podian

Sometimes removing yourself from the pipeline is all a person can do. It need not even be framed as a “protest.” That’s just weird projection by someone who’s never been in those situations (or someone who’s interested in continuing to collect a paycheck while cope telling themselves they’re doing “good” by staying because the replacement would be even worse or any other eyeroll ego attempt at rationalization).

Your choice of conjectures, quasi-rhetorical questions, say a lot about what you’re after, which is not simply understanding but some kind of vindication.

Anyways, it is somewhat naive to believe in the myth of the incorruptible person AND that they can change broken shit fuck organizations by being in the right place. Modern systems and structures are way better at neutralizing potential rogue agents like that. One example: Shareholder desires of “value” trump other corporate considerations. It’S tHe LaW.

For your questions or pursuit of understanding, prima facie, in my opinion what can be called a proper answer are empirical, anthropological, or cultural facts, not so much a reasoning or philosophical matter. Maybe it’s different now but back in my day (which was as early as 11 years ago), this information was realistically only available in colleges. Due to its highly political (or anti-political) nature, it is difficult to find in public-facing or mainstream infotainment outlets, ie anything “pop.”

If you read what I wrote closely, there is no actual accusation nor need to impute any hostility. Charitably read, I was merely pointing out the uncanny and disappointing correlation, and with a stretch, some of the obvious downsides to you personally of the proliferation of LLM generated text. And, now assuming it does need to be pointed out, disappointment is wholly mine and not your problem. But hey, some people can’t read anything without making it all about them. There’s a neologism for this, ya? Something something character syndrome?

Assuming you recognize that’s a deep character flaw and something to work on, maybe reflect on the real issues instead of kneejerk defensive reactions to, lol, ambiguous comments from strangers, literally to something “neither here nor there.” I wasn’t insulting you because I don’t give a shit about anyone enough to insult them. I’m very, very sorry for pricking your ego though. Consider sprinkling more eggshells around so strangers know to give it a wide berth. 👍

(Surely even you can recognize now some differences with what I wrote, which can be much more reasonably deemed an insult.)

Tldr I’m not the enemy lol. Your vaunted rose-tinted saviour is. That and the ones you imagine in your head and want to be real… or at least deemably “rational.”

This is neither here nor there, but I was nodding along until… I entertained the possibility that this was at least partially written by AI. Or even merely “ideas bounced off” of. Then I was just disappointed. The last few sentences were especially glaring. 🤷‍♂️

How do I “know” that you have a mind and have conscious experiences and aren’t just a zombie?

For arguments sake let’s say I don’t “know.” But I can still assume so. I wrote and write under the assumption that such is the case then and now.

Does one need to know x–whatever “know” means–to state “that x”?

I don’t believe so, certainly not as a blanket rule. Do you? Is that why the standard was applied to what I wrote?

A can of worms. What’s the point? Plenty abound in backyards, internet forums (elsewhere), and politicians’ brains apparently.

Ultimately, the bar–or standard of proof–for acknowledgement and praise, which could have been reasonably inferred from my comment, is low. E.g., when a student does well on a test (in-person, lol), we do not need to “know” that they are perspicacious or precocious. Nor do we need to “know” that they didn’t cheat or simply “guessed” and got lucky. Regardless of (or even in spite of) experience or plausibility, I strongly hold that it is by default fine to assume they did a good job and are a good student. That’s good faith.

How can anyone make friends or have a good life without having some good faith for “strangers,” even if that “vulnerability” can be abused from time to time?

Good luck on the path ahead.

Don’t blow their mind by pointing out how emotions take objects and how that scuttles their position.

It was intentional. A sign of a skilled writer, even. Irony works.

(Even if it does undercut the trucker roommate a bit. The double irony of privilege.)

What my friend was conveying is that envy is the want for something–usually that another has–and jealousy is the fear of losing something that one already has.

The interchangeable usage, e.g. by teenagers, based on a vague understanding is just that (for adults it crystalizes into something normative though they’re probably unaware of it, ego defense mechanisms lol).

Nobody here’s against self-reflection or questioning or critical thinking. These comments come from people who explicitly did do self-reflection and left. The ones who don’t are still in the evangelical system, I presume.

Believe it or not though, those things have an empirical or social component. Namely, if seemingly rational actors (by all means grill them) are giving such grave warnings, which is an astonishingly rare event… Heed them.

This is more prudence and modesty than mindless or naive deference, an ironically fine line given the subject matter. Lastly, this isn’t simply a black-and-white matter of “good and bad” however comfortable it is to give in to the impulse to reduce everything to such. Reminder: following said impulse doesn’t make you any more moral than the next person.

Jakarta police authorities confirmed that a cybercrime task force has officially launched an investigation to track down the individuals behind the accounts.

Are they posting pictures online or something? Otherwise it’s just regular crime. A “cybercrime task force” just sounds like coppers embellishing their menial ass jobs that they generally suck at doing.

Sounds like the real issue here is that Indonesian child prostitution is publicly advertised on an international online space, thus resulting in lost face (lul), rather than the fact that it’s (presumably) readily available–and always has been–to those with means (money).

On a relatively brighter pixel, I agree with you on this at least.

Ordinary education starting at a young age about fundamental prosocial values, dignity, and shared (and local) interests. Critical thinking skills and practice asking questions like “how will this actually help? Where is it coming from? Cui bono?”

And just being open-minded and not overly emotional (and thus easily manipulated).

And point out that unfortunately many entities out there are more than happy to use them as pawns and care not a wit about the wellbeing of them or their friends, neighbours, or loved ones.

But, putting that into schools would be decried as the boogeyman of “socialism” or even xenophobia or something. Irony

I don’t think you know what “classy” meant in this context. It’s an insult. When used to describe a person, it’s almost always an insult.

“As I served you in the old wars, I serve you now.”