Ok. 1) I would say my opinions are more idealogical than practical. Those examples share a notion of collective consciousness, specifically the KKK. I was in a fraternity. I do understand the reality in which acts are committed that might not have been performed individually. But, even then, they have to formulate somehow. This is where I propose the EPD theory: "There is now a large body of evidence from twin and adoption studies linking genetic variation to phenotypic variation on virtually all human individual differences. Individuals unquestionably influence the nature of their experiences, e.g. high-sensation seekers surround themselves with like-minded peers and seek out quite different experiences than low-sensation seekers. We propose a theory called Experience Producing Drive Theory-Revised, to account for the current findings in behavior genetics. This theory is based on the Darwinian view that complex organisms are active agents "designed" by natural selection to survive in the environments in which they evolved. The theory assumes that the behavior of complex organisms can best be understood in terms of motives, preferences and emotional responses that have evolved to drive specific behavioral patterns. We propose a number of ways in which this theory might be falsified. human beings are masters of technology, at least theoretically. We sure don't behave like it though, as I was assume the creators of the theory above have acknowledged in their proposals of arguments to the theory...but I can't afford purchasing the abstract, though segueing to our context, I believe your examples are case in point of the flaws of this. Our conflicting drive of mastery perpetuates, paired with biological markers, perpetuate our belief in such corrupted understandings like the KKK. That book you recommended looks interesting and I added it to my wish list, as I believe one of the fundamental messages will be surrounding how we are using technology, do correct me if I am wrong, though. Here is a passage of a book, by the Dalai Lama, called 'Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World." "Not long ago I visited Orissa, a region in eastern India. The poverty in this part of the country, especially among tribal people, has recently led to growing conflict and insurgency. I met with a member of parliament from the region and discussed these issues. From him I gathered that there are a number of legal mechanisms and well-funded government projects already in place aimed at protecting the rights of tribal people and even giving them material assistance. The problem, he said, was that because of corruption these programs were not benefiting those they were intended to help. When such projects are subverted by dishonesty, inefficiency, and irresponsibility on the part of those charged with implementing them, they become worthless.
After looking back at my first comment to 'thenewgreen,' I feel somewhat shamed, and as much by myself as by your analysis. But, if I am now going to be "very fucking careful." It will now be to seek and share perspectives that I believe will contribute to the overall understanding of the topic. But since then, my new found respect for this message board has increased tenfold. Your comments have challenged me to fundamentally understand what I am wanting to say, and to be a better practitioner of the english language. But, maybe me comment to 'thenewgreen' is a precursor of what may happen if this message board scales. Especially if the following occurs: Newcomers take a look at who is being followed the most, and then follow them. Suddenly anything these users comment in are subject to the evil nature of the collective conscious. What happens then? If the nature of the topic shifts to garbage, are the most-followed members then to blame for even posting something? Or is it the fundamental design of the system? I don't think thenewgreen, in my reading of his advocacy, is honestly promoting some evil intent to this message board. Again, I am sure you guys have thought this through, so I may just be further educated... but I know damn well I could take this to an eventual loophole. Much like a hacker gets the attention of the central governing body, then gets on the dole. 2) I shared what I did, generalizing in the way I did, to argue that we are all brought up in a society that promotes a dependency upon external factors. This is where my use of co-dependency was flawed, and you clearly pointed that out. So even if my upbringing and subsequent mental condition sets me apart from the "norm", I observe the same plaguing effects everywhere I turn, though they may be much less detrimental. To me, a woman displeased with what she wears to a cocktail party, and the resulting discomfort and eventually her leaving is the same to me as me feeling a heightened sense of anxiety and insecurity when I am bastardized for not giving into the drug everyone is doing in a certain setting, they are both attachment to external qualities. I bring back up my understanding that my opinions are more ideological than practical. Feel free to explain why I am misguided or why this perspective is flawed. Ultimately you are engaging with someone who has a fundamental belief system that coincides with lessening and even eliminating external factors to daily existence. Leading me to 3) If someone can "only be coerced.".... does that mean someone who is determined to blow up a school and commit mass murder is fundamentally coerced into such action? I do not like to define my life by genetic predisposition, but I am from a family of nut cases. Would the nature of my ancestors and the genes passed down be ultimately composed by a perpetual chain of coercion? I actually see how this could theoretically make sense... But humans are ridiculous creatures of habit. Some people say they cannot live without their coffee in the morning, and I'm sure some people can't get by without trolling on the internet. 4) When you say "I find it tends to be dumbed down to fit the platitudes of the infomercial crowd," are you indicating that the information is being manipulated and the value is lost in translation? I almost feel insulted, or like a lesser being to your universal knowledge of such things. But again, you could just confirm or deny this feeling I'm having. But, if you just have an issue with what is being conveyed, you could always look into Buddha himself, and write your own book binding the fundamental observations of buddhism, and western science. I would most certainly read it. Thanks for chewing up my comments, I embrace being questioned, if anything to better understand what I mean to say. I am not afraid of being proven wrong. But now my worry expands to anyone else who can comment on the reality of what could happen if or when Hubski scales to a size like reddit. If everyone automatically seeks out persons like 'lil' or 'thenewgreen' or 'kleinbl00', etc., and upon commuting to them with subsequent viciousness, or repetitious mob behavior, what will happen. How do you protect this?
I may have presented my opinions in a matter that set you, and others, off. I understand that, but I'm not going to shy away from posting my opinions on matters such as these, especially when I believe there is a fundamental understanding that must be shared that no one has mentioned. Reddit was designed by humans, for humans, and is populated by a mob of animals as much as humans. What you say about the structure I most definitely agree with, but I am making an attempt to expose the fundamental aspect of where the "evil" is coming from. This Example shows very clearly that even when a system is sound, its effectiveness depends on the way it is used. Ultimately, any system, any set of laws or procedures, can only be as effective as the individuals responsible for its implementation. If, owing to failures of personal integrity, a good system is misused, it can easily become a source of harm rather than a source of benefit."
1) When you reply to you, the reply notification goes to you. If you want me to know you've replied, you need to reply to me. 2) That's ~1300 words. I appreciate the effort. It's hardly conducive to discussion, though. So now I have to parse. In future, conciseness counts. We're having a chat, not trading dissertations. 3) If there are refutations or counter-arguments above, they're well-hidden. Parsing fails. What I can find is sloppy: ...are you saying they were controlled into doing it? This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. 4) I'm insulting your book, not you. I wouldn't get too wrapped up about it. Self-help books are often misread distillations of better sources.If someone can "only be coerced.".... does that mean someone who is determined to blow up a school and commit mass murder is fundamentally coerced into such action?
1) noted 2) I know better, noted 3) Yes I am saying this, but am saying this in line with the same people who have been influenced, in this case, by the environment of reddit, to behave in a certain way where eventually they become habitually engrained into actions that are screwed from their individual, fundamental self. This is where I believe people are inherently good natured, which is as much founded on my faith and beliefs as anything. 4) the interesting thing about Buddah's Brain is the marriage of two very different takes on the mind. One is, for the most part, born out of the invention of brain imaging, the other from a much older perspective. Eastern and Western perspective has been around for thousands of years, and for roughly 60 years have these two perspectives been mixing and drawing from one another. Anyways, the ultimate point of all of this is still the same. I made generalizations that led to a lengthy discourse. I am now posing the question, what if many more people start coming to Hubski? And very similar comments like the one I made become common place - where the best chance of keeping this environment we care about intact is dependent upon the same, or a similar event transpiring like this one between you and I. I am here to learn, but I cannot guarantee every person will come here with the same motive. They could also be so heavily coerced into the habits of places like reddit that they bring the unwanted mob that devolves this forum into a constant state of chaos
You didn't say "influenced." You said "controlled" and used it in the context of accusing humanity of widespread codependency as a mechanism for society. For the record, I said "coerced" as a counterpoint to "controlled" - "influence" and "coerce" are two sides of the same coin. Further, you argued that: You now state that: So before, you were saying that there was nothing inherently evil about Reddit. Now you are saying that "inherently good" people are "habitually engrained into actions that are screwed from their individual, fundamental self." In short, Reddit makes good people do bad things. That was my argument. You're very easy to ignore. I can prevent you from commenting on my posts. I can ignore any tag you use. SRS dropped by about a year ago; through a judicious application of the "ignore" button their conversations became invisible to me in the space of 10 minutes and I never had to see them again. When people show up and start talking about things the rest of us don't care about, we can do the same - until they're shouting at each other in an empty room. They could continue in their insipid inanity for years if they chose... but none of them did. They're all pretty much gone now. Our interaction is entirely voluntary on both our parts. That, alone, provides a great deal of scalability.Now, reddit in and of itself is none other than a medium for social commentary, it is not evil or mean by nature.
but am saying this in line with the same people who have been influenced, in this case, by the environment of reddit,
I made generalizations that led to a lengthy discourse. I am now posing the question, what if many more people start coming to Hubski?
Ok, now I definitely get it. I didn't understand the feature of ignoring someone. So what I perceive is going on is your mastery of social discourse is fundamentally exposing mine. Even with that said, I still do not believe Reddit is evil, just as I do not believe guns are evil. The fundamental evil I still believe is based within the own confines of our mind, or the individual. Yes I know it is ideological, but until you prove to me that reddit has it's own conscience that is not dependent on others to be sustained, reddit is nothing more than another external medium that is exposing the evil nature of external attachment that influences, coerces, and controls our behavior. The gray line is in my recognition that it (EDIT: it, being reddit) has now developed as much of a collective conscience as anything, that we are allowing ourselves to be co-dependent on. I'm going to download AT now. I did honestly put a few hours into some of those replies, but I am particularly open minded to the point of insanity. When I give you my thanks for doing what you have, I really do mean it.
Most of us appreciate the long, well-written comments. I'm not sure where kleinbl00's criticism is coming from in that regard considering he posts some of the longest comments of any user I see on this site. The slug line is "Hubski: a thoughtful web". It literally says so on the sticker. So, for future reference, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in thinking it's better to post 1300 thoughtful words than 5 inane ones.
Well, I am honest enough to a knowledge the initial thoughtlessness to what I said and deserved kleinbl00's reaction, especially with my further understanding of his experience with reddit. I do believe that, looking back at it, I could have been more clear with what I wanted to say, but do I regret how or what I shared or anything that followed? Not at all. What I want to clearly get across is that I am not one to troll or stoke the fires that lead to the disharmony of places like reddit, but I am not going to sacrifice my inner values in the process, not when they are fundamentally associated with the wellbeing of others. I have learned a lot on Hubski these past three days, I am basically only known by what I say (for now). That is what I will be judged by, and I have to take it upon myself to become better at accurately conveying what I want to say, especially when I believe there is value to sharing the perspective I give to the discussion. I know I cannot control how people think, but it doesn't sit right with me when I feel I am being criticized on something that has been clearly pointed out as something I have the ability to alter, like someone going off on me for my misuse of a word in describing something. Thank you for the kind words, and now I am going to continue to integrate to this environment. There are a lot of intelligent people here I feel, and the challenge now for me is to get better at saying what I want, accurately, with less words.
A gun is a mechanism. It is controlled through physical manipulation. Reddit is a social construct. It is coerced through demagoguery. There is no comparison. You're the one who keeps insisting this is an ideological discussion; it's not. It's sociological. Ideologically, whether or not you agree with me matters not a whit. I don't care, you don't care. Sociologically, me refuting your arguments is the entire point of the discussion. Allowing misinformation to propagate decreases the utility of any system.
I'm sharing my ideas and opinions as I see their relevance pertaining to this sociological discussion. Ruling that this discussion is sociological is all fine and well, but I'm making an attempt to share the interconnection of ideology and sociology. Is a gun not also used as a weapon? Couldn't reddit also be used as a weapon? Of course they are different by definition, but they still can be used to achieve similar results. They can both be mechanisms that perpetrate evil actions. (EDIT: Ok so I may just have an issue with my ability to share my ideologies, but I will get better. The question is whether or not better is defined by your bias or not. I'm trying to get you to share your ideologies.) I really have nothing else to say if you're actually convinced that I don't feel a sense of caring in what I'm saying or reading right now. But, I will continue to listen. As Jimi Hendrix says, "Knowledge Speaks, but Wisdom Listens."