Joshe

😂My feet hurt!!!

Not everything needs to adhere to your categories. Also, OP was probably genuinely curious how other AO members thought about a simple thing like this.

Nah bruh. Shoes are essential, if you're smart.

This one actually belongs in the conformity thread: Taking shoes off at the front door. 😂

People adamant about no shoes in the house have a sharp stick up their ass.

There are these things called "mattress covers/protectors" that you wrap your mattress in to protect it from your nasty ass. 😂

ban this mf 😂

Great job @Vido and @Natasha Tori Maru!

Only watched a few minutes but this guy seems legit.

The issue is that some people are prone to continually invoking the hierarchy so they can make their position in it known. The more that occurs, the more it becomes obvious they are not merely asserting the facts, but blindly using the hierarchy in a way that elevates themselves over others for some unconscious reason. It indicates weakness and immaturity. Simply notice how often someone invokes a hierarchy and implies their position in it relative to others. And then ask, wtf is this, and why is it a common theme with this person? It’s ironic that these ‘high conscious’ folk are not conscious of what this behavior is doing for them. If they knew, they’d stop. And frankly, it’s weird how many people seem to have blinders on with regard to this.

The Recruit. It’s okay. Recently watched the movie The Gentlemen with Collin Ferrel and Matthew Mconahey and that dude from Sons of Anarchy. It’s worth a watch.

Yeah, that merger or collaboration was one of the first things that came to mind. I think Flock is playing a very long game too. It might take them 10 years or more to garner mass public approval. I think they’ll happily meet any demands for the time being, just to get the equipment in place. I heard they’re giving a lot of the equipment away so cash-strapped departs can adopt. And I bet that as time goes on, we’ll start seeing pushes for longer data retention. For example, there will come a time when if Flock only had access to 31 days worth of recordings instead of 30, they could have prevented a mass shooting or caught the killer. Then I imagine well-timed propaganda campaigns deployed to produce increasing positive sentiment. Sounds a bit out there, but there could come a day when there is 24/7/365 recording with mass adoption and mostly positive sentiment. And of course we can’t trust Andreeson to not give Theil, Musk, or anyone else direct pipelines to the data. It seems like Flock data could be some of, if not the most valuable on the planet. Also, even though they claim to delete the data after 30 days, does that mean ALL the data or just the feeds? I’m guessing they’re producing a shit ton of data derived from the feeds. I need to look into it more.

Catchall for interesting stuff related to typology. Share your type, your thoughts about it or other types, and any interesting typology stuff from any system. I'm INTJ. Saw this today and found it interesting: The thing to ponder is gather vs organize. What is that?

Not just the citizens, but their enemies, and the whole of society. My biggest concern is it would lead to an enormous concentration of wealth and power. Check this shit out: It's hard to fathom all the ways they could use it to acquire more resources and power. Imagine having 24/7 feeds monitoring hundreds of thousands of businesses.

I agree that we shouldn't think reality owes us enforcement of our constructed rights. But the error I highlighted isn't a nitpick. It's load-bearing. You wrote that men not thinking rape is wrong is "the actual reason why rape is so common," and your takeaway rests on that: "It happens because human rights are a fiction that many others do not share." It's true that some men, especially in certain cultures, don't see rape as wrong. But most rapists know it's wrong and do it anyway. Do you think Catholic priests don't believe it's wrong to molest children? People violate norms they themselves endorse all the time, and it's far more common than people violating norms they don't believe in. Once you account for that, your explanation doesn't hold, and what's left is something like: "A right isn't a guarantee. People can and will violate it, and reality doesn't stop them, so understand why it happened instead of moralizing." I agree with that 100%, but I'm failing to see the revelation here. Also, nitpicking is how you turn a half-baked insight into a fully-baked one. If truth is your highest value, you should welcome the correction, because it's 100% valid and consequential.

No leftist understands → okay, that's exaggerated → maybe someone does → but he's some guy in a basement. 😂 Why can't he just be some guy in a living room? lol I get your point though. It would be hard to find them. Probably because they aren't social media clowns. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I could find one in like a day. They're out there man.

"If a man thought that rape was wrong, he would never rape a woman." People violate their own morals all the time.

But not this. You're making wild universal claims about enormous populations with tons of individual variation.

😂 @Leo Gura Thanks for explaining. I agree with you.

I think I understand the concept, but I don't see the mechanism doing what you're suggesting. I'm the type that if I want to, I can scaffold out empathy for anyone. So, say I did that for Hitler and then spent weeks studying him from an empathetic stance. Of course I would see more things from that stance than I otherwise would without it. Is that the mechanism you're talking about?

@Leo Gura I think the key factor is cognitive flexibility after judgement.

I think you run the same psychological operation that moralizers do. Perceived deficiency → judgment → contempt/condemnation → "it's warranted because it's true." Seems to be the same process, yet you're still able to understand things. So I don't get how you think "you can moralize, or you can understand, but not both". You're saying moralizing is the key error preventing leftists from understanding, but it's not. You think that a negative judgement prevents seeing, but your negative judgements don't prevent you from seeing, so negative judgment itself doesn't account for the error. It can, and often does, but there's more to it. The problem is when someone allows their judgments to terminate inquiry. You can 100% moralize and keep the inquiry open, and still deeply understand something. Moralizing does not equal cognitive closure the way you've been claiming. It's just very clearly not the case.

"My negative judgment is justified because my judgment is accurate" is exactly what every moralizer believes, lol.