zurew

I agree with the word "fascist" as being as poisoned as the word "Nazi", but not with the word racist ,but it would be hard to argue and to count how poisoned these words are - I agree on that. Lets assume for a moment that he actually believes that the word 'Nazi' is more poisoned than the other words that you listed above - If thats what he believes in his mind , would his approach still be unreasonable or bad? (Btw, I absolutely don't rule out that he is doing all this for strategic gains, because he absolutely has stage orange motivations a lot of times) I would agree with you, if the label we are talking about wouldn't have so many different meanings - thats why I said, that he should rather outline extensively and precisely what Nick's positions are, when questioned about it, because this way people can do their categorization on their own, based on their own definitions. So this way the clarity is better, the communication is better, and there is less confusion .

I think with the word 'Nazi' even if you define it once, you will end up sacrificing the integrity of clear communcation and language, because people use that word for so many things and it has so many meanings, that people who won't see Destiny defining that word will misinterpret what he is reffering to - so the communication will be worse compared to outlining exactly Nick's ideology as clearly as possible, when questioned about it. I think the labeling approach is a worse method to try to reveal Nick's real identity. With the labeling approach you just assume some things that Nick's stands for, don't question him , not let him to outline the things he stands for, and people will just demonize him based on assumptions about him and repel his audience or people will agree with Nick not knowing what he really stands for. Opposite to that, if you actually let him to outline his stuff and dig deeper and deeper and try to corner him with questions, then you can have a chance to make him reveal his real identity, so everyone can see him what he really is and his side won't get as defensive either.

He explicitly pointed to the fact, that it is not black and white, and that it can be evaluated on a spectrum and that there will be a trade-off no matter what you do, but you have to be aware what that trade-off is. Its you who are doing a black and white thing here. You don't have to socialize all the time in order to not to become a creepy introvert. You can acquire some necessary social skills and after that if you want to focus on self development and spirituality, then you can easily trade socialization for that (if you want to). No one said that you have to, but you don't need to do socialization 5-10 hours a day either to get the necessary benefits from it - you can balance these things, based on what you prefer and what your goals are. The simple idea is that if you want to get good or exceptional at something, you will need to spend more time doing that activity.

I don't disagree with this, but some of these labels don't have as much meanings as others. I don't think that would change anything in this instance, because if Destiny wants to be consistent with this take (which is to not use the label Nazi, because it has too many meanings and it makes things confusing and makes the other side defensive), then even if Nick would be perfect for all his criteria for being a Nazi, he wouldn't use it, to not make things confusing for others, because he can't just assume that all people will interpret that word the same way. I don't think this is 100% true. He debates with him and attacks his ideas and dissects his ideas and he shows the holes in Nick's ideas, if thats not enough to repel people from Nick's ideology, then the label 'Nazi' won't do it either (imo). Yeah, I agree either use it or don't use it but don't play around because that causes unnecessary confusion and that only helps Nick to spread his ideology.

If his goal is to try to get inside Nick's community and then slowly try to change their minds, then the act of labeling them x or y or to point out tweets here and there and be hostile about it, won't help with that. He is well aware that he enables Fuentes' antics and his worldview, but he is okay with that downside, because he sees an opportunity here [namely: trying to convert or move some Nazi's from their extreme ideology and wordview]. If your goal is to try to build a bridge between two extreme polarities (or at the very least to make them understand each other just a little bit better), then the act of labeling and the act of dimissing and ignoring them won't achieve much, thats why other tactics and methods need to be used. Some of these labels have a lot of different meanings depending on the context. Why use these labels, when you can directly address and attack these ideas and present what the problems are with these ideas(this way you don't cause nearly as much confusion compared to using labels that can be interpreted in 10 different ways depending who is interpreting it and depending on the context as well). Btw I don't agree with Destiny using some of these labels in a joking way, because thats clearly misleading and makes things unnecessarily confusing, but other than that, I agree with most of his points on this matter.

Wow, good stuff. Thanks for sharing!

@Danioover9000 I think prison is good enough for discouragement for people who care(I think stats support this aswell, if we compare it with places where there was no punishment at all). If you are talking about hardcore killers, I don't think those people would give a fuck about anything. If you want to lower the rates, you have to attack the roots and not the ending (how do we create these people, what should be an ideal society for people, how can we lower sadness and depression rates etc) Also , if I go with your hypothetical, then I already seriously fucked up, because I have a society where almost everyone is a criminal, generally in those scenarios you cant do much other than waiting to let them burn themselves out or you can try to employ physical force, but I dont think that would be effective in a society,where most people aren't discouraged by prison, so why would they be discouraged by physical force? (if we already know, that death penalty don't discourage these people)

If that would be true, those jobs would pay more, but the opposite is the case. If you talk about a scenario where the skills needed for that particular job is taken for granted, then sure, I would agree that physical jobs generally harder, but if we take into account the 'acquiring the necessary skills' part , then i wouldn't agree. Also, try to govern a country.

@johnlocke18 So you have to put your hand in fire in order to make sure its bad for you?

I think prompt design has its own future, and I think we will see a strong specialization in the art market. Sure normal people will be able to use it, but not everyone has the time and the right skillset to use prompts the right way. The best prompt designers will know the best templates, will have a lot of experience with various prompts and they will know how to make a random person's vision to reality.

You don't need to assume virtue signaling all the time, you can explain most of our reasoning in other ways. Also your point about double standard doesn't stand, would you want to create a system based on your personal grudges and feelings? Its not a double standard, its to be reasonable about it and not being taken away by emotions and creating a system based on hurt. Again, just because something is controversial and edgy, doesn't indicates, that automatically thats the best option, if the reasoning leads elsewhere, then we should chose that option. That message doesn't work based on stats. In fact I saw the opposite, countries that use death penalty has bigger murder rates compared to countries that don't use death penalty. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

@Leo Gura Do you see a good future art market when it comes to VR?

Agreed.

I think if you manage to get to a utopistic world, then just then we can start to confidently say, and see if there are really people who are unchangeable. I think its easy to assume, that there are people who are untreatable, when we are living in a society where most of the core problems are not addressed at all.

Nope, I don't think so, its not impossible to imagine that two tier 2 person disagree on certain things (btw I don't consider myself one). I think most of the abusing and violence can be seriously lowered by changing the prison system - take a look at the scandinavians. I also think that your principle could be seriously misused by prison guards who are jerks (we know from stats that when you get into a hierarchically upper position, a lot of people will start to act like jerks and start to misuse their power) and some of them will force out certain reactions from the prisoners that wouldn't have happened otherwise, so you will end up killing prisoners who shouldn't have been killed otherwise. I think the more reasonable way would be looking at stats and addressing at least the top 3 reasons why a person become a toxic, violent criminal.

I think stage yellow person wouldn't support death penalty, however if we focus on the point of this thread, then I think this thread's goal was more about trying to find hypothetical scenario where taking a super controversial position would be an overal good for society, but tier 1 people wouldn't take that position because of their morals, even though they would know beforehand, that taking that particular position would be a global benefit overall.

I think if there would be a weird hypothetical where the guards would benefit from a murderer you still wouldn't care about that part, I think you would still try to execute that murderer, is that true, or giving the guards a hard time is really a point that changes your opinion on this matter? Lets say only sociopathic guards will work with these murderers, how do you get around that?

So right now you have a point about workers being harmed by toxic human behaviour. How do you get around this question: Why shouldn't we kill people in mental asylums - they are giving people all sorts of bad vibes, unpredictable behaviour , probably a lot of anxiety and sadness as well.

You have this reasoning against innocent people dying , do you think your argument is strong? We need to be aware of what bullets we need to bite here.

Why shouldn't we kill them, if we are basing our moral system on money?

If we go with standard death penalty, then the economic part won't work either. It has a negative effect on the economy, because its much more expensive.

If we are talking about democracy, then society.

I mean morals are changing as we get more and more knowledge about stuff. A lot of past morals are hinging upon outdated knowledge.

But this argument is very vague. What does he mean by quality of life? Also if he really wants a developed country, then why would he be so fixated on groups, and not on individuals? Every group of people have developed and underdeveloped people ,so why focus on groups and races, when development is not inherent or exclusive to races? Why would you assume that white European's are exceptional compared to other people? This whole idea and ideology is based on a big assumption ,that haven't been proven yet, just assumed. I would like to hear an ability or trait that is exclusive to white Europeans, that contributes to their supposed superiority, and what no other race or group of people have. This is another thing that needs to be established and not just assumed. Yeah men and women are different but thats not necessarily indicates that man is more capable to understand and to run a country, that part needs to be established with reasoning and arguments. What is an inherent benefit to dictatorship, that couldn't be achieved with democracy otherwise?