You don’t have to share your details but could I ask what yph mean more specifically by ‘wearing certain clothes and helping people?’

State capitalism is closer to communism than crony capitalism seen elsewhere.

I mean, manipulating people is technically a ‘function’ to which one can apply clothing. It’s not a good one, but it is a function.

Your dad.

*Ba-dum-tish*

If you aren’t wearing pants, is it still better to be wearing the top half of the tux or does your swinging wang negate the fancy?

That’s not just a Zuckerberg clone?

That’s kind of why I think ‘country’ and ‘communist’ are not really compatible. I don’t think it is possible to have a faithful execution of communism at the scale of an area like China. They’re obviously closer to communism than some places but also just as obviously not there.

‘live in fear your whole life.’

My guy, that is a wild way to look at anything. People aren’t germophobic for washing their hands. Are you worried about being seen as weak by a staphylococcus? It can’t be a worry about how humans perceive you because then you’d be sudsing up like a normal person because no one is going to call you a pussy for washing your hands but everyone is going to call you an asshole for not.

Even if you are healthy enough to resist it, it might interest you to know there are people who aren’t, and maybe they don’t want to have to fight off an extra infection because you’re so shit-your-pants terrified of someone calling you weak that you can’t consider their basic needs.

One way to look at this is the concepts ‘communism’ and ‘country’ don’t really work together. The modern nation-state requires a level of bureaucracy and scaling that is not really compatible with communistic ideals of egalite. It should also be noted that there isn’t really a completely anything country. China calls itself communist but uses capitalist elements. America is arguably the most anti-communist country but uses plenty of centralized regulation and subsidies. And each has a subset that is deeply in favour of more or less of each of these elements. The idea of having anything ideologically pure is the real childish notion here.

And when they repo for those debts, they will take both floors.

So you wash them before using the restroom then, right?

One way to think of it is, just about anything one can measure about people tends to fit on something like a bell curve, and those curves are related in way re’anging from nearly totally correlated to nearly not at all correlated. People who are more ‘normal’ are those who sit closer to the middle of more of those distributions. This isn’t normative (what should be) just descriptive. (definition)

Looking at the normative structures around this though, becomes a bit fraught at times. A certain amount of regression to the mean helps social cohesion, as you are less likely to have large conflicts if everyone can agree on certain basic facts, principles, and objectives, but too much adherence suppresses innovation and can turn minorities into enemies, which in turn increases conflict and weakens the whole. Where society settles in the spectrum between xenophobic conformist extremism and radical lowercase l libertarianism is one of the fundamental arguments present in every society, everywhere, and in every time.

I don’t have situations that make me read in parallel with someone else, so no.

I do however suspect there might be a sort of ‘clock speed’ to different brains such that the rhythm at which they process can be faster or slower irrespective of ability to reason.

The trick arises from there being more than two people involved. In life, we have 10000 people on fire, another 10000 claiming to be on fire and also demanding help, another 10000 wearing flame-colored wigs claiming to speak for the fire-headed and demanding power, another 10000 trying to sell water buckets, another 10000 trying to sell ethanol buckets, another 10000 selling just buckets you’re supposed to fill yourself, another 10000 trying to sell pictures of the burning ones, another 10000 trying to use those pictures to say its their own fault for putting fire on their head, another 10000 trying to tell people water is too precious to be ‘wasted’ on helping people, another 10000 trying to say it’s all orange’s fault so orange has to be given the power to ‘help’ green, another 10000 saying the fire-headed should be shot as a danger to the children, another 10000 who are sick of all the noise and would gladly flood the atmosphere with vaporized kerosene if it would just mean an end to the whole thing, and all those same number again pushing for the exact opposites.

I would agree in some senses, but not others. I maintain that it is good to be precise, and that most people can be taught to be precise, given time and encouragement, and it is only a society that demands everything happen ‘efficiently’ that turns time into a scarcity such that people feel they have to find something ill-considered to say immediately rather than think for a time and find the better way to express what they mean. There are those with a mental handicap, and I wouldn’t expect the same from them that I would from someone less limited, but I will always lose esteem for those who choose speed over truth when the circumstances permit the time, or choose precision incorrectness in the service of themselves at my expense.

I make no claim of objective moral value, but rather the practical value. If one speaks, it is for a purpose. Speaking with the intention of being understood is the most common and speaking with precision serves that purpose. Speaking with the intention of obscuring is generally regarded as a form of lying, and lying can be regarded as a form of violation, akin to dosing someone with a hallucinogen, distorting their perception of reality. Such violations can serve a purpose, but they remain violations, and are generally not to the benefit of the listener. The general regard for someone who harms others for their own benefit, once the harm is recognized, is negative.

If we want to stand back from the structures of social norms, personal interactions, epistemic/ontological stakes, etc. none of it matters, but we don’t get to live in that conceptual space, only visit.

Those are essentially what I am talking about. The speaker should want to be understood, and should make it as easy as possible for the other person to understand them. By choosing to ‘play a different game’ they are going against the cooperative principle, seeking to benefit themselves at the cost of others. The cost may be fairly trivial, like cutting in line costing the person behind only a minute or two, but it absolutely suggests the person doing it is selfish.

In my experience, people often are against random murder, like serial killing, but many will go along with the idea of state-sanctioned murder or ‘defensive’ murder in various forms. The proportion of people who are true pacifists has always been pretty small.

No idea who this is so my first thought was ‘Billy Mays here! And I’m pissed!’

I had this discussion with a former coworker. There’s selection bias in those videos. They are available because they are interesting, not because the are representative of a normal cop’s day to day experience.

They’re not wrong. The color of the background is important to how you see an object. Using the same month would highlight the effects of the war instead of washing them out in the seasonal change. Using this practically is asking people to point out the obvious problem and hurts the point being made in the eyes of anyone looking at it with less than 100% uncritical support, which is the exact group something like this could be used to convince.