It is beneficial. — Outlander

Who actually benefits? In what way? That's what I really wonder: what people get out of leaving what turns into litter in a day or two on some street that has no personal meaning for you, and what good comes to anyone because a bunch of strangers did that.

About 40 volunteers and 15 groundskeepers--some wielding cellular phones so they could talk from one garden to another--started sorting the millions of dust-caked flowers, cards, toys and votive candles left by mourners from across the country.
.....
90% of the flowers were dead or dying; those were taken in flatbed trucks to the Kensington Gardens leaf yard, where gardeners will compost them for mulch to be used in Kensington Gardens and other royal parks.
Messages, cards, drawings and the numerous paintings of Diana left among the flowers went in sturdy white boxes to a storage facility in nearby Regent’s Park, where dehumidifiers will dry any wet papers.Since the day after Diana’s death, the groundskeeping staff has been working 16- and 18-hour days. Some have canceled vacations. One staffer came back to work the day after his wife delivered a baby.

I can see this: she was a cult figure. The people truly felt a personal connection to this image and a personal loss when it was erased. Presumably, the non-perishable stuff is still in those sturdy cartons waiting to be displayed again. Like this stuff:

Historians Preserve Memorials After Mass Shootingshttps://www.npr.org/2016/09/04/492629594/historians-preserve-memorials-after-mass-shootings

This is a bit more problematic. People were upset that something bad happened where they live. But this happens the US all the time; you'd think the novelty would wear off.

For each of the last three years there have been more than 600 mass shootings - almost two a day on average.

And they're still sad and laying flowers, not mad as hell and marching on Washington to demand the disarmament of their crazy fellow citizens.

Art is unnecessary. — Outlander

How does leaving funeral flowers on a grave or on a sidewalk become art?

I know US citizens are strongly opposed to one world government because they fear that would diminish their power to do as we do. — Athena

All over the world!

Why is it so important that we have the freedom to do as want? — Athena

Because you are a or the major world power. Nobody likes to give up power. (see white supremacists... or nazis). Many individual Americans have no power at all and very little freedom of action, even while their "leaders" shout slogans about liberty. (Even while some of their financial elite were active collaborators with the Reich, just as they presently collaborate with undemocratic, repressive governments.)

However, the nations that are dominated, bullied, oppressed and intimidated by major powers would have a great deal to gain. It's all in the perspective.

How can self-awareness be increased? — Athena

In an adult, I suppose it must be internally motivated; I don't see how anyone can induce anyone else to examine their own thinking and assumptions. Unless they're referred by a court or marriage counsellor to some behaviour modification program.

In a child, it's the easiest thing in the world. We are an intensely self-preoccupied species: every baby is utterly absorbed in its own needs, sensations and perceptions. As the infant is socialized, as the toddler acquires language, its caregivers should pay attention and take an interest in what is being expressed, help the child articulate what it feels, what it thinks, how it reacts to things - and why. A little bit later, as its world expands, the child can be directed to regard others with the same attention. "What would you think in her place?" "What do you suppose the dog wants?" "Can you tell from his face how that little boy is feeling?" "Could you make up a story about this picture?"
What we mostly do instead is, "Mommy's busy, go play with your trucks." and "It's not polite to point." and "We don't talk about that kind of thing!" and "Don't play with those children!" "Because I said so." and worst of all, "God will punish you for thinking bad thoughts."
It's adults who discourage awareness in children, who close them off to ideas and insights.

I very much like the bicycle that is permanently on the corner where a bicyclist was killed. It keeps waking me up to the awareness of bicyclers and the need to be alert. — Athena

That's an excellent memorial!
Nor have I any objection to plaques or markers at the scene of a shooting or accident, or someone's picture displayed in the lobby, or their tools left in situ in remembrance. A neighbour put up a little wooden cross on the verge where his dog had been run over and I used to put one of my wreaths on it from time to time. (JD was a very nice dog; it was a personal tribute.)

Very different from wilting flowers and sodden teddy bears piled on a streetcorner to call attention to the death of someone who might have disliked teddybears for all we know and been allergic to flowers. And mylar balloons are an abomination in any context. I find such wasteful effusion distasteful, just I find the news reporters shoving microphones in the weeping face of a bereaved mother for public consumption. The display itself is a minor bugbear of mine, not an actual issue - it's merely symptomatic of the gluttony for impersonal emotionalism, which I think is an issue for serious consideration.

That's what I was told, over and over. I found it nightmarish.

But despite this, we have seen improvements over time. Maybe with the right incentives — non-violence, prosperity — we can do better, one small step at a time? — jorndoe

Too bad we're not all baby-walking in the same direction.

It is shared mourning and I am glad to be part of that. — Athena

Attending a candlelight vigil is shared mourning. A demonstration for better gun laws or a traffic light or control over rogue police is shared mourning. So are all those athletes dropping to one knee and wearing armbands. Putting flowers on a street unites nobody; it's an anonymous gesture, which doesn't require anything of the person making it but puts money in unconcerned pockets and it's a waste of resources.
That's a personal opinion, nothing more.

Men, I think identify with their work, while traditionally women have identified as the caregivers. That is a kind of oneness that perhaps men do not share unless they do so as soldiers. — Athena

That, too, may be changing (back to primitive times) with more women having meaningful careers and more young fathers bonding with their babies from birth onward.
The stratification of society has deformed us in so many ways that we're largely unaware of our unused dimensions and how a family unit ought to work.

Ah yes, but what is divine law? Is something bad because the gods say it is bad or do the gods say is bad because it is bad? — Athena

I like that! Some things were seen as bad by the very first people who can be considered human - and many of the same things are considered bad by species much older than humans. They're considered bad because they harm individuals, families, communities, their relationship with other communities or their environment. When humans finally came up with the notion of supernatural entities - not gods, at the outset; they came later - they would naturally believe that those entities considered the same things bad that they did themselves. So a few laws come down from the canines, the lemurs, the apes and early humans through the spokesmen of gods.

But a whole lot of other laws put into the hands (it's always a scroll or tablet or wall with whatever writing the humans of that culture used - funny coincidence, that!) of the gods were about things that some of us knew were not wrong or harmful but the men in charge didn't like. And we've been living with these obvious lies for 6000 years, just because they were written next to some truths we needed.

I define a sin as an act that leaves a blot on one's soul. For soul, you can read character, spirit, atman, conscience, or whatever you like that corresponds to one's essential self. You know when you've committed a crime, a misdemeanour, a faux pas or a sin, just as you know what needs to be done to atone for each. Logic is great, but it doesn't replace self-awareness.

How many people do you think are aware of other ways of doing things than the way they have always done them. — Athena

More every day. There are lots of books out on alternative living; there are intentional communities based on a different principle; there is a tiny house movement, people learning to do things for themselves, eating local food, conserving water, pooling resources, teaching one another -- there's lots going on that you never hear about, because somebody doing something sensible is not as scary or tearjerky and therefore not as newsworthy as somebody deliberately running other people down with an SUV and buying fresh food at the farmers' market is not as emotionally cathartic as turning $15 worth of cut flowers into garbage on a sidewalk.*

(* It's a pet peeve of mine, all those bouquets, teddy bears and stupid mylar balloons piled up at the scene of every minor atrocity.)

Sometimes people do bad things just because they get a big thrill from 'getting away with it all.' — universeness

That applies to the general population. Less, if there is a reasonable standard of living, no big disparities and liberal education with fewer bad influences on the young. I don't see it disproportionately affecting people who have voluntarily, without promise of material reward, opted to put their skills at service of society.

Thing is: when you change the underlying principles by which a society operates, you change everything: the dynamics, the opportunities, the relationships, the assumptions and motivations of the populace.

In a well-functioning society, you simply don't get so many malfunctioning people. The child who is aggressive or destructive or deceitful is spotted early by the day-care provider or elementary teacher, discussed with the parents, referred to appropriate counselling or given the appropriate medical care. An adult who exhibits antisocial behaviour is likewise noted and restrained from harming others or himself, with good luck, in time to forestall criminal acts, or with bad luck, arrested. We wouldn't wait till he killed 18 schoolchildren before we noticed that something is wrong.

That's the direction of travel I would prefer, but as I suggested earlier, I think automation could help greatly reduce the opportunity for personal abuse of the civil service system by long term, experienced participants. — universeness

Sure: they'll be directing and overseeing machines to do much of the work. But humans still have to be at the fire or flood or evacuation to direct the equipment and instruct the people and comfort the victims. I honestly don't see what, in the absence of money, they would be tempted to abuse.

Great way to say that: I agree, a moneyless society is typically genuinely and literally wealth free. Poverty is abundant and people can often experience a famine. — ssu

Do you have the slightest notion what resource-based economy means?

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
~ Albert Einstein

We are destroying our planet and sooner or later we will have to deal with the truth. I think most of the world is having to deal with the truth, but they are in denial, while they flee floods, hurricanes, and fires. — Athena

Much of the world, including the US, has its head so far up its own ass in denial, you have to wonder whether the species is viable at all.

Meteorologists face hostility and threats from viewers as they tie climate change to extreme temperatures and weather

A new law in North Carolina will ban the state from basing coastal policies on the latest scientific predictions of how much the sea level will rise,

Still politicians will group, form coalitions and groups. — ssu

Whatever for? In a moneyless, wealth-free society, what does anyone have to gain by being 'a politician' in the first place? It's just a service to perform: no kickbacks, no corporation boards to retire into, no well-paid speech circuits, no secret service bodyguard and nobody gives a damn how many cardboard boxes of old correspondence you keep in your bathroom, because nobody's going to set up a library for them.

When the consequences are good it is moral. If the consequences are bad it is immoral. What does this have to do with democracy? — Athena

The fact that good for one group is very often bad for another. If the majority is happy in the power of a patriarchy, they'll censor anything that threatens or appears to threaten that power-structure. Patriarchy is naturally dictatorial and monolithic; any lifestyle or view that fails to support that is targeted for elimination. On a large scale of the father slapping the child who asks a pertinent question.
Whatever demeans and disenfranchises Black people reinforces the power and superiority of white people, which White people perceive as being good for themselves and therefore moral.
When there is a wider distribution of ethnicities in a reasonably secure economic condition and they all have the same democratic voice, the majority begins to see that inclusion, tolerance and equal opportunity is actually good for all of them, and that affording respect to people who are unlike themselves reduces friction and conflict in their communities, which is good for their children.

A relatively uncorrupted democracy tends to move in the direction of socialist ideas. That's why government by the megarich and their lackeys resort to the most backward systems of oppressive thought, belief and morality.

They made an American version of 'the office' with Steve Carell. I assume you have watched some of that: — universeness

Yes... um.. OK, some of it was funny, but I didn't stick around for long. I also saw a bit of the UK version, back when Ricky Gervaise was funny, before success in the States swelled his head to the size of a dirigible.

I remain 'uncomfortable,' with the current checks and balances placed on top civil servants in particular and on all civil servants in general, — universeness

Remember that in your new world order, without having to administer, allocate and fight over money, the entire civil service will be pared down to fewer departments, each with far fewer offices and white collar workers. Train people well who are willing to take on the challenges of environment cleanup, education, healthcare and disease prevention, food and shelter allocation, disaster relief, infrastructure maintenance, etc. and let them vote for their own leaders. I promise they'll the choose the most knowledgeable and competent; the ones who are least likely to get them killed or make them repeat tedious tasks unnecessarily.

I have the series Madame Secretary on DVD and plan to watch it from the beginning when I'm up to it. There is a lot of international awfulness in that one, as well as the usual political infighting.
The UK version of House of Cards is a little dated now, but for quality of dramatic production, hard to beat. The US version, with Kevin Spacey (whatever else he may be, the guy could act rings around most stars) and the magnificent Robin Wright, was protracted to ever more Byzantine episodes - good show, all the same.

Sounds like a broken system to me. — universeness

No guff! Rapidly sinking into Civil War Part II, even more ignominious than the first one.

Under a world government, the US would probably become 8 or 9 regional jurisdictions, with free movement of people across the borders, until everyone finds the neighbourhood that most nearly suits them, and that they can influence in its further development. Canada might be 5 or 6 regions, each with stakeholder representation for the first nations within its boundaries.

BBC news: 'Rise in children forced into sexual exploitation'
It is a very harrowing report about people in Mombasa, Kenya asking/compelling their own children to sell themselves sexually so that the family can buy food. Some kids depicted are 14 or younger. — universeness

According to the 2023 Global Slavery Index, India is home to over 11 million slaves, the highest number in any country. Slavery in India manifests in various forms, including forced labor, human trafficking, and child exploitation.

Haiti's poverty is difficult to understand, especially for those living in a country as rich as the United States. There are some obvious conditions: the long history of political oppression, soil erosion, lack of knowledge and literacy, a large populace in a small country.

Brazil saw a new record number of people living in poverty and extreme poverty in 2021. In all, almost one in three people in the country—29.4 percent of the population—lived in poverty until at least last year, and almost one in ten people—8.4 percent—struggled under extreme poverty.

In Nepal’s ‘Kidney Valley,’ poverty drives an illegal market for human organs

Every day, in every way, capitalism makes everything better and better.

Have you watched shows such as 'yes minister/yes prime minister,' 'the West Wing,' and 'the thick of it?' — universeness

The first two yes; the last, I've not heard of, but will look for

but their satirical approach and the parody they depicted was considered by many, to quite accurately and horrifically depict the power wielded by those in the civil service. — universeness

Not really. They are quite good illustrations that, in the present system of rewards, those at the very top of an agency can fulfill their ambition by undermining an elected party hack's policy decision - and in some cases, pulling said hack's chestnuts out of the fire. A good deal of the machinations, too, are about funding and expansion, which are moot points in a resource-based economy. None of them depict the body of the civil service; all the people beavering away in cubicles, behind counters listening to complaints and stamping forms, driving snowploughs at 5am, or trying to wean welfare moms off crack.
Those programs, and I can also recommend Madame Secretary along with both versions of House of Cards, are very good illustrations of why the old system has to go.

Americans wont vote for a 3rd party because they hate the other tribe so much that they, quite understandably, want all their warriors to face down the main enemy directly, when they are needed most and not go off to support some other 'little tribe,' who have no ability to win the fight alone, but can give victory to the enemy, as they took too many of your warriors away from the main fight. — universeness

Not quite so. Last I heard, there were 54 registered political parties in the disUnited States. What happens in presidential elections is that the minority parties drop out early, since they're regional and/or not rich enough to compete, so they throw their support to one of the giants. What choice do the voters have, but to go along with what they perceive as the lesser of two available evils. Of late, hate propaganda - predominantly and sometimes unilaterally from the right (What some fairandbalanced commentators tell you about "both sides" is not what I've witnessed.) has played a disproportionate role in American politics. There has always been some vulgar sloganeering, flag-flapping and hoopla, but hasn't traditionally been rife with death-threats.

The biggest concern I have with the abandonment of the current party political systems, is the structure, function and power wielded by a still essential civil service. I still think a lot about how to establish the vital checks and balances, that would be vital to establish, for any permanent worker in the civil service.
These people would be soooooooo important to the daily work of the first and second chambers and they would have a lot of influence. My main thought at the moment is that I would automate as much of their role as possible. What do you think about this area Vera Mont? — universeness

I'm not worried about the civil service. It's largely free of party politics already, except at the very top, where political patronage helicopters in incompetent (in some case, inimical) ministers and directors who then disrupt the function of an agency. Simply make the civil service politics-proof by giving each agency autonomy to run itself. Then make it democratic: have department heads elected by the workers in that department and the chief executive elected by the entire agency. They know who the best leaders are.

Remember, too, that without money - no patronage or kickbacks - you only attract people who actually want to perform that service.

Back after doing some chores.
Of course

Because now you are putting the enforcers also work as legislators. — ssu

Yeah. They do the killing and dying. They ought to have a say in what for. Helps if they actually know the purpose of their actions, too, rather than just carrying out political assholity directed by old farts in safe bunkers. You're allergic to the notion of soldiers and cops not being automata? OK; make and entirely robot army of enforcers.

And if you are referring to the US, then the reason is that as the sole Superpower, it simply has the capability to go off in idiotic wars where other countries are simply uncapable of doing: — ssu

Oh, I don't know... Putin's is quite idiotic enough. Great Britain has been known to indulge in some spectacular wastage of human life. Japan was no slouch at having at the Chinese population, and China's gearing up to the next idiotic superpower. It's really past time they were all abolished.

There is a true reason just why separation of powers is important for democracies to work and it's surprising that you seem to think that this is irrelevant or unimportant. — ssu

You haven't heard a word univerness and I said, have you?

Grand Order of ....... Democracy (I am sure I could come up with a better 'D.' — universeness

I'm happy with that one. Maybe for solving some problem related to climate change or mitigating its effects - a big service to all the world, that a half-decent god would have performed but failed to.

The military and the various police departments don't a) pass the laws or b) act as judges in the courts themselves. But they are under control of usually the administration, the president or prime minister. That's the idea in separation of powers and the different branches. — ssu

I'm well aware of what the present American system is - in theory. If you wish to discuss that, fine, but I wasn't. I was responding to criticisms of univerness' proposal, which is not the current norm.

As I said to universeness, putting an institution like the military also having a say in passing the laws isn't a good idea in my view. — ssu

Why? They're the ones who have to enforce the laws. Do you want them just to follow idiotic orders from some politician with an axe to grind, the way they have been doing? One hopelessly bogged-down, costly, destructive war after another? AND AGAIN - WHY?

In my view giving the military a "stakeholder" status wouldn't be a good decision, as obviously the military and the police are part of the executive branch, — ssu

There is no 'of course' about that. Is there an executive branch? Who put the military and the police under a single jurisdiction, anyway? Last I heard, police served individual municipalities, townships or states/provinces/counties. Since the proposal universeness tabled eliminated nation-states to begin with

We need global unity, not more 'nationhood' that uses outdated monarchistic words, such as 'sovereign.'
1. Get rid of money and build a resource based, global economic system, using automation as its backbone.
2. Abandon party politics and employ a system that allows an individual to vote for a person to represent them and not a political party.
3. Create very powerful checks and balances which would prevent any individual or group from becoming too rich, too powerful, autocratic, totalitarian, etc, etc. — universeness

So I don't even know what this military stakeholder is, unless it's a global peacekeeping force, like police, to prevent regional warring. If it's that, it would come under the justice department, as might police forces also. I'm not sure the arrangements and chains of command have been fully worked out.
As far as I can see, the inter-regional legal body should be represented in the second house, to make sure any new legislation doesn't conflict with standing agreements. The individual troops and police personnel would, of course, still have their votes, one to each rookie, one to each general.

The person that decides just who has "important stakeholder" position can decide who rules. — ssu

You seem utterly hung up on "important", as you were earlier on famines as the sole indicator of poverty.
Nobody "rules"!!! No group is more important or less important or has more say or less say. Is that really so hard to understand?

If you leave it for the voters to decide, then there has to be a proposal on what the people vote. — ssu

That's the definition of democracy, yes. In the very unlikely event that the representatives are deadlocked and the second house can't come up with a viable adjustment on a particular issue, then, yes, the next step would be direct democracy.

Hence if universeness gave to various industries (I assume here the workers) stakeholder properties, then obviously the trade unions would have a large say. — ssu

Not necessarily just the workers - of whom there are not so many as to require a trade union; since most of the labour is carried out by robots, the human workforce consists of supervisors, engineers, designers, planners, programmers, troubleshooters. However, the communications industry, or energy production or healthcare may have particular needs and problems of which the average elected representative is unaware. If those sectors are represented in the second house, they can suggest changes to a proposed legislation which involves their area of expertise.

If you stop thinking in terms of the cruddy old world order, you might more positively contribute to a fresh new vision.

1) How are these stakeholder groups decided?
2) Once decided, can these stakeholder groups be changed? And when, in what time? When some stakeholders aren't anymore "important stakeholders", just like the aristocracy. — ssu

1) By plebiscite would be my choice.
2) Amendment to the constitution; at least 2/3 majority.
3) I doubt regions and genders will become obsolete anytime soon. I don't know who the other 'stakeholder' groups are; if they were listed earlier, I've forgotten.

I assume that like the aristocracy, some stakeholders become less important and don't have the earlier importance to have a constitutional say on legislation. — ssu

How would any one or two representatives have more or less say in a democratic decision? Why would any particular stakeholder group be more or less important than another? It's nothing like the aristocracy you seem so concerned about.

do not think our freedom of speech means the freedom to say anything we want because it would include immoral speech. A moral is a matter of cause and effect. If the effect is bad, it is immoral. A lack of morals leads to anarchy and that is not tolerable so it becomes a police state. — Athena

That's a longish stride from moral and immoral speech. I was there when it was considered highly immoral to mention homosexuality and perfectly acceptable to feature blackface in a performance. Morality is as suspect in my book as brotherly love. But I think we can agree on a standard of public discourse - so long as everyone has an equal share in decisions-making.

There came a time in my life when I realized respect is much more important than love. — Athena

In one of Kurt Vonnegot's novels, that I don't have time to look up right now, he says "What the world needs in not more love but more common decency."

You have to design a system for the existing people ...those too that you don't like and oppose your political views. They'll participate, I guarantee you. One way or another. — ssu

That's pretty much what a constitution is. The constitution must include an amending formula to accommodate changes that are deemed necessary later on. Once you have a constitution in place, even if it contains some unavoidable compromises, governance can proceed. (I suspect there would be minimal support in the constitutional congress for a ministry of silly walks. But I suppose it's worth proposing, to replace the Paymaster general's office.)
However the constitutional congress is assembled (referendum, I suppose, but have no ready proposal for the questions - well - one: should animal rights be included? ), it could do worse than take its lead from the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

I would also offer zero respect to any title such as lord, duke, duchess, dame, count, sir knight or any other such utter crap. — universeness

Could you please rename, without rescinding, the honours bestowed on persons who contributed to culture and human welfare?

My point is that WHEN you give any stakeholder status in the upper house, be it as now the remnants of the aristocracy and retired politicians, or in your proposal "important stakeholders", once decided, the elected stakeholders will fight for their right to have their position in the house. — ssu

Why? What is left to fight for, once you've been recognized and represented?

I think it is good to get answers even to stupid questions. And also get feedback to own ideas. — ssu

Oh, certainly... as long as the the questions are based on an accurate reading of the proposal and not on assumptions brought over form a different system of thought, a different economic organization, a different set of political criteria.

That's your personal view. — ssu

He never claimed otherwise. It is a proposal outline, not a rigid system. I have suggested ways it might be improved. I have found that carping at them doesn't improve ideas.

Your outline surprised me. I had imagined it fuller and more organised using computer software. — Amity

Hah! The OG foisted a copy of Scrivener on me: it has all the sophisticated computery stuff. And I dislike it intensely. I kept losing notes and searching frantically through all its 'nasty little pocketses'* for the name of a spaceship or town. He practically insisted that I collate the alternating chapters from the three parallel stories in Scrivener, and that was a nightmare.
See, I started out with a yellow pad and pen during lulls at work, and that's still my most comfortable medium. But I do admit not missing my first portable typewriter. I got a big newspaper office discard after that - a really great machine, except for changing the ribbon.

(* Smeagol)

In conversation with The Other, I learned that Readers' Favorites is another site that lists lots of books by genre, and you can download new ones free.

Mine look a bit like that, except they're chapter no--- er, scribbles.
Example:
- tour on island - islands, big delta fishing village? Go up to women's huts? with?
interplanting skree with onesta berry - holds soil
blue hornet - smaller than sap, burrows, pollinates skree - have Ionel Inel explain
legumes & howa (turnip), chat (like carrot), rice (sehas) own island, reeds? bamboo?
stay overnight? priest (75 = 110?) explain discuss in priv conference or over dinner? in hall? house? ship?
old folks home - skree get samples

Oola 12
Malaca Strait > Pian Island > Muala Pian
night crossing, party on deck,
barge returns, will change to oceanliner - where was it fitted out?? passengers?
^ Kakin, Yaban company, captain, mixed crew
Planter in charge - Brezzinton - trying to make changes
dead overseer Swar is Abur's death had 2 illegitimate sons - lawsuit?
wife Sheree - converts, direct to priest

13
discoveries missing people dates; bad planters; unhappy troops
This year Messenger 6 8 - Sunrise, 6 - Faithful ? came back 4 - Pathfinder - Messenger? - work out sched!! How many troops, girls? rough crossing
skree harvest starts
prov. admin cent - hort labs (Manila) Iniol liliam Inilloi - hilltop
big port, garison - commander? 2nd Gamal - later
magistrate ? Overseer - luxury & pool

Year of Ahn 662
Pathfinder - 652
Faithful - 654 (returned, back on Earth
Sunrise - 656
Messenger- 658
Valiant - 660
Steadfast - 662

Like that, but not so neat; largely ignoring lines and writing diagonally, because the notebook is on the phone stand beside the desk.

I'm wondering if you could recommend me a forum for books, — Hailey

I have not been on one for a considerable time now. I did belong to one - my first ever forum on my first ever internet connection via landline - in the mid 90's, but was suspended for sarcasm and never went back. You could do worse than check out Goodreads. It's in the amazon empire, but it lists all the titles you're ever likely to need, with blurbs and reviews, and it has a number of subgroups you can join. Quite nice people hang out there, along with the usual assortment of arrogant smartasses.

You are off an adventure, a quest, an epic journey. May the wind always be at your back!

The label 'love' itself is perhaps too misused, — universeness

Yes. I'm an ogre about words, precision of meaning. Some words are stretched over so broad a spectrum of meaning that they lose definition altogether. Love and hate are foremost among those overtaxed words. I enjoy walnuts and dislike garlic; I am uncomfortable in wet clothing and feel good in a warm bed; I prefer arts to sports; I favour social justice over social Darwinism; I fear and distrust right-wing zealots and support intelligent, progressive agendas. But my love is reserved for immediate family and at this stage of life, I hate nothing and nobody.

I use the words like everyone else, carelessly (I love mac & cheese, hate winter mornings) in daily conversation, but I'm more mindful of specific meaning in forum discussions. I think part of the reason for that reserve in vocabulary is the emotionalism and histrionics that so pervade our current culture. I believe it distorts people's perspective and overwhelms reason.

Why do you choose to disconnect, empathy, and altruism as facets of love. — universeness

I don't propose to answer for Athena, but for myself: because "love" is such a loaded, booby-trapped word. It evokes sentimentality, hypocrisy, Christian doctrine and a whole a passel of emotional stuff with which I don't want to be lumbered. I have compassion for people I find quite unpalatable and for animals I would never want to encounter in the wild. That empathy, or sense of rightness or whatever it is is quite distinct from my personal relationships in which affection plays a major part. Also, I consider some constraints on my freedom, some obligations of time an effort, as a civic duty: the price of living in a society that affords me protection and support.

Not much you can do about your nature. Conceal it, if questioning leads to punishment; maybe try to fit in despite your doubts - but the inner turmoil is something you have to resolve in your own way. Some people escape; some fight; some try to change the system by moderate means; some find clandestine ways to get the information they need.

I remember my elders huddled around a radio lat at night, somebody all the time fiddling with the tuning knob, trying to get a clear enough sound from Radio Free Europe... which they didn't know was American propaganda. University students would save up their allowance to buy used copies of banned western books. Tourists from abroad were plied with food and drink to tell stories of life on the other side of the iron curtain.
They were so hungry for news of the free world.

Once out, most of those same people got busy making a living, trying to get ahead, making a buck, pushing their kids to succeed, and stopped paying attention to the news, watched westerns and hockey instead. They learned that the streets are not paved with gold; that the huddled masses are not welcomed with open arms; that the unbounded opportunity of the free world was oversold.
Yet they go on excoriating the system from which they come: they have their bitter memories of loss, privation, restrictions - don't want a balanced view.

Only a few are motivated by a desire for clarity; few take the trouble to inform themself and form a balanced view.

Good books can be part of the solution. — Hailey

They're not just good for you; they taste good, too. And don't go looking for a list of must-reads or anything like that - just wander through a thrift store or public library and pick up whatever appeals to you. If it turns out to be crap, put it down and pick up something else. You'll soon find out what you like and it won't be much longer before you can see why one is better than another.
Are schools not teaching literature anymore?

I think I would actually prefer a real, fully clothed, teenage Glaswegian NED (Non-Educated Delinquent), — universeness

Hey! Before, you said

a small innocent looking child, — universeness

Don't you go shifty on me, comerade!

I think vileness like trump only grows and gets fed, when so much discontent and fear is allowed to fester for so long amongst a population. — universeness

It wasn't just allowed; it was engineered, provoked and orchestrated. And that's why I would like to see neither network-formation nor campaigning - or politics, for that matter - in the administration of economy, social services and justice.
As for the grievance arbitration, I totally agree.

Isn't everyone?
But yes, I have made some efforts at philosophizing and educating through narrative.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous but it does provoke thought. How did the patron or matron aspect turn to a more negative connotation? — Amity

Patron, when he was a lord bestowing largesse on pet performers, architects and painters, so long as they pleased him. Matron, when the child turned 18, got married or started working.

It's sometimes scary and helpless when you find yourself contrary to what you believe you are. — Hailey

Probably one of the scariest things you have to face. But wanting to have an open mind, making the effort to understand how you think and why you believe is already a very big stride forward. You are already winning! The safest way forward - besides anonymous forums, some of which do become adversarial at times - is by way of books. I don't mean how-to books about logical thinking; I mean good novels, that let you into the minds of fictional people - and indirectly, the author. You can argue with them, warn them of stupid mistakes, witness their errors in judgment, berate them for idiotic decisions - and they never get defensive or abusive.