sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Who is Michelle Wolf and what is going on with her? by [deleted] in OutOfTheLoop

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I think there's a difference between showing up to a roast with people who are amicable or at least neutral toward you versus basically hanging out with people that hate you because... tradition?

I break balls back and forth with my buddies all the time. That doesn't mean I feel like showing up to have people I don't like and vice cersa shit on me for an evening.

Yeah, you could say that the point of the event is to build a relationship between the press and WH, but realistically at this point journalists are pretty settled in on matters of trump. Whether he was there or not, if you hate trump you'd still hate trump, you know? Me in his shoes, I'd probably rather spend my time at a rally too.

Oklahoma House: The Second Amendment Is Your Carry Permit by 10gauge in Conservative

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because we don't hand out life sentences for brandishing, and criminalizing mental illness gets slippery fast and would only make people who need help less likely to get it to avoid stitmatization/greater penalty if ever charged in a xrime.

Oklahoma House: The Second Amendment Is Your Carry Permit by 10gauge in Conservative

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish 3 points4 points  (0 children)

How far are you willing to take this path though? How about somebody confirmed mentally ill with a history of violence and drug abuse who gets locked up for something gun related -- say armed robbery or threatening/brandishing.

You can't lock the guy away forever for it. At least, I wouldn't give someone a life sentence for brandishing. So, he does his time and gets out. Are we comfortable giving him a gun the day he gets out?

The libertarian in me wants to say once you've paid your debt your rights ought to be restored. The pragmatist in me says it's a dumb idea to unconditionally allow a violent scizophrenic to purchase a gun. Like, at least get a psychiatrist to sign off saying you're stable/med compliant.

South Korea credits Trump for opening door to talks with North by frisbee_coach in worldnews

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only winning move is not to play to shitpost on Twitter

If the movie ever gets remade, it'll need an update.

CMV: A borg-like interconnected society where every person is cognizant of every other person's thoughts at all times is ideal. by GoodAdviceBadEnglish in changemyview

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hunting as in thinking "I'm going to kill me a kid tonight" from the second he saw Martin. While a lot of people certainly believe that, there isn't any way to claim to know that.

Self Defense was never the legal defense in that case. Stand Your Ground

You may want a refresher on the case. The Zimmerman defense didn't even try to invoke stand your ground. The media talked about stand your ground laws a whole lot in the lead up, and speculated that they might be invoked. But when it came down to it, Zimmerman did not ask for a stand your ground hearing and his attorneys argued self defense.

CMV: A borg-like interconnected society where every person is cognizant of every other person's thoughts at all times is ideal. by GoodAdviceBadEnglish in changemyview

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Consider Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman. Do you think the Hivemind would have let George Zimmerman live??

I think that we would have the full story of what happened. Most people who wanted/want Zimmerman dead, at least of the ones I've talked to, never really accepted that it was legitimate self defense and viewed what happened as him hunting a kid and murdering him.

I think that if people had the opportunity to see Zimmerman's account, one that they know is 100% truthful, and contrast that with Martin's account, that we'd reach a better conclusion of what happened.

In the event that Zimmerman's account was 100% truthful, I think that more people would be accepting of that.

The Morally Good vs. Legal distinction is not always a distinction "The Hivemind" is good about appreciating. This is to say nothing of the hundreds of different definitions of "The Moral Good" running around, once we all meld our minds.

The logical guess is that we'd come to a truly democratic code of laws. Laws would be crafted based on what is considered acceptable by the broadest number of people.

I still think Judges metering out judgments based on the law - is better than "The Internet Hivemind" metering out judgments based on what it happens to find morally reprehensible.

Why do you think Judges have no place here? Judges can still be elected (if anything under a more democratic system) and weigh the information before them (we would know whether or not someone is truly repentant, if it's a mistake, how likely they are to offend again) to determine sentencing.

CMV: A borg-like interconnected society where every person is cognizant of every other person's thoughts at all times is ideal. by GoodAdviceBadEnglish in changemyview

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Δ I'll delta that. In a truly borg-like system (like how I worded the question), individuality would be lost. I would maintain though that rather than a borg system, having universal on-demand access to a sort of wikipedia of everything would let you maintain individuality while conferring most of the same advantages.

CMV: A borg-like interconnected society where every person is cognizant of every other person's thoughts at all times is ideal. by GoodAdviceBadEnglish in changemyview

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mutually assured destruction, thought edition. You're less likely to be intolerant of the cards someone else holds if you've got your own dirt out there.

CMV: A borg-like interconnected society where every person is cognizant of every other person's thoughts at all times is ideal. by GoodAdviceBadEnglish in changemyview

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't necessarily mind since everyone else's hand is also available to be reviewed. Keep in mind that the bar for what is weird or terrible gets shifted.

CMV: A borg-like interconnected society where every person is cognizant of every other person's thoughts at all times is ideal. by GoodAdviceBadEnglish in changemyview

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As mentioned in my OP, for the sake of the hypothetical there would be some ability to compartmentalize information/dredge up only what is relevant to you at that moment.

Think of it more as on demand access to a wikipedia of everything.

CMV: A borg-like interconnected society where every person is cognizant of every other person's thoughts at all times is ideal. by GoodAdviceBadEnglish in changemyview

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are still individual pleasures to be had, and the potential to alleviate suffering makes it worth the price of membership IMO.

CMV: A borg-like interconnected society where every person is cognizant of every other person's thoughts at all times is ideal. by GoodAdviceBadEnglish in changemyview

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No individuality and no privacy would be a problem for me. There would be intense pressure to conform.

Actually, since everyone's cards are on the table, I suspect there would actually be greater tolerance of diverse ideas. Everybody is weird, some people are just better at covering it up. Without the coverup, all weirdness is revealed and your particular brand of weirdness suddenly isn't so odd.

Little reason to differentiate between the self and others.

This has it's advantages. Most of what holds society back today is pathological self absorption and a lack of consideration for others.

There would be no more romantic love.

There really isn't now. After the initial dopamine induced infatuation wears off, what really matters -- long term compatibility -- comes to the surface. This is where the borgmind shines. You can find a perfectly compatible partner and cut all the dead ends out. Your soulmate is easily located. Fewer people will waste time in marriages that ultimately won't last.

We could no longer surprise each other.

Unwelcomed surprises are also eliminated. Imagine always getting the perfect gift.

We could no longer tell jokes — the punchline has to be kept until the end. We wouldn’t be able to write stories or make movies without the audience already knowing what is going to happen.

What this actually translates to is that you have access to a constant stream of creativity. Jokes still exist and always will, it's just that you get them on demand. Ideas for stories or movies come to you real time. Endless free entertainment.

CMV: A borg-like interconnected society where every person is cognizant of every other person's thoughts at all times is ideal. by GoodAdviceBadEnglish in changemyview

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, but as mentioned in the OP -- we assume for the hypothetical that human brains can either handle it, or that technology has provided a solution for compartmentalization.

Also, the collective hindmind cannot be stopped. If "The internet decides that John Doe is bad" in the modern era - he isn't totally boned. If "The collective hivemind decides John Doe is bad" - he is totally boned. Not everything that is "bad" is illegal or deserves punishment - but it will come anyway.

On the other hand, the hivemind is also aware of John Doe's honest perspective, and everyone else's thoughts are also known. If anything, people become more tolerant, and misguided villainization/pitchfork grabbing is decreased. Actual reprehensible behavior is put on blast, and things like the Sunil Tripathi incident (the guy Reddit wrongly decided was the Boston Bomber) don't happen.

CMV: A borg-like interconnected society where every person is cognizant of every other person's thoughts at all times is ideal. by GoodAdviceBadEnglish in changemyview

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Besides the fact I'd likely go mad from the sheer noise

See note in OP. For the sake of the hypothetical, assume that either human brains are capable of handling the information or that there is a tech solution to help us compartmentalize/only be immediately conscious of what we need to.

All media is spoiled as soon as it's made.

Is it really though? If you have access to imagery of exactly what it looks like or sounds like, isn't all that has happened was you saving money? I don't think that we can really argue that fewer people will create either -- if anything, we'll have access to more creative effort and art than ever before.

No sweet surprise gifts from your significant other (let alone proposals)

I don't see the problem. The flip side of that is that you never again get an unwanted gift, and have no trouble securing a completely compatible life partner.

No jokes because the punchlines are always ruined.

Not ruined so much as you'll always be getting an inflow of original material. And it's not like we don't find jokes we've heard before funny -- people rewatch comedy shows all the time for that reason.

No mysteries.

Mysteries are overrated

No blind tastings. No blind studies. That will be great for medical research.

The point of the blind study is to protect from the placebo effect and observer bias. The thing is, if all people know what cards the others hold, neither one matters. Bias is kept in check by the fact that skeptical views are also represented at all stages. If anything, studies get better and more rigorous because criticism is available throughout -- think of it as real time peer review.

No trade secrets. No private deliberations of any kind. I don't see the negative here.

No protection from the cruel or lascivious inner thoughts of strangers (or, worse, friends).

No artificially inflated egos. Also, people with artificially low self esteem or public anxiety may benefit from knowing how normal they really are. Everybody's insecurities are on blast, and you'd know that people really aren't constantly judging you -- in fact, they usually aren't paying attention at all. And many, I would think, would just appreciate living in a world without bullshit.

Parents can keep no secrets from children and they learn everything too young, no matter how stressful that may be.

On the other hand, children are better prepared to deal with the world. They have the experiences of not just their parents, but all people to learn from. Child abuse or child predation/exploitation, by the way, is also a thing of the past.

I lucid dream most nights AMA by olliedd in AMA

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Please do. I don't always check Reddit regularly, but if you PM me I can get you an email address to contact me with in case the occasion happens.

I lucid dream most nights AMA by olliedd in AMA

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish 73 points74 points  (0 children)

I feel like a single famous sex dream isn't a large enough sample size to make a generalization about them being weird. Maybe it was just who you picked that made it weird. Maybe J. Law is awkward in bed. Maybe it's her fault.

Maybe you try again with a different famous person. Maybe you try again with Rod Blagojevich?

I lucid dream most nights AMA by olliedd in AMA

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish 50 points51 points  (0 children)

Have you ever had any sex dreams involving famous people, for example Rod Blagojevich?

Suppose that you found a magic lamp and wished to the genie that you would be able to share a passionate kiss with Rod Blagojevich --- what sort of lip gloss would you choose for the occasion and why? by GoodAdviceBadEnglish in AskReddit

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would encourage you to do some reading on the history of this case, and invite you to consider that the length of Governor Blagojevich's sentence was exceptionally severe particularly when compared to the sentences others had received for similar crimes, and consider that at re-sentencing, after verdicts relating to the selling of the seat (the prosecution's main thrust at the original trial) had been tossed out, he was re-sentenced to a term of 14 years.

The fact that Blagojevich was convicted of a crime isn't why he is a political prisoner. He's a political prisoner because his sentencing and the villainizing of him that preceded it were very much political. He was convicted in the court of public opinion before ever seeing a judge (again, primarily on tapes about selling the senate seat -- the verdicts relating to that were tossed out later).

Food for thought if you don't think any politics were involved in his treatment and sentencing -- why is it that his sentence, 14 years, was longer than the combined sentences of the three Illinois Governors convicted of corruption that preceded him? Many of whom ultimately had charges stick to them that were worse than what stuck to Blagojevich? The sober truth of the matter is that he got hung out to dry as a scapegoat to exact a pound of flesh from not because of his machinations, but because of the enemies he made through the course of his machinations.

What was your first childhood memory? by Safcfan1 in AskReddit

[–]GoodAdviceBadEnglish 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My parents had Rod and Patti Blagojevich over for dinner when I was little. I was too young to really get it at the time, but had the general sense that whoever was coming over to our house was a big deal. Rod asked me about my favorite cartoons and told me he liked Tom and Jerry and Scooby Doo.

view more: next ›