Xhieron

Thank you for this. That was a fantastic survey of some non-materialistic perspectives on consciousness. I have no idea what future research might reveal, but it’s refreshing to see that there are people who are both very interested in the questions and also committed to the scientific method.

I mean, sure, this is a propaganda piece by a not-at-all-trustworthy rag that might as well be an extension of the IDF in this context.

But anyone who thinks women aren’t getting raped in war has never studied history. Are Oct 7 captives being sexually assaulted? Of course they are. Are Gazans also being sexually assaulted? Again, yes. Are female Ukrainian POWs being sexually assaulted? Almost certainly. Russian female POWs? Also yes. Anywhere there’s regular violence, sexual violence doesn’t follow far behind.

Every state, paramilitary, terrorist organization, and militia that has ever fired a shot in anger wants to be seen as honorable fighters with a righteous cause who respect the rules of war, and yet there’s not a single one of the same groups who hasn’t also been shown to torture and kill children, civilians, and POWs, and rape and sexually abuse women, both combatants and civilians.

No war but the class war.

Christ, this asshole.

It’s actually Rama, this asshole, apparently.

US bad. Got it.

So you’re suggesting that North Korea is demonstrating its ballistic missiles solely in order to deter the United States from unilaterally launching an unprovoked surprise nuclear strike against North Korea. …

Okay.

Let’s talk about this, I guess.

In the universe in which the US launches an unprovoked surprise nuclear attack against North Korea, I’d like to think we could all agree that the rest of the world, including other nuclear powers, would be united in retaliating, NK ballistic missiles or not. Sure, it’s not impossible that the US government could become irrational, but that’s I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that nuclear deterrence is about more than that.

Even allowing ad arguendo a Hiroshima-like escalation scenario, we don’t actually need the US’s nuclear arsenal to do that (see: Tokyo and Berlin bombing campaigns). That is to say–to the extent that NK being a nuclear power might play in an actual deterrence scenario, it’s redundant. In all other scenarios, we’re not using 1945 military doctrine anyway.

Citation needed.

What’s there to deter? Anything NK could do to the US that would serve as a deterrent would immediately result in the US glassing Pyongyang. Lil Kim isn’t Putin. He doesn’t have a half-century of stockpiles to rattle at the US to pretend MAD is still a thing. And neither Putin nor Poohbear would lift a finger to stop it either, because NK’s friendship just isn’t that valuable, and it won’t be for another several decades of pouring the entire GDP into buildup, if ever. US war hawks don’t care about North Korea because they don’t have to.

The behavioral crisis is the failure of ordinary people to riot, shut down factories and refineries, and hang greedy CEOs. The research is correct insofar as it suggests people should become more conscious of the fact that a few individuals are marching humanity into oblivion, but the time for more research is past. We already know what needs to be done. If human psychology predicts that humans will never voluntarily give up consumption–and it does–then we ought not be targeting mankind’s goodwill toward the planet or even its foresight. Rather, our efforts–that is, the entire focus of every free society–should be directed wholly toward the annihilation of the institutions on which that consumptive philosophy depend and, where and as called for, the burial of those men who refuse to give them up.

Reason and education have proved insufficient. The remedy of a slave is not to break his shackles, but to kill the masters.

“reasoning that these vehicles are safer for drivers in the event of a crash” Sounds like an arms race. Soon we will be driving armored personnel carriers.

Well, yeah. It is an arms race. I drive a “midsize” SUV, and a large part of the reason is that these trucks are going to be on the road no matter what. Statistically, in the event of a collision between a truck and a car, the truck driver will live and the car driver will die, no matter who is at fault. Is it more dangerous for drivers of small cars and pedestrians? Absolutely! But it’s safer for the person in the tank. Ergo, if you want to maximize the safety of yourself and your passengers, be the one driving the tank. Am I selfish for driving my SUV? Probably–but it’s hard to make a moral argument that defeats “This is more likely to keep me alive.”

I live in a rural area, so walking isn’t an option even if we had the infrastructure (which we don’t), and I dream of a future in which we have commuter rail here. But until then, I’m going to be in the thing that’s most likely to keep one of these monsters from killing me, and once my son is old enough to drive, you bet your ass I’m putting him in one too, because these things are on the road whether I like it or not. The tragedy of the commons is that everyone contributing to the calamity is rational.

All of these ridiculous trucks should be off the road, and I will cheerfully give mine up–once everyone else has, and not a moment sooner. Until then, anybody selling APCs yet? It looks like that Abrams has better sight lines than a 2500. Where do I get a road legal one of those?

“You look like a good joe.”

I know we’re all cynics here, but good for him. Even if this is entirely a publicity stunt, the guy is still taking a huge risk that someone might offer to take him up on it. That’s a lot of nerve, and that’s a lot of faith, either in God or in the way Hamas values hostages.

Either way, to repeat the notion elsewhere in the thread: any of us offering? Maybe it’s a low risk–but it ain’t zero. It’s easy to dismiss these kinds of gestures from the same armchairs from which we solve geopolitics and warfare, but a public figure going on record for selflessness is something to be celebrated, even if the only noble trait is willingness to roll the dice on human nature in the hope of sharing an altruistic sentiment.

“Hurt me instead of her” is something we wish more people of faith would say everywhere.

Is that realistic? Not a rhetorical question: I’m genuinely curious. I ask because the last time I tried to update a single (desktop) part, it was more cost-effective to replace the whole Pc and migrate the salvageable parts since the only thing I could have held onto would have been the ram, SSD, and PSU.

I suppose with a laptop you have the monitor to also consider, and admittedly I know nothing about laptop boards, but it just seems like 6 years is replacement time anyway, at least for a daily use computer.

Military parade in my capital. Compel my legislature to grant me lifetime tenure as First Citizen. Annex the country. No exit strategy.

Peace in our time.

I can’t believe I’d never read that before despite being a fan of Doctorow in general. Thank you. Exceptional work. Should be mandatory reading.

It’s not abstract at all, but my favorite is the Living God. It’s an old one (Elohim khayyim), but I strongly empathize with the sentiment: if there is a God, God must be alive. She must be able to do things–God must have volition. He isn’t just a product of natural order (e.g., the Sun). He might be a prick sometimes, but His actions are better than chance. If your god is a coin toss, your god may as well be a coin toss. Whichever God demonstrates Her existence is the real One. Everything else is make-believe at best, a long con at worst.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

That is to say, the error is to conflate law with morality. They are not one and the same.

Crime. That’s the answer. I don’t suggest or recommend it, but people who genuinely can’t survive or achieve any meaningful quality of life while participating in the social order will violate it instead. Some people shoplift; others engage in elaborate plots to rip off their landlords and creditors, but there’s no squaring the circle. I’m not in the same boat, but I’ve been there, and it’s only a stroke of good fortune that kept me from a very different road.

Yes, and yes to the OP. It’s very similar.

An older family member once asked my siblings and me, as older teenagers, whether we believed in Santa. We scoffed, laughed, and incredulously said of course not.

She responded that she believed in Santa, and she gave this explanation: Santa is a cultural shorthand for generosity. Do you believe in the spirit of giving? Do you want to see smiles on children’s faces on Christmas morning? Do you want to make the people you love light up because you had special, almost supernatural, insight into their heart’s desire and made it real?

I don’t believe a magical man in a red suit gives presents and coal to kids. I similarly don’t believe in a white bearded cloudy Jewish giant in the sky.

But I believe that there’s something sublime and immaterial in the love we can have for one another, something only partially explained by ecologic survival pressures and biochemistry. I think there is something out there beyond what we can perceive on a daily basis, and for lack of a better lexicon, “spiritual” is as good a term as anyone for the realm of the imperceptible.

So I think there’s a God, and I think there’s a Santa. I don’t understand either, and I think they’re neither anything quite like we expect. And God the Creator is certainly an asshole sometimes. But I think there’s Someone out there.

Absolutely. There is no business yet in which you invent money from nothing. Everyone works for someone else. It might be a capitalist boss, it might be a client, it might even be constituents or donors, but no one truly works for themselves. The only winning move is to not play, and the ones fortunate enough to not have to play were born rich. Being self-employed and/or owning your own business is just trading one boss for another.

Source: Was in private practice for a decade; now I’m a corporate attorney, and it’s just a different set of people making my job hard.

There’s a lot to take from Bojack, but I’m not sure I could pin down one sentiment to wrap up the whole show. Frequently, it’s just a good comedy. At other times, the show is an exploration of depression and self-destruction, and I think that’s what makes it resonate with so many people.

For what it’s worth, the first season is generally the worst in the show by a fair margin. It has a few high points, but I think most fans appreciate that the show demands more commitment than many are willing to devote. It wasn’t until into the second season that things started to really hit the highs that made the show stick with people.