BlueOak

Unpopular industries can't support it. Popular ones can.

I feel the only way to straighten out propoganda is to understand the history of the region and then by definition the history of the powers that have influence in the region. Otherwise what can happen is you'll get swept up in one perspective, someone who will really sound like they know what they are talking about, and perhaps they do, but if you take too much information from one source, it is difficult not to align yourself with that perspective entirely. If you've got the grounding inside of why things are how they are, and why the people involved are doing what they are doing, then you are more grounded to make up your own mind.

Let's lay a foundation here: The above is not everything, that would be impossible but its worth 15 minutes of your time. WW1 and WW2 I would say there is not a more comprehensive look at the WW1 and WW2 period than this. https://www.youtube.com/c/TheGreatWarSeries/playlists https://www.youtube.com/c/WorldWarTwo/playlists Which even goes week by week if you want everything from the period, as the people saw it at the time. You can only understand geopolitics if you understand how it all came about and this helps remove/filter modern day bias because you have the history to reference. It has been suggested these are both one period in history, and the more you learn of it the more you can understand that. Like any huge event it shapes everything. Beyond that for historical, geographical or political I think you are best picking a region to learn about its more indepth history. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eArjf9OzZE Very generalized European Parties Explained. Some centrist bias but not much. Light hearted Look at geography: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmmPgObSUPw1HL2lq6H4ffA Probably will rub some the wrong way but he treats everyone the same from what I can see. As a personal example, here it will show you how certain areas of england were romanized but the scottish areas were not, which begins the start of the divide in the UK still lingering here today. Then you can see the many cultures that made up the UK from the start and part of why it developed its view toward culture or foreign nations that it did. You can also seen the beginning of the troubles, between england and ireland, which had many violent episodes even when I was growing up in the 80's. You can see why England doesn't like european hegemony for example by its history, and many wars with france, which were part of the roots behind brexit and never really understood (because few understand the collective psyche of a country or where it came from). The only way to really understand a region and why something exists is to go into its history like this, so pick a region you are interested in and do some research. The videos out there these days can be very short and a fun summary, or very detailed with heavy material.

Thanks but you didn't. I was offering the perspective of a 20 year old me, how I would have felt, that's over 20 years ago now! Asking a genuine question if people that have gone through a certain event should be the ones that decide if its free speech or not, because they will be the ones that have the loudest opinions. Pick a less charged topic if you like to consider it, I am honestly not sure. On terrible commentators, I was attempting to show some empathy that the reason some people want free speech changed is because they hear someone they don't like on a regular basis saying outrageous things, and thus base their want for law or moderation for the entire collective on their over exposure to a few loud people. I was picturing a few of the currently banned media commentators from when I used to watch youtube. These days thanks to some big loud names getting banned and thus changing laws, that number has stretched into an obscene amount of banned channels or commentators. As to my views on locking certain criminals up. It has not been demonstrated to me that sexual offenders can be reformed, until it is I can't agree with you. Safety of children comes first. I would of course run prisons entirely different to how they are now, as I think most of us would. Dehumanizing people doesn't lead to reform.

There is a lot of trauma out there yes, less than there used to be if you can believe it, but things are improving as people do. There is not a detachment from your parents until you age, and thus become your own person. So you can absolutely psychologically and emotionally abuse your kids, because they are a part of you. Eventually we can and do seperate out those emotions as our own and our psychology as our own. This can be increasingly difficult because it often happened before we were able to form conscious memory of it, meaning its all unconscious and doesn't come out until we realise, or someone else does and points it out in a way that person can accept. You have trauma related to this. Which I triggered and I apologize. It might be helpful to think as if you are talking to a wound, and in that case if you see the behavior, ask yourself whats your goal in talking to them? You can accept them and then comfort, you could offer neutral information but most other interactions to a wound are not going to yield a positive outcome from your point of view. Also picture you are speaking to a wounded child, as its likely its coming from that place unknowingly and you can temper your expectation accordingly. You are the adult in that conversation. For the moment they are in that state its a big kid shouting at you and not realising, the other 99.999% moments of their life they may be a functioning adult but they haven't seen or accepted the unconcious part of themselves yet. As for what they are seeking it could be acceptance, certainty, relief, anything that you can picture someone might be lacking that never had a stable family environment.

We are perhaps in the minority that we both want to see us to be multi planetary, the possibilities are literally endless in the infinity of space and so worth any investment in the here and now. I also wouldn't mind him getting money or at least optional assistance in doing this from any and everyone willing to contribute. I think at the moment they are not yet including enough people, in either fund raising or on a technical level actually producing what is required to overcome this monumental challenge. While it is broader than the last space race, I would like to see more optional assistance and inclusion. Now you know my feelings on the man and the fact I like what he's doing. Proposing to take away peoples optional choice of contributing to this by letting him off his tax bill isn't at all fair and you have to expect people to voice that. People owe what they owe, and hey on capital, I was using his own quote to make a point. :D. Money is taken and allocated toward something, whether its 5 people, 50, 500, 5000 or 5 million. If you want to call money capital as Elon and I did, or a resource what is the difference. Money is a resource, I suspect for him more than most people. Also we should grant he pays more tax than a lot of the more parasitic tax dodgers out there. Money is spent badly in your opinion, because your opinion counts for a minor fraction of the total opinions in your country. Alongside a million other issues which would require an entire thread dedicated to it and I suspect would have economists and infrastructure experts put us to shame with what really goes on in that statement. None of that is relevant to whether one person should be excluded from what i have to do myself, because he's doing something you agree with.

Apologies for two posts but I should comment on free will. You have free will all the time. You can respond here or not. You can choose to stop thinking a thought at any time, follow it through, or redefine it. You can choose what that thought means, if it means anything at all, and what connections it'll bring. The mind works like a ball of string, connecting one thing to the next, depending on how you define it. A bit like this conversation.

If you were outside of your mind yes, but you are in your mind, while there something exerting mass on your hand isn't subjective. How you then go to describe it or interact with it is. I've gone out of the body before and in that state yes, but for 99.999999% of my life the apple will have mass when in my hand, I will be aware of it and though I could call that word mass - anything, it will still be present. I could lie to myself and say I don't feel the apple in my hand but that wouldn't be truthful. By the way thank you for the back and forth discussion.

If its time to admit you have a Left Party, a Center Party and Right Party yes. Otherwise you'll just keep shifting toward Right/Center and eventually split the party. Looking in, its already there tbh. *BTW if you had a centrist party in america, it'd probably be the most popular at the moment.

Who decides what gets suppressed? We've seen in this thread a few disagreements on what can/could/should be discussed openly. As i suffered some abuse, not sexual, but abuse nontheless, my views on what you just spoke about above would at one time be very harsh. Should I get to dictate for others whether abusers get to speak? I've mellowed now but 20 year old me would have them in prison doing hard labor with no chance of a word. How do you handle suppression? Apples are banned, so i'll talk about how bad it is we can't speak about fruit, or i'll make my point via fruit. I'll still be speaking about apples you just can't silence/arrest/fine me for it etc. Unless you then suppress speaking indirectly about apples via fruit. So okay i'll just use a moniker and do it that way, or worse i'll just passive aggressively talk around the subject because I can't talk about the subject. Do you see how all this does is create potential manipulators, repressed emotion looking to burst out, or at least people who are good with their wording? Asking resistant people to be non resistant, creates resistance. My first thought here was to resist. I value free speech highly, not at an identity level. The core of my being likes to speak truth. Not lies. Sure my ego and identity amplify this, choose the wording, flavors it. I simply can't live in an authoritarian system, i'd be in jail in a week. Laws do need to catch up with social media and consequences are a fair way to do it. If individual responsibility still carries the weight of any such law. Nothing about how this could be implemented sits well with me, because there is no way for me to know fully how you will act on my words, that's completely out of my control. Limiting language is such a heavy handed way of doing it also. There are so many uses for each individual word, and context it could be used in. I know there are racial slurs or swear words to be banned but beyond that? Also a few bad commentators shouldn't dictate law for an entire country or planet, that's also a terrible way of collectively arriving at an agreement. Further as i've discussed, language itself is very prone to being misinterpreted, its hard to ever get the full meaning behind my words.

@bejapuskas Its a difficult issue to talk about because its hate and has all kinds of horrid experiences people have gone through attached to it. I didn't post this at first because i'm not black, brown and i'm not a minority in England. My only experience comes from being hated for other things, and I have been, pre judged or dismissed, avoided in a small community where everyone knows each others business. Never my skin color unless I happen to be on a hostile forum, or chat room, channel etc. So I can only imagine what people go through is worse than what I have. Maybe it is people who have been through something as a collective who should have the final word on this. I agree violence or incitement is a crime and should be. Banning things from this forum isn't the same as banning things entirely everywhere for everyone. Here its your decision, its your house and community you are looking out for. Part of knowing someone is a racist is part of being able to interact with them, avoid them! or better know why they are saying what they are saying. In the wider sense, if someone is a racist its better known than unknown. If you don't know they are a racist then they don't stop being one. They get to manipulate conversations, because the truth isn't in the conversation its a hidden motive, and at the furthest level where its denied even to themselves, they do things unconsciously that neither you or they are aware of. Although i've met a handful of very clever racists over my life that tried to flood me with stats to support a fragile identity they had chosen. Most of them are not clever, they are route one hitting their head against a wall types. Without knowing that we can mistake who we are talking to or why they are saying something. We even miss the opportunity to perhaps, I know its a long shot, show them a better way of living their life without hate being their primary focus. There is a further problem with your line of thought. If people get to pick one thing to silence, they can silence anything and its a slippery slope. I've seen that first hand, nothing to do with racism just censorship on a foreign political issue. I also remember when I watched a youtuber recently talk about the fact the subject of his video was removed, but so was his analysis of it, which had been well balanced. So we can't even address what exists through a third party to raise awareness or take apart hateful reasoning. I don't know, I think for this decision to be made properly, I would like a panel of people that experienced racism and still value free speech to get together and make that decision. I suspect it will go as you advocate for, but its important to know what we lose too and that it just goes underground.

I agree on the assumptions and projections, they come from the language. Text is less restrictive in what you can communicate, but not in definition to the person you are communicating with. Its inherently good for you to make a point, but not them to understand it fully, or your shared conversation as as result. Because we define so much language is considerably more restrictive in meaning, tone, format, syntax, and these small but important details in our heads are often lost from one person to the next especially over this format we are conversing now. A mountain is a large enough image that several perspectives can work with that image without disgareeing on the minor details of it. Here are some examples. The words AND or THE are so flexible that their relative meaning is usually lost in transalation. I could be using THE for emphasis, title, form, context etc. Whereas it doesn't matter if the image of a mountain is never fully defined in translation, its always going to be a mountain, and we wouldn't have either of us here picking over the details about it for example. I am not saying pictures are everything, the details if they can be communicated save time, but the flexibility in my words here almost guarantees you'll only receive part of what I was trying to say, even with the best of intentions.

I don't think it is, if what they are doing is not empathetic, but i'd like to be educated by example if I am wrong. Irritated is okay :D, but I don't think anything is gained for either party if all that passes is judgement. What you did was respond to a judgemental post of mine, so I set the tone badly to start. You used a judgement in your first line, then tried empathy in your second. Are you saying its natural even in deeply empathetic people to always meet a judgement with a judgement first or is there a better way, to connect more with someone you are speaking to? Better, different, more beneficial whatever term fits. *I did the same here, judgements, then tried empathy or understanding you.

Go after the people who incite violence, intimidate etc, and in doing so you preserve the political process, the individual rights, and even free speech of others not doing these things. When people face consequences for breaking the law, most stop doing it. Done in a calm lawful manner, tempers quell and you get more peaceful dialogue. The only thing I have as an outsider to note is, this will overshadow your next election cycle and you'll miss talking or doing anything about issues not related to this. This might be what people will try to win the election on for example, and then it becomes something else entirely. So watchout for people using it to score points, or run theater, rather than talk about what it was, or is, from either party you have over there. Also I would wager trump will be never be charged with anything criminal. Its hard to realise but this might be a heavy argument for a year or so, which he will use and his opponents will use. From what i've seen he actually plays that exchange of blame better the democrats do, and the more they insist the more he is able to get his supporters to rise up the opposite way. Remember who he is, and remember who his base are, how loyal they are to him. Not trying to preach as a foreigner here, just trying to get you to see it from the outside looking in. No matter what the truth was, who was right and who was wrong, it usually ends up in a word slinging match and that always favors him. Because to be frank he does better in a crowd every time, he lives off that.

You would never will away the weight of the apple, it'll always be present. Its weight, texture and things like usefulness or flavor are subjective, not the fact its in your hand and has mass. Physical properties of matter are one of the most useful reference points for reality. Survival, security, safety etc.

To make it simpler, as above it sounds complex. Any time i've been empathetic its meeting someone where they are. If they are in a judgemental mindset, how do you avoid mirroring that while still being empathetic.

Yes to the first part, decided upon in part by somewhat randomly by the collective and in part by an all too small group of academics who then do their own versions of their dictionary. No to the second here at least. There is no limit on languages which can be spoken, written or read in the UK, and its fairly common to hear other dialects. Though its polite to speak in english in the company of strangers, as its a universal dialect here. Language itself at its root is based on symbols with rigid meanings, which are far too easily open to individual misinterpretation in the message. Before language pictures were used and these were in part easier because the wider meaning of a picture allowed for individual perspectives to coexist on the subject with less disagreement. A mountain is a mountain. Food is food. Shelter is Shelter etc. The less strict or rigid a language is, the better imho. Which to be fair to english, it is better than some in that regard as its flexible, there are many ways of describing something or using a word, tone etc. This makes it harder to learn also. *I will also say I support things like gaelic being preserved but I have a bias toward the culture. Latin also.

I wouldn't comment on American's language only the things i've interacted with. You can pull statistics that say spanish is relatively well known and studied. I would guess english or spanish is the primary mode of thought from those i've spoken to, but I wouldn't like to state it for a foreign country. Myself. Maths if you consider that a language. Touch. Imagery. Music. I tried learning mandarin for 6 months from the rosetta stone software, which is great. I did learn different computer coding skills. I do think of myself as sympathetic to celtic or folk language, art, music, because I am half scottish and I enjoy those cultures. In the UK its still largely english that we communicate and think in but that language originates from many nations and cultures, you can see that best in the variety of names in cities or towns. Roman, Saxon, Norse, Celtic etc. The language and dialect came from these different cultures and others. Modern day there are more cultures here that are part of our national makeup for example these are interesting: What employers in the UK see as useful languages (2015) https://www.indy100.com/celebrities/the-10-languages-uk-employers-most-want-their-staff-to-speak-7278966 There are a few % of people here that speak a different primary language: (2011) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/language/articles/languageinenglandandwales/2013-03-04 (2013) https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/30/article-2270638-173FF389000005DC-320_306x448_popup.jpg But honestly for the massive majority they all speak great english. Its difficult to find a modern day graph or census but this has continued to rise since those graphs were published 10 years ago, and is skewed towards london and other urban areas. Where I live for example further out in the country its almost exclusively english, and only english native nationalities here. Indian languages are probably among the more common languages you'll find in communities here, along with Cantonese communities from hong kong, both of which we have/had a lot of good relationship with over my lifetime. Pakistani and Polish or Eastern European communities are also reasonably common. All of those things, cultures and influences have had an effect on my language, thought patterns and behaviors.

I just realised something critical. The mix of operating under both UK and US law heavily curtails UK Independent media as it has to satisfy both to operate.

Empathy. I would like the best possible instruction you can offer on how to be empathetic before I put up an emotional/mental wall. I am happy to discuss almost anything right here so it helps others. How do I default to being empathetic and understanding before I default to judgement and distancing toward someone who is doing the same. If I see judgement I tend to reflect it. What tips, tricks, behaviors, processes, advice anything can you offer. I do try and bridge when I see someone disconnected, as I recognize it in myself and then I try to meet them where they are. I've done that all my life if I saw someone neglected or outside of the group. But its rarely been my first action especially if see someone in a judgemental mindset. As years went on the pull to the behavior of distancing and judgement grew stronger rather than mellowed like most of my emotional reactions did. Thanks for any help. *I realise most people are operating from a place of disconnection and a mental wall, which helps to know. **If you can meet me where I am in this statement I would really appreciate it reflected

I am from the UK so my frame of reference is partially that. We are stronger than america for example in some respects about freedom of speech and weaker in others. We can't use news or sports clips for example in a video, whereas Americans can. While I feel we are less censored than Americans are in large media, our debates for example tend to grill the person speaking more thoroughly and the prime minister can get a question asked to him each week from any elected official. Our large broadcasts tend to have a wider array of opinions shown at once but its all still for the status quo, and any large media broadcaster in the UK will heavily censor their comments or replies on youtube. Our independent media scene is almost non existant over here sadly, and what existed has been squashed by youtube or google. When you can find a channel the discussion is much more blunt and to the point, the replies are less censored, more honesty. Independent media is ever reduced partially because of not being able to reference existing news or video clips, a youtube monopoly, corporate interest, and also the nature of the average person here trusting the established media more. Any discussion outside the status quo I do usually falls on an american website/service. Because UK specific video sites or large open discussion areas are less common. My experience is straddling the two, as well as european law, growing up under the EU and communicating across a few European services (which of course is a multitude of different laws). Websites in some european countries have much more well defended freedom of speech laws, and are attractive as a result for discussions. So its a mix that i've encountered over my life time.

Social connections are good. They help have a sense of community, and level out the extremes just by sharing life together naturally. VR is nice but you don't see VR taking the place of 2D video games for example, because its niche. People at home have kids to look after, how many want to shut off their view of life entirely? A few, but nowhere near the numbers needed. I remember when second life gave people this fear it'd take over actual life, and for some they built shops there, built communities but did it? No. It was just part of life. It was a fun visit but in a few years the novelty fell away. What's to stop it happening by default. 1) The current human nature. Greed. Businesses won't lose money or customers for a cultural change. That is blindly evident on things like the environment but it also works on things like, not getting rid of physical money in favor of using credit cards, or forcing people to have/use a phone. Their profits would take a hit, because the people that won't pay on the card or don't like to, won't or won't be inclined to as much. Same with the phone. Same with any technological development. 2) Novelty. Technology gets a few years and then shifts to something else. If its not built on real life, it only lasts so long. Nothing is permanent but the next technology development is never far away. I've seen so many virtual worlds go through this and many were social, and several had real incomes or communities attached to them. 3) Distractions. Have you ever tried to live your life purely in distraction? Rather than real life? I have. I was a master at it. But you always get depression coming back up, the connection here in this idea adds a part missing in traditional distractions but its still not enough. Fictional communities lack meaning. You'll have to trust me on that, i've immersed myself deeply in some of them, and they don't last. Connections with others are not solid, they are broken easily, and they are abandoned over trivial things. Because they are not real, lasting or often meaningful (with a few exceptions, fond first memories for example). Finally some thoughts. So far all i've seen from the internet the last 20 years is its gone in the direction of censorship and removing that which communities don't like. If that trend continues, less and less people will consider it as platform to build a significant part of their life on, because parts of them won't be welcome. It won't stop existing, but I think the idea of a metaverse replacing life is overexaggerated. Like most technological changes that have come, they are there, but I get a sense people are getting tired of spending too much time on them. The gradual reaction to facebook, and other social media is an example of that. As for moving maybe, i've considered it over a large enough issue before. I do think its healthy to be in a community that you feel at least comfortable in, makes a big difference in your life. Where I am now its down to earth, sometimes too conservative for me, but it doesn't shift much. Are we living in a metaverse, a bit yes with connections like this one we are having here or electronic transactions. Like I say if you want an example of a metaverse that came and slowly declined take a look at the history of second life, or Entropia Universe etc. These had real incomes for people but they never were popular enough to replace real life for the masses. Countless MMO's and virtual worlds have come and gone over the years more than I could ever count. So don't fear too much. If you don't want it, chances are you are not alone.

Food Comfort, this chair. The internet and sharing of information. My Body and Health The human spirit. Communication Here with all of you. The many teachers that helped me from my pets, to a friend, to a guru. Leo here. People still now trying to help the world, even with all they go through. Roof over my head. This thread, Gratitude The state of gratitude when I focus on it. Warmth yes! Especially now This jumper and my small electric heater. Games Writing Feeling, Touch, Smell, Senses. Meditation Exercise Emotion Security and Safety Understanding Mother, Brother. Happy Memories Art Nature, where I live, I am blessed by it.

Also anything that is entertainment not news, should by default be forced to remove the term news from their name. Whether this is a 1 person channel or a multi billion pound enterprise. Because this is truth, transparency, if its not news again by law and definition it shouldn't get to tell people it is.

I've never read it so I did a google. On wikipedia it describes it as threatening violence, etc. So you missed where i said: Quote: The only exceptions to this are matters of safety, calling for violence, or breaking a law by harming someone. As long as people are safe and secure, not calling for violence to occur (theft, violence, intimidation etc) which I think is a definition which could be expanded to include certain associated rhetoric, then let people express their opinion and view. End Quote: Further as I hinted there about rhetoric, I feel the current laws are inadequate and behind the digital times when it comes to what is actually enticing or threatening, stiring populations up to action. People get to hide behind anonymity or double talk, hinting at something but not really saying it to their audience, and covering their identity with a moniker. A few can demonize people to the point their audience no longer considers them as people. This could be regulated against with some discussion on the topic, so that slander for example is still slander and can be taken further in court, or hate speech can cover things like claims that try to indirectly stir people up to cause violence. There needs to be repercussions for what people do. Law, not companies deciding what people can say or see. None of that means people shouldn't be able to speak their mind. I'd rather know something than have it hidden from me for example. If people really feel a certain way, its better to have it in the open, so we can see it and address it or understand what they are really saying. Not unconscious and unknown, or going on in secret, that is far more dangerous. Have you seen the figures about how many criminals have been caught by facebook evidence?