I was always nice and considerate, and it didn’t work until I figured out how to filter for women who are themselves lovely and kind.
Does anyone have practical tips on finding lonely single women who are lovely and kind? I've always assumed that these were universally attractive attributes, and thus there would be much more competition for such women.
The Financial Times, maybe FiveThirtyEight
hedonometer.org is a quick way to check if something big has happened
Permanent residency (as opposed to citizenship) is a budget option. For example, for Panama, I believe if you're a citizen of one of 50 nations on their "Friendly Nations" list, you can obtain permanent residency by depositing $10K in a Panamanian bank account. If I recall correctly, Paraguay's permanent residency has similar prerequisites ($5K deposit required) and is the easiest to maintain--you just need to be visiting the country every 3 years.
I think this is the best argument I've seen in favor of mask seizure / media misrepresentation on this:
Downvoted because I don't want LW to be the kind of place where people casually make inflammatory political claims, in a way that seems to assume this is something we all know and agree with, without any supporting evidence.
The mental models in this post seem really generally useful: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZQG9cwKbct2LtmL3p/evaporative-cooling-of-group-beliefs
Nice post. I think one thing which can be described in this framework is a kind of "distributed circular reasoning". The argument is made that "we know sharing evidence for Blue positions causes harmful effects due to Green positions A, B, and C", but the widespread acceptance of Green positions A, B, and C itself rests on the fact that evidence for Green positions is shared much more readily than evidence for Blue positions.
The trouble is that tradition is undocumented code, so you aren't sure what is safe to change when circumstances change.
Seems like a bad comparison, since, as an atheist, you don't accept the Bible's truth, so the things the preacher is saying are basically spam from your perspective. There's also no need to feel self-conscious or defend your good-person-ness to this preacher, as you don't accept the premises he's arguing from.
Yes, and the preacher doesn't ask me about my premises before attempting to impose their values on me. Even if I share some or all of the preacher's premises, they're trying to force a strong conclusion about my moral character upon me and put my reputation at stake without giving me a chance to critically examine the logic with which that conclusion was derived or defend my reputation. Seems like a rather coercive conversation, doesn't it?
Does it seem to you that the preacher is engaging with me in good faith? Are they curious, or have they already written the bottom line?
I think I see a motte and bailey around what it means to be a good person. Notice at the beginning of the post, we've got statements like
Anita reassured Susan that her comments were not directed at her personally
they spent the duration of the meeting consoling Susan, reassuring her that she was not at fault
And by the end, we've got statements like
it's quite hard to actually stop participating in racism... In societies with structural racism, ethical behavior requires skillfully and consciously reducing harm
almost every person's behavior is morally depraved a lot of the time
What if there are bad things that are your fault?
accept that you are irredeemably evil
Maybe Susan knows on some level that her colleagues aren't being completely honest when they claim to think she's not at fault. Maybe she correctly reads conversational subtext suggesting she is morally depraved, bad things are her fault, and she is irredeemably evil. This could explain why she reacts so negatively.
The parallel you draw to Calvinist doctrine is interesting. Presumably most of us would not take a Christian preacher very seriously if they told us we were morally depraved. As an atheist, when a preacher on the street tells me this, I see it as an unwelcome attempt to impose their values on me. I don't tell the preacher that I accept the fact that I'm irredeemably evil, because I don't want to let the preacher browbeat me into changing the way I live my life.
Now suppose you were accosted by such a preacher, and when you responded negatively, they proclaimed that your choice to defend yourself (by telling about times when you worked to make the world a better place, say) was further evidence of your depravity. The preacher brings out their bible and points to a verse which they interpret to mean "it is a sin to defend yourself against street preachers". How do you react?
Seems like a bit of a Catch-22 eh? The preacher has created a situation where if I accept their conversational frame, I'm considered a terrible person if I don't do whatever they say. See numbers 13, 18 and 21 on this list.