritarianism used to buy votes. And you don't have any rights.
And you know why I know you have no rights? Because you won't fight for them, you wouldn't kill to preserve them, you would neither protect them with your life nor have you or your ancestors. And neither do you have it instilled in your culture to have them or protect them. And so it can and will be taken away. Perhaps it already is, Denmark has already had their governments considering hate speech laws.
Why is democracy anymore fair? Because everyone can vote to take away the rights of the minority? Is it perhaps its just mob rule where no one has rights but the demogues. You don't think that's possible? Its what Hitler and Lenin did, one through democracy, one through revolution, it was both was mob rule. How about the Roman Republic? Caesar and Augustus both became tyranicaly leaders through a democratic process simply by manipulating the majority, they may have done great things but how many innocent men had to die for each of these tyrants to get their way, thousands, millions, billions? The question isn't will it happen but when? Because democracy is but an avenue to tyranny as it has always been, from Greece to Rome to Britain and Germany, nothing changes but the hats we stick on a flag post.
The world for now is only safe as long as the US enforces its will on nations regardless of how justified. American hegemony falls and either tyrants rise or nations fall, and it'll likely start with the destruction of the US, which is but a decade or so away. If you really want a stable future, then you really should prepare instead of being lazy and assuming this how its always been. No better then the medieval man of the Dark Age.
If you are unwilling to believe that ultimate power doesn't ultimately corrupt then I can't help you, but I'd be skeptical of a government that doesn't let me own a gun unregulated when I haven't committed a crime.
Blind are the men who sleep in comfort letting tomorrow come. For tomorrow isn't pleasant and today is but the last free one we have. Perhaps in time you'll be conquered again, or perhaps in time you'll be enslaved, whichever it is, you've already taken your first step to the grave, you were warned but in fear and weakness you retort and laugh, do not weep when the world comes crashing down, for soon the boot comes knocking and it knocks for thee.
2
-
2
-
@thisin.
"what would you consider punishment that's not abuse?"
This is a stupid question and comes from someone who has absolutely no idea what a punishment is. Insulting a anyone is never punishment, there is no reason to insult a child especially, its always abuse. Whether understandable as a reaction or not, mild or not, its still abuse and you shouldn't seriously insult people.
A punishment is a negative consequence used to correct behavior and point out incorrect behavior, an insult is incapable of doing this in itself, it doesn't correct the behavior, it doesn't allow the individual to understand their mistake, its just personally attacking them (which will implant itself in their psychology most likely) for the sake of some personal catharsis. It proves a lacking of love and care, which punishment doesn't do, in the long term it creates distance in the relationship where justified punishment does not.
"To a child, losing trust in their parent and seeing them as something to fear could potentially be mentally scarring."
Being punished as a child doesn't make them lose trust in their parents. Correcting a child does not scar a child, its when you punish randomly, unjustifiably, and don't make it clear why the punishment happened. A child is capable of contemplating punishment, least with assistance to understand it if not inherently. Punishment should probably come after exhausting positive consequences for good behavior. No two people, thus children, are the same and they can't be treated the same on this sense, some children will only correct their behavior if you punish them because they are likely stubborn or angry or don't understand the right and wrong of the circumstance and thus can't distinguish the consequences properly. Rewarding for those cases does not work at all.
"If someone has to be constantly telling you to do something, that's an indication that you're doing something not in alignment with your nature."
Not necessarily, some people might simply not care or be too stupid or stubborn, that's not about nature, that's just being ignorant and obnoxious. Regardless if something you need to do is against your nature, it doesn't matter what your nature is, you need to do it. Only a fool cares about your nature as a justification for anything, its evil enough as it is.
"People should work towards improvement but that should already be part of their nature as people generally want better things."
No it they don't, people want a better something without the work or self-direction. Laziness is a problem of the human condition we all suffer from, some people get over it easily, others do not, whether its part of the nature or not, its not something positive, the nature is not something good for us and it should not be used as a justification to be. Our nature going against what is right should always be opposed and in most cases it does.
"Eventually though, one force wins over the other, if an employee keeps getting yelled at to work faster, they may work faster so they don't get fired, but with time, if we assume that yelling is an effective punishment then the stress of it builds up and something has to be done about it, often this means quitting."
If someone is constantly getting yelled at (which I don't really believe is an effective manner of punishment for multiple reasons) for things they won't or are incapable of doing, either the boss is totally incapable or the employee is at fault and should be fired. In either case the employee should probably find a better job or if there is a higher management transfer if possible. Whether the boss should be fired or not is irrelevant, the employer market should be competitive too, it doesn't matter what anyone wants or "needs" because that's not how life works. Fools believe otherwise and leave everything to hell.
"You're forgetting that humans have emotions and it's not feasible to do just do something long term with solely "self-control"."
Emotions are a tool, they are not an end-all for anything. Nor is that a valid excuse. People who use them for that are retarded and are the exact type of problem we have with society. This response is stupid cause its entirely capable and reasonable to expect people to have self-control and act towards their own improvement, there are many ways to improve that internally and externally, folks that respond with that just don't want to do that out of laziness and arrogance. The power of self-control is way underestimated when you put in even just a little amount of effort. (tho you should put in way more then a little for effectiveness)
"If you're told to become a mathematician yet you're far below average at the subject, by your statement, the best course of action would be to work significantly harder than your peers just to eventually become mediocre"
That's a copout, being told to do something is not a justification for doing it. Do what you want or do what you are capable or required to do, but becoming something you can't do and don't want to do is just generally not possible, most especially since there is no way for you to achieve in the environment and thus no way for you to move further. That aside that's not how mathematics works. Many people who suck as school math have gone to become great at the field specifically because school math is trash, it doesn't teach you any of the awesome things it can produce or contains. Also that's not the best course of action, the best course of action is to do what you're capable of. (preferably what you'd like to do)
"Pretty much every programmer I know of said they "burned out" in under 10 years, using self control to force themselves to continue would be a terrible idea, in fact it would be better to just completely give up early on."
Not an argument. First off that's anecdotal, its irrelevant when it comes to reason or logic. That aside I can tell you they're probably rather stupid. You don't just push yourself through circumstances for the sake of it. You should be seeking to improve yourself and the circumstances you're in. Whether by improving yourself, improving your environment, or your work ethic, or by looking for better circumstances. But burning out is a sign of fools trying to coast by and not improving at all. I've been a developer for years now and you've got to know when and where to continue the climb up the mountain, because you are never done, someone who coasts will just fall back down to the valley. That's life. If you don't get better, you only get bitter.
"When something like this happens to someone, it's because the reward no longer outweighs the cost of going against nature."
No it just means someone was foolish and didn't regard their improvement in some manner and most likely tried to coast their circumstance. There is no reward in life that will satisfy you in the end, what we need is not what we want, but it is a necessity to life. There is no positive about our nature, it is us opposing our nature in which good comes, not in submission to it. Otherwise you're a slave to yourself and will never improve. Looking at ourselves as inherently good is flawed anthropology and a terrible worldview that begets immoral ways.
2
-
1
-
This isn't really the correct answer, in the least its a minor aspect at best, the core of the problem is the decadence itself, the lack of striving for a better being is a form of idling, idle hands breed idle minds, idle minds are the problem, we are built to progress individually, to improve and expand ourselves, when you live in a society that does that for you and teaches you to stay as you are you are doomed to never evolve. Suicide tends to be the result of misunderstanding one's own purpose and fundamentally finding that you have none, that is the core of being for each of us, and when you are striving in a postal world, what is left but to go postal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rock and Metal isn't dead yet, but they too are being killed by the system. So far I think the best way to combat this system of musical destruction is via crowdfunding, the only practical solution that I've heard so far to this problem.
Like if you remember the 60s to the 90s, each decade had a period of crap music and a period of musical breakout, a movement would pop up almost out of nowhere. This explains at least in part why the movements have died. And I think recently we sort of had another one that never took off, like Megadeth, Anthrax, Avenged Sevenfold, Skillet and Deep Purple all seemed to have pushed a more progressive rock/metal tech sound, but it didn't seem to break out of anywhere, it wasn't coordinated or anything like that, and nobody new even broke the barrier and rose to prominence. Heavy music like that might not be dead yet, but if we don't start on a solution soon, it probably will be.
1