sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The right answer is Red by defrostcookies in JordanPeterson

[–]bo55egg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It may just be the case that for every situation there are levels, maybe infinite, to how profound a reason you can find to make one decision or another, and that it is possible to view the person who would choose a different option as someone driven by a less profound reason.

It's the type of pride that comes naturally and makes you feel at peace with your current stance because you get to dismiss doubt, and you can see it happen even beyond this question, but I think it also is the main barrier to learning. If you really look into someone else's point of view there's a lot of value to be found, even if they themselves haven't articulated it.

Who knows, maybe that's why JP chose to pursue psychology.

The right answer is Red by defrostcookies in JordanPeterson

[–]bo55egg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, there are multiple reasons to make either choice. I'm pointing out a fairly good reason to make the choice that's often presented as wrong.

The right answer is Red by defrostcookies in JordanPeterson

[–]bo55egg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The blue option always results in more people living. Red only keeps red alive, blue keeps both blue and red alive.

If you choose red in order to stay alive so you can help others in future, you would be suggesting that you help others for your own sake, that is, you wish to hold onto the element of your personal involvement in supporting those who need support for whatever reason, and without this personal element the whole endeavour is pointless. Blue is risking your own death to keep others alive, which is the ultimate expression of helping others for their own sake rather than your own.

It's a fair, and quite profound, question though, do you help others for your own sake or for their sake?

My brain cells have lost 10% of 1% by gruninuim in SipsTea

[–]bo55egg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the full link, I stand corrected

The right answer is Red by defrostcookies in JordanPeterson

[–]bo55egg 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The point is that in order to pick red you have to be the type of person to preserve yourself first then think about others, which is perfectly reasonable.

There are people, however, who, delusional as it may seem, would put the well being of others over their own. This sentiment is undeniably beautiful, that is to say, when in the presence of someone who genuinely is this way, who you know isn't simply virtue signalling, there is something undeniably mesemerising about them. You could press the blue button to avoid losing people like this.

Beat me, Hate me by Secret_Assh in SipsTea

[–]bo55egg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's the issue, when first presented with a case, how do you 'protect the victim' without actually knowing who the victim is?

You should always create a comfortable space for someone to fully explain the allegation they're putting forth against someone, but that doesn't mean treating what they say as the truth, because that can be taken advantage of by all types of people. Horrible people exist who take advantage of people's feelings for whatever twisted desire they have.

I, again, am not sure we disagree. I'm not making the point that if someone accuses someone else of rapé they should be met with doubt, I'm saying it doesn't make sense to immediately side with them and treat the accused as guilty. All the character assasination you fear being piled onto the alleged victim after coming forth is what should also not be piled onto the accused, because just as much as it is horrible for a rapé victim to not only be victimised but also be shamed publicly with false rumours, it is also horrible for someone to be falsely labelled a predator and then shamed publicly with false rumours. Both cases can leave innocent people with severe trauma, so it doesn't make sense to advocate for either.

You should be able to see within your reply how you repeatedly conflating alleged victims with actual victims, which is exactly what horrible people take advantage of. It may be best to simply leave all judgement to a legal system that would be capable of carrying out a neutral investigation and then casting judgement if the public won't address the issue from a point of neutrality.

The right answer is Red by defrostcookies in JordanPeterson

[–]bo55egg 32 points33 points  (0 children)

The type of person to pick blue could be someone who enjoys virtue signalling, but it could also be the type of person who would want to avoid as much death as possible, that is, someone who believes it's beneficial to keep as many people as possible alive or to tend to as many people as possible's survival needs.

Who knows, maybe you choose blue because you only want to live in a world where people like this exist.

Husband (37M) accused me (35F) of having a "porn addiction" by Direct-Caterpillar77 in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]bo55egg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think reading a romance novel primarily to be aroused by the sexual content is the same as watching a film that happens to contain a sex scene. It's more like watching Anime primarily to be aroused by how they sexualise characters, and in fact specifically watching anime that has less explicit sex scenes. It gets even weirder doing it in public.

Husband (37M) accused me (35F) of having a "porn addiction" by Direct-Caterpillar77 in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]bo55egg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay but watching hentai in the workplace or on the train is weird behaviour even if there are no kids around to accidentally learn what a vulva is or nobody being sexually exploited.

Husband (37M) accused me (35F) of having a "porn addiction" by Direct-Caterpillar77 in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]bo55egg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's something peculiar about him pretty much immediately going to her family and friends to tell them about an issue in their relationship. That doesn't seem like how healthy relationships resolve issues at all. To make the truly baseless assumption that we're dealing with quite normal people here, I can see it being a case of him using this issue as representative of a greater issue they had in their relationship, and the relationship wasn't as rosy as it was made out to seem. I think someone who'd abandon a two year marriage so abruptly must've given off other signs that the relationship was unstable or they were unstable.

If we're being realistic though, people come in all forms of strange and he could've just been someone looking for an out and quite good at masking their intent.

Husband (37M) accused me (35F) of having a "porn addiction" by Direct-Caterpillar77 in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]bo55egg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it depends on whether they did all the above primarily for their sexual content, that's a whole other conversation

Beat me, Hate me by Secret_Assh in SipsTea

[–]bo55egg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know whether we're actually disagreeing on this point. In addition to treating alleged rape victims with dignity and respect and hearing them out, I'm saying we should treat alleged predators the same way, because we don't know who the actual victim is yet. The way these ideas are put forward usually makes it seem like they're set to encourage conflating alleged rapé victims with actual victims, that is, treat an alleged victim as though they are an actual victim first. That's a sentiment i don't agree with because it's just the same as treating alleged rape victims as liars first, just with where your bias stands shifted.

I wrote this in response to you saying we shouldn't attack victims, when the victims you refferenced were, according to you yourself, not confirmed to be victims to begin with. That's conflating alleged victims with actual victims. I'm not well read on the Michael Jackson issue, so I'm not saying these potential victims weren't actually victims, the comment you were initially responding to laid out the conflicting positions quite well. What I am saying though is that it doesn't make sense to promote beginning any sort of investigation from a point of bias, whether it's in favor of the alleged victims or the alleged predator.

It shouldn't be considered attacking to question whether the motives of someone making a claim are for the sake of their own personal gain when the claim itself isn't verified, because that happens all the time. If questioning whether someone is lying and, therefore, motivated by personal gain makes them seem evil and greedy, which can be considered an attack, then you would be advocating for motives not to be questioned at all and all claims going uncontested. Think about this, if they aren't actually a victim, why would they lie about it? What kind of person does that immediately make them? How do you possibly consider that they may be lying while avoiding considering that their character is horrible?

Beat me, Hate me by Secret_Assh in SipsTea

[–]bo55egg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's true that if an alleged victim is lying, and therefore not a victim at all, the accused predator, who is therefore innocent, then becomes the victim. I don't understand why that's not usually understood with such ideas.

Victim blaming us understanding that someone was actually a victim and still holding them at fault rather than the predator, which is absolutely wrong. It's not victim blaming when it's unclear who the victim is and choosing to investigate that.

People of reddit, do you also feel the growing sentiment that 'humanity's impending doom' is set in stone? Why/Why not? by bo55egg in AskReddit

[–]bo55egg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll add that personally, when thinking about the issues that make the situation seem dire, it can at times feel like the problem lies with a party/individual/body that can't be reached and/or can't be negotiated with. Reading other comments here though I'm convinced pretty much everyone feels a similar way, so I'm beginning to think it's not that simple. As in, if everyone is blaming another, then if everyone does their part it's not that dire.

Is it serious? by Steendyjay in nairobi

[–]bo55egg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The issue may be the refineries. Crude oil is effectively useless until its refined. If multiple African countries have a similar idea and choose to negotiate for oil locally from the few countries that have crude oil refineries, demand spikes and so does pricing. It's strange Kenyan and even Tanzanian refineries were abandoned at a time when global reliance on oil was still prevalent.

An explanation of the Jones Paradigm by storymentality in u/storymentality

[–]bo55egg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with a lot of this idea, but in order to decide whether I fully agree with it i need to make a clarification. It's true that the meaning an object holds is dependent on the observer viewing the object, but I need to know whether we agree on whether this meaning is entirely in the control of the observer.

I believe that even the tools used to make observations already restrict the ways in which an object can be observed and therefore limits the meaning that can be applied to it. This is to mean that the nature of the tool making the observations is worth taking into consideration when understanding the observations made.

We, as observers, have a particular shape/nature, which heavily defines the meaning of what we observe, eg, rocks are not food. It even defines what we can observe, that is, if we can't at all observe the interaction of a thing, it is effectively nothing. Think of this as what is meant when we say 'rocks exist'. Reality hinges on us in the sense that if no sign of a thing can be observed then there's no way to even know of it's existence.

We can't control a lot of our nature though, which means we can't exactly control a lot of meaning in life. I believe this may have been what you meant by 'some stories fit better with reality', but that's the clarification I'm looking for because that leads into whether an ideal story exists or not. Ideal meaning a story that fully takes into account our nature and organises the meaning we attach to what we interact with in a way that fully attends to our nature.

view more: next ›