Why's that? — Moliere

Because it'd mean having no thoughts or opinions of your own in favour of just accepting and believing about me whatever I told you? And with that how you interacted with me and treated me? Isn't it clear why would be a problem?

For practical purposes, I'd say that for almost every part of one's personal identity we don't have to go about proving it to others. Notice your list: — Moliere

That's a list of subjects that I purposefully picked because they have pretty clear-cut answers, I can easily provide a list of identities that do not have clear-cut answers, such as identities defined by having characteristics such as fashionable, cool, intelligent or belonging to group identities based on interests like being a "gamer" or being a "punk" or a "jock". You're really vastly underestimating how many different kinds of identities there are, not all of them are clear cut and some are quite contentious or hotly debated. And your choices in how you dress or act or what you do can impact whether others accept or reject how you self-identify.

And yes, the "punk" identity did not exist before it was recognised, and someone who acted and dressed and did all the necessary things to be "punk" was not considered one before the identification existed which hapened when people agreed it did. That is how it works.

How we treat people based on their identity also changes over time, partly because we discuss it. As an example, what it meant to be transgender or non-binary has changed dramatically in the last 10-20 years. And people are still discussing it and I expect there will be dramatic changes in the next 10 years also.

Might it be the case that people who have had to deal with being accepted might know a little more than someone whose always been accepted for exactly who they are and who never has to worry about proving who they are to others? — Moliere

Lol, everyone has experienced people not seeing them the way they see themselves. Everyone is relevant to the question of gender identity even if their gender identity has never been an issue to them. Because everyone is involved in recognising and acknowledging and treating people differently based on their gender identity. The rules for how gender identity should be determined, how we need to treat people based on their gender identity, what people are allowed to do based on their gender identity and all these and other related questions impact everyone.

Do you accept that disabled status, class, appearance, ethnicity, language, hobbies, skills, occupations, culture, place of living, and way of living, are all valid identities that people have? My hypotheticals illustrate the absurdity of claiming that people can dictate to others what their identity is, without actually having the qualities of the thing you identify as, and having the view that others should go along with that. I'm not claiming that anyone can stop someone else from self-describing as possessing identities of course, anyone can claim anything. But it'd be absurd for you to completely hand over the reins to me to allow me to dictate to you how you should view me. You won't do that, you are going to think of me based on my actual characteristics as you perceive them. That doesn't make you objectively correct, it doesn't mean that I am as you see me. My identity includes things a range of things, some are objectively verifiable, like where I live or my occupation. Some things are more subjective, like whether I'm a good athlete or a kind person, but you are entitled to your opinions on those identities as well.

If identity was just about what someone thought of themselves, gender identity wouldn't have anything to do with the pronouns other people use, what gender-exclusive areas someone can access, or whether someone could participate in a gender-exclusive activity. It's absolutely clear that gender identity includes how someone's gender is perceived by others. That applies to many different identities, because it's not just some form of self-perception, it has real-world, social, cultural, and economic implications. For gender identity, it's not about someone getting to decide what your "true" gender is, it's about the practical implications of being recognised and acknowledged as belonging to a particular gender. I have an expectation that others are going to treat me as a male because I identify as a male and look like a male, I've never encountered any situation where it's been an issue for me. I've never in my life had to tell anyone that I'm a male. For someone who does not appear to be male but identifies as male, they want the "male" identity that I have, they want others to treat them as a male. You telling them that they can call themselves a male and nobody can stop them doesn't help them at all. That's why ssu's question of "what does it mean to be a man or a woman" isn't resolved by explaining that people can just call themselves whatever they want. There needs to be a general discussion to understand this so that we can decide how someone who isn't biologically male could assume a "male" identity, what the rules are for that and how it might work etc.

I agree that you're not going to be consulting me when it comes to someone else's identity, but you're not going to be consulting anyone at all. The negotiation for these definitions is much bigger than any one person. Identity is not synonymous with self-perception and you can't simply dictate to others what your identity is, you need to possess the qualities people agree the thing you're wanting to be identified has. If I identify as disabled but I'm not disabled in any way, you'll just accept that as part of my identity? If I tell you I identify as upper-class but I'm completely broke, you'll go forward thinking I'm part of the upper-class? It's one thing to say that gender should be an exception, however, you're arguing that identity as a concept functions on the basis of self-perception and that's just entirely false.

Are you saying that identity is entirely free choice? Don't we portray ourselves to others in very specific ways precisely because there are standards for different kinds of identities? I can theoretically decide that my identity is all kinds of things but if it doesn't correlate with the expectations of others then I'm just going to be the only person who thinks that way. If I identify as incredibly attractive but I'm not, or as a particular ethnicity that I'm not, or I view myself as a badass but I don't train or exercise whatsoever, isn't that just me being delusional? If identity was simply whatever people thought of themselves, then there shouldn't be any problem, as nobody can force someone to stop describing themselves in a certain way.

The issue is whether others accept the identity you choose, and the question here is the legitimacy of a choice to determine one's own gender or what the prerequisites for being able to make that choice are. We definitely have at least some, gender isn't meaningless because it's recognizable, otherwise nobody would care about being a particular gender in the first place.


As you surely know, one of the problems with the "non-binary" idea is the role of gender in English. It's not just pronouns, many words have male/female variations that we commonly use. To speak everyday English requires us to identify people as male/female, and use the appropriate pronouns and language. Often, people who are non-binary don't want to be either gender, they want to be referred to using gender-neutral terms and pronouns, which requires careful word selection that is fairly unnatural to people, considering it is very rare to interact with someone who considers themselves non-binary.

Besides that, many concepts in society are gendered, such as how areas, activities or services are designated for the exclusive use of a singular gender. Cultural and social expectations are different based on gender, as are many different types of ideas. The vast majority of people do fit into one of the two gender categories, which partly explains why so many things are organised by gender. I'm not saying it has to be that way, just that it is.

Our language and organisation could be less gendered than it is, but so long as it is so gendered, it is impossible to argue that gender is "meaningless". If one is indifferent to their gender classification or agrees with it, then it's not too much of an issue. The difficulty is for non-binary people who resent being categorised by gender, preferring gender-neutral language and gender-neutral treatment. Who resent gender-specific norms or cultural or social expectations, and so on, because now this entire system has become problematic.

I agree that gender characteristics normally ascribed to one gender can be exhibited by someone of the opposite gender and that this shouldn't be a problem. However, it is wrong to say that there is no correlation between one's gender and one's sex. We know that there are many psychological and behavioural differences between the sexes and this has been proven in many different fields. Most people are comfortable with their gender being defined by their sex. Most people take no issue with their gender correlating with their sex precisely because of this correlation, it is a minority who don't. This difference is not just socially manufactured, it is the naturally occurring difference between men and women. I think it is wrong to try to force people who don't fit into these categories perfectly to do so, and that people should be allowed to express themselves without feeling hindered by gender norms. That's what we've been moving towards, and I think it's great.

Gender is a significant part of our language, culture and the way in which we organise our society. It's part of how we understand people and part of how we think. There is a small percentage of people who are non-binary, who did not easily fit into either category as most do. Based on all these things, leaving aside the issue of what should be or could be, and despite being imprecise, gender is definitely not meaningless.

Life is everything, and after death is nothing. It is as if the world starts when you are born, and ends when you are dead. I believe that when it happens, there will be no capacity for any thought or feeling, and all truths or perspectives will lose all meaning. I want to live a good life while I'm alive, but there's nothing I want to do before the coming oblivion, as it seems pointless to care about a time when nothing will exist for me.

I strongly disagree with making abortion illegal but isn't the US system sending the question of abortion legality to the state level? If a red state with a majority of people who are against abortion, isn't that democratic? The US democracy is garbage and I'd prefer if abortion was legal throughout the US for many reasons but idk if this is the best example of complaining about the US being undemocratic. There is that issue of many people in the US thinking abortion is immoral.


What a shame your partner-in-crime is not here, tragic. Perhaps you two could find a new forum to post in and move there together?

Lmao, streetlightx has been the same way ever since I've been on this forum, he broke the rules of this forum on a regular basis, so I'm surprised we're now talking about not making exceptions... Did he finally turn on the wrong people/positions? He should have been banned years ago, he's been a garbage contributor from the start. He derailed threads with his vitriol, and made little effort to explain his positions, he just belittled and insulted whoever disagreed with him. If everyone acted even half as bad as he did, nobody would ever want to post here. Dunno what he did to lose his special treatment but glad to hear he's gone.

I don't think Putin is the idiot you make him out to be... someone who cares nothing for strategy, who only wants land because Russia used to own it. Russians both think of Ukraine as a sister nation but accept it's reasonable to invade the country for land? That doesn't make much sense to me. I think you are being silly, but you are clearly determined and I am confident a discussion about this with you will go nowhere. If you want to argue about history and pretend it's all that matters, you may, but with others.

I must say that many NATO supporters act like this is the end of history. As though no future generations will look back at this time and view it as negatively as we do of the times preceding ours. This is very wrong, our world is filled with injustices and Western nations are part of it. Humans will indeed look back at this time as backward. If your purpose was to show that Russia is not the only backward nation, I'd support you but instead, you seek to use the backwardness of others to defend Putin.

Look at the Vietnam War, the US public was lied to constantly and misled on every issue, and the Afghanistan war and Iraqi wars are no different. Similarly, the Russian public seems to support Putin because of the effectiveness of his propaganda. This is an unfortunate situation but one day we'll see it change. One can not expect people to have a deep understanding of every war, nor blame them for having an incorrect understanding taught to them by a biased system.

Anyway, you are clearly determined, history is large, and we can point a magnifying glass where we want, to create the stories we want to create. There is no truth and really no value to this kind of talk. Is your goal to call everyone wrong? Or to find a way to call Putin's actions legitimate? Tbh I don't really care, my view on this issue can't be changed by talking about history, because it's seriously out-of-date. This war has the potential to be revolutionary, we will need to see how future major wars are covered but, it is clear that the grip of Western mainstream media and governments is loosening. This will hopefully make wars like the US-Vietnamese or US-Iraqi war more difficult to pull off, and governments will receive the criticism they deserve.

We're humans before we're citizens of any nation. And humans are always killing each other over things like territory, ideology and resources and making up all kinds of justifications for it. Your error is thinking that sometimes it's okay, that sometimes two wrongs make a right. All European nations have a history of wrongdoing, but as I said, the world is changing at an unbelievable rate. It's not that what Russia is doing is worse than what other nations have done or are doing, it's that this type of war, in this type of era, is going to be condemned worse than wars in previous eras ever could be. You can point out what other nations have done X decades/centuries ago and say it's not worse and be correct, but you're not talking about the most important factor which is that this war is happening in 2022 and those events did not.

I'm not telling you that you can't talk about history, as though it's immoral to do so or something. I don't know why others bother to engage with you on this kind of historical tit-for-tat, I've got no interest in that. If one person gets away with murder, should the next person accused be automatically acquitted? These are all different subjects, if you want to make a tier list of horrible wars then go ahead but they're still all immoral, don't think it has much to do with this topic.

What we must acknowledge when comparing other wars with this one, even ones as recent as the Iraq war, is the rapid change of our world. The amount of information the average person has access to in the Russian-Ukraine war is staggering. War crimes are committed and days later the world hears about them. Dozens of websites have been made for the sole purpose of documenting details of this war, from troop movements to logistics, recording both the direct human cost and unintended consequences. Also, related political events, the views of different world leaders and so much more. One can get access to constant updates on social media, watch analysis videos done on youtube or fb, and get access to all kinds of perspectives with only the desire to do it. This state of things did not exist in 2003 during the Iraq War, let alone wars preceding it.

The world is a very different place today than it ever was before, the Ukraine war is unique in these ways. We must include this in our analysis or it will lead to incorrect conclusions. Yes, some things don't change but much has and more change is a given. This talk of what happened 50-400 years ago is stupid, start looking around you instead of backwards. I don't think Putin is as interested in history as he makes it out, I believe these are useful tools for stoking nationalism and creating scapegoats and threats. But even if he was, that is Putin's prerogative, it doesn't make it right. The past, and also the present is filled with examples of being super flawed. We've got new tools now that allow the vast majority of people to have a different and previously unattainable perspective. Better to make use of that and do something new.

Democracy isn't valuable because of voting, most democracies vote between two parties - they are usually pretty much the same. Election promises are ignored, and the government does most of what it does without any public consent. Voters vote on a few important issues, ones they don't really understand. Politicians in power during economic booms they did nothing to create get all the credit, leaders unlucky enough to be elected in tough times get kicked out for no good reason. Democracy accomplishes low levels of corruption relative to other government types, their solid legal institutions can keep the government in check, this is the most valuable aspect of democracy. Democracies without those strong legal institutions are trash, corruption runs rampant and the people suffer. The voter does not keep the government in check, the failure to eliminate corruption says nothing about the voter. They can protest, they can hate their government, they can lose all faith in it, but the corruption stays. Only with solid legal institutions which eliminate corruption and enforce laws that protect the public is democracy good. Your scepticism or failure to be manipulated isn't that important, many democracies have citizens like you, and they are just ignored. This is a problem with the US, people there have been convinced that sceptical thinking is the key to maintaining their democracy but it's not accomplishing anything. Good democracies have good laws and enforce those laws, that is all. Culture and education are just scapegoats for politicians to convince people they are the problem, to avoid meaningful change.

Power means having control and influence, what exactly that entails depends heavily on the context.

We seem to be, for the most part, stupid apes. — Tom Storm

Perhaps you're just making a joke but I think intelligence shouldn't be used as a scapegoat.

Everyone is subject to them. Imagine, for example, a murderous dictator with some worms in his lungs. He's instantly less frightening. — baker

That sounds way more frightening...

Even if Ukraine is a product of The West's "cold war mentality" as the CCP would call it, do posters here genuinely think that the Russian-Ukraine war is too heavy of a price to pay for the sovereignty and democracy of Ukraine? Do they believe Ukrainian people would think that...? I don't know why there's so much talk about that in this thread about NATO. Ukrainians wanted to join NATO because Russia annexed Crimea and effectively went to war with Ukraine in 2014. This was in response to Russia's puppet government being ousted in a coup. Putin has many reasons to want to invade Ukraine. Legacy, history, gas, oil, etc.

Whether you want the world to abandon Ukraine to be a Russian satellite or to choose to act in a way that leads Ukraine into conflict with Russia, there's no thornless path.

The subject of interaction between people is too complex to talk about so generally and without context, don't you agree? But I can agree that anger is generally inefficient or ineffective as a tool for interaction.
Though was this thread talking about anger as a tool for interaction or for a tool for analysis? For instance, seeing an issue like the Israeli-Palestine conflict or the Russian-Ukrainian conflict through the lens of anger and blame? What is the better way?

I worry that we may have in our minds differing images of context for anger and blame, at the very least, I can agree that anger and blame are not always high-quality, reliable tools for arbitration. They can be inappropriate and unhelpful. If your argument is that anger and blame are never useful then we disagree. Blame and anger communicate a stern warning, that some behaviour or decision was inappropriate and sometimes there can be some opportunity to rectify things, apologise and correct. Anger can be handled in a measured way and it can be communicated respectfully.

I don't like to talk too much about this kind of subject without context, it is very context dependant. Anger is not always a bad emotion, sometimes people get angry because they care, or it can be used to emphasise a point. Sometimes, anger is a performance, it fulfils some other objective, like showing how you feel. And how it's communicated matters a lot.

Let me ask you this: do you think you personally can get rid of the ALL of the following feelings in response to the actions of others? — Joshs

No, should I want to?

I would argue the cause of blameful rules isnt secondary, it is the primary instigator for the rules and what motivates us recognize that they have been violated. — Joshs

Well, I completely disagree and I can't imagine why you think this.

Do we have rules that protect the rights of employees and employers, rental providers and renters, customers and businesses, rules that protect from harassment, the rules of civility or even the rules of a game, on the basis of blame? If I scream at a co-worker or at a cashier, it's only a problem because I can be blamed? We need to ask whether or not I had a bad day? Did my parents raise me right? Was I being influenced by some biological factor? Or is the problem that as a society we want to protect people from being screamed at regardless of the reason?

Anger and blame can be valuable, I don't condemn them without context. I think that people will disagree, we know this, and we know people are different, thus I think our approach should tolerate difference and handle differences with the utmost grace and respect. When something is unfair or harmful, that's when for things to continue running smoothly, some kind of arbitration is needed.

If we believe that one’s motives can be swayed in irrational directions, then our anger tells us we may be able to away them back into the fold. — Joshs

What's the problem?

I find your characterisations alien, I do not believe people care about the violator as they do the rules. Correction of another's behaviour is one way to ensure the rules are followed but it is not the only way, but our motivation or interest is not about the violator, and if imprisoning them or sending them away is the way to ensure the rules are protected then that's what is done. The employee will be fired, the employer sued, the customer banned and etc.

Anger and blame achieve the establishment of boundaries and rules, in different settings, in social situations. The cause is secondary, it is separate. Even if you got rid of blame, we'd only see a change in tone while the same punishment is being delivered. Sometimes maybe there should be a change of tone, I agree, people shouldn't be blamed for what they are, or for failing to save us from themselves. I think most crime shows impairment in decision making, maybe it's a temporary impairment but from the perspective of a healthy, clear-minded person, crime's reward usually doesn't justify the risk.

I only think anger and blame should at some time expire, that cooler heads can prevail ultimately. If then we determine that a person should be absolved of blame, so be it.

Putin's work will be undone by his successors.

Putin is an authoritarian kleptocrat living out his fantasies, he likes playing these geopolitical games, he cares about history and talks a bit like Apollo here. Unlike with China's CCP, Putin is very much a one-man show and when he goes, things won't be the same. Russia can't emulate China's success but it can emulate the success of the other former Soviet states, which at some point it will try to, most likely.


I'm pretty convinced China's economy is about to implode, in the same way Japan's did in the 90s except worse. But even if it doesn't, do you really think those nations are going to provide a "united front"?

The middle-east is neutral or US-aligned except Iran, India and China aren't friendly, Brazil is currently Us-aligned. China doesn't really have a faction for people to join, people don't trust their tech, businesses or promises. Russia can receive help from China and be an otherwise isolated state, like North Korea or Iran. Russian people will never put any pressure on their government to join up with China, just nobody cares, it's a relationship of convenience and nothing more. Russia can fight against Western imperialism (to push their own brand of imperialism) at their own expense and by themselves - just like it is right now.

I think things are so bad for nations like Russia (if it doesn't join) that even if the US started to dwindle, let's say it had a civil war and split up. There's still an ever-growing EU, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan, South Korea democratic bloc. And nations like Brazil, Mexico and India, are probably going to be joining that side, or be neutral, but not China's.

Well, since we're calling Chinese communist because they said so, shouldn't we also acknowledge that China is a democracy?

https://qz.com/2098528/china-wants-to-redefine-democracy/


Putin has a point about NATO being a political project, Eastern Europe sees the economic transformation of Poland and the Baltics and wants in. Western soft power is threatening Russia's influence and Putin is resisting but it's futile. At some point, Putin will be gone and Russia will fall into the Western orbit.

Ever since the fall of the USSR, this Westernisation has been happening at a very fast rate. It is the next big "annexation" or growth of influence, of the West, since WW2. Russia is trying to keep out Western influence, build a great firewall like China, say no more expansion of NATO or EU. It's too late for that, Russia will probably be joining both this century.

I don't think you're denying the existence of anything, you're putting forward a different characterisation of behaviour you agree exists, one that presents it in a positive light. And I also may not want something to be lumped into "cancel culture" if I think it's meaningful or useful, because I understand that label is a negative and demeaning one.

Also, I think on many subjects we're way past let's talk about our "disagreements". Racism needs to stop. Employee exploitation just needs to stop. Talking shit about transgenders, gays, lesbians, transsexuals etc. just has to stop. Joking about disabled people has to stop. — Benkei

On the surface, most people should agree with you, if I didn't think about it too much, I would agree with you. But then I know you a bit too well for that, I don't want your interpretations of racism is or sexism is to be mainstream, let alone to have them enforced unilaterally on others. I am completely opposed to it.

I'm not right-wing, I'm a liberal who wants to live and let live but I recognise that sometimes that's not good enough, there are some things that require us to stand up and do something. Cancel culture may not be a bad thing, just by itself, the issue is the ideology behind it, which is held by an extreme minority, with a particularly loud voice and a lot of power in the tech field, among others.

Cancel culture targets unimportant issues, the average age of these activists is probably around 20-22, it's immature and shallow. A white actor plays a monk. An anime shows too much cleavage. A comedian makes an inappropriate joke. You're comparing this kind of garbage to abolishing slavery? Not only does cancel culture follow a disagreeable ideology with absurd interpretations but it's rarely doing anything of importance.

The world can't be cruel, you can only tell us it is.

What I would say is that the "world" or "life" are too big, too much is going on, our focus skews things too greatly. But I would say that if aliens came to Earth and treated us, humans, like we treat any other species, we'd call them monsters. Our morality is super convenient and allows us to act with great cruelty. I don't think many humans are motivated by cruelty, we just don't really care that much. Just like you with your chicken wings, you don't want a massive network of chicken slaughterhouses committing unspeakable cruelties on these animals year in year out, but you also want your chicken wings, and the latter is more important. I'd say that's kind of evil, we're evil ^o^.

Humans are not merely conscious, we are specifically humans, really specifically. I would be shocked if we don't see some kind of android or genetically engineered wife in the future. To compare either to a human is like comparing a wolf or wild animal to a dog. The dog is genetically engineered to serve humans, that's what it wants to do. Similarly, you can't compare a human to a dog, that's why owning a dog is fine but slavery is immoral. Or why something like Seaworld is immoral but dog shows are fine.

Slavery in humans is so bad because we need to threaten, harm, imprison and force the human to be a slave. If an android wife was made, it would be to a human, what a dog is to a wolf, at worst, but theoretically, it could go well beyond even that. They could be sentient, self-aware and conscious but would lack human creativity, competitiveness, emotion and ambition.

Gang activity and access to guns, it's not just the US, all high countries with high homicide rates have these two problems. Unless there's civil unrest like in Iraq or South Africa.

Whatever characterisation one gives will, it is most definitely us and not separate. We always act in accordance with our will because we are our will. Yet, we don't live in a bubble, we are influenced, manipulated, incentivised, blackmailed by our experiences, feelings and interactions with others. We don't need power to enact our will, because there is no "enaction", we need power to ignore, control, resist "outside" influences which compel or restrict us.

The most complete freedom would include absolute power over others and the power to immediately and effortlessly alter any aspect of the circumstances of one's experience.

Is that a counter to you or Arendt? It's a different and perhaps mutually exclusive view than those of yours and Arendt. To me, freedom is control, power and influence, especially over yourself. Sovereignty over oneself. That's why things like rights and protections are essential for freedom.

I will admit that I am not entirely sure what Arendt is arguing against, is there a view of freedom that says a slave is free because they're "internally free" despite every aspect of their life being controlled? Or what exactly is she talking about? I don't understand this divorce of the inner and the outer when there is so much interaction between the two.

I don't think the government hinges so much on the actions and thoughts of its people. Democracy is held together by legal and political institutions, its integrity and the protection of our liberty is placed in their hands. People will naturally, without any special kind of motivation, utilise whatever freedom, security, opportunity provided to them by their government or community.

Also, a person is their will, or do you think you can be robbed of your will but remain yourself. Will, desire, intent... they're all part of our consciousness - us. How can freedom require destroying ourselves? What's left to be free?

I don't think Putin is going to be invading Ukraine, this is a geopolitical chess move, many reasonable theories have been circulated but nobody can know for sure. Ukraine seems like a political hostage, the message is clear that Ukraine will not be allowed to join EU or NATO and maybe Putin will try some repeat of Crimea but there will not be a full-scale invasion. The realism of Putin's demands seem irrelevant tbh, it doesn't matter if the West agrees to block Ukraine from joining NATO, the West isn't going to let Ukraine join NATO when Russia is acting this way. Whether Putin actually cares about any of that, or whether this is something to do with his domestic situation or his legacy, I dunno but does it really matter if the West says no to Russia's demands? Putin may just be making it obvious to his neighbours that these ambitions of EU or NATO membership will be blocked and "get used to it".

Putin wants Western reaction, put on a big show, everything is about Putin, Ukraine knows its place and now back to normal.

There is no greater threat to Russia as a state and Putin as a leader than an actual, large-scale invasion and occupation of Ukraine. The war with Afghanistan led to the demise of the USSR, Ukraine would be worse, Russian-speaking Ukrainians are not yearning to join mother Russia, there would be insurgency and terrorism, it is not a worthwhile risk to take. No way Putin tries it.

It is boring to even talk about relativism in the sense of "the truth" vs "my truth", you need to stop treating this concept of truth with such reverence. It is unimportant, whether something is "true" or not, what's important is that the constellation of truths, opinions, interpretations, characterisations used in understanding will always differ from person to person. How that same constellation is arranged in the narrative, in emphasis, in context and circumstance. Are feelings of an emotional, psychological or physical variety at play? What logic is being employed and where? What is being excluded from this constellation and why? These are the questions that matter, that you take offence to an opinion being called truth or a truth an opinion, doesn't. When incorrectly calling falsehood truth directly leads to disaster, we know it was a mistake by the result, otherwise, it doesn't really matter.

The strength of a democracy should be measured by how easily its leadership can undermine it.

So it's not the existance of the institutions that safeguard democracy, it's their ability to continue to function without interference from the govt. — Tim3003

These are not mutually exclusive, it is the institutions that safeguard democracy, and their ability to do that is dependent upon some independence. Putin can manufacture elections results because he has complete control, Trump couldn't because he didn't. It's what the democracy does to stop in-power officials, if it cannot check them for corruption or if it cannot stop them from interfering with elections then that "democracy" is weak and ineffective.

20th century US government would enter wars, institution massive policy changes, order covert missions and play geopolitical games that either the public had no say in or if they did have a say, they were often influenced by propaganda. Look at communism, Iraq, Vietnam and so many other examples. How is the modern US worse? It's just that people are better informed today, better educated and can be slightly more attuned to how things really are. Trump on Twitter didn't achieve anything compared to what was achieved with 20th-century propaganda but the internet has done much to educate and inform the people better than ever before.

The whole point of democracy is that the dictator isn't the one who decides what is "allowed", the institutions do. A democratically elected leader, whether he's going to get voted in again or not, lacks the legal power to undermine the democratic institutions. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter what the vote was, and that's normally how democracies become dictatorships because a leader is able to interfere with the election process and undermine it in some way.

Democracies are not kept in check by informed citizens, they are kept in check by powerful legal institutions and as well as various other rules and systems. An authoritarian government is completely controlled by a handful of - or even just one person who goes completely unchecked in what they're allowed to do. They control the army, the institutions, the businesses, the media and nobody can stand up to them. The citizens' rights can be given or taken away, people can be imprisoned for nothing and there are few rules to stop the ruling party from doing, really whatever they please.

That is the big difference between an authoritarian government and a flawed democracy from a full democracy. A full democracy holds leaders accountable for their actions, the institutions aren't under their control, their power is limited. They are subject to the law like anyone else, there are many rules telling us what they can and can't do.

What's great about democracy is how the system protects the rights of its citizens and the leaders are held accountable to a far greater degree than any other government type. When we see corruption, the free institutions lose that freedom, the rights of the media taken away and so on, that's when we say democracy is in trouble, not when people have no idea who they're voting for and barely have any options.

Whether citizens are voting for bad reasons or have bad options, these are trivial concerns in comparison. So its a problem that Trump was corrupt, he did try to interfere with free institutions, he did try to discredit the media and he attacked the vote itself and broke so many rules and he really needed to be impeached for these things. Yet US politics is a mess and he wasn't, but ultimately, the system did rebuff Trump's coup pretty effortlessly, many parts of the system are still doing their job.

Many other democracies around the world are not having this problem, in Australia, where I live, leaders resign over issues that are so unbelievably trivial in comparison to all the things Trump has done and I think that's how it should be, the flaw in the US is that Trump was able to get away with far too much.

tldr in a democracy it's the institutions that matter for its success, not the voters.

I have gone through a similar thing. I still consider myself a nihilist, by which I mean that I don't think there is any meaning to anything besides what is asserted or experienced by an individual. This lack of significance to my life and actions became the lens through which I evaluated them. It became like a bell that would be sounded whenever I thought about doing something, letting me know what a waste of effort it would be. I stopped caring about what kind of person I was, I felt what happened to me didn't matter and I became depressed. This was not a chemical depression, this was a depression I imposed upon myself, I wouldn't let myself think positively, obsessed with how meaningless everything was. I was 18 at the time and was going through a lot of things with relationships and school, which helped to put me in a negative frame of mind.

As I worked through these feelings, I came to identify a state of mind that I labelled "interpretative possession". Because I experienced and saw in others, this kind of possession of a person where they force themselves to interpret things through always the same lens or framing, for me, this was the lack of objective meaning to everything. Another label I made was "interpretative relevance" which I felt was pertinent to my problems as I think it is to yours. Interpretative relevance refers to what facets of a thing are being emphasised and put into our formula for how we see something.

Perhaps you have the same problem as I had, you are not merely a nihilist, you are possessed; obsessed with nihilism. Perspectives like that you play the piano because you appreciate the instrument, or it's fun, or you like how it makes yourself and others feel, get pushed aside and replaced with "playing the piano is pointless and meaningless". I never stopped being a nihilist, but I did escape from how it possessed me.

I believe there are many ways to escape, ultimately I needed to realise that I was kind of beating myself up, I was torturing myself. Even if I felt life was meaningless, I didn't have to stop that from letting me enjoy the thrill of competition, or appreciating beauty, or being invested in myself and others. I developed my views on nihilism a lot since then but what helped me back then was to realise that I mattered, or maybe I realised I needed to assert that I mattered. My hobbies, my emotions and perspectives, my goals, these things mattered. I stopped worrying about how things I cared about lacked objective meaning and started to put some value in what it meant for something to matter to me.

Honestly, I went quite crazy with this idea of my own perspective and feelings mattering the most and did a near-complete 180 as I went into my 20s. I was quite unconcerned about what mattered to anyone but me and became selfish and arrogant. I felt like I was the centre of the universe, I mattered and created meaning in a world otherwise devoid of meaning. I don't think you need to go as I did but I wonder if your path to overcoming this problem might resemble mine. People say "create your own meaning" but how exactly can that be done? For me, it started with valuing myself and thinking that I mattered, and later, I expanded those feelings beyond myself. Now I feel as though, lots of things matter, they're deeply important to me. Let things mattering to you mean something, allow yourself to be invested, allow yourself to care and your life can be rich in meaning and purpose.

You apologise that you can't help with my inability to see the merits of your idea? How gracious of you.

I'll also apologise that I'm unable to see the merits, I must be a bit confused, I'm sure there's something somewhere but I missed it.

I really don't know if I've met anyone where I thought it was difficult to figure out what their motivations are, nor heard of any activity where it wasn't pretty obvious. As with the seven deadly sins, addiction, mental illness, and any number of other things I could bring up, just because an act is neither beneficial to the actor nor others, doesn't make them enigmatic. It's really clear to me why a drug addict acts to their own detriment and the detriment of others, and many of the things a drug addict might do can be considered really stupid but we know exactly why they're doing it and what their motivations are.

The most basic premises of this conceptualisation are flawed, what about it is so interesting? How can a human act without motivation? Stupid people just wake up and roll a die to decide what they'll do today? It's complete nonsense.

We can take a person's actions and assess them in terms of gain and loss and judge those actions but people don't usually act as a result of such calculations. What I especially dislike about this idea is this oversimplification of decision making. When I read OP I thought of many things, mental illness, addiction, trauma and so on but perhaps that is taking things out of context. Maybe the best thing to talk about is the "seven deadly sins". Pride, lust, sloth, vanity, greed, envy and gluttony, I think all seven are at the heart of much of our "stupid" behaviour. It's not necessarily that we don't know or that we don't realise, but that we're weak. Everyone is dealing with their own unique circumstances, this topic is complicated, simple conceptualisations make simple solutions look far smarter than they really are.

With your logic, isn't any solution worse than the problem? Can we justify the systematic slaughter and destruction of ecosystems as means of ending cruelty? Isn't that the height of hypocrisy?

As for humans, genocide done by colonialists can't be justified by examining the sometimes harsh and barbaric practices of the natives, right? We destroy nature because we care less about animal suffering, not more.

People are overstating how effective the US would be at stopping China from taking Taiwan, it's only a matter of time before it becomes so clear that China couldn't be stopped that Beijing can dissuade other nations including the US from trying to help directly. If you mean "near future" as in next five years, that seems really unlikely, but I think at some point Taiwan is going to drop from Poland-status to Czechoslovakia-status. Beijing has always been upfront about aiming for reunification with Taiwan, but war now seems pointless, because each year that passes improves the situation for China, Beijing may as well wait for a more favourable situation, continue to isolate Taiwan diplomatically and strengthen their military.

If someone is struggling with unbearable pain or stress and is having suicidal thoughts, I don't think it reasonable to say that society's view of this person is that they're weak and sinful. Most people would want to offer a helping hand, especially friends and family. It seems you want people to say "yeah, it's your life, go ahead and end it if that's what you want". But is that really responsible? Is that what a good friend should do? Maybe you view life as valueless and the world as a shithole but for someone who sees things differently, trying to prevent suicide is the obvious thing to do from every conceivable angle.

Do not bother applying logic to religious matters unless you have a few screws loose, either be a good believer and do not think too much or let all the inconsistencies shake your faith till it drops. Benevolence and justice don't exist as things, they are asserted, this term "omnibenevolence" is nonsense, you're looking to make sense out of nonsense, this cannot bear fruit.

When it comes to deterrence, I think many are not reasonable in their assertions about what kind of punishment can effectively deter. Let's imagine the punishment for murder is 5 years in prison, the prison serves decent food, you have access to resources for rehabilitation, basic entertainment, keeping you healthy and etc. By all accounts, a far better deal than what you'd get under most systems. Who in their right mind would think they shall commit murder because prison isn't "too bad?". That's five years of your life locked in a cell, away from your friends and family, not being able to do the things you want to do, not being free, leaving with a brand that hurts you for the rest of your life. Not saying that murder should be a five-year sentence but I don't think twenty-five to life in horrible conditions is anywhere near the minimum for an effective deterrent. Our society isn't kept safe by things like solitary confinement at all.

I think creative media should be allowed to portray immoral acts with near impunity. Whether it's good or bad, it should be allowed either way. Don't want to discuss whether it's good or bad.

I don't know what the threshold for something to become torture is, but I view it as severe to the extent that if torture is apt to describe a behaviour then it's almost certainly criminal or immoral as it would have to be quite extreme. Cruelty is often immoral but it's pretty subjective and I would require details in order to form an opinion on something called "cruel" by others. Not much more than that to say.