Basman

I didn't know how to swim till I was a teenager in high-school in a country where it is common to swim from a young age. One semester my class had swim lessons and I was literally the only one who couldn't swim. I was splashing in the kiddie pool while the rest of the class where doing exercises in the deep pool. However, I could remember one lesson from when I was very little that swimming is just doing the same motion as a frog. So I started practicing trying to float and swimming like a frog and I eventually figured out how to swim. At the end of the class I told the teacher that I can swim now so he told me to swim to the other end of the deep pool. So I dove down and swam towards the other end. The girls who sat and watched along the edge audibly "wowed", including the girl I had a crush on at the time. The teacher later that day complimented me for pushing through despite it being embarrassing to be the only one splashing in the kiddie pool for a high-schooler. He noted I could've just skipped class if I wanted to. It's actually a proven fact, no cap, that people will like you more for overcoming a deficiency than if you are perfect from the get go. They will at least respect you for it. What will make people, women especially, dislike you is cowardice, not trying, etc.

What stopping you from staying genuine, for a lack of better phrasing?

People got upset over this?.... That's funnier than the post itself.

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.

Had this epiphany about education while contemplating why it is the way it is. It dawned on me that the core issue of when it comes to the quality of public education boils down to resources. Society has to educate millions of people, but it simply doesn't have the resources to give every single person an education that is of high quality on an individual level. Hence bureaucratic tools like exams and ritualistic/symbolic educational requirements to get into higher education/get a job (degrees, diplomas, etc.). educational attainment is contingent on resources and opportunities available. Genetics, interests and hard work can carry you to a certain extent but for most people getting higher grades requires simply more resources. A genetically gifted child can only get so far if he's born in Africa. Africa lacks the resources to give him a high quality education compared to a European country. The education system is largely systemic in my opinion and only meritocratic to a certain degree. Which is why strict requirements for higher-education opportunities tend to filter out lower-class people. They don't have the resources to truly shine. So if you are struggling academically, consider that you just need to invest more money into it.

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.