Basman

Move to a bigger city to game. Focus on developing my life purpose and finance all sorts of artistic pursuits. Probably pay off my parents retirement. I'd also likely drop out of higher education for good. That shit bores me to tears.

I applaud you for making a decision for yourself. Even if it doesn't work out like you hoped, you'll have a lot of stories to tell and you'll have lived a little. Best of luck. Also, that Mongolian chick sounded like wife material, no?

You didn't say anything 🙂.

Had this epiphany about education while contemplating why it is the way it is. It dawned on me that the core issue of when it comes to the quality of public education boils down to resources. Society has to educate millions of people, but it simply doesn't have the resources to give every single person an education that is of high quality on an individual level. Hence bureaucratic tools like exams and ritualistic/symbolic educational requirements to get into higher education/get a job (degrees, diplomas, etc.). educational attainment is contingent on resources and opportunities available. Genetics, interests and hard work can carry you to a certain extent but for most people getting higher grades requires simply more resources. A genetically gifted child can only get so far if he's born in Africa. Africa lacks the resources to give him a high quality education compared to a European country. The education system is largely systemic in my opinion and only meritocratic to a certain degree. Which is why strict requirements for higher-education opportunities tend to filter out lower-class people. They don't have the resources to truly shine. So if you are struggling academically, consider that you just need to invest more money into it.

You need treatment to deal with serious illness. However, if your disease isn't understood such treatment may not quiet exist. Such as with fibromyalgia or MA. Then you can at best hope to manage the symptoms. But the degree of severity is everything. You don't amputate if you have a cold. How do you actually know that your situation can't be treated? Have you checked? I'm just trying to understand. My issue really is that I don't think suicide is grounded in reality 99% of the time. It is almost always due to a myopic view of emotional isolation and impulsivity.

You are actually in a very strong position to start learning the things you are curious about. You have no idea what you might discover. This is exciting. And it is not that big of a deal if you don't know something currently because you can learn. You just have to be curious. If you are not curious then what does it matter? Purpose is something you create. It isn't something that gets spoon-fed to you. Start by becoming clear on what your values are first and go from there.

I see. If it is an "invisible" illness than it can be harder to get good treatment. I have a relative with fibromyalgia. I have seen how exhausting chronic pain is first hand. There is mental component to it though. Her autism makes her hyper-fixate in a way that causes stress, which the nervous system overreacts to. The doctors recommend treatment that help her handle her symptoms better on a personal level in addition to other things. No one can stop you if you decide to actually kill yourself. But it doesn't make sense to kill yourself if it is only temporary because you will naturally want to live when you are in state of relative ease, IE. not depressed, mentally ill, etc. If you get better you'll want to live, but you'll rob yourself of that opportunity permanently by committing suicide. I do actually think suicide can be an answer in certain extreme cases, but those are situations where the problem is deemed permanent thus a permanent solution is proportional. I assume that you are young and that you haven't had much contact with mental health professionals, therefor I would recommend the position that you don't actually know if your problem is permanent. It is more than likely something that can be worked with or at least managed. Life is worth living, you just don't have the mental health to appreciate it at the moment. The thing about depression is that it is self-reinforcing. Depression makes you wait for motivation before taking action, but motivation actually comes from action, so you never end up acting and stay depressed. You have to act first before you get motivation. That is how you beat depression very broadly speaking. You need a degree of grit to be happy as a person otherwise you end up subject to the whims of your mind.

I think it is interesting how "woke issues" also tend to be very safe relative to the establishment. Like, trans issues are inconsequential relative to the sociopolitical situation we are in now with the growing wealth inequality, loss of trust in institutions, or global warming.

@BryanbraxI'm not debating your AI, bro.

I don't understand why democrats are so incompetent when it comes to their messaging. A 16 year old could tell you that they just need to appeal with bread and butter economic issues. Obviously, niche social issues aren't that important to the broader contingent of society. Not so obvious I guess.

Are you physically ill? That changes the picture quiet a lot if you are dealing with chronic pain. My understanding of suicide is that it is usually an escapism where you percieve there to be no other alternative to one's suffering due to a malignant outlook and a lack of affirming experiences from others, IE. A lack of love. My stance is that suicide is disproportional relative to the issue at hand. It's a permanent solution to a temporary problem that can change within a year. When I recommend this position I assume you have the health and ability to change your outlook and circumstances, which most people do. If that is not the case then lets make that explicit. All I'm really saying is that you should count your advantages first so you have a more accurate picture of your situation. In my experience, suicidal people are very emotional and highly cynical of their situation in a way that isn't necesarilly accurate.

I've listened to Leo on the speakers once while he was explaining some metaphor that included a grandma getting raped to make some sort of radical point. I don't remember exact context but my dad got really offended. Another time, while listening to Actualized on speakers again in my room, leo was going on about how stupid average people where in his typical confrontational tone, and my mom barged in upset and started arguing. I had a period where I was suicidal and when I confessed this to my mom and stepdad they blamed "that weird bald guy" for it. Pretty funny in hindsight. I no longer listen to actualized on the speaker. And I'm a little older now. It's exclusively my thing. It's too radical and off-putting to random uninitiated.

Limited success shows you that this is something you can work on. You can completely change how you think about yourself and your life. I've done it. The only reason people kill themselves are because they are suffering. You just don't seem to understand why you are suffering. The nuclear option is so disproportional from what I can see so far. You have plenty of space to work with. It comes off as frivolous from the perspective of a relatively healthy mind. At the risk of sounding harsh, do you expect life to just be handed to you? It seems almost disrespectful. Of the opportunities and advantages that you have.

You are more likely to succeed now than ever before in human history. If you live in a 1st world country, you have so many opportunities to develop yourself. And your more survival secure than ever before if anything as well. So much that you are probably spoiled. So just get to work.

Government institutions are themselves collective fictions, no less legitimacy. Collective fiction require ritual to work and people need to trust the institutions to be grounded in reality. Suspension of disbelief if you will. Something like an election is a ritual that makes an elected government legitimate even if you yourself don't agree with their politics. It is an amazing social technology. Fundamentally, a government is essentially just the monopolization of violence in an area, but it also needs to be legitimized for the population to accept a government. In monarchies and authoritarian states, the head of government is typically "chosen by god" or literally a "god". The point is that a government needs to feel real for people to give their authority to it. Having an effective institution however allows you to regulate all sorts of things that are unwanted (murder, theft, pollution, etc.) and create public goods through organized work (infrastructure, education, redistribution of wealth, etc.). If you really want to go to the edge of collective fictions, you could say that your life has no legitimacy and it is just a matter of force to enslave you. And there are no rules that exist that could regulate that. Now we are in stone ages, where institutions barely exist. The notion of anarchy assumes that collective fictions are a bug as opposed to a feature. They are completely wrong and that kind of thinking is probably the result of premature conclusions. Imagine teaching chimps to drive. Without the ability to order themselves in accordance with the collective fiction of traffic rules, it would be complete pandemonium. Wanting to remove institutions over political grievances is like stabbing your wheels with sticks because the road is full of potholes. Anarchy isn't a serious solution to erosion of trust in institutions. I think it is interesting that you focus so much on the legitimacy of governance instead of the reality of institutions themselves as a collective fiction. I think this is perhaps an expression of a loss of trust in institutions. A loss of trust in their ability for the government to be effective at creating a good society for everyone, which is likely due to economic exclusion and a loss of community, I would bet. This kind of loss of trust in institutions is increasing, where the common sentiment is that they don't make you feel like a legitimate citizens who's concerns are important. You don't feel like you are fully participating in society. This is a serious problem.

Just as long as AI isn't the only resource you use, it can be a good source of discussion. Chatgpt at least has a bias towards agreeableness and saying whatever floats your boat so to speak, even if it isn't factual. AI is hallucinatory overall, but it can be really good at wording things and presenting a point of view you haven't even considered. You still want to be reading books, long-form articles, etc. And making up your own mind. Having answers spoonfed won't make you wiser. You need to be curious and contemplate how reality works with the information you learned. Interconnect your understanding.

We're in a phase of drifting towards authoritarianism in my opinion, which specifically means the erosion of checks and balances of power. This is due to a loss of trust in institutions, which is due to what I believe to be exhaustion with Stage Orange broadly. Economic exclusion and soulless technocracy is driving a wedge between populations and the institutions which comprise the unity of the West generally speaking. Trump and Putin are both expressions of such authoritarianism, where the perception is that might makes right, over for example due processes, like an election. Trumps isolationism is having global ramification for the state of Western society because the US is so integral to previous status quo. As European and East-Asian countries relied heavily on the US, they have to become more independent to adapt. In 20-30 years, I bet you'll see a western block that has it more together and is less heavily reliant on the US if there is not too much authoritarian slip-up. Brexit for example was a disaster for the UK. It was a huge set back for them politically.

Illegal/unwanted immigrants aren't sovereign citizens though. It is a bad example. When a country moves against immigration it is always because there is an undercurrent sense of one's sovereignty being at stake. Democratic countries are unlikely to ever really go directly at war with each other because they are too intertwined for that to even be an option. They are all westernized and roughly the same level of development. Unless something radical happens.

The difference is those countries aren't world leading economies with close historical and cultural ties. Democracy becomes an obstacle for US interest if for example a South American country seeks to nationalize it's oil industry and raise prices. American politics is also very much in bed with corporations, who's interest the government protects at times, like with those banana republics. Or private oil companies. The US was also fighting to prevent communism in the South at the time. Being corrupt doesn't refute that America is broadly pro-democracy though because it is generally good for business. In the case of the pacific, it is of great importance to maintain regional stability for the US.

Russia is highly depoliticized. A generation of men dying on the front line isn't seen as a national issue but like a private matter between individuals and the state. They took a bad deal and lost or where just unlucky.

American hegemony depends on democratically established countries maintaining their stability. These are economies which American way of life depend on. It is a different matter when you have backwater country to which the only interest are certain resources or they help stabilize the region. The middle-east aren't going to have any democracies anytime soon anyway. It has been tried. Trump's isolationism will and already has hurt America's position as a global power.

As far as I understand, it is not so much about starting a war with China, but drawing a figurative line in the sand. That includes having the plans and the material ready to win a fight if need be. If not, Chinese interests will supersede American interests in the Pacific, which will likely be destabilizing for the security of American allies in the region, especially Taiwan. America needs Taiwan for their computer chips. It is also about upholding American hegemony and a commitment to democracy and capitalism, though I'm less sure of that with Trump behind the wheel. Don't quote me on that.

May? I don't think it is hyperbolic to say that the US is much more concerned with China than Russia. China is much closer to being a peer-to-peer competitor militarily. If I'm not mistaken, much of the US military is being geared towards an amphibious war in the pacific. I believe Task & Purpose on Youtube has a bunch of videos on it. If anything, Ukraine is kind of a distraction for the US. China is probably right in wanting to prevent a Russian loss if they want to prevent America's full attention towards fighting them. It is human nature to apply old models when trying to make sense of the world. If they are true it is business as usual. If they are wrong, then you ponder.

Pretty chill I bet.

Clanker knows its place.