quacky @ quacky @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

36

Joined

2 days ago

What do you think the word "strange" mean in stranger and estrangement? I am going to need a "vibes" dictionary in order to communicate with yall.

Ok, it is tragic that it is difficult for you to express yourself. I am reminded of the 3 monkeys: see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil. Screens distort what we see. Headphones block out our listening. And the decline in literacy and reading as well as civility is making it hard to speak. It would be a dark time once our eyes, ears, and mouths are closed off from each other

Look at the dictionary because i am skeptical if you are aware of what discrimination means. There is also the act of "discriminating" as in to discern what from what. I get the impression that there is "vibes" understanding of the words instead of their meaning.

The "this" was vague. I was referring to autism stigmatization & accusarion which was hateful & fallacious

The role play is lacking important information for me to understand. It resembles a riddle. Can you speak directly with complete sentences?

Hmm seems humans havent recieved a software update yet.

Avoiding ppl is often seen as ok or good but it is also synonymous with estrangement, alienation, neglect, and marginalization. Also a form of discrimination & prejudice. Thats a lot of words with negative connotation but i meant the literal definitions

Yeah thats frustrating. Ai will lie to you too, so lack of citations + lies. Also, in the US, our meranda rights read as "everything you say can and will be used against you" and chatgpt works with federal governmemt. The words "agent" and "intelligence" are also the same as used in CIA. If it lies and cant cite properly, how is it intelligent? Its bc its gathering intelligence from you. (spooky) anyways, i find the best use of AI is a search engine, but that is also extremely problematic bc it has a bias and will omit information. All around, i agree with Vaush that AI is demon-tech. Also as a PSA... use lumo or duck.ai, but also dont use them either bc ai is brain rot and also inherenrly risky

demonization is a psychological term. It is also related to dehumanization. Love/hate distorts perception.. and this is seen a lot in memes such as "chad-incel" formats where theres an idealized figure and a devalued one. It is also related to "splitting" aka idealization-devaluation. As another example, a lot of anti trump images are distorted and grotesque. It makes him appear more monsterish which resembles demons. Because it is trendy, you also see this with memes distortig the face of Charlie Kirk.

I dont know demonology or the history of demons & satan. I respect your expertise on the matter.

The intention is false bc all things come to an end.

LLM doesnt cite primary sources, nor can it think critically. But i guess it passes the turing test for some folks. The new turing test is for humans to prove they are human, which may he a shit-flinging contest because AI dont have grostesque animal bodies like we do. I would say the reporting is ridiculous, but rhat would be negative and hateful, so I guess i just gotta accept the reality that people are going to be paranoid and anti intellectual. But hey, thats diversity. Gotta love our differences

Conveniently, there's a Psychology Today article on stoicism and banishing of emotions. I am surprised how easy it was to find cheap confirmation. Sharing for credibility-factor, even though I think the act of sharing this is for credibility a bit superficial. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ataraxia/202508/how-to-banish-negative-emotions

Epic and saved

I'm skeptical if health is of value or if there are higher priorities for our life. I am reminded of this quote,

"You will find rest from vain fancies if you perform every act in life as though it were your last. " Marcus Aurelius

Would I be concerned for my health if my day was my last? I think not. Perhaps I would prioritize other people, express my farewells.

yes, this is a simple difference of opinion. I'm not sure what the hiccup is.

Can you articulate this suspicion? Do I need to speak inauthenticly so that you don't falsely accuse me?

Right, that was certainly Aristotle's interpretation on the concept of magnanimity. Aristotle claimed to have said,

"He [who is magnanimous] must be open both in love and in hate, since concealment shows timidity; and care more for the truth than for what people will think; and speak and act openly, since as he despises other men he is outspoken and frank, except when speaking with ironical self-deprecation, as he does to common people... "

(I got this quote from Wikipedia entry of Magnaimity who got it from this link https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker+page%3D1123a#note2 ) )

However, Aristotle was born before the Greek Stoics. Some Stoics thought that being good was transcending pain-pleasure, love-hate, into a more rational plane of existence. Here's a quote by Stoic Marcus Aurelius,

"... the Magnanimity is the elevation of the intelligent part above the pleasurable or painful sensations of the flesh, and above that poor thing called fame, and death, and all such things."

In conclusion, there are differing views of what virtue means, for Aristotle it means something close to good judgement or the wisdom of how to moderate one's actions away from excess while for the stoics it means acting rationally despite hardship and embracing life in its entirety. For example, not letting negativity impact you, not getting carried away by passion.

I was researching stoic philosophers on their opinion of hatred. Here's some quotes I've collected:

• Mankind is born for mutual assistance, anger for mutual ruin: the former loves society, the latter estrangement. The one loves to do good, the other to do harm; the one to help even strangers, the other to attack even its dearest friends. The one is ready even to sacrifice itself for the good of others, the other to plunge into peril provided it drags others with it. Who, then, can be more ignorant of nature than he who classes this cruel and hurtful vice as belonging to her best and most polished work? Anger, as we have said, is eager to punish; and that such a desire should exist in man’s peaceful breast is least of all according to his nature; for human life is founded on benefits and harmony and is bound together into an alliance for the common help of all, not by terror, but by love towards one another. ~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 4 BC – A.D. 65)

...

• Keep this thought handy when you feel a bit of rage coming on – it isn't manly to be enraged. Rather, gentleness and civility are more human, and therefore manlier. A real person doesn't give way to anger and discontent, and such a person has strength, courage, and endurance – unlike the angry and complaining. The nearer a man comes to a calm mind, the closer he is to strength. ~ Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121 A.D. – 180 A.D.))

...

• Do you suppose that you can do the things you do now, and yet be a philosopher? Do you suppose that you can eat in the same fashion, drink in the same fashion, give way to anger and to irritation, just as you do now? ~ Epictetus (c. 55 – c. 135 AD)

This makes sense, though there are more variables to consider. In a city, a walk means you're inhaling car exhaust, cigarette smoke from passerbys, and at risk of being victim to a crime. Less dramatically, there's the risk of falling or getting lost. All these things are problems for "physical health". From this perspective, it may be better to drive as the air quality is better and the car provides shelter, like a big shield. Although driving is risky in its own right such as car accidents or road rage. For context, rage is stressful, and stress is not conducive for health.

Stepping back for a moment, should we care about health? Aren't we fighting the inevitable? What good is it to be healthy yet suddenly die, like Charlie Kirk? Is the practice of being healthy a denial of our mortality? Is being in denial of mortality to live life in bad faith? Is this willful ignorance a virtue, a vice, or something we ought to entertain? I don't know. It's hard to say that we ought to be unhealthy. That also seems wrong. Then again, a stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger once said,

"Why does God afflict the best of men with ill-health, or sorrow, or other troubles? Because in the army the most hazardous services are assigned to the bravest soldiers ... No one of these men says as he begins his march, " The general has dealt hardly with me," but "He has judged well of me.""

I searched online and i found this neat graph and news article

• https://www.oecdwatch.org/the-updated-oecd-guidelines-and-animal-welfare-from-recognition-to-reality/
• https://www.zooaquarium.org.au/public/Public/Animal-Welfare/The-Five-Domains.aspx