Basman

You can't rape somebody without it being a consent question by definition. Consent is a material factor when the conspiracy to rape you does materialize unlike being born, which is not possible to consent for or against. The subtle logic here in relative to natalism is that being concieved is something that happens to you (in the negative sense), but for something to happen to you technically requires a past self which is changed negatively by being concieved. You don't exist prior to conception therefor conception can't be an infringement in of itself since you have nothing to compare it to.

I'd be very careful with characterizing ethical beliefs as instrumentalizing as it can quickly become a kind of charicature. They might be influenced by certain factors, but that doesn't mean that their values aren't genuine necessarilly. Its more important to look at the validity of their arguments.

Future generations cannot possibly consent for or against anything, therefor it is a matter of responsibility. Consent isn't a question if it is not a viable form of communication in the first place.

No one is really upset that they where born. Those rare exceptions who wish they weren't born have more so an issue with the extreme suffering that they might be experiencing rather than existing in of itself. The moralization of suffering to the degree to which where other experiences that are inherent in life become tertiary (like love or beauty) isn't fully justified in my opinion and is arguably the result of how we tend to judge ethics by giving suffering primacy. Something is ethical because it consciously minimizes suffering. But you could also argue that the deprivation of inherently positive and meaningfully charged experiences is a kind of responsibilty in of itself which we can't ethically deny or leave unacknowledged. How do you decide what is best for others? That is the crux of the issue. I find the anti-natalist approach to be overly simplistic and essentially deterministic, treating life as if defined by suffering. Responsibility is the strongest argument of anti-natalism, but the magical degree of primacy given to consent consequently treats humans beings pessimistically, as if humans don't want to live, outside of rare cases of extreme suffering. Anti-natalism fails on this point because it can't prove that humans dissavow life by nature. There's also a degree of concept creep present here relative to concent. It is not really a consent issue but one of responsibility. Consent is between existing parties who can reasonably communicate with each other. Animals and future generations can't consent because the former lacks the intelligence to communicate on human terms and the latter doesn't currently exist. When parties can't consent it becomes a matter of responsibility. The whole discussion has actually nothing to do with consent directly. Future generations dealing with the consequences of past actions isn't a question of consent but of responsibility. With the kind of magical primacy which consent is being treated with you could think it reasonable to complain that you didn't consent to being rained on today.

Certain aspects of anti-natalism are true, like most would agree to not concieve children under uncertain conditions or if you can't give a child the love it deserves (because you genuinely don't want kids for example). IE. children should be born with the best shot at life, and falling short of that is arguably irresponsible. Where anti-natilism falls short on my opinion is that it is biased against suffering while discounting pleasure. It treats suffering as more core than pleasure. It is inherently nihilistic, negative and even deterministic to a certain extent. Why is it that just because you suffer that then life is not worth living? Most people want to live even if they suffer, so what is the problem? There's a misanthropic quality to how anti-natalist tend to treat the topic as well. The human experience is treated as reprehensible because it is not perfect. It is a view that the average person would find extreme and strange. The underlying issue is that suffering is conditional and not a constant. It is also a matter of degree. You should avoid unnecessary suffering, which is anti-natalisms strongest point in a generel sense, being conscious of one's choices, especially relative to conception. But suffering is just part of life. It doesn't define it. Anti-natalism is a bit edgy in that sense. I feel that the current wave of anti-natalism is in part to being more informed with the internet but also due to economic exclusion and feeling pessimistic about the future.

The environment has been optimized to suit business needs, with an oversupply of workers, inflated real estate value, among other. Credentialism is largely just coping with a highly unequal relation between workers and employers relative to leverage over available jobs. Add to that we simply need less workers now than in the past due to technology, but our system is built on everyone getting payed for their contributions. Then you can wonder who is going to keep a consumerist economy going if people don't have a job? Economic exclusions makes the rich richer, but alienates trust in institutions among the rest.

The LP course can help you seek out life experience consciously and frame it in a constructive way. It is not a given that you need life experience. I do think there could be more content aimed at if you lack experience specifically though within the course. I remember hitting this wall myself and unsure of what to do.

Yelling "la migra" at Home Depot and if the latinos run they are illegals. If they stand still they are well trained illegals.

Mexicans are known for kissing the ground repeatedly and praising the heavens in Spanish upon crossing the border into the US. Americans have nothing to fear.

I was part of a course once that taught how to make your own course. The dude spent a solid third of his revenue on Facebook ads. It of course depends on the industry and your target audience how much advertising you feasibly need to do.

Immigration = cheap labor, more customers and is good for real estate investments. Stage Orange loves immigration and doesn't care about the deleterious effects it can have on a population long-term. It is telling when immigrants themselves think there are too many immigrants. It is not necesarilly conscious, but rather the effect of what is best for business as they help maintain perpetual growth. It is a serious issue if the populace feel that their borders are too loose. It leads to distrust of institutions, which is why it is problematic to dismiss and exaggerate conservative concerns. It is as toxic of the informational space as xenophobic fear mongering. It leads to a post-truth environment where the truth becomes secondary to ideological saturation. You need to take responsibility for conservatives as they are part of the system. Ignoring conservatives would be like ignoring that the exhaust of your car rattles because it made a problematic tweet. Rich enough to care, but too rich too feel any of the effects.

It's obviously easier to be healthy on an omnivorous diet. You have access to way more food options and animal products are much more nutritiously dense than plants. Veganism requires a lot more knowledge and needs supplementation for it to be adequately nutritious. Something approximate to vegetarianism is probably the most healthy in my opinion, but mileage depends on the person. You want to eat a variety of veggies as a baseline, but just eggs and fish alone in addition can do a lot. Personally, I'm also just happier eating animal products. I've tried veganism, and without the accompanying beliefs relative to animal rights I think it lacks a point when vegetarianism/healthy omnivorism can reach the same degree of health while being less restrictive and easier as you have way more options. Veganism does have the advantage that you cut out so much junk with one simple move, which means that most vegans are more healthy than a normative diet by virtue of not having access to most junk food (and the fact that they are on a "diet" which means that they are more conscious about what they are eating as opposed to a normative diet which tends to be driven by convenience and taste).

It's also about managing how immigration puts a strain welfare and housing. Ironically enough, many of the politicians on the right that are against immigration rhetorically themselves actually benefit from immigration as a source of cheap labor. Brexit is a prime example, as migration increased post-Brexit despite the rhetoric. Most countries are systems for which unchecked migration is unsustainable without it being deleterious politically.

How does that work? Does he raid the bookstore every week? Or the library?

About 2.5 years ago I applied for an art school which required me making a large portfolio to the deadline. Most of the things they asked for where things I where unfamiliar with and had no prior material of, so I grinded away. I think I worked 6-8 hours almost everyday for 1-2 months straight or so. I managed to finish my portfolio just the day before the deadline. I had to learn as I went. I had to build the bridge as I crossed it, which only added to the workload. I got rejected for lacking skills by the way, but that is besides the point. I was burnt out on art hard after that ordeal. I barely touched a pen for a whole year and I still only draw intermittently, even as the worst of the burnout receded. To this day, I haven't fully recovered the passion and zest I used to feel for drawing. I sometimes even question if I even like drawing, but when I do draw I generally feel a sense of elation and joy in the creative process. I just feel like I have to force myself to get there and if I do build a habit I quickly fall off again and there will go a long time till I pick the pen up again. I've been recently thinking that I should take a break "officially" now. I have never at any point since I made that portfolio consciously decided to take a break. I just berated myself for not practicing my art, which hasn't been great for my mood either. I kind of made drawing a part of my identity, which is probably why I'm struggling so much with this and I'm scared that I actually hate drawing.

I feel like the whiplash combined with the sleaziness of it kills the mood. Like your some kind of servant. What a story.

No fun allowed under religion and feminism.

Calling these things AI has to be one of the biggest marketing ploys of all time. It draws on decades of imagination and wonder and incurs a seemingly endless amount of speculation and hype. Very convenient for driving investments. Just calling it AI has to have made this companies billions. Calling it LLM instead of AI would remove it from the endless speculation and preconcieved notions of what it might do. It would be way more sober and make it more apparent that there are limitations.

Self-help is more about expanding your mind and ability to act on your passions, so a lot of self-help is worth reading, but not necesarilly worth studying. I can only think that a handful of books are really worth studying as they essentially cover the breadth of the topic.

Studying is often necessary to develop valuable skills and insight. Studying isn't always worth it though depending on the material.

Russia doesn't want peace and isn't interested in diplomacy unless it is sufficiently destructive for Ukraine's governability. This is why Trump's negotiations fail. He thinks Putin will be happy with a "good deal" of material substance, but Putin doesn't want peace. Russia can only be prevented from further escalation by being stonewalled military. Ukranians themselves are going to rely less on western countries when there's a lack of support. It doesn't help that Trump is ideologically allies with Putin. It's an unfortunate development if Ukraine goes nuclear.

That Mexican alien was pretty small.