6 ms·

Derek Sivers never listened to anything, he's a narcissistic maniac who floods the email boxes of everyone on every list he's ever had with self-help advice tha

Derek Sivers never listened to anything, he's a narcissistic maniac who floods the email boxes of everyone on every list he's ever had with self-help advice that's never more than the most thinly disguised self-promotion. Please stop talking as if his writing is profound.

cmilton 4y ago
What do you think about losing every debate?
- noduerme 4y ago
  aw man, you're gonna force me to read this? fuck. ok. give me a minute. ... Okay, I think that as expected the word salad doesn't do anything to expand on the subject; it's another grossly compact attempt at telling everyone what a crazy and interesting life he's had without going into detail beyond the barest mention that he was somewhere and talked to someone; serves yet again as a form of name-dropping; proves absolutely nothing about debate but somehow oddly inspires people here to go way out of their way debating what the author meant. In general? I think debate is just a byword for civil discussion, and the concept of winning or losing one is stupid. Discussions are meant to elucidate and digress and open both people to one another's point of view, but that's no reason they shouldn't be contentious. To describe a contentious conversation as a debate in which someone has to win and someone has to lose is reductive and misses the point of conversation. To cast oneself as the ultimate martyr in such conversations by way of [losing one's ego on the road from Patpong to Nepal and] creating ranking click bait topics is pure Derek Sivers. There ya go.
  - cmilton 4y ago
    Thank you for that. I appreciate your conversation about the content of his article rather than the content of his character. Like others, I have no idea who Sivers is.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
Even a broken clock is right once in a while. I can understand your reaction if that is your experience with him (first time I hear of the guy), but it at least seems to have created some constructive discussion here.
- noduerme 4y ago
  fair. The discussion is good. Mostly projection on a shell through which some think they can hear the sea, but maybe better than a dead silent room.
the_af 4y ago
Thanks for your comment. I thought I was going crazy with all the responses to what reads essentially like a self-help quality article. Also, some of the examples are infuriating. So someone thinks poverty is not upsetting? Well, screw them. And the rest of those examples are so bland, how about "losing" every debate with these: - Nazism is right. - Rich people should become richer and poor people should become poorer. - Women should not have equal rights or vote. Go on, "listen and lose the debate", I'm sure it will be illuminating and productive.
- hbrn 4y ago
  Losing doesn't have to mean you 100% agree with another party at the end. Learning something new and changing your original position is good enough. > someone thinks poverty is not upsetting Someone was able to find happiness in non-material things. Good for them. > Nazism is right Ok, but was it absolutely wrong? Should we dismiss anything that even remotely resembles Nazism? Were there any good parts that Nazism had? E.g. patriotism or anti-communism? Short-term dictatorship can be better than alternatives (especially during wars). Eugenics on it's own is also not bad (e.g. most people are pro-abortion when fetus has a deadly disease, which is a form of eugenics). > Rich people should become richer and poor people should become poorer Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world. Instead of fighting laws of nature (a battle you cannot win), maybe it's better to focus on improving well-being of "poor"? I.e. you should be able to live a good life even if you are poor. > Women should not have equal rights or vote Unequal rights doesn't necessarily mean someone is being taken advantage of. In theory, an optimal distribution of rights could very well be unequal. You can also do a thought experiment on how society would look like if only families are allowed to vote (with highest earner in the family voting, which essentially means "women cannot vote").
  - the_af 4y ago
    > Someone was able to find happiness in non-material things. Good for them. Poverty is not having to eat. Poverty is a self-compounding problem: you cannot eat, you cannot work (or not enough), you get sick, so you cannot work, etc. Every accident impacts someone living in poverty way more than someone who is not. "Find happiness in non-material things" is something only those who have their basic necessities covered have the possibility to contemplate. > Ok, but was it absolutely wrong? Should we dismiss anything that even remotely resembles Nazism? Were there any good parts that Nazism had? E.g. patriotism or anti-communism? "Yes", "yes", "no", and "no". > Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer. Engage with that. (Also, poverty is not "a law of nature" and it's not true that every poor person in the US is among the most wealthy people in the world). > Unequal rights doesn't necessarily mean someone is being taken advantage of. Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit. PS: you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me. I don't care to debate with you about those awful, made-up and purposefully stupid statements. I don't want you to "teach me" anything, either.

cmilton 4y ago

What do you think about losing every debate?

noduerme 4y ago
aw man, you're gonna force me to read this? fuck. ok. give me a minute. ... Okay, I think that as expected the word salad doesn't do anything to expand on the subject; it's another grossly compact attempt at telling everyone what a crazy and interesting life he's had without going into detail beyond the barest mention that he was somewhere and talked to someone; serves yet again as a form of name-dropping; proves absolutely nothing about debate but somehow oddly inspires people here to go way out of their way debating what the author meant. In general? I think debate is just a byword for civil discussion, and the concept of winning or losing one is stupid. Discussions are meant to elucidate and digress and open both people to one another's point of view, but that's no reason they shouldn't be contentious. To describe a contentious conversation as a debate in which someone has to win and someone has to lose is reductive and misses the point of conversation. To cast oneself as the ultimate martyr in such conversations by way of [losing one's ego on the road from Patpong to Nepal and] creating ranking click bait topics is pure Derek Sivers. There ya go.
- cmilton 4y ago
  Thank you for that. I appreciate your conversation about the content of his article rather than the content of his character. Like others, I have no idea who Sivers is.

BlueTemplar 4y ago

Even a broken clock is right once in a while. I can understand your reaction if that is your experience with him (first time I hear of the guy), but it at least seems to have created some constructive discussion here.

noduerme 4y ago
fair. The discussion is good. Mostly projection on a shell through which some think they can hear the sea, but maybe better than a dead silent room.

the_af 4y ago

Thanks for your comment. I thought I was going crazy with all the responses to what reads essentially like a self-help quality article. Also, some of the examples are infuriating. So someone thinks poverty is not upsetting? Well, screw them. And the rest of those examples are so bland, how about "losing" every debate with these: - Nazism is right. - Rich people should become richer and poor people should become poorer. - Women should not have equal rights or vote. Go on, "listen and lose the debate", I'm sure it will be illuminating and productive.

hbrn 4y ago
Losing doesn't have to mean you 100% agree with another party at the end. Learning something new and changing your original position is good enough. > someone thinks poverty is not upsetting Someone was able to find happiness in non-material things. Good for them. > Nazism is right Ok, but was it absolutely wrong? Should we dismiss anything that even remotely resembles Nazism? Were there any good parts that Nazism had? E.g. patriotism or anti-communism? Short-term dictatorship can be better than alternatives (especially during wars). Eugenics on it's own is also not bad (e.g. most people are pro-abortion when fetus has a deadly disease, which is a form of eugenics). > Rich people should become richer and poor people should become poorer Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world. Instead of fighting laws of nature (a battle you cannot win), maybe it's better to focus on improving well-being of "poor"? I.e. you should be able to live a good life even if you are poor. > Women should not have equal rights or vote Unequal rights doesn't necessarily mean someone is being taken advantage of. In theory, an optimal distribution of rights could very well be unequal. You can also do a thought experiment on how society would look like if only families are allowed to vote (with highest earner in the family voting, which essentially means "women cannot vote").
- the_af 4y ago
  > Someone was able to find happiness in non-material things. Good for them. Poverty is not having to eat. Poverty is a self-compounding problem: you cannot eat, you cannot work (or not enough), you get sick, so you cannot work, etc. Every accident impacts someone living in poverty way more than someone who is not. "Find happiness in non-material things" is something only those who have their basic necessities covered have the possibility to contemplate. > Ok, but was it absolutely wrong? Should we dismiss anything that even remotely resembles Nazism? Were there any good parts that Nazism had? E.g. patriotism or anti-communism? "Yes", "yes", "no", and "no". > Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer. Engage with that. (Also, poverty is not "a law of nature" and it's not true that every poor person in the US is among the most wealthy people in the world). > Unequal rights doesn't necessarily mean someone is being taken advantage of. Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit. PS: you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me. I don't care to debate with you about those awful, made-up and purposefully stupid statements. I don't want you to "teach me" anything, either.