almaIV
This sort of sentence is extremely annoying to me. I'm good at several things, one of which is a video game that I've played for most of my life, so I've heard people say things like this for a good portion of my existence and it's up there with some of my biggest pet peeves. I've noticed that when people say this, it's usually a skillset that bothers them on some level, and usually for reasons that are unconscious to the person saying it.
No one says "you could spend more time developing a valuable skillset" to me regarding, say, fitness, because most people would enjoy having better bodies and the reasons for this are immediately apparent. But they'll say this regarding a few video games I am extremely good at, even though the results of having a better body and being really good at a video game are both satisfaction on my end. You might say that fitness leads to better health, but that's still using the assumption that health maximizes enjoyment in some way by extending the number of years you're alive -- because no one would be parading health as a virtue if every year alive were miserable.
I'm sure the reasons differ, but the mentality is always the same: this thing I derive obvious satisfaction from is objectively good ("bettering myself"), while this thing I can't see obvious satisfaction from (or are threatened by) is a waste of time, even if both, extended to their ultimate goal, just result in more satisfaction. It ignores that our skillsets have the same extensional goal: things we value. When you extend the purpose of your skillsets, you're always going to end up with some sense of "I value this thing."
Example: a lot of guys will improve their skillsets so they can get money so they can have lots of sex with women they find really attractive. But if you're already able to do that, and that's your primary motivation for doing that, then you're not going to have as much of an incentive to develop that skillset. Conversely, if the skillset is intrinsically satisfying to you, you'll eschew sex and develop it. But the goal is the same thing: maximizing your own utility from what you value.
You'd better a skillset, in other words, to derive more satisfaction. And since you don't know that they don't already have a developed skillset, since lots of people are good at many things, you don't know how much satisfaction they already derive from their existing skillsets. So you're just saying "you should better yourself" in a vacuum, which is effectively telling them that they could be deriving more satisfaction arbitrarily, even if they're already deriving lots of satisfaction.
So either this ignores that you'd do these things for more satisfaction anyway, or presumes that you can tell a person you've never met how much they're going to get (or should be getting) satisfaction from utilization of their skillsets, which is insanely presumptuous.
I've dealt with reddit's administrators from a moderator side before, and they can just shadowban moderators they don't like. It makes no sense to ban a subreddit for the actions of that subreddit's moderators when they can just remove the moderators that are the issue.
I suspect they wanted to ban certain subreddits, and "the subreddit has toxic moderators" is a good reason to give publicly. Nonetheless, they've always had policies for dealing with toxic moderators that don't involve removal of subreddits.
"There are mental trauma, that has not been caused by physical trauma, that will end up being like the gash you describe never being able to acclimatize to."
I'm not so sure about this.
Stress happens because of stress hormones. You can develop a tolerance to those hormones like you could develop a tolerance to any drug.
The range of experiences that human emotion can adapt to are vast. People in far more violent societies have adapted to far more horrific things. If we didn't have the ability to adapt to extreme shock we'd be screwed as a species.
When you ask questions like this, you give the respondent authority, because it is worded in a way that gives the possibility that the respondent might say something intelligent in response.
There is no such possibility here.
"Do you think that white nationalists don't take guns to their protests and marches?"
I think the kind of person who talks about carrying around baseball bats isn't going to go to these marches.
What you think is hilarious is on you and your weird sense of humor. If you go to a meeting with baseball bats, eventually, the people you're disrupting are going to bring weapons stronger than baseball bats.
Probably because this is a really stupid course of action to begin with, independent of tumblr.
Using baseball bats to reinforce your political views seems like a great idea until your opponents show up with guns. Which means you, now, have to show up with guns, and so on, until you're a full-on terrorist group.
Well, that and you risk going to jail for assault with a deadly weapon, and you don't want to be in the same cell with someone from the Aryan Brotherhood when they find out your reason for jailtime was assaulting white power groups.
People who are virulently anti-libertarian inexplicably adopt very libertarian "employers should be able to hire/fire anyone they want" responses when this practice is criticized, as if they don't see any kind of problem with the ability to readily get someone fired for arguing controversial beliefs outside of their workplace.
But, think about it this way: you obviously can't deeply engage the views of others at work, unless you have a very open-minded workplace or those views somehow relate to your job performance. (I doubt questions like "is it immoral to do [insert drug]?" or "should prostitution be legal?" would ever be workplace appropriate, but they're sincere views people hold that dictate drug policy via public opinion for example.)
So, if you can't talk about these things at work, where the hell do you talk about them? I'm guessing on the internet, because colleges are the next option and they're only available to a fraction of the population for four years at a time. So the internet is no longer an option, where? I'm asking this question rhetorically. If society has no battlegrounds for beliefs, democracy is permanently is screwed, because you need some kind of battleground for beliefs to refine beliefs in concordance with reality in the first place.
Whether some emotional damage is "scarring" (i.e. permanent) will depend on, well, a lot of things, but almost no kind of emotional damage has to be permanent because of the way our physiology of emotions behaves. Your resilience, your existing beliefs, what you expect out of the world, and so on will determine how you respond to stressful stimuli. Learning that people don't live forever can be 'scarring' (not really) to a two-year old, but, people eventually adjust to this information, because stress tolerance exists. If everything were as equally stressful as the first time we heard it, our bodies would be overwhelmed with cortisol all the time. Since this obviously doesn't happen, our bodies can (and do) adapt to stressful stimuli in various ways.
Comparing emotional damage to scars is probably a false analogy. Your skin will never fully adapt to a gash, and being stabbed once isn't going to change the way your body responds to stabbings. But your body will adapt to stressful emotions, or at least it is capable of doing so. In the worst case it's probably like a muscle tear, but in most cases emotional stress is more like some kind of the muscle trauma that happens during resistance training, which the body adapts to.
Yes. You don't need to look at the effects of a particular diet because you can be reductionist as a proxy. For example, examining the effect of a meat-heavy diet on people is difficult, as you said. But if you know what meat does in a diet (correlates with high cholesterol, e.g.) you can examine the effect of high cholesterol on a diet, and if you find out it's bad you could determine that eating in a way which contributes to high cholesterol is generally a bad idea.
Instead of thinking about whether something is "high carb" or not, it's better to think about the digestibility of the carb. Kidney beans, for example, are high-carb and high satiating. Sugar is all-carb and not satiating at all. You can find the satiation relative to carbs by examining the food's glycemic index.