11 ms·

Thank you for your thoughtful words. I recognize that you are well intended and I'm going to try to politely disagree. Scott Adams lost my respect the moment h

Thank you for your thoughtful words. I recognize that you are well intended and I'm going to try to politely disagree. Scott Adams lost my respect the moment he became a Trump supporter. For all of Trump's supporters I could still give a pass for the initial excitement of "stirring shit up", but I remain, quite frankly, stunned that anybody with any intelligence could support the man today. Jordan Peterson seems to be popular because he promotes "the good old days" mentality. I understand the appeal (from afar), but it's more patriarchal claptrap from where I stand. He had a huge test of character when it came out that he was a drug addict, and all I'm aware of is deflection and finger-pointing, e.g., his daughter's statement that doctors in the West didn't have "the guts" to medically detox her father. If I'm omitting anything key there, please let me know as I'm only interested in being "right" in that I'm not operating on faulty data. In my view, modern conservatism is dead and has been replaced by a literal cult (Trumpism), and in being anti-libtard. Even though I am a "liberal" I could spend hours pointing out the failure and flaws of those ostensibly represent it. For example, I think Hillary Clinton wanted to be president solely for the achievement. She is a war-hawk and a corporatist, and that her politics are of the "finger in the wind" and not of true passion for change. That said, she's also incredibly intelligent, accomplished, and experienced and was without a doubt the most qualified candidate to to hold the office when she ran in 2016. She also had a literal industry of hate mongers that demonized her for years. My elderly step-mother loathed the women but could only explain so by repeating Fox News talking points, e.g., "she gets expensive haircuts!" So here I am again, dancing on the edge of admonishment from @dang for being political in a forum that discourages it. My defense is that I am not a partisan and these discussions are made in good faith. The concerns I've raised have been heavily politicized, but I consider them to be germane to the fate of humanity and my goal is a (perhaps futile) attempt to reach some sort of consensus.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
whiddershins 6y ago
I feel like what you are writing (in this comment and others in this thread) is an indicator that you firmly believe that it isn’t your beliefs that cause your mental state, but rather, objective facts do. The thing is, frameworks from stoicism to Buddhism to cognitive behavior therapy to Timothy Leary to Sam Harris to Viktor Frankl etc etc etc invite us to reconsider that position. Mental states are in a certain important sense entirely self created. Knowing that doesn’t mean we can will ourselves to be happy, but does open the door to finding out how we can productively ‘hack’ our mental state. The facts you name aren’t the important point. It is the fact of you naming them that seem to indicate you are very committed to a certain reality tunnel. Even if that reality tunnel is making you unhappy. Which is your right, maybe it serves you in some other important way. But it’s not a position from which you could ever be convinced of anything, at least, I have no idea how. Because I’m not disputing, and wouldn’t want to be in the position of, disputing any of those facts. Yet I still live in a very different reality tunnel. Not sure how to communicate that better. I don’t think altering your reality tunnel in regards to this stuff would make the stuff somehow more of a danger to you or everyone on the planet. It would just change your emotional experience and potential effectiveness in addressing the problems. For better or worse, depending on the tunnel shift.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

whiddershins 6y ago

I feel like what you are writing (in this comment and others in this thread) is an indicator that you firmly believe that it isn’t your beliefs that cause your mental state, but rather, objective facts do. The thing is, frameworks from stoicism to Buddhism to cognitive behavior therapy to Timothy Leary to Sam Harris to Viktor Frankl etc etc etc invite us to reconsider that position. Mental states are in a certain important sense entirely self created. Knowing that doesn’t mean we can will ourselves to be happy, but does open the door to finding out how we can productively ‘hack’ our mental state. The facts you name aren’t the important point. It is the fact of you naming them that seem to indicate you are very committed to a certain reality tunnel. Even if that reality tunnel is making you unhappy. Which is your right, maybe it serves you in some other important way. But it’s not a position from which you could ever be convinced of anything, at least, I have no idea how. Because I’m not disputing, and wouldn’t want to be in the position of, disputing any of those facts. Yet I still live in a very different reality tunnel. Not sure how to communicate that better. I don’t think altering your reality tunnel in regards to this stuff would make the stuff somehow more of a danger to you or everyone on the planet. It would just change your emotional experience and potential effectiveness in addressing the problems. For better or worse, depending on the tunnel shift.