172232 pts ยท February 8, 2014
I'm not very good at this.
Article: You can't bootstrap unburnout. You need a systemic solution for a systemic problem. You can only do X but need Y. So let's make Y happen via an unspecified method of becoming part of collective action that's visibly effective.It's actually good, though.
Nice. This made like it was going to make the poor conclusions I expected and then course-corrected the train of thought. Ultimately, it arrives in basically the right place. The trick is how to systemically build that unified response subsystem. But even getting to there is a huge thing for a single article to manage.
What a weird mix. There's plenty of gems but a few of these are seriously horrible takes.
The "we boiled the water to generate steam to turn the turbines" is harnessing the energy by converting the heat into kinetic energy, often followed by converting it into electrical energy for efficient transport. Whatever generated the heat is what's usually meant as the "energy production."
That's fair. He was almost equivalent to the South taking power over the Union after they assassinated the POTUS. Not sure how he compares to Trump, though. A lot of the harm was there for the taking given his political inclination. One of the biggest ways that a gesture toward unity from the left was thrown in their faces at the first opportunity for power. To the detriment of the nation and world for generations.
It's all power, really, and these are all subdomains of that.
Again, this is in the days following the initial attacks on Israeli civilians and doesn't imply he's okay with Israel's actions since.
Do you have good reason to think so in every case? I see you repost one Hamill tweet from October 8th, 2023. But check and make sure. E.g.,
Ooh, now that's a rare insult to hang onto.
Good points. I think we pretty much agree once you add "context," just looking at it from different angles. Yours observing the series of actions in context, and mine is observing the actor in context. Or at least that's my read.
Essentially, the evidence is in behavior over time. But I'm saying that the ethics of an action revolve around intent, not outcomes. Corrective actions reveal more about intent by sampling more behavior to determine it. This experiment says a lot about what I mean: https://vialogue.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/ted-rebecca-saxe-how-we-read-each-others-minds/True, you also have to consider the two different levels of analysis, organization and individual.
It's hard to imagine an evil ideology with good intentions truly as the root. For individuals, sure, I can imagine exceptions. Zealots. For organizations, it's more systematic. The larger, the less realistic it can be in good faith at all. Much less free of ulterior motives. Dig enough, and you'll find it's self-serving beyond the normal self-servingness of satisfying one's values.
Yes, but misinforming is itself an action, clear and easily defined. Same for all verbal operations, like this conversation. I actually disagree that intent doesn't matter. Like the famous poisoned coffee experiment. But I would also argue intent isn't straightforward concept. Even mundane actions aren't motivated as if it's one motivator. All motivations work together to produce our actions, and most "good-intentioned" evil isn't merely good intentions but a process of rationalizing.
That's fair, but for an organization? I can withhold judgment, but there's a lot of weight to overcome for a positive determination of ignorance.
"Possibly."
Straight up cribbed from HF's Pistachio and The Cult of Carcinization.
Or a dodecahedron, I guess.
It means electing...basically any Democrat, lol. That's about 98% of whole story. When you say "sit on their ass and do nothing," it makes me think you want them to walk across the aisle and punch them out or something. What exactly are you expecting here? Stopping Republicans means making sure they don't have the seats. That's pretty much it. Though right now the big issue is the executive. Same solution there, though. Stopping Republicans means not letting them win seats.
What I'm saying is that's not really a meaningful thing a politician can do. Stopping Republicans is what voters can do. By electing enough opposition to have the structural power instead of electing Republicans to have the structural power. Sure, minority Democrats can give lip service to stopping Republicans, make some speeches and appeals to the populace. But at the end of the day, their power is a roll call. Which comes down to our votes far more so than theirs.
Any single day of Trump's actions during either term would probably do. And it takes far less than that to sink their election chances beforehand. This is a big part of the problem I'm talking about. We don't need to also frame Republican actions as the responsibility of Democrats to stop. That's not how it actually works. And the narrative is specifically designed for and successful in electing more Republicans. (see Murc's Law)
Naw, he just needs to accelerate so that he takes half the time with each new length. Friction might be an issue, tho.
Can we stop blaming Democrats we took power away from for the actions of Republicans we gave power to? I'm *far* more disappointed in Democrats than the average voter, but we already have almost all of traditional media and social media pushing this line, and we have for a long time to the point most people who see the big problems we face don't bat an eye. From the tail end of a longer thread:
Still, it can be worthwhile to go the extra mile and shame them in front of anyone around.
Hope you remembered to bring 15 opossums.
How're you gonna have #1 in there with zero explanation. What microtonal (?) scale (?!??) is that? What's going on with the sound? Is there any theory, or is this pure experimentation? She has some other great stuff in this vein, though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSCT_tKDTLQ
Yeah, my library recently got (all?) 7 e-books but no audiobooks.
Man, the guy that does the voices is ridiculously good, Jeff Hayes. I read that announcement in their voice.
Article: You can't bootstrap unburnout. You need a systemic solution for a systemic problem. You can only do X but need Y. So let's make Y happen via an unspecified method of becoming part of collective action that's visibly effective.
It's actually good, though.
Nice. This made like it was going to make the poor conclusions I expected and then course-corrected the train of thought. Ultimately, it arrives in basically the right place. The trick is how to systemically build that unified response subsystem. But even getting to there is a huge thing for a single article to manage.
What a weird mix. There's plenty of gems but a few of these are seriously horrible takes.
The "we boiled the water to generate steam to turn the turbines" is harnessing the energy by converting the heat into kinetic energy, often followed by converting it into electrical energy for efficient transport. Whatever generated the heat is what's usually meant as the "energy production."
That's fair. He was almost equivalent to the South taking power over the Union after they assassinated the POTUS. Not sure how he compares to Trump, though. A lot of the harm was there for the taking given his political inclination. One of the biggest ways that a gesture toward unity from the left was thrown in their faces at the first opportunity for power. To the detriment of the nation and world for generations.
It's all power, really, and these are all subdomains of that.
Again, this is in the days following the initial attacks on Israeli civilians and doesn't imply he's okay with Israel's actions since.
Do you have good reason to think so in every case? I see you repost one Hamill tweet from October 8th, 2023. But check and make sure. E.g.,
Ooh, now that's a rare insult to hang onto.
Good points. I think we pretty much agree once you add "context," just looking at it from different angles. Yours observing the series of actions in context, and mine is observing the actor in context. Or at least that's my read.
Essentially, the evidence is in behavior over time. But I'm saying that the ethics of an action revolve around intent, not outcomes. Corrective actions reveal more about intent by sampling more behavior to determine it. This experiment says a lot about what I mean:
https://vialogue.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/ted-rebecca-saxe-how-we-read-each-others-minds/
True, you also have to consider the two different levels of analysis, organization and individual.
It's hard to imagine an evil ideology with good intentions truly as the root. For individuals, sure, I can imagine exceptions. Zealots. For organizations, it's more systematic. The larger, the less realistic it can be in good faith at all. Much less free of ulterior motives. Dig enough, and you'll find it's self-serving beyond the normal self-servingness of satisfying one's values.
Yes, but misinforming is itself an action, clear and easily defined. Same for all verbal operations, like this conversation. I actually disagree that intent doesn't matter. Like the famous poisoned coffee experiment. But I would also argue intent isn't straightforward concept. Even mundane actions aren't motivated as if it's one motivator. All motivations work together to produce our actions, and most "good-intentioned" evil isn't merely good intentions but a process of rationalizing.
That's fair, but for an organization? I can withhold judgment, but there's a lot of weight to overcome for a positive determination of ignorance.
"Possibly."
Straight up cribbed from HF's Pistachio and The Cult of Carcinization.
Or a dodecahedron, I guess.
It means electing...basically any Democrat, lol. That's about 98% of whole story. When you say "sit on their ass and do nothing," it makes me think you want them to walk across the aisle and punch them out or something. What exactly are you expecting here?
Stopping Republicans means making sure they don't have the seats. That's pretty much it. Though right now the big issue is the executive. Same solution there, though. Stopping Republicans means not letting them win seats.
What I'm saying is that's not really a meaningful thing a politician can do. Stopping Republicans is what voters can do. By electing enough opposition to have the structural power instead of electing Republicans to have the structural power. Sure, minority Democrats can give lip service to stopping Republicans, make some speeches and appeals to the populace. But at the end of the day, their power is a roll call. Which comes down to our votes far more so than theirs.
Any single day of Trump's actions during either term would probably do. And it takes far less than that to sink their election chances beforehand. This is a big part of the problem I'm talking about. We don't need to also frame Republican actions as the responsibility of Democrats to stop. That's not how it actually works. And the narrative is specifically designed for and successful in electing more Republicans. (see Murc's Law)
Naw, he just needs to accelerate so that he takes half the time with each new length. Friction might be an issue, tho.
Can we stop blaming Democrats we took power away from for the actions of Republicans we gave power to? I'm *far* more disappointed in Democrats than the average voter, but we already have almost all of traditional media and social media pushing this line, and we have for a long time to the point most people who see the big problems we face don't bat an eye. From the tail end of a longer thread:
Still, it can be worthwhile to go the extra mile and shame them in front of anyone around.
Hope you remembered to bring 15 opossums.
How're you gonna have #1 in there with zero explanation. What microtonal (?) scale (?!??) is that? What's going on with the sound? Is there any theory, or is this pure experimentation? She has some other great stuff in this vein, though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSCT_tKDTLQ
Yeah, my library recently got (all?) 7 e-books but no audiobooks.
Man, the guy that does the voices is ridiculously good, Jeff Hayes. I read that announcement in their voice.