bastion @ bastion @feddit.nl

Posts

0

Comments

694

Joined

2 yr. ago

Indeed. It doesn't even trend towards consistency.

It's much like the pattern-matching layer of human consciousness. Its function isn't to filter for truth, its function is to match knowns and potentials to patterns in its environment.

AI has no notion of critical thinking. It is purely positive "thinking", in a technical sense - it is positing based on what it "knows", but there is no genuine concept of self, nor even of critical thinking, nor even a non-conceptual logic or consistency filter.

I do say that with certainty. And I didn't claim that proof of stake has no environmental impact - it just doesn't have more impact than, for example, a web server.

If I start a carbon-neutral wing of an oil company, of course it doesn't make an oil company carbon-neutral. However, that doesn't impact the real value of other companies that actually are carbon neutral.

Similarly, Ethereum is, by far, not a "green" tech, and their usage of proof of stake can easily and reasonably be called greenwashing if they don't also severely limit the usage of POW.

Proof of Stake, though, is not a power-hungry tech, period. And it is a means for crypto to become, overall, a nominal energy user. There are other chains out there (cardano, algorand, nano, and many others) that don't use PoW and that use reasonable amounts of energy.

I appreciate your passion for the environment. But misrepresentation does not help your case, though misrepresentation may help those your fight.

Idiots.

Third and fourth-gen nuclear would be helpful.

Well said. Solid facts.

Not "especially", but "specifically" POW. I don't agree about their worthlessness, but even if I did, it's POW that's shitting on the environment, not other systems.

This response might be a little spacey - end of day.

I was mostly cautioning that the other guy you initially responded to does have a point - though I also think what you said was relevant and needed to be posted.

As to an example - yes, that's a reasonable, but basic example.

In general, the mind is rendering some version of the world - a world view that models the world in accordance with your experiences. Parents in particular help create that world view, but anyone who has a significant emotional impact affects that world view in significant ways. If that world view suppresses or has a distorted view of a basic biological tendency - say, sexuality, or a tendency towards masculinity or femininity - then that will have major psychological consequences for the person involved, because they must act in accordance with the outlets they know. This can cause those natural expressions to become problematic.

As a real world example, a friend of mine's mother had been raped long ago. She dislikes men, fears men, and generally only recognizes the bad behaviors of men. The only truly acceptable male behaviors are to go along with her views and do as she says, but without acknowledging that they are going along with her and song as she says, because controlling is something men do, and women are more empathic.

..while her world view is understandable, that's still the world view she passed him. Males are destroyers, and the best thing you can do, as a male, is to kowtow, or if not that, don't do anything, because everything you do is either dangerous or prone to failure and/or week be rejected because of subtleties you can't grasp.

Suffice it to say, this fucked him up quite a bit and made him kick against any feminine authority for a while once he grew up a bit, was a major kick to his trust in himself, and made it easy to interpret any masculine action in the worst light possible - especially his own. It also gave him a lot of the negative characteristics she conceived of guys having, particularly when he was pressed by a feminine authority.

Through good instinct, circumstance, and good masculine influences, he's sorted a decent chunk of that out now. But that took no small chunk of his life - and not everyone is that lucky. I've also seen people that just pick it up and run with it - something along the lines of "if that's what you say I am, and you're who matters to me, that's what I'll be, fuck you very much."

Emotionally impactful circumstances and concepts are what really change these world views, not just good intention or 'knowing better'. That can't truly be faked, and often times this impact needs to come from something (internal or external) that can't be fitted into their existing world view, but also can't be denied or ignored. In the mean time, a person must act in accordance with their world view.

Edit:

I suppose all of that is about the underlying framework. It's how we pass information on a very deep and fundamental level. What makes rape and psychological abuse so difficult is that most people don't have the ability to access that world view as a normal part of thought. It's automatic. Someone comes along, uses and abuses you, and moves on (or doesn't). And that becomes a part of your world view, whether you want it to or not. Every time you push it off or dwell on it, it gets affirmed, and that means it often grows in time. Regardless of whether or not how you feel is true, it must be felt. The possibility must be addressed, reasoned and felt through, consciously and unconsciously, before you can feel clean again. And in the mean time, whether or not you land in the same role in it, you pass along that same world view.

I do what I can to give my animals a good life. Mostly, that means keeping them protected and giving them a lot of space.

I definitely hate factory farming. It's a cancer, and allows people to eat meat without processing death. ..and so, in soft ways that have hard consequences, they look away from death, and look away from any conflict -or only enough to decry it, and complain that someone should do something about it. But that mentality pervades everything they do.

Thanks for contributing to the ultimate destruction of factory farming. You have my respect.

Not saying I disagree, or that you're wrong; all people are capable of doing shitty things. But I'm curious what kind of abusive behavior you're alluding to here... the prompt posed in the original post?

No, although rape and sexual abuse, specifically, and how society handles that, could be significantly better. And what I'm talking about is very, very closely related.

I mean psychological abuse due to unresolved power dynamics - i.e., interpersonal trauma loops. Transgenerational trauma is an example of this, but isn't the only case.

In any case, it's definitely a time for change, and although I disagree with the methods or extremeness of some who reach for that, firmness is still needed, and the fundamental ideals of balance, equality, and equitability are necessary. I'm just saying that any voice, of any gender, of any race, deserves to have it's say. ..and that an imbalance isn't addressed by pushing something too far the other way, just as it isn't addressed by not pushing at all.

..pruned.

Pretty solid take.

Much of what you say, I agree with. But it's important to note that people are people. There are plenty of women who abuse power, just as there are men who do so, they just often do so in different ways.

But writing off the behavior of abusive women (or even well-meaning women with problematic behavior) as a factor is just as problematic as people assuming it's all the fault of women. Not only that, when a truth is denied, people often fixate on that truth in an inaccurate way, so downplaying the role of the problematic behavior women can have just exacerbates the problem.

Overall, though, I agree - that though women (and men) can be abusive, it's important to recognize the larger societal issues that lead people to false expectations and false means of self-evaluation that are basically doomed to failure and leave you open to manipulation.

We're in a major transition period, societally, and there are a lot of concepts clashing, and a lot of human fallout from that. At the same time, old battles are still being fought, and new answers have yet to be found, or yet to settle into societal roles - and that impacts both men and women, deeply.

Speaking from seeing someone in this actual situation:

If you are treated like shit because you're the only white kid in a black school, and grow up fearing black people, rather than recognizing that that was a local cultural tendency towards racism, not some universal behavior that black people have, it's that racism?

Yes, it is racism. Even though in some cases, your fear is justified, thinking that black people in general will be racist is, itself, racist.

More to the point, though, it's trauma - and people should understand that as well. Sexism and racism are not OK, but they are understandable. They don't get fixed by only calling them out, though that is important. They require emotional work - both by people involved directly and by society at large.

So is OP's post sexist? Absolutely. Is it understandable? Absolutely. ..and both the sexism and the underlying causes that the sexism is a reaction to need to be addressed, by all parties.

Lol I didn't downvote you, and your self-righteousness is more of a block to getting the industry changed than it is a benefit.

Swallow your pride, don't be a dick. Be humble, be honest about how you feel, and live up to your own ideals. But being an insufferable twat just drives people away from your ideals - you should really only do that to insufferable twats, otherwise, the thing you stand for isn't saving animals, it's self-righteous intolerance - and people look at you and think "glad I'm not like that guy."

Win the hearts and minds, don't just stab people for being wrong - or you'll keep stabbing until you finally stab yourself to death.

I eat animals I grow, except in a few exceptional circumstances - minimal enough that, if everybody ate meat the way I do, the industry would fall.

It's good you're living up to what you believe in. It's a bad idea to live off of suffering you can't yourself bear.

Yep. It's not the way of life, it's the pretentious self-righteousness, and most people aren't that way. Is like the 'bad Christians' fucking it up for all the ones that are basically love-and-forgiveness believers that are largely benign.

Most people - Christians, vegans, meat eaters, or whatever - are generally pretty chill. It's the inciters that suck.

That moral high ground you're claiming looks to me like just another niche for life to exist. ..but you're not going to stop predation, carnivorous or omnivorous. That you think it's a good idea to do so is just eye-rollingly banal.

I don't hate that people choose to be vegan. I hate the self-righteous bullshit humans get about veganism, science, religion, politics, and anything else they start considering a moral high ground.

You don't have a moral high ground. You have a biological and/or social niche. That's enough to be proud of, without dissing other people's shit, or pretending yours doesn't stink.

Well, I used to sleep in a lake.

Love the love, hate the hate. It's a good default.