bebotalk

People who conflate wokeism and standard egalitanrianism are being disingenuous. A lot of things that wokeists advocate for are entering the mainstream and they aren't healthy. These are things that egalitarians of the past didn't call for. They wanted all of the rights and responsibilities that majority groups held without special favours. It also is stepstepping the issue that what these wokeists call for is toxic. So by this logic, it's OK to say that we shouldn't discrimiate against people in the workplace based on race, religion, sex, gender, etc. But then we should have a safe space for university students who are upset that the administration invited a Christian anti-abortion speaker to present a lecture. Haven't they heard of Christianity and/or anti-abortion points before? And this isn't a strawman. The distortion of safe spaces from their original context is a common thing in many Western universities now. So those who are conflating wokeism with egalitarianism are saying young people aged 18-22 should be herded away from views they dislike, even though they are somewhat mainstream? Many think abortion is wrong, and many are Christian.

I don't agree. Little can completely insulate from mental illness.

I must say I like our language as it is. We're not forcing others to learn it. As for perfectionism, yes improvement is good. Perfection is an unrealisable goal. there is also wisdom in accepting flaws and that not everything in life is or will be good.

Hitler was evil, though his artwork was pretty good. Mel Gibson has proven to be highly bigoted but he's starred and directed great films. Braveheart is comically inaccurate but still an outstanding film. As was We Were Soldiers. It's not just films or painting in this capacity. Sport is another facet. For instance, Ryan Giggs was an outstanding footballer. But he spend many years fucking his brother's wife. One can divorce the player in terms of his quality, and then his acts in his personal life. It's a fallacy to assume that people who do great things or create pleasing things are always perfect. It doesn't fit in such a neat package.

I don't belkieve there is any way to know for sure, until we find it. Or we find Earth is the only planet in the universe with life. yes, it's a long shot but still possible. My suspicion is that it's not.

maybe. though there are many paths to God. I just think saying that approaching God is a reductive way to stop mental illness.

It can be a factor, yes. but not always. Being religious cannot insulate from mental illness. Very little can, ultimately.

And the common reasons why are weak, as I stated. Why assume I wanted a deeper explanation? You've just wasted time not knowing that "weak" means. Pretty standard by any dictionary. Your points in response were pretty tangential and agenda-driven. IMHO, people who are conspiracy nuts are weak. My point here is just to say that the common rationale behind why people like conspiracy theories is weak. I'm amused that bothers you, or people have to care about your interest. you're not as "spiritual and wise" as you purport.

Knowing God doesn't stop mental illness.

This isn't necessarily good. It just means wealth is concentrated in the higher echelons. Not all billionaires re necessarily productive or own businesses that hire many people. India for one has arguably the worst poverty on Earth. Having more wealthy people shouldn't be something to brag about in that condition.

Woke is a perversion of egalitarianism. It calls for things that are loosely based on an egalitarian angle but are twisted with neo-Marxist theory. It's woke that calls for university safe spaces, for anti-abortion speakers on campuses and other such evils. It calls for cancel culture, because a content creator said a usually bigoted term in a non-bigoted context. Because banishment is always an effective tool of social regulation. It calls for xenogenders, and twisting people into extreme trans ideology. it says that any edgy humour, even if done by people of a group that it supposedly hurts, is evil and bigoted. Disabled people cannot make edgy jokes about disability, since it's harmful. It calls on saying people who lived long ago, who lived in times when bigotry was more common, should never, ever, be highlighted due to their beliefs. Why not tear down the Abraham Lincoln Memorial in DC, since whilst he was an abolitionist, he wanted to take the freed blacks back to Africa? It calls for making historical figures that were proven to be white non-white in popular media. And refuses to make media of prominent non-white figures, since it's "punching up". The fathers of contemporary egalitarianism, in spirit anyhow, are Gandhi, Dr. King, and Malcolm X. They wouldn't agree with contemporary wokeism. Wokeism isn't the same as standard feminism, anti-racism, etc. It's a distortion of such which causes division and is not actually egalitarian. Woke isn't just being radical for a given time. It's imho at least a specific interpretation of egalitarian thought that seeks division and not inclusivity. The 1990s was the ideal balance. One can call out and condemn bigotry, but not censor comedians who say edgy jokes, since nuance is lost in the human condition and anybody who is ever edgy is inherently bigoted and only ever using such as a mask for their negative views. Chris Rock, a black man no less, couldn't do his famous "ns vs. black people" set today - he'd be called racist when he's black himself, and that was a sentiment that many successful and productive black Americans believed. And still DO BELIEVE.

So then since negativity is part of life, humans should never have kids then. sound logic.

All five of the original nuclear powers have signed it and by and large stick to it. India never signed it, but so what? Which law has perfect application? It's better to have some regulation if it's not perfect. life isn't perfect. It was the original nuclear powers that developed the treaty. The USA still is a signatory to it, as is Russia. The consensus is that it generally has worked in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. My point is you said that enemies cannot cooperate. The USA and USSR definitely were not allies at the time. and countries generally don't share nuclear weapons. It's an example that many countries can agree on given topics that affect us all. I don't see why that's taxing. Nation-states like individuals will do their own thing. Because some people still drive over speed limits it doesn't mean speeding laws are invalid. You keep asserting that because one country is acting contrary to the common interest, then it makes any and all attempts at regulation false. Since when is life that clean-cut? Better that there is some regulation over no regulation. I don't know why you think everything must have perfect application. From what both Xi and Putin have said in the public domain, they see the potential dangers of AI. So maybe there is a chance for them to co-operate. There are global climate change treaties between "enemies" that most are committed to. Why do you pose as smart but don't get that there aren't always perfect solutions to things? https://www.state.gov/nuclear-nonproliferation-treaty/. Your own country hasn't pulled out at all. I don't see the fundamental difference between this and a prospective AI treaty. Both are threats to us all. It's better to have some regulation over no regulation at all. Your view imho is myopic and dangerous, and based on fallacies and blunted thinking.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3241177/biden-xi-set-pledge-ban-ai-autonomous-weapons-drones-nuclear-warhead-control-sources Enemies can't ever dialogue. lol.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-central-park-5-linda-fairstein-florida-guilt-sentences-dna-a8964551.html

India for one never signed the NFT. Most countries that have signed it have adhered to it. Maybe see reality for what it is, and not your US conservative lens of such, since American conservatives often think things are true withotu seeing reality. Pakistan and North Korea never signed it anyhow. So it has had its intended effect. You said that enemy nations cannot co-operate. this is therefore false. the world isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. Since when is any agreement perfectly executed? even treaties between allies aren't always followed. Look at NATO. keep on seeing life through a formulaic lens. Corporations are subject to state law. If there is any international law stating that governments must prevent companies under their jurisdiction don't adhere to AI, so be it.

A number of incels have jobs. They don't want friends, they want partners. They often go on the internet because of their problems. Saying they should work and not worry about it is reductive.

I often wonder why people believe one needs to be religious to be moral. Why do people need some holy book to tell them how to behave in life? I don't see how an action can be held as more right or wrong since it's endorsed or condemned in the Bible or some such.

This guy isn't even that ugly. I bet the woman isn't either. But then they both have issues. She has clear and admitted depression. i suspect he is autistic or has similar neurodivergency.

When I first heard of the term, I thought they were losers. I always assumed that whilst dating was something that was a natural desire, there would inevitably be standards that not all would meet. Some of these are arbitrary, and others are biological or genetic in nature. We all face unfairness at some level, and this is applicable to "hotties" or "chads" as they call them too. Life isn't always a walk in the park. But then it seems that a lot of people who are incels are neurodiverse. And some of the extreme incel ideology isn't very balanced or healthy. It comes often from a place of mental ill-health or bad social adaptation/perceptions. So they often need help. They seemingly didn't get a basic starting block in life or a good social grounding to move off. Elliot Rodger had patent issues, and the fault is with others for not getting him help. Even mild incels who won't have the support they need, and to be fair many self-described won't condone what Rodgers did. My view of them has moved from derision to pity. Many of them can't help but feel that way, especially if they are neurodiverse and otherwise cannot help it.

we'd have to make a facsimile of a human brain, which is beyond our capabilities right now.

A Terminator-esque scenario is unlikely, for now. But then we could in decades to come get a Data-esque android. There has even been talk of sex robots that are essentially sapient. If that is ever produced, then would they have rights? they would have consciousness, like we do. we can't say we should have rights by merely being human. Even computer scientists in the 1960s could scarcely imagine computers today. With such exponential growth, then who knows what is possible? Putin in his interview even spoke about the dangers of AI. He's not stupid. He knows the threat to his country at the least. This deepfake porn shit is disturbing too. The Trump arrest pics were funny asf but then anybody can create that about anybody else, and for what ends? Voices can be faked too. So yes, as a species, we need to have a hold on this. it affects us all. And enemies can't form common bonds, ever. OK. Explain then why the USA and USSR in the 1960s (during the Cold War no less) signed nuclear proliferation treaties that still stand? It's not as black and white and limited as you are making out. Assuming that AI will always just be limited to Chat GPT level technology, or can never be a threat, is exceedingly myopic and dangerous thinking.

it's knowledge is pretty good, though outdated.

Why not? It's something that affects us all, as humans. So yes, as a species. They have signed nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Despite being Western "enemies", it doesn't mean that we cannot find common solutions. We do on climate change, and China is leading some efforts in this regard. As it's a global problem, then ideally we should find a global solution for it. Solving problems "when we meet them" is myopic. We often solve problems we cannot foresee. Like global warming for instance. You're pushing the common narrative that any fear is overblown. We don't and shouldn't solve any problem in life without being proactive.

i don't think "I like x, therefore the world must be x!! TAKE X DOWN!! IT'S SICK COS I HATE IT!!!!" I seldom ever do this. I complain about things that bother me, but then bothering or dis-ease are relative in scope. I can dislike it if people slap me in the face. that's a different level to if I hate Barcelona FC and there are random people in the street wearing Barca shirts. That's a ME problem, unreservedly. Your issue with vernacular is comical. Language is contextual, and I don't and won't ever conform to your individual whims or likes. Nor do I need to.