PopeBeanie

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 1,070 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #45225

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Autumn, I didn’t see the part of the story on Reiki and Aromatherapy, but that by itself would’t make the story false.

    The story strained credibility in the first place which makes it worth checking before reacting. It was a story that was not impossible, yet not plausible.

    It sounds a lot like you put ‘Feelz’ before ‘Realz’ when you posted this story, then used that mistake to somehow lend credulity to the (likely) false narrative.

    The purpose of my response here is not to further the discussion on the specific statements above, but to zoom out to a more general observation: How two ideologically super-charged sides do repeatedly hyper-focus on harping about extreme examples that exist in the opposite camp, while enabling (or even promoting) stereotyping of the whole opposite camp as co-conspiracists. Triggering escalated counter-responses in both camps… in a never-ending feedback loop of offenses and defenses.

    Politicians, talk show hosts, et al (i.e. individuals with public platforms)  increasingly promote these types of arguments and narratives, for profit, not to mention nation-states and dictators who weaponize  society-corrupting “discourse” to gain and maintain power. Think Bannon, Trump, and perhaps sociopathic liberal analogs whom don’t immediately come to my Libtard mind.

    Rather than simply call this human failure of modern civilization a case of “tribalism”, I’m working to understand this more as cases of viralism in preternaturally technical, modern times. Where humans pathologically respond to click-bait and other addictive, clickable pathways algorithmically presented to them by social media and other media-serving hubs and corporations.

    It is increasingly easy to evilize each other, especially when politicians and corporations in power weaponize this new behavioral science of  media viralism for their personal gain. This phase of human evolution is completely different from, and even antithetical at times to our previous, natural phase of adaptation ruled by genetics.

    #45066

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    It feels like I’ve mentioned Steve Bannon a dozen times or more.

    I just remembered a Johnny Harris NYT video that went into this “take over the precincts” strategy. My link skips right to the meat of the issue, about nine minutes into the twenty-five minute video:

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: Added link to "precinct strategy" explanation
    #45047

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Here’s my favorite (so far) presentation of examples of rock and jazz drum history. (Bonzo’s included, too. You know, that Led Zeppelin drummer.)

    #45046

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    a really nice mixtape of Arabic and East European trap music

    I have to admit self-defeat now. I really don’t like most trap music I’ve heard. But it’s still significant, historically, and has influenced other music, even Polyphia’s, who’s pretty cutting-edge-creative. I downloaded the mixtape anyway, in case I can use bits or pieces of it here or there… the scales interest me a lot.

    #45038

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Trap Music

    I’m not much “into” trap music except for its technically creative aspects, but it is a topic in music history after all. As an aside to this aside to atheistic topics, somehow relating atheistic themes in this thread will be in the back of my mind, at least. (I’m just going through a phase now of how to invent new music, and learn about groundbreaking music and musicians to start with. S’pose I could do this in a blog, instead, if no one else here is interested.)

    #45010

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Ehhh…the BBC may only seem left leaning by American standards. It is famously “neutral” […]

    Correction appreciated, and good to know. I just just apologized to my leftiness for ignoring it.

    #45003

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    #44976

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    I pretty much agree with all of that, although BBC seems left leaning at times, but I feel mostly aware of the lean and appreciate their sincere attempts. Reddit is one where I might expect a range of leans or non-leans I could pick from, but I haven’t dug far enough into it yet.

    #44975

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Revisiting this topic helped clarify in my mind how I wish to keep using terms like spiritual, sacred, and perhaps other words previously invented and/or owned by writers of religious or metaphysical texts. Some usages of the word sacred, for example, are of secular context.

    For as long as I can remember I always felt that spirituality refers to a feeling. While even some beliefs stem merely from feelings. So since I’ve personally had feelings that often led me to truths and then to logical or emotionally enlightening deductions after much thought — but most importantly after first applying skepticism, I felt that I could at least feel something similar to others who say they experience spiritual feelings.

    It took decades, but I came to understand that one of the most potent feelings that I think we can share is the feeling of understanding each other, and the feeling of being connected to parts of the world or environment that are larger than us. The main difference between religionists and myself is that religionists believe this feeling has God or other deity or agency behind it, and I don’t.

    I know that the word “compatibilist” is used in the context of free will vs determinism discussions. But that’s also the word that first came to me when I thought about how “compatible” I was making my use of the word spiritual with religionists’ use of the word spiritual.  Isn’t free will also not “real” in the strictest philosophical sense, but is still a feeling we can share?

    So I see some benefit in giving in to a more compatible discussion, able to share terms with each other, even if the definitions of those terms have slightly different exact meanings. Well, until y’all can come up with a word better than awe. Feeling in awe while (say) witnessing an olympic level skill, or a Montana-Rice connection near the end zone is not the same as the feeling for me of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony, last movement, with goosebumps. (Just wondering now if a German, Lutheran chorus singing it feels similarly but still in their own way?)

    While one advantage that religionists have over me is that a whole bunch of them together in the same church on a Sunday can also feel each other’s spirituality… again, that feeling is real, even when God is not actually there to support it.

    Fellow atheists, YMMV. And that is ok.

    #44973

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    IMO this is a severely underappreciated topic. I made a public recommendation of your topic here, a couple of weeks ago, but got no bites.

    I was just going to “bump” this topic, but I might as well plug my own takes on it at the same time, by also pointing readers/contributors to a group I started long ago, short name “news about the news“. More specifically, two topics pinned to the top of the list of topics, suggesting a my list of worthy new sources. (I only say “my list”, because no one else has yet contributed there, either.)

    Also, off the top of my head, I avoid MSNBC and Fox, unless I’m actually looking for examples of strongly biased news.

    #44828

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    There is very little hope for humanity unless and until A I is a pleasant surprise.

    I feel alone in all circles (so far) when pushing the idea that, as long as AI is designed and owned by humans, while being owned by humans, it will excel in accordance with those owners’ behests, for better and for worse. (Disclaimer, I don’t actually spend much time in many circles, so I’m sure I’m missing similar viewpoints.)

    I just wrote a couple of paragraphs on that here, but think I should take it to another topic. Btw I appreciate the “pleasant surprise” phrase, and I assume it’s an unless-and-until qualification? IMO, it could just as easily become an unpleasant surprise. Actually, a mix at first, perhaps until one dominates the other.

    #44824

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Putin in the Bunker
    The Russian president against the world

    From The Atlantic, by Tom Nichols. Excerpts:

    […] During a meandering rant, Putin defended raw Russian imperialism while he spooled off about a number of topics, including the fall of the U.S.S.R., the power of Western hegemony, and the American use of nuclear weapons on Japan. But his underlying goal was to warn the rest of the world to cease its opposition to his war of conquest in Ukraine.

    […]

    Putin’s rant was meant to make the world quail in fear. In reality, Putin is likely more terrified than anyone right now: He’s a Russian dictator losing a war of aggression, and he knows how that could end for him. In his speech, he justified the war in Ukraine using everything from the boundaries of ancient Russia to what he sees as the illegitimate dissolution of the Soviet Union. With sheer brass, he then complained about Western colonialism and human-rights violations—this, from the leader of a country with a long and bloody history, from the tsars to Stalin and beyond, of enslaving and murdering millions.

    […]

    […] He fulminated about trans people—almost certainly hoping that the usual useful idiots in the right-wing American press will pick up on it—and referred to the “overthrow of faith and traditional values” in the West as equivalent to “Satanism.”

    […]

    […] But Putin has now said that he is at war with everything that the nations of the world—including Russia—have built since the end of World War II. His demand is to be allowed to brutalize whomever he chooses and seize whatever he wants. His threat, no longer even barely veiled, is that if he is not allowed to run amok and create bloodbaths by fiat, he will use nuclear weapons.

    #44823

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Explain how taking a major bargaining chip off the table would benefit him.

    I already said, he could be false-flagging the sabotage. What benefits him, personally, is any perceived “win” that could keep him in power.

    He is desperate and has diminishing options at his disposal, but I don’t see him as acting out of anything other than self-interest.

    On that, we agree.

    #44822

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Enco, retaking what was once part of the territory of a sovereign nation and super power? I think so. And Kiev was the actual center of Russia before Lord Novgorod the Great and until the rise of Moscow. Putin has a fondness/nostalgia for the lore of Russian history so i am dubious about your assertion. Maybe it is or was all of Ukraine or maybe not. The days of conquest a la Genghis, Alexander, Hitler et. al are past. If there had been a united front by all concerned parties that war had to be avoided and instead getting to a win/win by having a reshuffling of where people lived based on their ethnicity and sentiments then everyone could have a clear conscience that war was unavoidable. I have said it already and i will say it again. Human lives are cheap. Dirt cheap. I see you and many others who are cavalier about war and the consequences.

    What we ought to be concerned with is how it is in the 21st century that we still have dictators. How can one person fuck the lives and jeopardize the lives of so many? It is maddening and it is sickening. How do we get rid of Putin without obliging his agression by proxy with aggression? When will humans ever try something new? War war kill kill torture torture… That is great Bob. Then we pretend to be shocked by atrocities, by wanton cruelty, by senseless violence and rape. You don’t want to surrender? I don’t know that you are fighting. I don’t know that you have the right to put the world at risk of nucs. I don’t know that you have the right to cause starvation in people who have nothing to do with Ukraine and Russia.

    Jake, I don’t know how to answer every statement I’ve bolded above, as they all seem to point to their own ironies, e.g. pointing fingers but not positing any viable solution. What “something new” could we try on Putin? And who’s “cavalier” about war and its consequences, when this dictator fully and consistently lies to his own Russian people and has been planning and running this war from the beginning, not to mention has a shameless history of ordering international war crimes against civilians? Who’s “pretending” to be shocked about it; as if anyone should just be getting used to those kinds of threats and actions against the world?

    Now it’s his threat of using nucs that should make us back down? How does that make the world safer in the long run, when he’s rigged his own office to be in perpetual power? While trying to re-build empire as he cheapens the lives he’s pretending to care about? He fucks over his own people to do this… how could anyone be possibly optimistic about just letting him have his way with the world?

    #44814

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    The expert opinions I’ve heard think that underwater drones were likely the method used. They can sink a warship. Anyway, it’s unlikely Ukraine had the wherewithal to do it.

    I’m seeing no argument against the possibilities I presented. Underwater drones would make it easier, but they’re not necessary, and it’s likely that Ukraine has the wherewithal. Qatar, too. While experienced third parties could be hired. Still, I’m not pushing any conclusions as to who actually rigged the explosives until the evidence is convincing. Your conclusions are on record twice now.

    You say Russia wouldn’t benefit from the sabotage, but I’ve been saying this is about Putin, not Russia, and Putin’s been acting selfishly, ruthlessly, desperately, and foolishly.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 1,070 total)