Yeah, you're right, I know it's a choice. It just doesn't feel like one. I know the reality is that I'm doing this to myself, but it feels as if this is just the way it is and there's no escape from it. The illusion that I have no control is powerful.
I'm already choosing to change. At this rate, there's no question I'll achieve the age-appropriate independence I seek. But it's taking so, so long. It was coming along smoothly and swiftly until she died -- the only reason I made it to age 24 without achieving that independence was because I tried to go to college out of state when I wasn't ready and pretty much threw away two years by not being able to function in a different state, and I was pretty much a few months away from graduating when she died -- and now I'm still fixing shit, but it's slowed down to a crawl. I don't feel I have the physical or mental energy to make it go any faster, and it's frustrating, because with each passing moment that I'm not finished improving my life, I can't throw off the false illusion that I haven't made any progress at all, and if I could just permanently stop thinking things like that, that would probably be enough to speed things up a little.
Thanks, that makes sense.
You're saying the right could justifiably complain about the left complaining about their freedom of speech being supposedly violated by private institutions. I'm saying the left don't complain about their freedom of speech being supposedly violated by private institutions. How could the right justifiably complain about something being the case when that thing is not the case? Do we have the same definition of "justifiably"?
I'd imagine they would, if the left complained about their freedom of speech being violated by private institutions. But that's generally not the kind of irrational complaints the left makes. Not saying they don't make irrational complaints, just that this in particular is not the nature of them.
Mental hospital for people who need it. Prison for lost causes or people who are too dangerous to try to help them. If a mental hospital is such an awful place, I'd rather see it reformed than supplanted by prison.
Let P be your statement. Then P = I can't prove P.
For the purpose of argument, let's make the bold assumption that I can prove any statement that can be proven under a given consistent system. (By the way, we shall assume the system we're using is consistent.)
Then P = ~provable(P). So ~P = provable(P).
Which indicates, if provable(P), then ~P. But if ~P, then obviously ~provable(P). Therefore, by transitivity of implication, if provable(P), then ~provable(P).
Any statement that implies its own inverse is merely a special case of proof by contradiction, whereby premises leading to a contradictory conclusion must be rejected. Therefore, if (if provable(P) then ~provable(P)) then ~provable(P). But we've already proved that if provable(P), then ~provable(P).
But we've already established P = ~provable(P). Thus, from the premise P = ~provable(P), I have proven P to be true.
HOWEVER: if I have proven P to be true, under no premises but its own definition, then provable(P). But we have already established ~provable(P).
Again we have reached a contradiction, and are forced to conclude one of our premises is false. But my only formal premise in this logical argument was that P = ~provable(P).
Therefore, P does not equal ~provable(P). In other words, the statement you've submitted is logically invalid in form.
It's "OK in society" because THEY (you know who I mean) are, for whatever reason, not interested in exploiting you to control public opinion. What they did to your ancestors was a hit and run. They didn't return to the scene of the crime to piss on the grave while pretending to cry on it. Which is exactly what they do to more commonly known representational minorities. They piss on the graves, point a finger to the nearest complementary representational majority, and cry fake tears while declaring "HE did it." In your case, they just quietly collected the spoils and left.
I'd imagine it's because what happened to your ancestors hits a little too close to home for "them." You were exploited not by any demographic, but directly by corporations. AKA "their" own arms and legs. To call out that exploitation, in an attempt to further exploit the resulting sentimentalism, would be to dig their own grave.
Don't you see what I'm driving at? The enemy is not ANY representational minority, nor ANY single complement thereof. The enemy is the small group of people making truckloads of cash by cajoling everyone on a daily basis into behaving like this.
No, not just "minorities." Representational minorities. I was careful to phrase it that way, and I don't see why more people don't use that phrasing, seeing as there are many populational minorities who are not representational minorities and vice versa. I would say "hunkies" were also representational minorities. I don't see what them being white has to do with that.
Also, you may not want reparations for how your ancestors were treated, but if you haven't already gotten them, I think you deserve them. In fact, a great many representational minorities of different sorts need reparations. I'd go so far as to say the only people who don't need reparations for something, are the ten-or-so families who've carefully sidestepped the law, over the centuries, and thereby inflicted or overseen the harm in the first place for which so many reparations are rightfully owed, for the vast personal gain they now enjoy.
That no-longer-so-secret society now encourages us to take back the reparations from one another, each on the basis of the quality opposite that for which they were oppressed -- encouraging women to take reparations from men, encouraging blacks to take reparations from whites, and, I'm sure, if complaining about being descended from Central European immigrants who were forced to work in coal mines became popular enough, they'd encourage such people to seek reparations against people born in Pennsylvania and West Virginia or something. Anything to keep the blame off their own backs. "Shoot the messengers," they say -- "get back at the descendants of the hapless lackeys who carried out the job, they're the real oppressors" -- "pay no attention to the gents behind the curtain."
Are you sure? We only remember a minority of our dreams, you know. Maybe you just aren't remembering any at all.
I'm in favor of impeaching Trump, but even I have to concede it's a bit premature to invoke our Lockeian natural right to renegotiate the social contract. Consider: if Trump is impeached, he'll be tried by the Senate. The Senate is popularly elected. My point, then, is as follows: if the movement to impeach Trump had enough support behind it to win a civil war, Trump would already be impeached.
Unless you're claiming flaw with the representative electoral system of the US itself, that is. In which case, I agree that it's flawed, and acknowledge this as a hole in my argument. If someone can convince me the US electoral system is flawed enough to be called tyranny, maybe I'll stand in support of revolution.
I don't doubt it. You seem like someone who stands for what you believe is justice. That's more than can be said for many people -- ironically, especially the people with the most control over public opinion. Agreement on the principle that justice is good, is far more crucial than agreement on what exactly justice is, and yet it's far too often taken for granted. As long as we agree that the needs and dignity of people at large are important, I believe any contentions between us, on the matter of the means to protect those needs and dignity, can work themselves out over time and polite discourse.
Yup. In this sense, I suppose the public interest really is fractured. Not fractured between any distinct partitions, not in reality, but rather, fractured between people as a whole community and people as the selfish creatures we inherently are. Not a battle between good people and evil people, but a battle between the good in people and the evil in people, inside every individual person, and between people who win or lose that inner battle.
Yes, I suppose if someone is being racist, it does tend to be pretty obvious. Hardly any reason to bother pointing it out if you don't have anything more substantial to say about it.
Personally I get around that by making a point to have something more substantial to say about it in the first place. Namely, a problem-of-induction argument. Without conceding that the statistics presented by my opposition are true, I take the stance that even if we assume they're true, we can't jump to any conclusion about whatever portion of the sample population did not turn out to possess the traits tested for -- nor is it fair to assume, given any arbitrary member of that sample population, they do indeed happen to exhibit the traits, regardless of whatever the likelihood may be.
But that's just when someone seems to be making unkind assumptions about a demographic in the first place. Which I've certainly never seen you do. While I may not align with you politically, you seem level headed.
I do. That's clever. Lucky for me I don't have any friends or I might very well have turned out just the same.
That all mostly makes sense to me and I agree.
But, "robotic partisan haters" -- what are these? Do you mean people who hate robotic partisans? Or robotic people who hate partisans? Or robotic partisans who are haters?
Also, if the last, how can a robotic partisan be a hater? Aren't they a partisan?
Also, do they really give the same replies to every poll no matter what topic? How is that possible? I'd think the replies available would depend on the topic, wouldn't they? Do they just always pick "other" and then reply in a comment and go off on some tangent about their irrelevant idiosyncratic system of ethics, like they could see a poll on whether dogs or cats are better and then click "other" and comment on the poll saying "do unto others" or something? 'Cause I've seen people like that. People like that kind of make me chuckle sometimes.
Also, I agree that other polls like this are creative writing, and are typically pretty amusing, too. I also agree that "giving preemptive 'choices' helps them to just click on their anticipated answer and saves wear and tear on their keyboards." But... I can't really agree with both at the same time. After all, if the poll is indeed a creative writing piece illustrating a sarcastic point, then how can any of the preemptive choices given turn out to be the answer the reader wants to give? Particularly if the poll's reader is indeed unable to recognize the sarcasm.
In summary, I think what you said sounds quite reasonable, but also it confuses me.