Yeah! That's precisely what I mean. Scooters is making an impact because they understand what people want and are providing a reasonable alternative that makes those kinds of people happy. They're not just saying: Starbucks is bad, don't go there.
Yeah, put another way, make something controversial and people will pick sides and stop their thinking then and there. If anyone, including themselves, thinks "Starbucks sucks" then they're the enemy and should be disproven.
I'd argue there's a great solution. Respect the people that go to Starbucks and their opinion. Understand it. And then, from a place of compassion and understanding see how you can help them. People respond a lot better to that. But I'll admit that in this climate everyone is making things an us vs them controversy. So it'll be hard when others are trying to create that divide and you are trying to bridge it.
I think the point being made here is that many people clearly enjoy what Starbucks offers. So, saying they suck is preaching to the choir. The only people listening to that are the people you aren't trying to convince. If you want an impact, suggest an alternative that will make those people happy. To do that, start with an understanding of the value Starbucks brings them. Failing that, you are just signaling that your thinking isn't for them. They'll just ignore you and continue to happily give Starbucks their money.
Many people's entire thought process is an internal monologue. You think that voice is magic? It takes input and generates a conceptual internal dialogue based on what it's previously experienced (training data for long term, context for short term). What do you mean when you say you understand something? What is the mechanism that your brain undergoes that's defined as understanding?
Because for me it's an internal conversation that asserts an assumption based on previous data and then attacks it with the next most probable counter argument systematically until what I consider a "good idea" emerges that is reasonably vetted. Then I test it in the real world by enacting the scientific process. The results are added to my long term memory (training data).
Seems like there are a lot of half baked ideas online about AI that seem to come from assumptions based on some sci-fi ideal or something. People are shocked that an artificial intelligence gets things wrong when they themselves have probably made a handful of incorrect assumptions today. This Tom Scott talk is a great explanation of how truth can never be programmed into anything. And will never really be obtainable to humanity in the foreseeable future.
Could not have said it better. The whole reason contemporary programs haven't been able to adapt to the ambiguity of real world situations is because they require rigidly defined parameters to function. LLMs and AI make assumptions and act on shaky info - That's the whole point. If people waited for complete understanding of every circumstance and topic, we'd constantly be trapped in indecision. Without the ability to test their assumptions in the real world, LLMs will be like children.
Whoa, it's like because you fully understood their position rather than analyzing it from a hostile point of view, you're capable of basic compassion and humility for the incredibly painful situation that all the people of the middle east face everyday.
But seriously, it's pretty refreshing to hear someone understand rather than just try and push a narrative and justify their take.
Someone trying to actually understand the nuances of someone they disagree with? Online? Now I've seen everything.
Yeah the Sith here are the type of fascist regime to rise to power on the backs of a frustrated population. Pointing out all the flaws of the current system to garner support with no intention of actually making it better.
So you're saying that in whatever system is created for libertarianism there will be a potential for people to use their freedom to subvert libertarianism, right? That makes sense to a point, but it's the same issue that exists in every other system. Socialist need to have checks and balances to ensure the government doesn't subvert the needs of the people, capitalists need to bust monopolies to ensure someone doesn't takeover the market, etc. I know I'm mixing economics and politics, but I hope you see my point.
You could just open an LLC that researches if having lunch everyday kills you and each day report, "Not yet." For this to work you'd have to prove the value of anything you'd want to do for work to the government and what happens if the government is bad at knowing what has potential. You know, hypothetically.
Conservatives think the same thing about liberals. When you think you're right, you also think you're doing the world a favor by speaking your mind.
You seem incredibly well adjusted for what you've been through and clearly you've learned a lot from your life experience. Thanks for laying all that out. It was very insightful. I think we agree on 99% of this. So at the risk of splitting hairs, I'm going to put a magnifying glass on that last 1%.
I think fear absolutely victimizes people. I've seen xenophobia and homophobia do plenty of damage. Men are far from a disenfranchised minority and I think the issue of women's safety is much more pressing than men being treated unfairly in some situations. But it still shouldn't happen.
You're right that in a way it's the fault of the dangerous men who abuse women. But in a way, hypothetically, it's really the fault of their parents who sexually assaulted them. But in a way it's the fault of their parents genetics that made them mentally unstable, etc, etc all the way back to the first multicellular organism. This thinking, however true, isn't very useful. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.
We agree fear is not an excuse for misandry. I don't think it's unreasonable for women to fear men after having a traumatic experience. However I can still point out the problem here. I think a good example is the trolley problem. If you pull the lever to only kill one person instead of six, I can both: agree with your decision but also point out that you killed someone. You can argue that's insensitive to your difficult dilemma, but I think it's worse to pretend like someone isn't getting hurt. That one person who died still was a life with people who will mourn them.
I think what's irking men about this whole bear thing is not that the result is not what they want or even what they expect. It's that a huge chunk of people seem to not even see it as a problem that most men are being judged for something they have nothing to do with.
This is a great look into the mindset of someone who's been through SA. Thanks for sharing.
The point I think a lot of men are trying to make is that: In the same way that somebody who commits SA may have been abused themselves, women who are prejudiced against men create a new victim. Treating a harmless man as worse than a dangerous animal is an experience that most every man goes through and that sucks.
I can understand and sympathize with your position. But it doesn't absolve you of your behavior. Just like someone who commits SA isn't off the hook because they were beaten as a child and that screwed them up. I feel for someone who was abused growing up, but they don't get to throw up their hands and say it's not their fault they victimize others. Compassion is crucial, but at the end of the day, everyone is responsible for their own actions.
Best take in this thread by a long shot. I'd like to add that there's nothing wrong with a little thought experiment to illicit a point. But the internet has become such an inhospitable place to any kind of discussion requiring nuance and patience.
"Hey, would you rather be alone with a bear or a man?"
"A bear. And you should think about what you've done."
"... Huh? "
Yeah how is this not me paying for everyone else's guac at Chipotle when I don't want it?