Search:

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;862410]What is the "propagation" you are talking about, and why is it so important? I don't understand that part of your post, sorry.[/QUOTE]

Ideas are living things and they travel between living things. Here is a good example of it in 2 ways (Please watch that video and consider how belief structures are pushed independent of facts)
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pnpM7Yx05Q[/url]

Notice the rhetoric that builds the social issue. I could easily throw another 100 references of people that want to spell out some mix of 'cops bad, cops racist, cops evil' ect where its blatantly apparent. At this point its not about arguing about 'what' happened but rather about how people receive information. You have to not only consider the information that is available but also how the conclusion was drawn about the information.

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

What is the "propagation" you are talking about, and why is it so important? I don't understand that part of your post, sorry.

Ideas are living things and they travel between living things. Here is a good example of it in 2 ways (Please watch that video and consider how belief structures are pushed independent of facts)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pnpM7Yx05Q

Notice the rhetoric that builds the social issue. I could easily throw another 100 references of people that want to spell out some mix of 'cops bad, cops racist, cops evil' ect where its blatantly apparent. At this point its not about arguing about 'what' happened but rather about how people receive information. You have to not only consider the information that is available but also how the conclusion was drawn about the information.

[QUOTE=SuperJack;861991]Whenever enough people ask me too.[/QUOTE]

Throw me in on one of your games someday. I want to do one more here and you were always one of my favorite hosts : )

Originally Posted by SuperJack

Whenever enough people ask me too.

Throw me in on one of your games someday. I want to do one more here and you were always one of my favorite hosts : )

[QUOTE=secondpassing;861982]I agree that our freedom in the mind is being hurt by such large scale efforts to control perspective. I'm thinking that you're referring to political groups, companies, activists, and major religions as those behind those efforts. If that is the case, then the solutions would be to either get a stronger or bigger organization to control the bad ones (macro level?), or to run another grass-roots campaign or education system to convince the followers to not support the major groups (micro level?). I think this makes the solution kind of circular.[/QUOTE] I very honestly dont even think on that level. The more I understand about mass propagation the less I want to have anything to do with it. Our society can keep their kardashian drama bullshit and shove all the influence it has straight up their ass because I care about the few in my life. I have a few hundred people who regularly interact with me and at most fifty or so who are actively involved in my life. I do not care about the nonsense the world does. I care about the quality of life for the few people I care about.

[QUOTE=secondpassing;861982]Could you really make an ethical argument for Nazis under utilitarianism? I thought utilitarianism is about saying the moral thing to do is to maximize benefit for the greatest amount of people. Perhaps you could make one is limited in consideration. For example, a movement of the greatest benefit to Germans, but I don't think the Nazi movement benefited mankind.[/QUOTE]Yes and in many ways. The most simple I think someone else said at some point was Eugenics. I could carry really complex conversations on that subject into ethics boards carried out by state governments on the subject.

A lot of it just deals with the measurement of ethics vs liability vs morality though. Im not sure if I could say anything profound on that subject. Maybe someone would look at something I said as profound there but it would just be regurgitation of existing logic models. But then again isnt that like 90% of conversations? Just walking through previously discussed concepts people at least pretend to not know to understand just to arrive at a desired conclusion which is... once again... marketing.

Originally Posted by secondpassing

I agree that our freedom in the mind is being hurt by such large scale efforts to control perspective. I'm thinking that you're referring to political groups, companies, activists, and major religions as those behind those efforts. If that is the case, then the solutions would be to either get a stronger or bigger organization to control the bad ones (macro level?), or to run another grass-roots campaign or education system to convince the followers to not support the major groups (micro level?). I think this makes the solution kind of circular.

I very honestly dont even think on that level. The more I understand about mass propagation the less I want to have anything to do with it. Our society can keep their kardashian drama bullshit and shove all the influence it has straight up their ass because I care about the few in my life. I have a few hundred people who regularly interact with me and at most fifty or so who are actively involved in my life. I do not care about the nonsense the world does. I care about the quality of life for the few people I care about.

Originally Posted by secondpassing

Could you really make an ethical argument for Nazis under utilitarianism? I thought utilitarianism is about saying the moral thing to do is to maximize benefit for the greatest amount of people. Perhaps you could make one is limited in consideration. For example, a movement of the greatest benefit to Germans, but I don't think the Nazi movement benefited mankind.

Yes and in many ways. The most simple I think someone else said at some point was Eugenics. I could carry really complex conversations on that subject into ethics boards carried out by state governments on the subject.

A lot of it just deals with the measurement of ethics vs liability vs morality though. Im not sure if I could say anything profound on that subject. Maybe someone would look at something I said as profound there but it would just be regurgitation of existing logic models. But then again isnt that like 90% of conversations? Just walking through previously discussed concepts people at least pretend to not know to understand just to arrive at a desired conclusion which is... once again... marketing.

[QUOTE=Ganelon;861979]One other thing I find completely detestable is the idea that morality is subjective - and taking this idea to mean that e.g. murder may be moral in some cultures. I think this is a very dangerous idea and yet it doesn’t seem to be very unpopular (do correct me if I’m wrong).[/QUOTE]I agree with you but that is a very complex issue. Disentanglement of the concepts of ethics, mores, norms and morals can get pretty hairy and even if you get people who are willing to approach such concepts its asking a lot to expect they will openly challenge their established belief structure.
A very basic example would be asking a Catholic to separate the ideas of the Vatican as a power structure from the religion. No mater what aspects of cannibalism, torture, incest, rape, pedophilia, or blackmail committed by the Vatican you present; some Catholics will refuse to disentangle their religion from that power structure and see challenging the morality of the Vatican as an attack on the Catholic religion itself.

This is not to say morality is subjective but rather that understanding morality may touch on some core belief structures most people are just not constitutionally capable of dealing with in a mature way.[QUOTE=Ganelon;861979]Do you have some examples of attempts to control perspective btw? [/QUOTE]
Yeah. I could probably throw out a hundred with little effort. On the most basic level consider the structure of a persuasive message. It builds a narrative framing an issue from a perspective with consideration to specific connotations that all build to a pre-constructed result.
Consider that definition I gave and tell me if I am wrong.
If not you don’t refute that definition cite pretty much every marketing campaign that has ever existed in any way as an example. The most overt these days would be things like CNN vs FOX News while the most impactful very few are even capable of recognizing. For a few popular ones I would mention-
-Breakfast is the most important meal of the day (and why is bacon a breakfast food at all)
-Streets belong to cars / calling people a “mentally deficient moron” through the word ‘Jay’ became normal
-Origins of the electoral college
-Pretty much every rights movement ever that functions on the moral justification of equality while pushing against equality
-Your testosterone should be checked regularly and its in need of treatment as abnormal ‘low t’ even if over 50% of men are considered as ‘low t’
-Jump in our ‘sell this’ pyramid scheme today because if you get 4 people to buy in after you and they get 4 people ect.. it will make you money (even though if you repeat that process 12 times it exceeds the population of the world)
-Give to God because X scripture demands X% of your money and its Gods will you give it to me


I think I question how this answer matters more than I want to think about the answer. I just do not believe people are capable of accepting their own bias.
The feminist will always call the critic of the ghostbusters remake who suggests equality of alimony, child custody and prison sentence a sexist evil pig and consider any such position an immoral attack on their belief structure. But why?
Why is this division so prominent and accepted? Why do we look at these established structures and accept them? What is it about the learned behavior that drives our nature to conform to terrible belief structures even when reason is presented against it?
I barely understand how much I do not understand but I value the knowledge of what I do not understand over that which I do. Most of the time the question holds more value than the answer and the understanding of your ignorance is the beginning of true knowledge. This goes further but I do not think there is value in mentioning it.
[QUOTE=Ganelon;861979]And what do you mean by that exactly?[/QUOTE]
What I mean by all that is that there is a general lack of respect for the autonomy of an individual within our society.
When we move from creating a product to creating a need for a product we can make its wrong.
When we convert our information systems into methods to convey ideology's it is wrong.
When we shift from searching for the understanding of our existence to searching for how we can create whats comfortable for us that fits into whats around us is that what allows evil to exist?

Originally Posted by Ganelon

One other thing I find completely detestable is the idea that morality is subjective - and taking this idea to mean that e.g. murder may be moral in some cultures. I think this is a very dangerous idea and yet it doesn’t seem to be very unpopular (do correct me if I’m wrong).

I agree with you but that is a very complex issue. Disentanglement of the concepts of ethics, mores, norms and morals can get pretty hairy and even if you get people who are willing to approach such concepts its asking a lot to expect they will openly challenge their established belief structure.
A very basic example would be asking a Catholic to separate the ideas of the Vatican as a power structure from the religion. No mater what aspects of cannibalism, torture, incest, rape, pedophilia, or blackmail committed by the Vatican you present; some Catholics will refuse to disentangle their religion from that power structure and see challenging the morality of the Vatican as an attack on the Catholic religion itself.

This is not to say morality is subjective but rather that understanding morality may touch on some core belief structures most people are just not constitutionally capable of dealing with in a mature way.

Originally Posted by Ganelon

Do you have some examples of attempts to control perspective btw?

Yeah. I could probably throw out a hundred with little effort. On the most basic level consider the structure of a persuasive message. It builds a narrative framing an issue from a perspective with consideration to specific connotations that all build to a pre-constructed result.
Consider that definition I gave and tell me if I am wrong.
If not you don’t refute that definition cite pretty much every marketing campaign that has ever existed in any way as an example. The most overt these days would be things like CNN vs FOX News while the most impactful very few are even capable of recognizing. For a few popular ones I would mention-
-Breakfast is the most important meal of the day (and why is bacon a breakfast food at all)
-Streets belong to cars / calling people a “mentally deficient moron” through the word ‘Jay’ became normal
-Origins of the electoral college
-Pretty much every rights movement ever that functions on the moral justification of equality while pushing against equality
-Your testosterone should be checked regularly and its in need of treatment as abnormal ‘low t’ even if over 50% of men are considered as ‘low t’
-Jump in our ‘sell this’ pyramid scheme today because if you get 4 people to buy in after you and they get 4 people ect.. it will make you money (even though if you repeat that process 12 times it exceeds the population of the world)
-Give to God because X scripture demands X% of your money and its Gods will you give it to me


I think I question how this answer matters more than I want to think about the answer. I just do not believe people are capable of accepting their own bias.
The feminist will always call the critic of the ghostbusters remake who suggests equality of alimony, child custody and prison sentence a sexist evil pig and consider any such position an immoral attack on their belief structure. But why?
Why is this division so prominent and accepted? Why do we look at these established structures and accept them? What is it about the learned behavior that drives our nature to conform to terrible belief structures even when reason is presented against it?
I barely understand how much I do not understand but I value the knowledge of what I do not understand over that which I do. Most of the time the question holds more value than the answer and the understanding of your ignorance is the beginning of true knowledge. This goes further but I do not think there is value in mentioning it.

Originally Posted by Ganelon

And what do you mean by that exactly?

What I mean by all that is that there is a general lack of respect for the autonomy of an individual within our society.
When we move from creating a product to creating a need for a product we can make its wrong.
When we convert our information systems into methods to convey ideology's it is wrong.
When we shift from searching for the understanding of our existence to searching for how we can create whats comfortable for us that fits into whats around us is that what allows evil to exist?

I feel like this topic has covered the issue from the wrong angle.

The purpose of freedom of speech is just a pre-requisite for cultivating free throught and allowing for those ideas to propagate through a society. Its not the objective but rather just something necessary to achieve the objective that is 'freedom of the mind.'

I feel that this objective is critically threatened by large scale efforts to control perspective. In a model of realism objective reality exists and we interact with it through our perception. With this in mind our perception of reality defines our reality. We live in a sociological meta-cognitive age where for the first time in human history we are able to understand how we make decisions as a society and influence that process. Sure as societies we still have 'freedom of speech' but we have lost our ability to correlate our beliefs to create action.

Consider the term 'Grass-Roots.' It was just how things worked forever but then it became a term to represent a society getting together to push for needed change. The fact this even became a definition is telling but what came later was astro-turfing. Social campaigns that were tailored to generate movement for change by a society for private profit. This not only acts directly against public interest but also simultaneously devalues potential pushes we can make to influence changes in our society (hurting our real ability to influence the structure that frames our society) while also creating a method to circumvent the protections offered by a free society with the facade of progress.

I feel that this is true evil.

On the micro level anyone can justify whatever action but on the macro level morals show through. I could very literally make ethical arguments for Nazi ideology under utilitarianism that would be irrefutable but any moral person could not call such an argument anything other than immoral.

In politics all you hear is the 'Right vs the Left' which forces people into a mode of thought that is a false dichotomy. We keep fighting ourselves while the true evil progressively encompasses us. We debate sources of ideas without looking at the methods of propagation that actually establish our freedom as living entities within our society.

I feel that our freedom of speech is nothing without the propagation that gives it value. Its harrowing for me to ruminate about the limited scope people even consider on this subject.

Sometimes I regret the sacrifices I made in my life for a society that is so hellbent on anti intellectualism.

I feel like this topic has covered the issue from the wrong angle.

The purpose of freedom of speech is just a pre-requisite for cultivating free throught and allowing for those ideas to propagate through a society. Its not the objective but rather just something necessary to achieve the objective that is 'freedom of the mind.'

I feel that this objective is critically threatened by large scale efforts to control perspective. In a model of realism objective reality exists and we interact with it through our perception. With this in mind our perception of reality defines our reality. We live in a sociological meta-cognitive age where for the first time in human history we are able to understand how we make decisions as a society and influence that process. Sure as societies we still have 'freedom of speech' but we have lost our ability to correlate our beliefs to create action.

Consider the term 'Grass-Roots.' It was just how things worked forever but then it became a term to represent a society getting together to push for needed change. The fact this even became a definition is telling but what came later was astro-turfing. Social campaigns that were tailored to generate movement for change by a society for private profit. This not only acts directly against public interest but also simultaneously devalues potential pushes we can make to influence changes in our society (hurting our real ability to influence the structure that frames our society) while also creating a method to circumvent the protections offered by a free society with the facade of progress.

I feel that this is true evil.

On the micro level anyone can justify whatever action but on the macro level morals show through. I could very literally make ethical arguments for Nazi ideology under utilitarianism that would be irrefutable but any moral person could not call such an argument anything other than immoral.

In politics all you hear is the 'Right vs the Left' which forces people into a mode of thought that is a false dichotomy. We keep fighting ourselves while the true evil progressively encompasses us. We debate sources of ideas without looking at the methods of propagation that actually establish our freedom as living entities within our society.

I feel that our freedom of speech is nothing without the propagation that gives it value. Its harrowing for me to ruminate about the limited scope people even consider on this subject.

Sometimes I regret the sacrifices I made in my life for a society that is so hellbent on anti intellectualism.

[QUOTE=rumox;861772]Lmao I just googled Lauren Southern.



FeelsAmazingMan[/QUOTE]

I mean.. She is cute.
I am not into transactional sex but if I was......

Originally Posted by rumox

Lmao I just googled Lauren Southern.

I mean.. She is cute.
I am not into transactional sex but if I was......