3 ms·

Great! Then why are you arguing with someone that called out this exact behavior in the first comment of this thread? Said comment called people who engaged wit

Great! Then why are you arguing with someone that called out this exact behavior in the first comment of this thread? Said comment called people who engaged with this bot "sad fuckers" and "stratospheric level of socially inept". What benefit do you think this comment has? If some of these people see said comment, do you think that they will be persuaded by it? I think they would be rather insulted, and promptly ignore not just this thread, but any person who tries to reason them out of their behavior. I've seen many people who are, in principle, ready to accept that they need to change, but who have have been talked down to and insulted, and are now scared of proving those who insulted them right. I reject the idea that someone who expresses themselves as OP has does so out of a desire to help people. I would rather guess that OP did it to feel a sense of superiority over the people he is insulting, because I cannot see any other reason for him choosing his words as he did. And by "valid", people often mean to say that one should not be ashamed of ones emotions, but instead accept them and then use higher reasoning to determine whether or not said emotions point in a beneficial direction. The OPs comment will cause that exact shame, which will hinder reasoning and betterment, not inspire it. As you yourself said, the important part is to reason about emotions, not to suppress them.

lostmsu 4y ago
> I think they would be rather insulted, and promptly ignore not just this thread, but any person who tries to reason them out of their behavior. E.g. they would behave like sad stratospherically socially inept stupid fuckers?
- Last5Digits 4y ago
  By that logic, pretty much 99% of all humans would be "sad stratospherically socially inept stupid fuckers". People don't like being insulted or demeaned, and I would wager a guess that you would be pretty reluctant to accept even the best of advice if it was preceded by a tirade of petty insults. If you failed to realize this simple rule of social interaction, and you're older than 14, then you probably shouldn't be calling other people socially inept. Glass houses and all that.
  - lostmsu 4y ago
    > If you failed to realize this simple rule of social interaction, and you're older than 14, then Or you can just socialize with people without that sensitive nature bullshit. Works well for me.
davidguetta 4y ago
I was only arguing the "I can't tell whether someone's feelings are valid or not" part, not particularly defending the original comment. That said even if the original comment is insulting and doesnt make its author look great, its factual analysis is spot on. An I also do think that being too nice and catering to everyone's feeling all the time is actually a WORSE type of violence than just being tough and straightforward, especially when it's based on something real. A loser that doesnt know he is a loser should be told he's a loser because he can change after. He will never improve if you never tell him. Personally there are a bunch of stuff I absolutely wish someone has told me a few years back ...
- Last5Digits 4y ago
  While I agree that being direct is sometimes necessary, the approach one takes must be well considered. As I said in the previous comment, I've personally met people whose lives were ruined by people being "tough and straightforward". These people struggle to identify and address their problems, because they unwillingly think back to the unfeeling and cruel way they've been treated. Even the nicest, most considerate conversion will be extremely anxiety inducing, because it is filtered through their bad experiences. Insecurity is one of the most common problems that people have when identifying their weaknesses, and being direct or tough runs a high risk of increasing these insecurities. Being nice isn't the best approach in every situation, but I would say it's a safe default to pick when you're uncertain about the cause of someone's problems. I'd also warn against using the term "loser" so loosely. We need to consider by which metric we determine someones life to be suboptimal, and the certainty we have in that metric. I think we both agree that maximum human happiness should be the goal to strive towards, but getting there is pretty tricky. Let's imagine a person that works at McDonald's for their entire life, has no friends, and spends all of their free time playing video games while high. Said person has spent many years searching for their optimal path in life, and they found every one, except the one they are on now, lacking. Most people would call this person a "loser", but are they really? After all, they seem to be on a path that optimizes their happiness. Telling that person that they are a loser may cause them to "improve" in the eyes of the average person, but they will, in reality, change their life for the worse. They may be successful, but they'll also be miserable. Whenever you judge someone else using your own personal version of an optimal life, you run the risk of being wrong and forcing that person into suboptimality. We can try to determine things that are likely to increase someones happiness, but the word "likely" is important here. General assumptions about a "good" life tend to be risky, because humans are quite complex, and determining someones best course of action from the outside is always extremely difficult and error-prone.

lostmsu 4y ago

> I think they would be rather insulted, and promptly ignore not just this thread, but any person who tries to reason them out of their behavior. E.g. they would behave like sad stratospherically socially inept stupid fuckers?

Last5Digits 4y ago
By that logic, pretty much 99% of all humans would be "sad stratospherically socially inept stupid fuckers". People don't like being insulted or demeaned, and I would wager a guess that you would be pretty reluctant to accept even the best of advice if it was preceded by a tirade of petty insults. If you failed to realize this simple rule of social interaction, and you're older than 14, then you probably shouldn't be calling other people socially inept. Glass houses and all that.
- lostmsu 4y ago
  > If you failed to realize this simple rule of social interaction, and you're older than 14, then Or you can just socialize with people without that sensitive nature bullshit. Works well for me.

davidguetta 4y ago

I was only arguing the "I can't tell whether someone's feelings are valid or not" part, not particularly defending the original comment. That said even if the original comment is insulting and doesnt make its author look great, its factual analysis is spot on. An I also do think that being too nice and catering to everyone's feeling all the time is actually a WORSE type of violence than just being tough and straightforward, especially when it's based on something real. A loser that doesnt know he is a loser should be told he's a loser because he can change after. He will never improve if you never tell him. Personally there are a bunch of stuff I absolutely wish someone has told me a few years back ...

Last5Digits 4y ago
While I agree that being direct is sometimes necessary, the approach one takes must be well considered. As I said in the previous comment, I've personally met people whose lives were ruined by people being "tough and straightforward". These people struggle to identify and address their problems, because they unwillingly think back to the unfeeling and cruel way they've been treated. Even the nicest, most considerate conversion will be extremely anxiety inducing, because it is filtered through their bad experiences. Insecurity is one of the most common problems that people have when identifying their weaknesses, and being direct or tough runs a high risk of increasing these insecurities. Being nice isn't the best approach in every situation, but I would say it's a safe default to pick when you're uncertain about the cause of someone's problems. I'd also warn against using the term "loser" so loosely. We need to consider by which metric we determine someones life to be suboptimal, and the certainty we have in that metric. I think we both agree that maximum human happiness should be the goal to strive towards, but getting there is pretty tricky. Let's imagine a person that works at McDonald's for their entire life, has no friends, and spends all of their free time playing video games while high. Said person has spent many years searching for their optimal path in life, and they found every one, except the one they are on now, lacking. Most people would call this person a "loser", but are they really? After all, they seem to be on a path that optimizes their happiness. Telling that person that they are a loser may cause them to "improve" in the eyes of the average person, but they will, in reality, change their life for the worse. They may be successful, but they'll also be miserable. Whenever you judge someone else using your own personal version of an optimal life, you run the risk of being wrong and forcing that person into suboptimality. We can try to determine things that are likely to increase someones happiness, but the word "likely" is important here. General assumptions about a "good" life tend to be risky, because humans are quite complex, and determining someones best course of action from the outside is always extremely difficult and error-prone.