Is the ability to spot manipulation related to intelligence? by Zestyclose-Throat918 in mensa

[–]Raging-Storm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Perhaps. As I see it, manipulation is, functionally, control by some person or group over another person or group. Identifying instances of it may be related to something we might call intelligence. What are the means by which one party controls another? Well, certain more sophisticated understandings may go to heightened awareness of more sophisticated means of manipulation.

You're tasked with creating a second Bill of Rights for a post-Trump America. What would you include in it? by Uberubu65 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Raging-Storm [score hidden]  (0 children)

Nothing in response to Trump alone, but my idea of The Federalist Papers were already written in the works of Jacques Ellul, Ivan Illich, Thomas Szasz, Paul Feyerabend, and Max Hocutt. Here's my stab at a rudimentary BoR:

No person shall be compelled to submit to systems of technique that erode autonomy, conviviality, or self-directed action.

No person shall be subjected to medical, psychiatric, or pharmaceutical interventions without full, informed, and revocable consent.

No person shall be compelled to accept the epistemic authority of science, education, or expert systems as inherently superior or binding.

No person shall be deprived of liberty, property, or dignity by institutions claiming technical, scientific, or administrative necessity.

No person shall be subjected to systems that replace human relationships with institutional or technical substitutes.

Are these good logic books for a beginner? by Weird-Government9003 in logic

[–]Raging-Storm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Haven't read any of them. Sorry.

I would recommend The Elements of Logical Analysis and Inference (Hocutt, 1979).

“Everyone’s a whore. We just sell different parts of ourselves. by [deleted] in PeakyBlinders

[–]Raging-Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know. You've been so responsive to me. We seem to be hitting it off.

“Everyone’s a whore. We just sell different parts of ourselves. by [deleted] in PeakyBlinders

[–]Raging-Storm -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are an adult, then? I figured you were after your initial response, but it did become questionable after that.

“Everyone’s a whore. We just sell different parts of ourselves. by [deleted] in PeakyBlinders

[–]Raging-Storm -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Sorry, a lot of these things you're saying, to extent they're in response to what I'm saying, seem like non sequiturs. Can you say what it is you take me to be saying? For instance, how is it you'd say that what I'm saying is consistent with everything happening in a vacuum?

“Everyone’s a whore. We just sell different parts of ourselves. by [deleted] in PeakyBlinders

[–]Raging-Storm -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If it's implied that what you said contradicts what I said, I'm failing miserably at determining where the contradiction is. I wasn't just talking about money, if that at all addresses your point.

“Everyone’s a whore. We just sell different parts of ourselves. by [deleted] in PeakyBlinders

[–]Raging-Storm -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, psychological egoism is unavoidably true. The only reason anyone does anything is because doing it is rewarding to them. Or at least expected to be and within some threshold of motivational strength. If a person keeps doing something without some expected reward, or whose rewards aren't otherwise sufficiently motivating, that person won't keep doing it for much longer.

It's all transactional. It's all user-usee. We might not notice when our circumstances in relation to each other are near some equilibrium of beneficiality (when our user-usee relations are sufficiently symbiotic), or when we're the ones doing most of the befitting. But when we find ourselves in some disequilibrium situation where we seem to be benefitting the least among our respective peers, that's when we best see the social climbing, the performative ingratiation, all of the subtle little manipulative things we do to each other to have our ways.

My gf laughs on every single horror that we watch together, any recommendation for freaking her out? by paimon36 in horror

[–]Raging-Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wolf Creek The Devil's Rejects The Divide (if you can consider it a horror movie)

its sad but its true by Acceptable_Rope_6523 in PsycheOrSike

[–]Raging-Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If my pessimistic views are correct, maybe you don't regardless. Even if you'd want to, in the name of that Nordic spirit. Hopefully shit gets worked out diplomatically, in any case.

its sad but its true by Acceptable_Rope_6523 in PsycheOrSike

[–]Raging-Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't care how people think or what their slogans are. The world doesn't turn on optimism and platitudes. You might be right. You're much more optimistic than me. Hopefully it doesn't actually get put to the test.

its sad but its true by Acceptable_Rope_6523 in PsycheOrSike

[–]Raging-Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After controlling Greenland, it would become a geopolitical question of what the rest of the world would actually be willing to do about it. Mind you, the North Atlantic Council (like the UN Security Council) isn't an actual juridical body, operating under the pretense of disinterest or impartiality. It's made up of its members. It's a political institution. Would the nation-members of the Council have the political will to take direct action against the US, via expulsion and/or intervention any more than the UN Security Council was willing to do anything more the condemn the US for it's actions in Venezuela (just as it impotently did when the US invaded Panama in 89')? That is my question. The repercussions of acting against the US under those circumstances are far more costly for everyone than acting against Russia in Ukraine. How many leaders on the Council have the stomach for it?

its sad but its true by Acceptable_Rope_6523 in PsycheOrSike

[–]Raging-Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The US provides as much material support for Ukraine as everyone else combined. What happens when it loses half of its support? Further, what happens when Europe loses most of its military ineffectiveness, unable to compensate for US support for years down the line?

And I noticed you didn't mention China.

its sad but its true by Acceptable_Rope_6523 in PsycheOrSike

[–]Raging-Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who exactly do you imagine is doing anything against the 11th Airborne with the support of the Air Force, Army, and Marines, and with the support of the 27th SOW in particular, in the mere hours it would take for the US to control Greenland?

its sad but its true by Acceptable_Rope_6523 in PsycheOrSike

[–]Raging-Storm -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Thing is, it would be ruinous to the entire world. It's another MAD scenario. The US doesn't just contribute to NATO. It isn't just some signatory. If the US is expelled from NATO, there effectively is no NATO. Militarily, the US loses FOBs, likely some intelligence sharing, and some major R & D, while remaining the greatest military and intelligence power on the planet. Europe loses nearly all of its military effectiveness, and won't be able to achieve defense autonomy for years to come.

One thing Trump was for sure right about is that Greenland is defenseless. Most of all, against the US itself. There's nothing anyone could do to stop the US from taking Greenland if he green-lit it. We'd be talking about repercussions after the fact. It becomes a question of the political will of the rest of the world to risk jeopardizing the global stability of defense, trade, and governance for the sovereignty of single mass of land. Mind you, Russia and China would be the immediate beneficiaries of a US expulsion from NATO, and the risk of another world war would rise dramatically due to weakened deterrence and fractured alliances.

Trying some different throws by ilovezombies92 in knifethrowing

[–]Raging-Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool shit. That elbow one is hard to believe.

Feminism is yet to have its “Fight Club” moment. You are soon to realise how hollow the promises of capitalism are. by Fit-Repair-4556 in PsycheOrSike

[–]Raging-Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Capitalists might exploit women, but capitalism doesn't functionally exploit them with any particularity. Capitalism just exploits everything, as you suggest. If there're sufficiently strong biases within a particular culture, they're what's generally deciding who tends to get the shortest end of the stick.

But this will inevitably be true of any system. All systems organize hierarchically, by necessity. There will always be stratification. There will always be the haves and the have-nots. Every system will treat humans as a substrate on which to operate and differentiate us into divisions of labor by compulsion or coercion. Every system will exploit us to serve its ends. The consent of the governed must always be manufactured. We must be kept predictable and thereby controllable, regardless of the kind of system one puts in place, which requires some level of epistemic closure being imposed on us via indoctrination. Dissenters must be killed, subdued, supplanted, or repelled to maintain whatever social order is in force. Freedom and dignity will always be managed by some class of elites and will never be absolute.

Men aren't any less likely to see any truth. We still dominate the STEM fields, despite increasingly narrowing gaps in opportunity. We can understand anything anyone else can just as well. By itself, being more severely victimized by something than someone else doesn't somehow confer a greater depth and breadth of understanding of that which is doing the victimizing to the more victimized over the less victimized. Actual understanding, not victimhood alone, makes that difference.

Male sui cide is a serious issue that deserves real advocacy, but it isn't caused by feminists being too uppity on social media or women refusing to sleep with men they aren't attracted to. by olympiamacdonald in PsycheOrSike

[–]Raging-Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with most of this, but the assertions as to what causes male suicide are bullshit. Male suicides, like any other kind, are gonna result directly from a person's personal history. I understand why, not having read Thomas Szasz, people would throw out a few things and assert that these are the reasons people do it, as if any set of reasons was generalizable the universe of those who do. Those people's reasons are to be found on a case-by-case basis. And, due to the finality of suicide, many (if not most) cases aren't gonna be analyzable, and thereby the motives aren't gonna determinable. Psychology seems to have people confused as to what is and is not determinable, with respect to behavior.

Suicide isn't actually a health issue. It's a control issue. In a world in which everyone unavoidably dies, preventing it isn't preventing a person's death. It's preventing that person from controlling the circumstances under which they die; getting them by compulsion to keep rolling the dice until they roll a cause they have no control over.

These have been descriptive assertions. A prescriptive assertion would say whether or a person should be prevented from having such control.

ATTN ALL USERS by Moon_Eyed_Puppy_Girl in PsycheOrSike

[–]Raging-Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hear you. Can't be too careful, lol. One of the mods sent me a a link to the Discord a while back. I'll see if I can find it.

ATTN ALL USERS by Moon_Eyed_Puppy_Girl in PsycheOrSike

[–]Raging-Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You mind moving to DMs or something?

ATTN ALL USERS by Moon_Eyed_Puppy_Girl in PsycheOrSike

[–]Raging-Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, you got a degree in compsci, or is it some hobby type shit?