the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Yeah I liked the first two episodes. No problem with a woman as lead character, no problem with a non-human as lead character, no problem with, ah you get it. Just make it good, and they did!

I had to go back and watch a bunch of cartoons (the series Clone Wars and Star Wars Rebels) that I could never get into (the Ahsoka related episodes), and darn it, those were quite good, too. little backstory. ties in the Skywalker and other plots. the "universe" is so big, lol.

everything wrote:what's disturbing is humans always seem to be getting dumber. are we just a continuance of rec.martial-arts stupidity here? or part of the broader trend?

Here's a brilliant article on this very topic:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CkYmqr ... p=drivesdk

Dmitri wrote:

everything wrote:what's disturbing is humans always seem to be getting dumber. are we just a continuance of rec.martial-arts stupidity here? or part of the broader trend?

Here's a brilliant article on this very topic:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CkYmqr ... p=drivesdk

The author makes many accurate points. The Tower of Babel analogy is interesting, but I think the USA example is the opposite in two senses. First, our motto is "E Pluribus Unum." However, we were never socially or politically "unum." That was a "dream" that was always denied. In 2008, that motivated the majority of Americans to elect a President who illustrated that idea. Of course, almost immediately there arose a minority of people who claimed the new president was illegitimate -because he wasn't American. This claim continued throughout his presidency, led by the person who'd become his successor.

Yep, social media (even RSF) definitely contributed. The problem isn't that anyone can say anything, it's that someone will say anything. There is always a choice. People know that, and use it to create outrage. The outrage can have a political outlet, but most often it's a way to get clicks. Say something outrageous, or say that say someone said something outrageous, and outraged people will flock to your site to express themselves. And, then there's the "like" function. It's definitely an endorphin rush to have 1ks of people agree, or disagree.

I totally agree with the author about children playing outside. I also think that he didn't bring up the reality of violence and threats of violence. Parents in my day did not worry about putting their kids on the subway by themselves and telling them where to get off. There may not actually be more child molesters today, but more people know about them, and they can't un-ring that bell. On that note, we rarely worried about politicians being shot. Nowadays, it's common to hear politicians talk about shooting other politicians.

Anyway, I don't think people are any stupider, or even more divided. It's only social media that tells us that, and it can be manipulated to do so. X millions of people watched someone on X. So, the fcuk what? Somebody said they heard something about someone from someone. Or, those people want to do such and such to us. Or, how about the media types who make their living telling people how messed up their lives are? Worse, then they're told who they can blame for their situation. And, someone will inevitably say that there's no other solution than violence.

It's not new at all. It's the same. The framers of the US tried to create a system that was different, based on principles expressed in the DoI. They have been translated into many languages, even Vietnamese, but American people argue about the meaning in English. You could say two parties separated by a common principle.

Global solutions are impossible where the idea of regulations is opposed. Take any issue; a meme or acronym will be developed that links it to everything evil. Then, there will be people willing to destroy it. The only question is how far they'll go. And, the author is right that not joining to participate is just as dangerous.

excellent article. people can put themselves into their own tiny niche echo chamber via social media very easily. I guess if you go down the rabbit hole enough, some people can validate your own blind stupidity (the Earth is flat, whatever). but what happens if you don't consume that much social media? i suppose most people just have confirmation bias.

the underlying missing piece seems to be critical thinking skills. way back in HS, I joined "debate club" as some kind of vague boost for college applications. but they actually went over thinking skills like logic, how do you make an argument, how do you refute an argument, etc. it seemed silly, but looking back, maybe that was one of the more helpful lessons from school. if I didn't join that club, would I have missed learning some critical thinking skills? learning "reading, writing, 'rithmetic" might not have helped as much.

everything wrote:the underlying missing piece seems to be critical thinking skills

That isn't by accident.

On Facebook they were advertising the critical thinking cards, a great little deck of cards with fallacies and biases and some suggestions of games you can play with them.

Comments were filled with conservative reactionaries calling it liberal propaganda.

After some engagement, I understood they thought it was critical race theory, because it had the word critical in it.

Not that they understand what critical race theory IS, mind you, they just know they're supposed to hate/fear it because it teaches kids to feel bad about being American.

books should be banned. they're clearly bad for youth.

but guns? we need more guns. they'll keep everyone safer.

/s

Critical thinking is just thinking . The benefit of debate clubs is that they teach students to argue the other side. The difference is that there's a winner, based on rules. There are very popular online personalities who argue that philosophy and logic courses are "liberal" propaganda. Well, it's true to the extent they are part of the liberal arts. Anyway, they're not new. Plato noted them. They are usually characterized by the belief that might makes right. (Thrasymachus, if you're interested).

Book bans (like record and comic burnings) usually have the opposite effect. Those aware enough to recognize that something is being denied them tend to become more curious. They're not really attacking the book; they're attacking the ideas it contains. But, just like V for Vendetta, "Ideas are bulletproof."

As for me, I don't let anyone tell me what to read or who to hate. One thing the author got right, imo, is that the negative voices are amplified the most.

Bill Clinton once remarked that facts have a left leaning bias.

lol, so if everything that involves "thinking" is "left", we shouldn't do anything thinking. lol, got it.

think we figured out why there is a drag into degeneracy

I mean, frankly ANYTHING involving culture war issues, the right is solidly in the wrong. They engage purely on emotional grounds based on limited if not intentionally inaccurate information.

When you get to the facts and use reason you wind up agreeing with the progressives, but you can't speak reason to someone who is reacting emotionally, and that's how it persists.

Not that the left is immune from the same bullshit, but the issues are a little less based in observable fact there, it becomes nuance and theory versus "we've got decades of data about this that you are purposefully ignoring and lying about".

It's not left and right. Imo, that's a trap. But, it's easy to see contradictions and when accusations become admissions.

Hey, there are (USAmerican) people saying we should have a dictatorship. What do we do? It's free speech. This becomes an old moral philosophy problem. Shucks, it's in the DoI. What does anyone have the right to do when their rights are "actually" being taken away? The principles are universal. There's no need to argue with someone who's not reasonable. Thomas Paine wrote: "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

He also said, "A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody."

origami_itto wrote:I mean, frankly ANYTHING involving culture war issues, the right is solidly in the wrong. They engage purely on emotional grounds based on limited if not intentionally inaccurate information.

When you get to the facts and use reason you wind up agreeing with the progressives, but you can't speak reason to someone who is reacting emotionally, and that's how it persists.

Not that the left is immune from the same bullshit, but the issues are a little less based in observable fact there, it becomes nuance and theory versus "we've got decades of data about this that you are purposefully ignoring and lying about".

Did you read the article I posted above? Highly recommended.

This is a classic case of "bubble thinking", where tribal forces and confirmation bias work side by side with ego to build a personal version of the universe that feels better/is more agreeable with one's thoughts and personality.

Steve James wrote:It's not left and right. Imo, that's a trap.

Yep, and it's a deadly-tight one while being hard to see. It's like hypoxia or carbon monoxide poisoning for the soul

we love our little echo chambers and everyone loves conspiracy theories

Dmitri wrote:This is a classic case of "bubble thinking", where tribal forces and confirmation bias work side by side with ego to build a personal version of the universe that feels better/is more agreeable with one's thoughts and personality.

No this is a classic case of the horseshoe fallacy. Perhaps in a theoretical universe it's about bubble thinking but I'm speaking of one in which millions of people actually believe things that the people saying them argue in court that no reasonable person should believe.

I'm not saying the left is good. I'm saying the mainstream propaganda is at least based more on reason and fact than appeal to emotion. By all means pick an issue and prove me wrong.

We're not talking about theory, we're talking about practical application by actual organizations.