zurew

Okay, so whats relevant here is avoidable death. This question will decide if you really value fun over survival: Lets say activity X gives you the most enjoyment so because you are biased towards fun, you are doing that activity. However, there is a twist, because you know that if you do that activity you will end up being dead. So the question is this: Would you choose to do that activity, even if you would know beforehand, that if you do it you will end up being dead? Also notice this: being biased towards fun still contains the bias of wanting a certain outcome. Why? Becuase, you will end up doing things that will give you the most enjoyment (which is still a certain outcome). If we want to look at it from a different perspective, you will try to avoid anything that gives you little or no enjoyment at all.

Whats your definition of fun? An activity, that makes you joyful? Btw, you can't escape the bias of survival, because If you wouldn't be biased towards survival, you would have been dead a long time ago. Your ability to have fun is resting upon your survival, unless you have a belief that after your physical death, you can still have some fun.

@Devin So if you are biased towards survival, you by definition have to value utopia over dystopia, so at the end of the day you are at the same page as all of us.

Sure, but if your are being biased towards fun, and you still end up doing everything just to survive, then basically we can say that the bias of survival is contained within your definition of fun.

You are still biased towards a certain outcome, you are just putting it behind a different bias in a sneaky way (this time you use the bias of fun in order to rationalise why you want a certain outcome)

Its relevant, because you said, that acceptance should eliminate bias.

So we end up being biased towards "fun" then. You can't really escape bias.

Without a desired outcome, why would anyone do anything? And again, having a desired outcome doesn't necessarily indicates that you haven't accepted the opposite.

One can accept death and still try to maintain survival. Acceptance doesn't mean that you won't be biased towards something, so because it doesn't necessarily change your biases, it doesn't necessarily change your actions. Everyone is biased towards survival except suicidal people.

I don't think you can separate those two in a meaningful way. For example if you want to create a framework for a fruitful civilisation you necessarily need to avoid civilisation collapse. The video you saw was focused on the problem part, because without addressing that problem we can't start talking about the positive parts. Your argument boils down to negative vs positive motivation, but I don't think that you can separate those two in a meaningful way (it will be dependent on the perspective),also I am still curious about how you could approach the problem of cilivilisation collapse without it being fearful in your mind.

Nope, like what is specifically that makes you think that he is afraid (you have to make a point that is not about mentioning the problem ,because we established that mentioning a problem doesn't necessarily indicates that you are fearful)

Okay, the only thing thats still unclear to me, is that how can you be confident about what motives he has based on the information you have? Like for example how do you know with a high confidence that he is approaching it with fear?

Okay, so in practice how would you approach complex problems without talking about it or mentioning it. Or if you fine with the mentioning the problem,then what would you do different?

I don't want to derail this thread, but these clips are funny.

You can turn off the sink, but if its a complex problem which requires global engagement and not just a person or just a group, then mentioning a problem and outlining it and giving frameworks is completely reasonable imo and not fearmongering at all.

Prove nothing, i was just mentioning it. Yes, if you are critiqually engaging with conspiracy theories, then yeah you could say that you are doing "truth seeking", but most of the time people who are deep into conspiracies , they are using selective scepticism. They are very sceptical about any mainstream narrative or news, but they often easily buy into the alternative media, alternative narratives and sources just because those are not mainstream and they are not using the same standards for both. But here is a question for you @Raptorsin7 If TJ Reeves is a truth seeker according to you, then why he isn't open to criticism and disagreement? Also its really funny, that he was talking about the problem of censorship in one of his videos, when he is doing hardcore censorship as well.

Lol, this guy is balls deep in conspiracy theories. Lmao, Wtf

How? If i want to buy something from for example amazon, then i know exactly what item/service I will get for what price. On the other hand Tate literally and directly promoted a service and the customers didn't get that service and didn't get any repay at all. There is a difference between using the capitalist system and the necessary power dynamics that comes with it vs using the capitalist system and adding intentionally scammy stuff upon it. Also even if i were to give you for granted, that all giant companies lie, that still doesn't make Tate's case any better (if we are talking about integrity).

You don't need to hurt other people in order to learn fighting. Yes there are jails and courts but those are useless if you get attacked and you can't run anywhere. Doing fighting will make you more respectful and you get humbled. Most people nowadays have a fall sense of confidency and they don't really know that they can be in real danger if they are not respectful. I wouldn't say that learning fighting is a necessity nowadays, but why wouldn't you learn it if you can get a whole pack of all the goods?(learning discipline, getting humbled, learning self defense, getting more confident etc) Because of all that, I would argue that learning to fight is one of the best things you can do, because you get the whole pack by doing one activity.

@Oeaohoo Whats your main critique about this forum, what do you think we are missing on?

Yes it is the best to avoid to fight, but he is right on all his points, namely that if you learn to fight you will be less agressive, you will be more respectful to other people because you will know that shit can get real, you will learn discipline, and you will be able to defend yourself and also you will be more confident in general.

Nope, you don't have to intentionally lie and fuck over people in order to make money , thats what scammers do. There are big differences between companies, so we shouldn't be that reductive about it. Some of those guys didn't get the service what they paid for, so what do you called that if not a scam? One's integrity in this context will be challenged by what tools one is okay using, in order to make money. If you are willing to use all the tools without exception or if you are willing to scam and intentionally mislead people in order to make money, then you don't have much integrity.

This will be a bit of an unconventional advice, but have you ever thought about going to a hypnotherapist with this issue? I don't know how big the success rate is, or how legit it is, but i heard that for some people it worked. Basically the idea is to go into your subconscious mind (where most of your ingrained habits are) and then try to have an effect on those or try to change those, while you are in a deep trance. Edit: Nevermind, i looked it up and the results are bad with hypnosis

Yeah I don't disagree with that, i just wanted to point out, that there are systemic factors that are playing a big role in one's success and we shouldn't deny those, just as we shouldn't deny the ability one has to make himself/herself successful.

If you are living in a racist country your skin color will have a lot of impact on your success/failure. Can you still become successful? Sure, but we have to acknowledge, that it will be much much harder.