> a lot of that is going to get lost by how it’s presented

Don't overlook errors that occur when text is ingested and interpreted, much/most of which is done subconsciously and sub-perceptually.

I think it would be fun to run people here through some quotes from articles, but keep the identity/affiliation of the author secret. I wonder if people here would have identical(!) reactions to the same articles if they didn't know it was associated with Rand.

> Which, to be fair, one shouldn't just assume but double check

And if one does not have access to the author to double check, what is then optimal behavior?

> Instantly taking things literally

When you say "instantly", do you mean instantly? Because that word wasn't in the article. Also, the advice was "take ideas

Perhaps if an article isn't exhaustively comprehensive in wording, presuming the worst interpretation of the words is also not optimal.

>>> Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean.

My reading of it was ~"don't be generous and assume that bad sounding ideas aren't actually intended other than they are stated', which based on my observations of the ambiguous manner in which people speak, is sound advice.

> What really matters is the idea someone is trying to convey and sometimes people are not great at that which requires work on the receiving end

Well you've given a fine demonstration here of ensuring that your understanding is perfect before passing judgment.

>When everyone is paid more, they hire illegal workers for less

It was a three part solution. Crack down on the employers hiring undocumented workers, give a sort of minimum wage visa to anyone willing to work, and then hire them.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

> as if those are the only 2 options.

They're ALL false dichotomies! Fight CO2 or bake the world. Combat immigration or screw the working class. Splurge on the military or abandon Ukraine and our defense agreement.

It's an antagonistic journalistic push poll trying to steer you into a conflicting statement. Hence the knuckles and such.

>The idea is to legitimize them and regulate the wages they need to be paid so that EVERYONE is paid more.

(We do that. That's literally what's happening right now. When everyone is paid more, they hire illegal workers for less.)

> Although, off the record, arresting the hiring bosses and fining the corporations that illegally hire foreigners is really the right way to go about it.

It's really the only sustainable possible solution. We NEED to do it if we actually want to stabilize the lowest wages.

> I do think environmentalism is a real thing.

I really think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was distancing myself from the false dichotomy you put forward. We CAN try to put a very quick, very harsh damper on our pollution, and that would be neither of the 2 scenarios you put forward. The political issue is whether we have the political will to do the needful regarding environmental degradation and pollution. But yes, I do agree that environmentalism is not only real, but the only possibility if we want to ensure a future for humanity that goes beyond the 21st century.

> But any statement along the lines of "although", "while", "however", or anything with a "but" will be taken as a conflicting view.

Eh, I call it being realistic, not conflicting, but I can see how people might see that as backtracking or weakness. That's why I'm not a politician.

stretches arms, starts bouncing on balls of the feet, takes a few practice air punches

> So environmentalism isn't a political issue to you?

Oof, way to miss what I said. You gave an and/or, and all I said was that the scenario you put forward is not a political issue, it was....something. Not sure what. Extinction or causing the oven-baked death of the world, as if those are the only 2 options.

> You admit you want to import more foreign workers and undercut working class wages

Nope nope. We already have foreign workers who undercut wages. The idea is to legitimize them and regulate the wages they need to be paid so that EVERYONE is paid more.

[removed]

[removed]

Exactly. So many people are on here arguing about her viewpoints because our perception is filtered. I would say that if we absolutely have to look at our views, it would be adequate only through every filter to come close to objectivity.

[deleted]

Although, off the record, arresting the hiring bosses and fining the corporations that illegally hire foreigners is really the right way to go about it. Neither Democrats nor Republicans actually want to fix the problem though. Offer green cards to anyone working there willing to flip on their boss and send them to prison. Between immigration, automation, and outsourcing, the gini-coefficient keeps on rising and the poor rural farmboys keep getting madder and madder.

Hot-damn though, average wage of an H-2A is $21.91 an hour. Like, legally, a place has to prove they can't find anyone local to work the job and there is no cap.

Like, none of your ideas are even bad. I do think environmentalism is a real thing. But you're a sane functioning member of society. Generally liberal. Whee. But any statement along the lines of "although", "while", "however", or anything with a "but" will be taken as a conflicting view. Irrationally wanting two opposite things simultaneously. Which is why any politician worth their salt avoids actually answering any questions.

Slips on the knuckle duster

So environmentalism isn't a political issue to you? You are apathetic to pollution. Is this an endorsement of eco-terrorists such as the Sea Shepard and the Earth Liberation Front? Do you advocate for the dissolution of the EPA? Do you have any words for it's administrator Michael S. Regan?

You admit you want to import more foreign workers and undercut working class wages. These workers whom I quote "drive wages at the bottom way way down", you want more of them? Do the economic rules of supply and demand no longer apply low-end labor? Are you not aware of our current robust system where foreign workers can be allowed to work that is the work visa program? Are you looking to remove the restrictions on H-2A visas?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a "Though". While you openly advocate we need to cut down our military spending, you acknowledge that it is "necessary and should be used". It is without doubt that we find your views "conflicting" and inconsistent.

Pleading the fifth? A likely story!

Oh. That would make a hell of a lot more sense, although the way it sounds is weird for addressing yourself (specifically the nobody could really mean that part). But right context would suggest it is meant to be internal, or at least the blog writer is suggesting using it on oneself.

In that sense it does make sense to explore what the things you think about your own beliefs really do mean. Feel a bit silly now haha

While the baggage of the author is probably not to be discounted (“there are no philosophies, only philosophers”), I do like the idea of attempting to live your life authentically according to your philosophical belief set. The idea that; if your philosophy is crap and leads to negative outcomes that affect you, the people around you and the world at large… you’ll probably need to change your philosophy (or live and die looking like an idiot). The way she attempts to go about it (by potentially narcissistically reinterpreting the world based on her own viewpoints and then affirming or disavowing viewpoints based on that) might be problematic… but at least it’s authentic. Then others, who might be living their lives authentically as well; can call her out on her bullshit… leading to a philosophical debate where hopefully the best interpretation wins out. Nietzsche said something similar about wishing philosophers would act according to their beliefs and not just paying them lip service (with the intent that if people realised their ideas were crap by experiencing the consequences of them… they’d stop spouting crap ideas). So I guess it depends on what you like, living authentically and risk putting people out/causing arguments; or internalising potentially problematic beliefs without realising their consequences… bit of a choose your own adventure if you ask me.

cracks neck, does a quick squat stretch and a couple of lunges

>Would you prefer a mass die-off of humanity or would you rather we continue to kill the planet with massive CO2 pollution?

Not a political belief.

>Do you want higher wages for workers? And how should we deal with illegal foreign workers?

Yes, and create a robust system where foreign workers can be allowed to work and pay taxes much easier than currently allowed. This removes the exploitability of underpaid undocumented workers that drive wages at the bottom way way down. Also, severely punish employers who take advantage of undocumented labor. To this end, increase IRS funding to look specifically at wage theft and wages paid under the table.

>What do you think of the military aid to Ukraine and how do you feel about military spending?

Military spending is necessary, and should be used when needed to defend allies. We can afford to cut down a good portion of our spending though, and take a good look at wasted funding and earmarks that serve no purpose except to give specific politicians more political clout.

>When did you stop beating your wife?

I plead the fifth.

I agree with what you're saying but the thing that bothers me is that stoicism is hard to practice correct me if i am wrong how i understand stoicism is we should not care and worry about the things which we can't control but how do we distinguish the things that we can control or not . What if i start not caring for things that matter.

Ideology is so 20th century. It's all math from here.

Or the kind of people that can't see truth truth inside humor.

> Liberals and Leftists on the other hand seem more respectable to me, but don't seem able to give their life for others. So, more smoke.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. Are you talking about, like... joining the military? What does that have to do with having logical and/or correct beliefs? And what about the many who do?

Unless you don't mean literally "dying", but rather things that help the lives of others (like healthcare, etc.), in which case I'm even more surprised by your conclusion, but won't ask more.

I know it's hard to understand but you shouldn't trust your political philosophy to cartoons.

I think I can sum it up: walk the talk.

Does this make me some kind of Minimalist Philosopher?

[removed]

I think stoicism a lot of value but is often misinterpreted by modern “sigmas” im not hugely educated on the topic tho. I personally try to be a virtuous person but I’m far from it with a long way to go. That aside I haven’t read Markus Aurelius this is just my surface level knowledge of the topic (which was discussed in a couple of classes that I didn’t really take notes in)