Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    [–] What small thing makes you automatically distrust someone? RickAndMorty101Years 2 points ago in AskReddit

    Maybe the default should just be that if it isn't about you, then it isn't your info to tell.

    But this would restrict me to (pretty much) only talking about myself and celebrities wouldn't it? I mean, I think there is a spectrum between "that person just got a fitbit" to "that person just told me their brother has cancer". But even those examples have variations. Some people are more open about even personal stuff and I don't see a reason to have the default be sealed lips for them.

    Like I'm completely fine with people discussing my sexual activities behind my back. But other people might not even want to admit that they were having lunch with certain people. I dunno, I think it might be a person-to-person thing.

    [–] Leftists should stop being so harsh to those with reactionary traits. RickAndMorty101Years 0 points ago in DebateCommunism

    I am not a socialist and I believe in restrictions on elective abortions after a certain point in development. I think there are some others (considerations on gender roles and the role sex plays in psychology, for example). But a few feminist subs have said that believing in a capitalist economy and any restrictions on abortion make someone not a feminist.

    [–] Leftists should stop being so harsh to those with reactionary traits. RickAndMorty101Years 2 points ago in DebateCommunism

    Yeah, I've notices that movements have "recruiting mode" where they expand their definition to include as many people as possible and "consolidation mode" where they tighten up the beliefs of the group and start kicking people out who don't conform (causing many in the group to conform as to avoid getting kicked out).

    Both probably have value and groups can have different reactions to different traits. I mean, you don't want EVERYONE in your group no matter what their beliefs. But I have left many groups because I felt like the smaller circle they drew didn't include me anymore. Most recently it was feminism.

    [–] What small thing makes you automatically distrust someone? RickAndMorty101Years 5 points ago in AskReddit

    I might have trouble with this. I'm very open about my life and sometimes have trouble knowing what people want me to keep quiet about.

    Anyone have suggestions on how to know the information people want to keep private?

    [–] What Linux distro should I use as a beginner? RickAndMorty101Years 0 points ago in linuxquestions

    Ubuntu Cinnamon has a desktop kind of like Mac. Linux Mint has a desktop kind of like Windows.

    Oh, and Mind and Lubuntu are really fast and great for slow computers.

    [–] What words have contested definitions? RickAndMorty101Years 2 points ago in AskReddit

    Oh boy. This post is about to head straight to the top of "controversial"! Haha.

    [–] Trans'woman' freaks the fuck out at GameStop. RickAndMorty101Years 0 points ago in JoeRogan

    No it doesn't because your brain isn't telling you something that is wrong, you are just conforming to an idiotic anti science rhetoric that makes people feel good.

    "Anti-scientific" even though the majority of the psychology community agrees with my stance? And "higher suicide rate" for a group doesn't mean that that group has a mental illness. Otherwise, "being a white male" would be a mental illness. The group has to have an intrinsic quality that makes them "mentally ill" with a clear definition of "mentally ill". And I still don't get your definition.

    Is it just "believing something that is not true"? If so, again, I believe they are women. And would you include something like "believing a 2000 year old carpenter is in telepathic communication with you from the afterlife" in your group of "mentally ill people"?

    But most trans people I know don't even have false beliefs about their sex/gender. They just have a different definition of "woman"/"men" than you do. A definition which I agree with. What false beliefs do you think they hold? They understand their biology and physiology. So what are the false beliefs exactly?

    [–] Anybody feel Black mirror: bandersnatch was really disappointing and not to the standard of usual black mirror episodes ? RickAndMorty101Years 1 points ago in television

    It could have developed into a cool 2nd person narrative.

    That would have been really cool. Maybe it turns into a text adventure where we can type in messages on a calculator to him.

    [–] Anybody feel Black mirror: bandersnatch was really disappointing and not to the standard of usual black mirror episodes ? RickAndMorty101Years 2 points ago in television

    It was not as good as an average Black Mirror episode. But it was still fun.

    And I like experiments. Maybe someone will develop this style better in the future.

    [–] Trans'woman' freaks the fuck out at GameStop. RickAndMorty101Years 1 points ago in JoeRogan

    I believe trans women are women. Does that make me mentally ill? And many religions have much crazier beliefs. Are they mentally ill for holding those beliefs?

    (1) Holding false beliefs does not mean one is mentally ill. (2) It's not even a false belief.

    [–] Was anyone else aware that we counted as a bad karma subreddit? This is kinda bull right? RickAndMorty101Years 1 points ago in samharris

    A lot of communist subreddits are ban-happy. I've hear LateStageCapitalism is one of the worst.

    Not all of them are, though.

    [–] Is it possible to find a balance between punishment, treatment, and recidivism? RickAndMorty101Years 1 points ago in Ask_Politics

    There's no way to justify it other than 'this will make me feel better'.

    Yes, a component of this is the psychological benefit of victims and potential victims. Because I care more about the well-being of better people over worse people, and I attach negative value to the well-being of terrible people, these are the values I have arrived at.

    >There's much more emotional gain to be had in forgiving (or at least understanding) and then moving on -- that is what makes victims eventually feel better.)

    That's interesting and it will obviously make the issue easier if it doesn't even offer any psychic benefit to any victims and society. I just don't see that in my own psychology and there are plenty of people who I've also seen derive the same kind of psychic fulfillment from retribution. Like when I look into many death penalty cases and think of the crimes of the guilty, I think "that's good".

    You can propose that people who think that even deeper down think "that's not really good". But that criticism could be used to undermine any proposed moral drive. Even "people shouldn't suffer needlessly".

    [–] Is it possible to find a balance between punishment, treatment, and recidivism? RickAndMorty101Years 1 points ago in Ask_Politics

    We can abandon certain values after consideration, yes. Other values we won't want to get rid of even after we reflect, discuss, and experience them. I'm saying that "valuing some amount of retribution will survive reflection".

    [–] Is it possible to find a balance between punishment, treatment, and recidivism? RickAndMorty101Years 1 points ago in Ask_Politics

    It's not just the instinct, though. The instinct survives reflection (approaching reflective equilibrium) with me an many others.

    If the instinct was just something like "bully ugly people", that doesn't survive reflection. But I end up supporting something like Eichmann's punishment even understanding his whole life and trying my best to have a non-contradictory moral system. He's not the only one. But he's fresh in my mind right now.

    Yes, it's a good book and the last lines are very relevant to this discussion.

    [–] Is it possible to find a balance between punishment, treatment, and recidivism? RickAndMorty101Years 1 points ago in Ask_Politics

    Yes, of course most people like revenge. It appeals to some of the base desires in human nature.

    It's not just that we have the instinct, but that we have it and it survives reflection for many people.

    You say it's "fundamentally immoral, and we need to rise above that as a society". But why do you dismiss this instinct while embracing others? If you're going to talk about "what society stands to gain or lose", you have to attach values to certain outcomes. And where do you get those values if not fundamental moral intuitions shared through society?

    Valuing the well-being of people is a fundamental instinct. So is valuing the punishment of the guilty (maybe not to you, but to many or most people.)

    [–] Is it possible to find a balance between punishment, treatment, and recidivism? RickAndMorty101Years 1 points ago in Ask_Politics

    How does hurting people improve the well-being of your family?

    No, I was saying "my family's well-being is one thing I value" and "just retribution is another thing I value".

    >Yes, let the war criminals live out their lives, as long as they're extremely unlikely to do anything of the sort again.

    Ok, if you truly would feel fine letting those who took loved ones away living completely happy free lives after committing their crimes, that's your position and we just fundamentally disagree. But I think most people believe in some amount of retribution at least in some cases.

    [–] Is it possible to find a balance between punishment, treatment, and recidivism? RickAndMorty101Years 1 points ago in Ask_Politics

    Why is 'they'll never be able to do this again' not enough for you?

    It's a fundamental moral intuition. It's just something that I value fundamentally. Just like I value the well-being of my family fundamentally.

    >Overcome your anger, overcome your bloodlust. Hurting/killing people is never good for society.

    It's not merely anger. And you must agree that hurting/killing people in certain contexts is good for society, you just believe in different contexts. Active shooters, just wars, etc.

    >This is just a fancy word for revenge, and one of the worst aspects of human nature. Rise above it -- it doesn't help anyone.

    I'm not denying that this is very related to revenge. I just don't think that's always a bad thing. I mean, is it perfectly fine to let Nazi war criminals live out their lives happily in Argentina? Or are we going to say that family are wrong for wanting more than just the separation of truly sadistic people who took loved ones from them?

    [–] Is it possible to find a balance between punishment, treatment, and recidivism? RickAndMorty101Years 2 points ago in Ask_Politics

    There obviously aren't any objective answers, it's a values question.

    Yes, I agree with this. But I'd just say that the majority of people (probably all of them) have retribution as a component of their values. And I believe that these values survive considered reflection. I've reflected on these questions for a while and read many arguing for and against various takes on it, I still have it as a part of my values. Just like I still have values that we share (I haven't abandoned rehabilitation and societal protection. I usually value them more than retribution. Just not infinitely more.)

    Now, I haven't read Eichmann in Jersalem, so I don't know the details of Adolf Eichmann's case. While I oppose the death penalty generally, it may be that in such an extreme case it might serve some deterrent effect.

    He was a big part of the Final Solution. The cause of many concentration camp deaths. I would say that there isn't a rehabilitative or societal protection reason to lock him up even. He was an old man in Argentina when he was captured. And I think the evidence that this would have a deterrence effect for future war criminals would be a pretty shaky one. That's not the reasoning that was used for his sentence, as far as I can remember. I mean, if it was pretty clear that he wouldn't commit future crimes and no punishment of him would deter future criminals, would you be fine with him living out his life happily in Argentina.

    Is retribution not just inflicting pain for pain's sake? It seems to me that the desire to inflict pain like that is one of the demons of human nature.

    It is to inflict pain/suffering. But only on deserving people, and only a just amount of it.

    I mean, reflecting on what I would want if a murderer took someone I love, it wouldn't be that I just wanted them to live happily separate from society or rehabilitated. I would want retribution. And I don't want other families to be denied that.

    Do you not have that instinct at all and are you just driven by societal protection and rehabilitation for punishment?

    [–] Is it possible to find a balance between punishment, treatment, and recidivism? RickAndMorty101Years 2 points ago in Ask_Politics

    There should be no element of punishment or 'not harsh enough' treatment.

    Could I ask why you only support rehabilitation and societal protection? I've talk with people that support what you are saying. But I know plenty of people who support other components of punishment. There are 6 common ones that I'm familiar with: deterrence, retribution, restoration, education, societal protection, and rehabilitation. Why do you only support societal protection and rehabilitation?

    Personally, I support more than just those two. For instance, I support the death penalty in certain cases as retribution for incredibly horrible acts. It wouldn't be enough for me (and a lot of others) that certain terrible people are living a happy life quarantined away or rehabilitated and returned to society. To take the most extreme example, I just read "Eichmann in Jerusalem" and I support him getting the death penalty. Is that wrong?

    [–] Organizers cancel Women's March Jan. 19 due to 'overwhelmingly white' participants RickAndMorty101Years 7 points ago in samharris

    That is more analogous. But that changes the conclusion (for me at least). If I held an event for atheist recognition and 90% of the people who showed up were Christian, I think that would be cool.

    >It would seems better to hold the march and just keeping working on bringing the underrepresented folks on board for the next year.

    Yeah, it seems like we agree on this. If this kind of "there's too many white people here, cancel event" behavior was widespread, they're pretty quickly going to make white supporters feel like "should I not be attending then?" Not even that they would be mad, just that they might think they're not wanted.

    >The thing I would disagree with is your use of "too many of a less desired group shows up". In this hypothetical, unless the organizers specifcally said men did not matter or were not appreciated, my thouhts would not automatically trend towards thinking the organizers did not like, want or appreciating the men.

    I was just saying "less desired" because they are saying that they have too many white people and not enough POCs. So they are saying they prefer/desire any additional people to be POCs more than they desire white people right? Not saying they don't appreciate white supporters. Just that they value POC supporters more.

    Also, somewhat related, but it kind of disgusts me to essentialize racial group's political positions. I bet the majority of white women there are into the whole intersectional thing and I'd like to know what positions are being underrepresented by having too many white people.