Danioover9000

@QandC As a member of the YouTube community, which doesn't extend to an individual's freedom of speech. I wouldn't conflate the two as equivalent.

@Leo Gura I'm not arguing for the trolls and people who engage in dislike attacks and those that spew negativity, my case is with having the right to use a metric system to rate a YouTube video as a member of the YouTube community, or as a YouTube content creator. The reason why I'm for rating this way is because there's more utility in rating due to the following: 1. You immediately get the gist as to the value of a video. The like:dislike ratio does show the viewer the popularity of said topic, and whether or not the topic is a positve or negative. If the likes are higher, you go in with the framing of finding out why the video is liked that much, and same for the dislikes being higher, you also want to find out why they don't like the video. By removing the dislike count, you go in assuming that the video is overall positive due to the view count and likes count, but sometimes that creates a false sense of expectation. 2. You have less framing to make sense of the title, thumbnail and topic of the video. Before the dislike count was removed, the Youtuber could pre judge the quality of the video from looking at all those factors, from pre viewing the video if previews are enabled, and looking at the ratio count. Without the dislike count, there's once again a false sense of positivity to a video, and if videos don't have a preview, the viewer/youtuber is limited to watching the videos and decided for themselves, investing a bit more time when they could have otherwise. 3. The current practice of censorship is mirroring current politics too much and their ways of censorship. By forcing YouTube members to not dislike a video and only like a video is similar to being forced to vote for certain political groups, but not being able to vote for other groups, or not being able to have a referendum and to re-count votes. YouTube members with legitimate criticism to a video now have to comment about that, but this is ineffective due to the rate of comments, the like/dislike comments and sometimes comments being hidden or lost in the scrolling, along with mixing technically worded comments with other types of comments is inefficient to feedbacks. I've already posted a revision of YouTube's rating system, that for YouTube members only, they have to fill a brief questionnaire and explain why they liked/disliked the video to validate the count. The reasons why I think this is good is for the following: 1. This creates accountability and self knowledge. The YouTube member knows what he/she likes and dislikes in a video, and the YouTube content creator knows what to improve upon. The staff also can use those feedbacks to further tailor and improve their A.I. 2. This encourages articulation of thinking about a video. 3. Some members don't want their constructive comments to be public and be down voted or up voted ridiculously. So, to rectify this, the feedback you provide prior to giving a like/dislike count is private and only viewable to the content creator, A.I and YouTube staff. This keeps the general comments section general and not mixed with technical constructive feedback. I think my solution will overall improve YouTube, if YouTube is open to my solution. Also, While I may have a degree of addiction to negativity, you claiming that I am and my mind is negativity addict is uncharitable and bad faith and bears little in actually refuting my post in merit alone. That's bad faith in attacking my character instead of my points. Bad! So please refute me based on my points, or enlighten me to why my view is lacking something. Assuming that my posting is largely negatively driven is also false, because I'm posting out of some concern for YouTube, and to have a discussion that's cohesive to me. But like I said before, I don't condone trolling and dislike attacks. I condone articulation of thinking instead, and the merits of it.

@unborn_chicken In general, most can't argue or be logical in this forum nowadays. Most people have varying degrees of skill in being logical as well, so long as they don't emote too much in posts in general there shouldn't be too much backlash at all.

@Leo Gura But Leo! You have a YouTube channel. Doesn't this concern you a little bit what the implications of removing the dislike count?

@Bob Seeker I read about from Ken Wilbur, from the internet, from many hours of me solving puzzles, and from psychedelics. I also do visualization everyday, progressively making it more difficult to do, like going from Yantras to Mandalas. That's about it, plus had past interests/hobbies like chess, videogames, drawing and drawing through objects. Fields similar to those developed my mind's eye as well.

@Ry4n That'll be more apparent in the future going from here. This is why I proposed that each click of the like/dislike button, a window appears with some questions about the video and why you liked/disliked it. Questionnaires tend to slow things done in general, which can also discourage trolling and dislike attacks, because you'll have to keep filling out that questionnaire and explaining why you liked/disliked the video.

So far, my solution still seems like a better option than to hastily remove the right to dislike a video. At least explain yourself to authenticate your dislike, own your dislike. That way disproportionately reduces these dislike attacks.

@AlterEgo It's starting to make more sense now, YouTube is based un the USA, and certain videos from powerful organisations are getting disliked to the 10× degree. Only the YouTube community can't see the dislike count, but the content creator still can? That still is restrictive to the community.

@unborn_chicken Ah ok I see.

Vision logic also involves perceiving objects and situations not just at higher scales, but also in 3d. Literally, you vision and then you logic after the vision. For example, when you solve a puzzle, most of the time you logic it far more than using other types of intelligence. However, if you have developed vision logic, you can use multi sensory visualization to map out the puzzle, and then analyse it at multiple points, and then you can find some solutions that were not originally intended to solve that particular puzzle, because you literally were sometimes viewing the problem inside and outside it's context to find those novel solutions.

@Carl-Richard Also, as an implication of my post, I'm not saying that OP is mainly using BB as an example to explain SD regression to avoid talking about personal/collective traumas explicitly. I'm saying that to me it's an acceptable choice of example to use despite it's fictional ontology. Most discussions here about SD have a set pool of examples that are mainly derived from the real world, and not so with fiction as much. The main issue with that is not that it eventually gets boring, but when you start referring to real world examples, from recent to historical, personal to collective negative events as an example of regression, then this gives some users the ability to troll and derail the thread in the most clever ways possible, using triggering words and even using the example against the OP as well, which can quickly derail the thread and lead to other things like more mod work and the thread locked early due to heated discussion and even debating. As a solution to this, we should consider using some more examples of SD sourcing more from fiction and less from the real world in threads discussing about SD. This way, we minimize against seemingly organic heated debate comig from triggering real world examples and instead use fictional examples. Less triggering leads to less trolling and derailing threads, leads to longer discussions. I mean we already have featured mega thread examples of each SD stage, so it seems fair to me to allow some use of fiction examples for other threads anyways.

So, are we not allowed to give ourselves thought experiments about applications of SD and use fictional examples, because the modal is a scientific study of humans? Keeping in mind the OP is speculating about why regression occurs in SD, and regression is not limited to the two modals OP put forth, but regression can occur from traumatizing events, personal or collective. One way of minimizing triggering of trauma is to use fictional examples to explain certain modals. Regression is temporarily an overall negative event, until it gets resolved later. I'm assuming this is why OP refers to BB as a main usable example of SD regression, rather than his/her traumatic experience instead, or other worldy traumatic events And surprisingly some pieces of fiction are partly inspired by SD, like Star Trek, Star Wars, the whole 4D game strategy genre, ect...

@unborn_chicken So they removed the dislike count solely because of targeted dislike attacks? Could you elaborate on how targeted dislike attacks happen?

@Osaid What are they thinking, just removing the dislike button? So, what's their problem exactly? Because if I don't like a video, and can't dislike the video, then that leaves the comment section. I give constructive critic if I want, but some would leave general negative comments, and some more negative. The main issue though is that by removing a dislike count, while not removing the like count, there's no immediate feedback for the content creator in terms of count ratio, and the content creator has to sort out the comments section much more instead of looking at the count to quickly determine if the topic was a hit or miss. If they want to improve this particular issue, just look at what some chess websites do. Instead of reporting a user trolling or cheating, they have to give an explanation first before reporting. Likewise, if you wanted to dislike the video, a pop up window asking you why you disliked the video and which parts you didn't like would come up and you have to give your explanation before the count is enabled. The reason why I find this valuable is because you have to articulate what you disliked about the video, and that explanation could be useful for not just the content creator, but for self knowledge of the commenter, and the YouTube algorithms learning . The same could be said for likes count as well. I see this as benefitting both the commenter and the YouTube content creator. However, by restricting the commenter's right to give a dislike at all, is not the way to go for me, because if you force an option away like this, the commenter and content creator's ignorance persists much longer. This is my view, so feel free to share yours on whether mine is valid or not.

@unborn_chicken Wait, did YouTube remove the dislike count? When did this happen?

@Ineedanswers I think he's the greatest source of inspiration for people with strong laziness, boredom, depression and those who are sissies. They desperately need to model David Goggins's attitude to challenges.

It's nearly the end of November. Anyone want to share their reports here?

So, back to the main point of the thread: Was Joe Rogan shit posting or was he being serious when he modified the political compass image? Also, how does one shit post really well?

@Ya know It's possible, there's no universal standard for a solid development. Best thing is to integrate the lower stages through visualization and role plays like how method actors did it.

@kieranperez That's ok, as long as you've explicitly clarified your position on all of this.

@Carl-Richard The fruit analogy was referencing some user bringing up black on black violence, while the original OP was dealing with whether Joe was joking or not in what he said using the political compass. I don't see the direct connection between that user's point in bringing up a racial issue and the Joe Rogan post, so to me that's asymmetrical unless it's referring to another user's point that the Joe post is hinting at fascism and Nazism somehow. It's like comparing the legality of abortions to gun control, two different issues at play. However, if you want to elaborate how the two are connected, ok then, it's just at surface level there's no explicit connection between the two. I still think the thread is going into oblivion soon. If you asked me if there were chances the thread would've been more productive, it would've been when the dialogue starts centering around what makes a stupid post versus a joke post, or talk about different types of humor, or talking about the differences between bantering and trolling. I'm a millennial, but I hardly over use the internet like most in my generation do, and I don't follow Joe Rogan as religiously as some do, but if there is any actual issues, then the thread could very well be better off if it transmission into talking about if it is justified to cancel Joe Rogan or not at this point. I'm not sure what criteria I would use, or other's standards on justified cancelling, because while Joe had built up a following, it's not in the millions or billions, and he isn't a celebrity figure compared to mainstream celebrities.

This is why there has to be shifting balances of both insider and outsider perspectives.

As long as you're not bulking, and eating at surplus calories, you'll gain weight over time.

@hyruga No, I'm making a different assumption that isn't in this scale of creepy to non-creepy, but I wouldn't start off without more questions about OP's state, cognition, morality and relevant experiences in his/her dating life. Yes, even assuming OP's sex as male, giving OP male based dating advice, without asking if OP is male or female. That's a bad guess to run off from. And I didn't immediately engaged with OP with my assumptions and gone from there.

@RMQualtrough I brought that up because some other user brought up that it's perspectival with why is there something rather than nothing. We got a subject, who's experiencing, an object. Subject-experience-object. 3 point perspective, therefore nothingness(point zero), somethings (objects point 1), and a conscious subject(I/you point 2), experiencing(point 3) other somethings(loop of points). So enlightenment has to contain in total 4 points of view that feedback loop.