This is amazing, I think it could even nicely fit a use case in a project of mine. Thanks!

Even if you often try to make that person feel understood and empowered to express their views, everyone’s needs are different. For example, if they tend to feel inadequate or are self-conscious about their achievements/intelligence/etc., you may need to go the extra mile here.

Try to identify all the positive and negative interactions with them (i.e., those in which they get the impression that they are right versus those in which they don’t) and make sure that positive ones greatly outnumber negative ones. If you need, you can try to acknowledge more situations wherein their contribution to a conversation deserves praise, or even simply not point out their mistakes if the question at hand is not critical for you (easiest imo).

When a person says this, sometimes even if they do it in a positive tone, it’s usually a way to verbalize more concrete concerns that you should address. For example, they might feel that you are always dismissing their opinions, that you don’t listen to them in general, or they would simply like to get support when they express their views in a group so they get some recognition. In any case, they feel like you can do something to help but may not feel comfortable to express it or may not have fully identified it. If that person is important to you, you should be able to see what they want and take action.

Hope you’re good now. Never had trouble with them, but did with other stuff, so I’m much more careful now. Coffee is tasty too :)

I use the same method that used to work for me at university: gulping down the whole thing quickly and then looking for things I might not have understood. With enough coffee/stims, the second part is not necessary lol.

Sorry, stupid mistake. “I see it’s what you guys defend” refers to “my stance”, not “even socialists”. I’m so stupid that I had to ask a friend (with better English) to understand it. I’ve edited the original comment to reflect this.

Thank you. I’ve already requested a Lemmygrad account! Been lurking here for some time, but with the influx of new users I get insulted a lot more lol. So time to find a new home with you guys.

Oh, thanks for explaining, my bad. I’ve never been good with language… My intention was to complain that I see left-leaning people defending that stuff. To be clear, I do NOT believe that. I’m pretty disconnected from this community though and wanted to hear some related points of view. Maybe another time.

You don’t think a US-dominated unipolar world is a threat to socialism worldwide and must fall? And why don’t you think that?

Edit 2: sorry, I realize my mistake. “I see it’s what you guys defend too” would have been a better wording, otherwise I imply that you are among the “even socialists” mentioned at the start.

Edit 1: Nvm I’ve been called a tankie on another instance, now this. Maybe I’m acting weird, that’s all, I’ll take good care of my health for a few days and come back. It would help me if you explained yourselves, but I understand if you don’t.

Well, I see lots of people (even socialists) that think that the path taken by the ship is good, it just needs socialism or whatever. Of course, my stance is that this path doesn’t lead to socialism and a violent change of world order is necessary before it can achieved. Which might be true or false, but I see it’s what you guys defend (edit: to clarify, you guys defend the same position as me, “my stance”, not the first one I mentioned, “I see lots of people”).

Okay, my answer is pretty removed, but I’d say I’d like a system where decisions are made by submitting automated proofs of their optimality, either absolute or over all submitted proposals in a defined time frame. The conditions of optimality would be pre-defined in a Constitution, and non-provable facts would be accepted or rejected via a decentralized voting system that would keep multiple diff chains and penalize e.g. voting for facts that are later proven false via a submitted proof. The proof system would hold all powers, but would be able to delegate decisions to entities under proven rules, which would come faster but possibly be overriden.

If you use my snippet, I want your game. If you don’t agree, then you can’t use my snippet. The purpose of the GPL is simply to prevent people who don’t share from benefitting from people who do, which I think is pretty fair.

Absolutely. But I don’t want to influence anything, just make the OP slightly happier and hopefully have a good read myself.

The reason some desires are universal is that they are achievable, thus it makes sense that an entity that looks for them exists. And we don’t yearn for God, we yearn for happiness, empathy and staying alive, and some of us have created a conceptual entity that gives us an infinite supply of those.

I tend to upvote everything, no matter how much I disagree. I don’t trust my own opinions or the authors’, all of them are flawed in some way.

There are many hypothetical ways. For example, that might prevent further war in the future, or might be the continuation of an existing conflict. It might alter the balance of power in the world in a way that is eventually beneficial to working class struggle. Hell I can think of thousands of ways in which not starting a war would have been worse than starting it. The fact that you can simply stamp a meme, appeal to emotion and make a huge logic jump without a single word is perplexing.

“Russia has invaded Ukraine” is a true statement. “Russia has invaded Ukraine therefore I should do/say/support …” is false in general, a deceivingly simple deduction that is hiding a lot of complexity under the rug. For example, what do I want to achieve by doing that? Is it beneficial for the working class? Does anyone want me to do it at all costs to support imperialism? Am I using an appropriate framework for extending ethics reasoning to large organizations and groups of people? What actions are lawful? If no one has the power to enforce that a country will not take unlawful action against another, how is it reasonable of me to expect that the other will not defend itself by unlawful force, if that is de facto its only defense? Am I having a positive impact on the world by simply acting against every country that does something I consider unlawful? If I do so more to some countries than others, am I not acting in favor of some countries? Shouldn’t I choose what countries I act in favor of? If I don’t do it, who is choosing that for me?

Haha no worries, it’s nice to get some tips, thanks! :D

Good idea, should’ve done it haha. I no longer remember what website it was, but I’ve seen the same dialog appear a few times since.

Huh… Is this a reference to how all those nazi high ranks ended up within NATO governance? Otherwise I might be missing the point…