6 ms·

Unfortunartely, becoming sloth is always easier than confronting reality unless you're forced not to.

edmundsauto 7y ago
I understand your frustration, but using such loaded language makes it seem like you're judging other people for doing what is in their own personal, rational interest. Doesn't it seem more effective to find ways to align people's self-interest (aka "sloth") with positive outcomes?
- wallace_f 7y ago
  >Goebells was just doing what was in his personal interest, even if he actually personally disapproved of such loaded language. What you're saying is I should find ways to align my self-interest with his? Oh, but wait, but of course we are talking about "normal" people, and "normal" people would never become Nazis. Better downvote this for making you feel uncomfortable before you stopped and paused to really think about all of this here.
  - slimed 7y ago
    Do you not realize that you sound absolutely unhinged? Or is that your schtick?
    - wallace_f 7y ago
      When someone questions authority, consensus, it is pretty much obvious to anyone that they are taking on a task which exposes them to ridicule. People who are willing to take on this task -- which is no more but a simple expression of ideas -- have even gotten themselves killed. Ideas which can be expressed as I did in above comments with no more than a sarcastic statement of a couple of facts and yet even still be received as being so offensive and "unhinged" by peers -- are always ideas which clearly do not stand on their own. Otherwise, stating a couple of facts would not be so offensive to you that you responded aggressively and irrationally with ad hominen attacks. When groupthink and authority do this to people like you it is truly terrible but still just normal and part of human nature. The world is not nice to its Thomas Paines and Helmuth Hubeners, even though it would be a much worse place without them. Though I'd rather take any chance that I be in their company than the likes of people who throughout history tolerate abuse, evil, lies and wrongdoing. Or worse, ridicule those who question it.

I understand your frustration, but using such loaded language makes it seem like you're judging other people for doing what is in their own personal, rational interest. Doesn't it seem more effective to find ways to align people's self-interest (aka "sloth") with positive outcomes?

wallace_f 7y ago
>Goebells was just doing what was in his personal interest, even if he actually personally disapproved of such loaded language. What you're saying is I should find ways to align my self-interest with his? Oh, but wait, but of course we are talking about "normal" people, and "normal" people would never become Nazis. Better downvote this for making you feel uncomfortable before you stopped and paused to really think about all of this here.
- slimed 7y ago
  Do you not realize that you sound absolutely unhinged? Or is that your schtick?
  - wallace_f 7y ago
    When someone questions authority, consensus, it is pretty much obvious to anyone that they are taking on a task which exposes them to ridicule. People who are willing to take on this task -- which is no more but a simple expression of ideas -- have even gotten themselves killed. Ideas which can be expressed as I did in above comments with no more than a sarcastic statement of a couple of facts and yet even still be received as being so offensive and "unhinged" by peers -- are always ideas which clearly do not stand on their own. Otherwise, stating a couple of facts would not be so offensive to you that you responded aggressively and irrationally with ad hominen attacks. When groupthink and authority do this to people like you it is truly terrible but still just normal and part of human nature. The world is not nice to its Thomas Paines and Helmuth Hubeners, even though it would be a much worse place without them. Though I'd rather take any chance that I be in their company than the likes of people who throughout history tolerate abuse, evil, lies and wrongdoing. Or worse, ridicule those who question it.