Basman

Western countries govern themselves on, and in the case of the US founded itself on, democratic values. You could perhaps say that the same way an authoritarian scoffs at democratic principles someone who values those principles would scoff at authoritarianism. This is not to make the case of cultural plurality but my earnest impression of China currently is that it is governed by power for the sake of power. I think it is dangerous to give authoritarians credit where there is none due nor do I think it is appropriate to shield less developed countries from criticism for the sake of some kind of naturalism.

Most users here are cut from the same cloth as Rick & Morty watching stoners.

I've noticed a recent influx of pro-Chinese content recently which I find peculiar because China is undemocratic despite it's apparent successes. I think It's an expression of people's distrust of our institutions.

It is actually a misnomer that prohibition was an abject failure and that it only served to fuel gang violence. Prohibition was actually successful at reducing overall alcohol consumption and related illnesses and violence before and after (https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits). The article further argues that we may be overcompensating due to the perception of prohibition being an abject failure and I tend to agree as we largely atomize the burden of responsibility for drug use in our discourse. Greater access to drugs will probably lead to an increase in consumption which will cost society in a variety of ways. The idea that it is "never the drugs fault" is silly and frivillous because it implies that we as a society aren't responsible for what drugs are circulating in the community and their effects or that drug users are fully rational and in control of their decisions. It glazes over serious addiction as if drugs are purely an outlet for mental ilnesses and not chemically addicting and destructive of families and personal lives. I would suggest that no drug should not be regulated. If criminalization isn't an option then atleast restrictions and high taxes. Imagine the chaos if we didn't have any restrictions on alcohol. Likewise, there would need to be rules about weed and heavily taxed as to become an occasional luxury for the average person.

You don't want to give rumors too much credence because then you are giving power to the spreading of false information that is typically biased and derisive. It's bottom of the barrel quality information.

The idea of ancient humans not experiencing the voice in their heads as their own is fascinating. Like to them, it's the voice of some kind of spirit or something. It seems like a very physical life and a sort of in-between of what we have now and animals.

The biggest thing that separates humans from animals in my opinion is our ability to create large collective myths and the quality of the ideologies that we are socialized into as children. Liberal ideology for example is a highly advanced ideological "technology" that iterates on hundreds of years of human history, bloodshed, empires, etc. Just look at car traffic. It requires an astounding amount of cooperation for that not to result in disaster every time for an animal but we make it happen. Imagine if Chimps where taught to drive cars. No amount of training will stop them from plowing through people like they are coins in Mario Kart It is not that humans are pretending to be civilized but civilization is acting on top of a primal base.

I haven't had any experience doing pick-up in Amsterdam but most people on the streets in the centrum area ("the onion") are tourists, so a little casual pick-up should be more socially accepted. The red-light district would suck for pick-up since the prostitutes would constantly neg you.

Sure you don't mean customer experience? Integrity would relate more to health procedures and not trying rip off customers.

Do pharmacists need to take the medicine they sell in order to sufficiently inform their clients?

I haven't looked into zizek at all but the concept of a "negative ontology" seems like an oxymoron to me unless it is meant metaphorically. Ontology is the experience of something which implies that something IS happening categorically rather than the opposite, the absence of being/experience. Ontology has to be positive for it to be ontological unless I misunderstood something.

Loving your family is the default. It is only when the family is too dysfunctional and unloving that you stop loving them. I don't find that people who don't love their families simply fall out of love but are in my experience scarred with resentment, a sense of betrayal and a feelings of inadequacy. It takes courage and strength to love. I had my own hang-ups with certain family members following terrible behavior but I eventually got over it because I value the connections more than my resentment. I'm much stronger now. Though I have never experienced the things described in the other posts.

If you deconstructed reality, why would it follow that you become a serial killer? What would you gain from that unless you already had the inner workings of a serial killer hypothetically? It is a pretty big leap in logic. If you look at serial killers historically, serial killers typically suffer from mental illnesses and derive a sense of power, money or a desired experience from murder. Mystecism has nothing to do with it.

I think Trump is just misunderstood... He's not okay 😔.

This sounds like it has more to do with your resentment over feeling singled out as a kid. You should find a more respectful way to deal with your grievances. They might change their behavior around you now but only because they think your nuts. Don't assume other people even know what you are seeing. They might not see that swearing in front kids is that serious. I haven't tried it myself yet, but I think that you should try to ask leading questions instead of trying to dominate people into doing what you want. For example, ask "do you think it is appropriate to swear like sailors in front of the kids?" They might not care but you asserted disapproval while exemplifying respectful conduct. Then they have the opportunity to change their behavior from a place of genuine understanding.

Your top values should be more aspirational and noble relative to the world. It's all about the impact you want to have on the world and family isn't "the world". That doesn't mean you can't value family in the general sense. Who doesn't. That said, I do love my parents. I wish I could buy them their retirement.

Contemplation and studying. I haven't read a single book yet 😁.

You clearly have an anti-western bias. I don't know if your Muslim or something. You bring up some interesting points like western bias in spiral dynamics but it comes of as in bad faith rather than genuine interest in learning. Nor do you do meaningfully contribute to the conversation as you rebuke obvious and basic stuff. It should be obvious that spiral dynamics isn't a moral judgement. I'm not going to waste my time on your trolling anymore.

It's a pejorative term that can send the wrong message if that is not your intent. Ask yourself, what is the problem with referring to people from the global south as "blacks" or "N-words"? Global corruption index, standard of living, mean age, freedom of press, economic stability, infrastructure, women's rights, education, global slavery index, per capita income, access to health care, cultural tolerance, technology, security, etc. Would you rather live in Japan or Syria? That is development.

Focusing on the ethnicity of colonization is ironically a colonist concept. Colonization is essentially just another form of domination like the conquest of the Roman Empire or Alexander The Great. European colonization has more to do with geographical and cultural factors that allowed for effective exploitation of less culturally/technologically developed countries. It has less to with ethnicity and more with opportunity and timing. The desire to dominate others is universal because it is advantageous for survival. Focus on "race" or ethnicity is a red herring if the goal is to actually understanding geopolitical domination and a past of such. I believe there is a degree to which people from certain countries that have been affected by colonialism have resentment for Europe/the West and feel justified in being racist towards "white" people, I.E. punching up. Probably also mixed in with a lack of education and a relatively illiberal culture. I have a Greenlandic relative who likes to make racist remarks sometimes, which is apparently common among Greenlanders. I once joined in once because you kind of lose the sense of wrongness of something when everyone supports it. I made a "white" person visibly uncomfortable and I immediately regretted it. Racism is about putting people down so it's never really justified to base a conversation on race unless it is a meta-discussion.

We are seeing a general decline in students enrolling into the humanities in favor of more vocational education with a bunch of humanity degree holders and professors crying about it. While its a shame on the one hand that people seem less interested learning soft skills, philosophy for instance can change your worldview substantially, on the other hand, the decline of humanities is really the bubble bursting for the value of degrees in my opinion. The humanities where artificially large post WW2 till now due to the value of a degree but that value has now plummeted resulting in people to whom a liberal education is a luxury otherwise opting for more vocational education and hard skills. If you think about it, liberal education has been something that rich elites did primarily. Most if not all great philosopher have been elites who didn't have to worry about basic survival. It is correct in my opinion that humanities are shrinking down to a minority. We as a society simply don't need that many philosophers and sociologists and what not. However, I do think a liberal education should be an important part of primary education. It is just that many of the courses that are liberal in nature aren't all that educational in practice in my experience. Foreign languages for instance are glorified cultural exchanges for the most part. Only 15% of students will actually go on to communicate with the foreign language after 4 years of study. That's a lot of time spent learning about tacos and how to say "beer" in Spanish for it all to be just forgotten after exams. Meanwhile people have no understanding of finances. This forums seems to be much more practical in general and I think most here would prioritize hard skills over soft skills. I'd be especially interested in hearing from people who have or are studying a liberal arts degree in what they think about this decline and the value of a liberal secondary education.

The idea that men are picky is really funny and untrue. I've seen bridge trolls get hit on by conventionally handsome men. Guys will fuck peanutbutter jars and melons. Most guys don't have crazy standards. Of course, everyone likes hot chicks but that is another story.

Judging purely by his appearance he does look like the king of groupies and like he experiments a lot with drugs. Wouldn't let him near me daughter.

Brain scans don't lie or make up stuff. In fact, they don't say anything at all. It is just data. To extrapolate any kind of conclusion requires interpretation. What annoys me the most about porn haters is that they present themselves knowing what is best for you when in reality their priority is their arbitrary moral convictions. The veneer of medical authority is a trojan horse to convince you of their ideology and there isn't enough push-back to it. Porn very well may be harmful to a certain extent if presented with the evidence but there is no diligence at all. Maybes are turned into absolutes. I'm most worried about young guys whose head gets filled with this nonsense and are being misinformed. It distracts from proper self-improvement which entails meaningful action. Not magical thinking and half-baked science. Never take medical advice from people that can't even get basic science right.