Forum Replies Created
March 5, 2021 at 8:35 pm #36675
Simon the first article clearly discusses psychopaths experiencing fear. The other article is 100 pages so I certainly didn’t read the whole things but I did read the only section that mentions fear (Limitations of Previous Research on the Common Core of Dark Traits) and in that section it discusses those with dark traits fearing repercussions. So…it seems that the very articles you have quoted disagree with your claim that they don’t experience fear.March 5, 2021 at 7:30 pm #36674
Also the royal family doesn’t really divide most british people. They are generally supported throughout the political spectrum and no political party (except some in a few regional parties) quesiton the monarchy, so I don’t see how that would “unite” different parties. Nor do parties in a multi-party democracy need to unite. They have different political positions and represent their voters accordingly. Most European countries are not like the US with a two party system where everything is left or right, red or blue creative corrosive division requiring “uniting”. Belgium for example has a dozen parties. Those parties come together temporarily to rule in coalitions (which I suppose is a sort of unity) but that unity is gone by the next election. And even if the parties did need uniting (which they don’t) I doubt rallying around the end of the royal family would help in the slightest.March 5, 2021 at 7:24 pm #36673
No that’s not necesarily true encoginationer. Constitutional monarchies would have to replace the head of state somehow and it is not straight forward obvious how to do that. Canadians/British/Spaniards etc. don’t want to have a President in the style of the US. The amount of political problems that come from having an elected president are notable for anyone to see. Just look at a democrat president not being able to do anything while a Republican house or senate blocks everything. As I said before the monarchy also makes a shit ton of money for the countries economy (especially in the UK but also in other european countries).
I agree that costs should be reduced (especially with say the nephews, nieces and great granchildren of Elizabeth II, who shouldn’t be given any notable privileges or funds. But for most people in constitutional monarchy countries, the losses to them (cultural, economical and the check-and-balance) isn’t worth the gain (the illusion that they would somehow become more democratic or more “modern”).
I could equally use the argument that all of the formalities and pomp and circumstance and extreme expense with the US president could be done away with. Does he really need a palace (the white house?), the galas, the god like mystique, the high salary, all the red carpets everywhere, being labelled Mr. President for the rest of his life after he leaves office, their children given federal jobs? Do you even need to have a president at all? Why can’t you just have your house of representatives? Your check and balances don’t seem so much check and balancing one another but causing legislative dead lock that has put the US well behind many countries in social programs and progressive legislation.March 4, 2021 at 7:05 pm #36663
Simon could you list some of the papers that you’ve read? I’m quite curious about them (let’s skip the quora, reddit, youtube or blogs).March 4, 2021 at 2:58 pm #36661
Simon I don’t know where you are getting your information. They experience fear. They may have less inhibitions dealing with precarious situations and take more risks but they definitely experience fear and can worry about the consequences of their actions. They may not respond to punishment with guilt/shame but they will respond to punishment by adapting their behaviour to avoid future punishment or losing resources that would help them achieve their goals.March 4, 2021 at 10:21 am #36659
Psychopaths are hardly emotionless. They simply experience much lower amounts of empathy and guilt. They still feel pain, loss, frustration, emotional needs etc. They also tend to be less insecure and inhibited.
I would also highly advise being weary of what people say on Quora and not using it as a source for anything.March 3, 2021 at 2:08 am #36649
I’ve lived in four countries with monarchies (well three and a half because Canada’s monarch is never in residence). In all of those countries the monarch is popular. They serve a political function (they act as the only executive/legislative check and balance). In those countries there is only one effective legislature (there is no president and their second house of parliament doesn’t really block legislation) meaning the King or Queen can refuse to sign a bill or authorise a cabinet minister that may technically be constitutional but is exceptionally dangerous or not in the spirit of democratic. Canada, Spain and the UK haven’t had a refused royal assent in modern history so, luckily it has never had to be used and if it were ever abused I’m sure they would just get rid of the monarch. The Belgian king refused to sign an abortion bill. Not because of constitutionality or anti-democratic law but because he didn’t agree with it. The country responded by suspending his powers until the legislation was passed and then limiting his powers in the future. In countries with a Prime Minister and one single legislature the monarch is a valuable tool to avoid democracy slipping into autocracy. Apart from that, the royal family maintains tradition, culture, history, philanthropy, duty etc. They are also huge cash cows (especially in the UK). It is estimated the royal family adds hundreds of millions to the UK economy. I don’t have a particular problem with the royal families as long as the public want them, they have no power except the virtually never used ability to refuse passing a bill and that the royal families become financially independent. I wouldn’t mourn their loss if they disappear but I don’t feel any motivation to get rid of them.March 2, 2021 at 10:18 am #36629
I was 16 when I first had real access to the internet (a regular connection and not just the text based internet). I used AOL which was a truly fantastic place to discover the online world. There was a large selection of chat rooms and back then chatting was really fun. There were very few trolls (they were quickly kicked out of the rooms). Everyone had a sort of profile and you could search people for common interests. Back then yahoo had a “category” where you could browse websites based on interests (it was a pretty low number of websites back then) and there was a “ring” of sites where you could jump from one thematic page to the next. MSN had a great game community (cards, backgammon) that had night time tournaments with lots of chatting in between. I was also browsing university websites from all over the world wondering where I would study. I really loved how new everything felt, how generally pleasant people were online and the feeling of connection. Much of that was quickly lost as the internet developed and the really fun days ended when social media and smart phone chat apps began.
I honestly believe that social media and comment sections are responsible for the majority of the toxicity of the internet and the spreading of brain viruses. Google and facebook in particular (and all their subsidiaries) are behind some appallingly unethical and socially damaging phenomena and it is beyond my comprehension why governments aren’t heavily (if not brutally) regulating them.
I worry about the youngest generation and how much of their identity and self-worth is shaped by social media and how easily disinformation spreads (and how susceptible they are to it). I swear they should spend 20 minutes every day in school gaining the skills necessary to cope with internet disinformation, online toxicity and bullying and a healthy use of social media and technology.
March 1, 2021 at 10:01 am #36614
- This reply was modified 4 days, 22 hours ago by Davis.
Indeed compared with some Western European countries (certainly not all) the U.S. seems to have a whole bunch of religion fused with politics. The near complete non-representation of non-religious politicians at the National level, the number of prayers and prayer groups and the use of God in phrases, motto, the constitution, oaths, your money, political speeches, monuments is staggering. The amount of clearly religious motivated legislation is huge and the number of absolute crazies at all government levels is quite notable.
In most Western European countries religious monuments are there and as historical relics most aren’t going away, but new ones are rarely built in public squares nor with public money.
I would say the biggest problems in Western Europe are 1. The religious tax in a handful of countries, 2. Blasphemy laws in a couple countries 3. Opening prayer in the legislature in a few countries (voluntary though it is…they shouldn’t happen at all). Having said that…the amount of blatant religious content, motivated legislation, crazies is low. And there have been atheist leaders and many atheist members of parliament. Calls for increasing secularisation is high.
Thank fucking God at least for your constitution which limits religion to some extent. Having said that: how the US supreme court allows “God” printed on your money, for one example, is beyond me.
February 26, 2021 at 1:02 am #36589
- This reply was modified 5 days, 22 hours ago by Davis.
They may or may not be outliers. I can understand people making a fuss about things. But it depends how they do it. These outliers love trouble. Sometimes it just turns off the people they’re presumably hoping to convert.
Simon it seems to me that you are being as ridiculously over-outraged over the very over-outrage you are criticising.
February 25, 2021 at 8:06 pm #36580
- This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by Davis.
If somebody is screaming into somebody’s face, metaphorically or otherwise, purely because they disagree – nobody is going to take seriously what they have to say
No Simon. I would say that decades of inaction (nobody caring to change harmful oppressive cultural norms) and then people getting loud bringing about actually change would show that your argument is very wrong.
It’s not always just a case of people “having a different opinion”. It’s people who face insults, possibly physical violence, fewer opportunities, problems with the police, social aggression and discrimination. In some cases it’s not just a person who thinks that ketchup goes better on hot dogs and is being nasty because people don’t agree. It can be people who refuse to continue being treated that way. If sometimes the only way to get blatant harmful racism to be, at least far less brazen…is to be loud then do you blame people for being loud? And even then…are they being loud or are they just not doing things in a way that is convenient for you? Is this representative of a general problem or is this a false narrative you’ve latched onto with you hyper focusing on irrelevant outliers?
February 25, 2021 at 4:03 pm #36577
- This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by Davis.
And yet, it seems to indicate a wider culture of self-righteous rudeness and incivility as a response to disagreement.
It’s a pity you continue to feel this way.February 25, 2021 at 12:22 am #36559
Simon…the media and social media (and especially conservative forums) like to point out the truly tiny number of moments of cancel culture that are extreme or even outrageous and then paint social justice activism with that brush. That is ridiculously unfair, hyper generalising and a reaction by those who don’t want to deal with the broader problems that these activists are trying to deal with. The voices of these nuts are amplified by parts of the media because those parts of the media WANT to amplify them…not because they particularly matter or are representative of the broader movement. And you are playing into their game. You seem outraged by a small group of people’s actions even though they are, on a grander scale…and absolutely trivial part of it. You’re outraged by a few outraged nuts.February 25, 2021 at 12:21 am #36558
Either I incorporate the criticism and expand my world view, or I stick to my guns knowing I’ve been vetting my positions and I’m willing to take negative response for it.
Which is how it should be. I wrestled with the Toronto disruption to the pride event. I highly disagreed with a couple of their points but not for a second did I think that them disrupting the event was wrong. Yes Pride was an event that was a celebration for a marginalised group of people but it isn’t as if there aren’t marginalised groups within that marginalised group (I personally know gay people who are transphobic or don’t want trans people coming into their favourite bar and I know gay people who are racist towards black LGBTQ+ people).
I took flack for disagreeing with excluding LGTBQ+ police from being in the parade. For me, for the love of fucking god…excluding any LGTBQ+ person because of their profession is despicable. Gay police for instance have to deal with their own terrible struggles being an out member in a highly misogynistic environment and should be celebrated for being the first or second generation to deal with the brunt of resistance to them joining and to pave the way to make it slightly easier for future generations. I could possibly understand the idea of excluding non-LGTBQ+ police floats as LGTBQ+ people and especially non-white LGTBQ+ have had difficult experiences with the police (though I’d prefer any group to be able to march) but excluding the LGTBQ+ police is vicious. I worked out my reasoning, I stand by it and I have been highly criticised for it. And I understand why people would passionately criticise it. Why should I feel that I must be immune to people who are even more marginalised than I am expressing their frustration (or even fury) with the injustices they experience. Should I expect them to advocate in a format that is more convenient for me?
And if a handful of idiots insult me…why would I give a shit? People insult the shit out of each other online all the time and in America strangers can randomly insult you in the street. I understand their fury and I accept that a small number of nuts going a little too far is the price we pay for a small amount of improvement in people’s lives happening.
February 24, 2021 at 9:22 pm #36554
- This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by Davis.
What they didn’t do is act like silly, authoritarian brats, whom nobody can listen to o’r respect.
Uhhhh…that is EXACTLY how they were characterised by people who resisted their activism. But don’t let me stop you projecting your idealised version of history onto them nor your hypergeneralising.