This is the view of eyes-closed freedom. People believe in this kind of freedom when they close their eyes and assume everyone is free.
However, this kind of freedom is not empirical. It doesn’t survive scientific validation. Why? Because it is eyes-closed freedom. No need for verification.
Does this mean I am against freedom? No. Not at all. I believe in arms-open freedom. People have this kind of freedom when they can open their arms and make choices that they care about.
This other kind of freedom is empirical. It survives scientific validation. Why? Because it is open-arm freedom. You verify it when you see that people are capable to open their arms and live valued lives.
The key words here are both capability and valued lives.
First, let’s focus on capabilities. Someone who is dead is less capable than someone who is alive. Someone with polio injuries is less capable than someone without them. Someone with a good education is more capable than someone without it. Someone with money to pay for basic necessities and better technology is more capable than someone without it.
Now, let’s focus on valued lives. Someone given money to perform a job they hate is living a life that is less valued than someone given money to perform a job they love. Someone unable to spend time with their loved ones has a life that is less valued than someone able to spend time with their loved ones. Someone deep in depression and unable to savor life has a life that is less valued than someone without depression.
So, you can now see that this post is arguing for eyes-closed freedom and against arms-open freedom. Consent, when used to reduce our capabilities and valued lives, is actually a freedom-killing tool.
In other words, consent, when used to kill consent, is digging its own grave. At best it’s just a contradiction. At worst it’s the logic of a psychopath.
I always thought I had a crooked tooth. It felt that way whenever I touched it with my tongue. It has bothered me every day for years.
However, it was only yesterday that I asked my dentist about it. She looked at my tooth and said it was perfect. At first, I couldn't believe it.
Apparently, teeth are usually not symmetrical; usually the side facing the center of your mouth is more square-y. The side facing away is usually more bulbous.
I'm shocked. And a bit frustrated, because it seems as if the way forward is accepting that I've got a tooth with a protruding corner that my tongue will forever feel.
That or I can pay a bazillion dollars for a completely unnecessary dental procedure.
Wait, so is this post implying that if something is based on power structures, class divisions, or cultural priorities, then it is not a natural phenomenon that can be studied like gravity? Is it saying that if something is socially constructed then there can't be real hard science behind it? If so, whoever made this meme should learn about the difference between neoclassical economics (economics as a political project) and classical economics (economics as a science).
“Well, now I need to know what kind of gods these are. I need to know if they pretend they are perfect and yet need constant validation from me. Or maybe they are flawed and they accept it. I also need to know what their stance is toward genocide, CSAM, prion disease, and parasitism.”
Shared vulnerability. I’d say this is what you mean with “deep”. Others said it well, if you force it then it’s awkward.
Which brings me to the second thing: progressive self-disclosure. In other words, with each person you meet there’s a set of steps in a staircase. You meet everyone in level one. If you open up a bit and they walk up with you, you can continue going up a bit more and see if they go up with you a bit more. You need to notice where others are: are they visibly comfortable? Are they being enthusiastic about the topic?
The final thing is shared competence. Sometimes, talking “deep” is finding someone who knows the same stuff that you know about and you go on a wild ride, exploring your mental palaces and building new ones throughout the conversation. This also requires going up step by step.
If you’re kind and lucky, you will find people with whom you can have shared vulnerability and people with whom you can have shared competence.
Thanks for your response. I'm glad the dog lived a life with you, someone who cared about them. I'm sorry the seizures got to her.
Just to clarify, my questions weren't for a dog of mine. They are for a neighbor that seems to not care well for their dog, and their dog has seizures. A group of neighbors filed complaints already, and we're waiting on the resolution. In the meantime, I wanted to understand what the dog could've been experiencing and what could be done while a dog is having a seizure. If the dog is in pain, the type of complaint is more serious than if not, so if the current complaints don't change anything, maybe something can be done in the future to change the complaint.
Thanks for reaching out. Sorry for taking so long. Here are my questions regarding dogs with seizures: what do you do while a dog is having a seizure? Do you know what they may be experiencing?
I ask because I have a neighbor with a dog that is practically left alone most of the day and most of the night and sometimes has seizures that we can hear and that my neighbor confirmed via text messages. A long time ago we reported my neighbor to the local animal control body, but they claimed that they couldn't do anything unless we could prove the animal was suffering. After collecting neighbor testimonies and recording ourselves in our homes listening to the dog (we had to prove that we were recording ourselves and not the neighbor), we filed a formal complaint. Now we're waiting for animal control to take action
I guess my questions at this point are out of curiosity and compassion for the dog. In case the complaint doesn't come to anything, maybe my questions can also be fodder for future, more effective complaints.
Sure. We have schemas, or organized thoughts in our memories. Schemas can be molded with our parents, such that we learn "My dad is abusive toward me because I'm a terrible person". These types of schemas are built even though the child is not responsible at all for their own abuse. But the reality is that many children find it more likely that they are the problem compared to their guardians being the problem.
That same child could have a wonderful teacher in school, someone who is caring, understanding, curious about the child's interests, and consistent. The child could then learn "I'm safe here with this teacher and unsafe with my own guardians". That's how you get different schemas built in different contexts.
You probably know this already, down in your heart. You probably have people that you like to be around, people that are a bit kinder and a bit more consistent than others. And you also probably have people that you don't like to be around, people that are unkind and inconsistent.
If you want to learn more about this contextual way of looking at attachment styles, you can check out Piaget's schema theory and contextual behavioral sciences.
Humans, like mammals, like it when we belong. This is pre-verbal and pre-cultural, in the sense that all babies feel good when someone sees them with kind eyes and feel bad when they’re left alone.
However, on top of these pre-verbal drives, we learn about the world through our experience and our thoughts. If our guardians are kind and consistent, we learn to expect that and we ourselves become kind and consistent. If our parents are unkind and inconsistent, we learn that.
By the time we become adults, we bring many of those learnings into relationships. We may be kind and consistent with our partners. Or we may be unkind and inconsistent.
As with many things, we can change. In fact, you can have one attachment style in one context and another attachment style in another context. This depends on the specific schemas or thoughts and experiences that you have.
If we define democracy as voting, then you’re right. However, to understand what I’m saying it’s important to understand what I mean by democracy. I’m using democracy to mean inclusive institutions that invest in their citizens to increase their capabilities and therefore their freedoms.
And you’re right: America is exceptionally un-democratic. You’re actually doubly right: there are democratic backsliding pressures around the world.
It’s a matter of time to see what the more powerful pressures will be: democracy or authoritarian populism.
The evidence powerfully suggests one answer. If you want to know more about this, check out Christian Welzel’s articles on democracy!
This Peter Thiel piece of shit doesn’t understand human development. He says freedom and democracy are not compatible, and yet we have decades (and in some cases centuries) of data showing that democracies make people freer.
If I could kindly suggest to that asshole to read one book, I’d suggest he reads Christian Welzel’s Freedom Rising. The book is packed with data that shows how democracies create freedom.
For example, democracies invest in their own people.
Democracies invest in education, so that people can choose what kind of life to live.
Democracies invest in healthcare, so that people can live without freedom-limiting disease.
Democracies invest in research, so that people can solve technical problems with ease and spend more time doing things they can choose to do.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. In many, many ways, democracy leads to freedom, true actual freedom.
Gotta chainsmoke to get som’o’ that 1950s success
This is the view of eyes-closed freedom. People believe in this kind of freedom when they close their eyes and assume everyone is free.
However, this kind of freedom is not empirical. It doesn’t survive scientific validation. Why? Because it is eyes-closed freedom. No need for verification.
Does this mean I am against freedom? No. Not at all. I believe in arms-open freedom. People have this kind of freedom when they can open their arms and make choices that they care about.
This other kind of freedom is empirical. It survives scientific validation. Why? Because it is open-arm freedom. You verify it when you see that people are capable to open their arms and live valued lives.
The key words here are both capability and valued lives.
First, let’s focus on capabilities. Someone who is dead is less capable than someone who is alive. Someone with polio injuries is less capable than someone without them. Someone with a good education is more capable than someone without it. Someone with money to pay for basic necessities and better technology is more capable than someone without it.
Now, let’s focus on valued lives. Someone given money to perform a job they hate is living a life that is less valued than someone given money to perform a job they love. Someone unable to spend time with their loved ones has a life that is less valued than someone able to spend time with their loved ones. Someone deep in depression and unable to savor life has a life that is less valued than someone without depression.
So, you can now see that this post is arguing for eyes-closed freedom and against arms-open freedom. Consent, when used to reduce our capabilities and valued lives, is actually a freedom-killing tool.
In other words, consent, when used to kill consent, is digging its own grave. At best it’s just a contradiction. At worst it’s the logic of a psychopath.
I always thought I had a crooked tooth. It felt that way whenever I touched it with my tongue. It has bothered me every day for years.
However, it was only yesterday that I asked my dentist about it. She looked at my tooth and said it was perfect. At first, I couldn't believe it.
Apparently, teeth are usually not symmetrical; usually the side facing the center of your mouth is more square-y. The side facing away is usually more bulbous.
I'm shocked. And a bit frustrated, because it seems as if the way forward is accepting that I've got a tooth with a protruding corner that my tongue will forever feel.
That or I can pay a bazillion dollars for a completely unnecessary dental procedure.
I think I prefer accepting my corner.
Wait, so is this post implying that if something is based on power structures, class divisions, or cultural priorities, then it is not a natural phenomenon that can be studied like gravity? Is it saying that if something is socially constructed then there can't be real hard science behind it? If so, whoever made this meme should learn about the difference between neoclassical economics (economics as a political project) and classical economics (economics as a science).
“Oh. Ok.”
“Well, now I need to know what kind of gods these are. I need to know if they pretend they are perfect and yet need constant validation from me. Or maybe they are flawed and they accept it. I also need to know what their stance is toward genocide, CSAM, prion disease, and parasitism.”
For one, it would help to stop saying that phrase.
Better to call the opposite:
Three things that might help:
Shared vulnerability. I’d say this is what you mean with “deep”. Others said it well, if you force it then it’s awkward.
Which brings me to the second thing: progressive self-disclosure. In other words, with each person you meet there’s a set of steps in a staircase. You meet everyone in level one. If you open up a bit and they walk up with you, you can continue going up a bit more and see if they go up with you a bit more. You need to notice where others are: are they visibly comfortable? Are they being enthusiastic about the topic?
The final thing is shared competence. Sometimes, talking “deep” is finding someone who knows the same stuff that you know about and you go on a wild ride, exploring your mental palaces and building new ones throughout the conversation. This also requires going up step by step.
If you’re kind and lucky, you will find people with whom you can have shared vulnerability and people with whom you can have shared competence.
Check out these resources that might help:
Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.
Didn’t like the prize? Pivot 180 degrees without acknowledging why you played stupid games.
This source seems to indicate that they can indeed
A little slomi
Thanks for your response. I’m glad your dog was in your hands.
And yes, your answers help me have a clearer idea of what the experience can be like and what can be done. Thanks.
Thanks for your response. I'm glad the dog lived a life with you, someone who cared about them. I'm sorry the seizures got to her.
Just to clarify, my questions weren't for a dog of mine. They are for a neighbor that seems to not care well for their dog, and their dog has seizures. A group of neighbors filed complaints already, and we're waiting on the resolution. In the meantime, I wanted to understand what the dog could've been experiencing and what could be done while a dog is having a seizure. If the dog is in pain, the type of complaint is more serious than if not, so if the current complaints don't change anything, maybe something can be done in the future to change the complaint.
Thanks for reaching out. Sorry for taking so long. Here are my questions regarding dogs with seizures: what do you do while a dog is having a seizure? Do you know what they may be experiencing?
I ask because I have a neighbor with a dog that is practically left alone most of the day and most of the night and sometimes has seizures that we can hear and that my neighbor confirmed via text messages. A long time ago we reported my neighbor to the local animal control body, but they claimed that they couldn't do anything unless we could prove the animal was suffering. After collecting neighbor testimonies and recording ourselves in our homes listening to the dog (we had to prove that we were recording ourselves and not the neighbor), we filed a formal complaint. Now we're waiting for animal control to take action
I guess my questions at this point are out of curiosity and compassion for the dog. In case the complaint doesn't come to anything, maybe my questions can also be fodder for future, more effective complaints.
Thanks for the heads up!
Good.
To understand what you’re saying, when do you claim this age started?
Sure. We have schemas, or organized thoughts in our memories. Schemas can be molded with our parents, such that we learn "My dad is abusive toward me because I'm a terrible person". These types of schemas are built even though the child is not responsible at all for their own abuse. But the reality is that many children find it more likely that they are the problem compared to their guardians being the problem.
That same child could have a wonderful teacher in school, someone who is caring, understanding, curious about the child's interests, and consistent. The child could then learn "I'm safe here with this teacher and unsafe with my own guardians". That's how you get different schemas built in different contexts.
You probably know this already, down in your heart. You probably have people that you like to be around, people that are a bit kinder and a bit more consistent than others. And you also probably have people that you don't like to be around, people that are unkind and inconsistent.
If you want to learn more about this contextual way of looking at attachment styles, you can check out Piaget's schema theory and contextual behavioral sciences.
Humans, like mammals, like it when we belong. This is pre-verbal and pre-cultural, in the sense that all babies feel good when someone sees them with kind eyes and feel bad when they’re left alone.
However, on top of these pre-verbal drives, we learn about the world through our experience and our thoughts. If our guardians are kind and consistent, we learn to expect that and we ourselves become kind and consistent. If our parents are unkind and inconsistent, we learn that.
By the time we become adults, we bring many of those learnings into relationships. We may be kind and consistent with our partners. Or we may be unkind and inconsistent.
As with many things, we can change. In fact, you can have one attachment style in one context and another attachment style in another context. This depends on the specific schemas or thoughts and experiences that you have.
If we define democracy as voting, then you’re right. However, to understand what I’m saying it’s important to understand what I mean by democracy. I’m using democracy to mean inclusive institutions that invest in their citizens to increase their capabilities and therefore their freedoms.
And you’re right: America is exceptionally un-democratic. You’re actually doubly right: there are democratic backsliding pressures around the world.
It’s a matter of time to see what the more powerful pressures will be: democracy or authoritarian populism.
The evidence powerfully suggests one answer. If you want to know more about this, check out Christian Welzel’s articles on democracy!
This Peter Thiel piece of shit doesn’t understand human development. He says freedom and democracy are not compatible, and yet we have decades (and in some cases centuries) of data showing that democracies make people freer.
If I could kindly suggest to that asshole to read one book, I’d suggest he reads Christian Welzel’s Freedom Rising. The book is packed with data that shows how democracies create freedom.
For example, democracies invest in their own people.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. In many, many ways, democracy leads to freedom, true actual freedom.