Optimistic Nihilism, is quite a good philosophical framework.
But I would recommend a mixture of optimistic nihilism and stoicism.
If nothing has any inherent meaning, the things you chose to be meaningful are as valid as any other choice.
It’s not just a metaphor, when people say things like “picture yourself in X”, or “just imagine the audience naked”.
Others can actually see things in their mind.
Which was very quickly followed by, “getting a song stick in your head” means you can actually hear a song over and over in your mind. How annoying.
This seems like some king of super power. I was 40…
You don’t ration Discworld, you reread it every 5 years.
And maybe revisit a favourite or six every other year.
It would be for just a couple minutes.
Narrator: that couple of minutes turned into many hours in the hospital.
Sometimes men don’t fell comfortable expressing themselves with women around.
If a space is toxic, men don’t express themselves there either.
Space where men can properly express their feelings are extremely rare. Between the toxic masculinity and men feeling judged by women and other men.
Even if you are completely correct and this person conspired against you; holding onto this is not great for your mental health.
The best thing for you is to acknowledge that you were hurt by this and accept that. Then move on, what they did was about them and not you.
From your text, it could be that they were just selfish and you were collateral damage. My advice stands, give yourself the freedom to move on.
As a father of three boys. This is enforced far more by the mother’s of girls than anyone else.
My oldest made friends almost exclusively with girls before he was five. Without fail mother’s would move their girls away and toward other girls. This happened in a few situations, both structured and unstructured environments.
When it was dad’s with daughters, it was only about 1/4 of the time, and mums or dad’s with sons never did.
I have seen it the other way also, where boys were steered to other boys, but it was far less often.
I used to go to a men’s only yoga class, I was far more comfortable there than in a mixed class. The class was discontinued, not because of lack of interest… but because the instructor got pregnant, it never restarted. She was a great instructor very professional and targeted the exercises to men’s problem areas.
Men’s only spaces are important, as much as women’s spaces. Men’s mental health is often overlooked, and men’s spaces are an easy way for men to vent about shit that is bothering them.
Also “our current time” is a little strange, history it’s full of segregated spaces, even of just by social convention. Our current time is far more accepting of mixing than a lot of history.
I’ve had the 3x spicy ones, they are very hot that isn’t to much of an issue for me. The problem is that they don’t actually taste any good.
I like spicy foods, but I also like flavour, I find a lot of the super spicy foods only really taste of spice.
I wouldn’t get them again, they are too hot to be enjoyable and don’t have great flavour to compensate for what I would class as a “challenging” level of spice. If they tasted awesome, it would be a different story.
I don’t tend to sweat from spicy foods. So maybe there is some genetic component. Two of my three boys like spicy foods.
Use anki, it is a great tool for learning
There are levels.
Like all food, cheap mass produced version is generally bad. Home made with the correct ingredients can be wonderful.
I don’t see how both these claims can simultaneously be true.
Sorry, my poor communications…I was referring to the social media companies, when I said they had been trying and failing for years. Not trying that hard mind you; moderation is a very expensive problem to solve, and they don’t want to spend money they don’t explicitly have to.
(it’s) actually about making citizens more easily identifiable online.
Maybe. That is speculation, probably a nice little side effect. But not the primary goal.
Independent social media sites however, don’t all have the resources to implement verification systems, so some will feel the financial burden of compliance a lot harder, and others
This is a great point; and there is an easy way to solve this problem. Not that the govt will care that a simple solution exists. If you don’t have an algorithmic feed a lot of the spread of misinformation is curtailed. If you are not allowed to host images/video etc directly than the moderation of them can be off loaded to 3rd parties.
What’s more, knowing that the platforms they’re using have their identities will make a great many people more hesitant to speak critically about existing power structures.
Another great point. I don’t have a good answer to this one, but there are anonymous leak avenues etc for serious stuff.
In any case, this ban is literally worse than just leaving the problem be.
I don’t really agree; the ban will do two things.
1/ it will show the social media companies that, Australia at least; has tools that they can use to reduce their power.
2/ show kids that this is really serious; it is not just your parents saying shit you can ignore.
Will some kids work out how to get around it; yep, 100%. Will it be a big portion; maybe, tech literacy is not as high as it could/should be.
Holding platforms accountable to a bare minimum standard of moderation against misinformation, bullying and harassment might be a starting point.
This would be great; but it is also too little too late. They have tried, and failed at exactly this for years.
And hey, if socmed’s really that bad for you, then us adults could benefit from this alternative, too!
It is that bad for you! Algorithmic social media is doing you harm.
I figure holding tech giants directly accountable for the specific harms they’ve caused
What if; the social media giants are in another country. Your country doesn’t have jurisdiction there and can do fuck all in reality.
Maybe fine them??? Sure, which they will fight in court until the end of time; all the while the harm continues.
I don’t know if a ban will work, or what extra harms it will cause. But there are no good options to tackle this on the large scales of whole countries.
Algorithmic social media is mind cancer; if you have a better suggestion for tackling this issue. Let us know.
Lemmy is social media; but there is no algorithmic feed, my views are not being manipulated by some engagement maximizing machine.
I’d compare you to a colostomy bag, but they are at least useful!
Party planning is going well for president Trump’s upcoming 90th birthday; now in his 11th year of his second term. He said via his speaking box “this will be the greatest party, possibly ever in the history of the world, many people are saying it”
Thanks.
4 was such a big one; I knew I couldn’t do it justice in a shortish post. But it is a fundamental assumption that is very wrong.
You are correct; information asymmetry is one big driver of people making “non-rational” choices.
I see it as an unstable economic model; it will either devolve to capitalism with monopolies capturing most if not all sectors; or devolve into communism with a single state-like entity controlling everything. At which point; no matter which way it went; it will collapse under its own weight.
The way it swings will depend on the people who are there at the start.
The modern version of libertarianism that we see most of; is based off some really bad assumptions:
(1) The market is perfect:
This leads to the assumption that all regulation is bad; and that it merely works to reduce personal freedoms and the ability of the market to produce things in the most efficient way possible.
It completely ignores history and the reason regulatory bodies were created. It also ignores that the market is not a thing unto itself; but is composed of people (see 4).
(2) Barriers to entry are irrelevant:
This follows directly from (1); even the simplest business has some barrier to entry. You have to buy somethings that your business needs to run. These are real costs, and will provide a barrier. Obviously, the bigger the barrier then more entrenched players have an advantage (see 3)
(3) Monopoly is not bad:
This is a subtle acknowledgment that (1 & 2) are completely false. Basically it is a cope, that even if monopolies form; clearly this is the market producing the most efficient production framework.
This ignores history; the major monopolies that were broken up. The crazy shit that went on to protect their monopoly status.
(4) Humans are rational actors:
Most economic models assume that consumers will make rational choices; they will make the most economically rational choices. Libertarians (in my experience) love this.
This ignores so much of reality; it also assumes that the values of all are the same as their own.
There is really too much in this point to cover here. So many things that we actually do make no sense if you were a rational actor, such as brand loyalty.
(5) If the market can’t address the issue, it is irrelevant:
There are many things that the market cannot address; but in the libertarian model these things are ignored.
e.g. fire fighting; this is the classic example where a market solution didn’t work.
But equally; policing; education; major infrastructure; functional health systems. There are so many examples; where if left to a purely market solution, simply would not get done.
Keep your flexibility… Almost impossible to get out back once it’s gone.
You can do alright, but keeping it is soooooo much easier. It will never get back to what you had if you don’t work to keep it.
“Capable of Practically Anything”
No cellular connectivity…so anything except the one thing that makes a portable device in a “phone-like” form factor useful.
Yes it can do cool stuff; but I can’t replace the other portable device with it…
Oh yes, we had this on our books… Then the current bunch of cunts (not the good kind); removed it to make more tax money. Absolute idiocy!
We had world leading legislation, but duck the future generations aye.