Adhominous contradiction falls a little short of refutation, but maybe youāve something there but did not share it because you believe your assertion, contrary to my invite, that Iām not happy to hear any refutation.
You started with a flase premise
Where?
and seem to think you have to only answer.
Thatās amusing. If youāre willing to entertain the idea, ā¦ that sounds like projecting, contrary to the present evidence. Me with an open invitation to more perspectives, and you seeming to bark that down in apparent certainty to know otherwise.
If you think youāre right, go be about it. Be an example.
Implying Iām not walking the talk? Right now? Please do help make that clear where thereās grit in my eye, or whatās in my blind spot, because Iām only seeing as far as Iām seeing, and so merely alluding to there being something falling short in some way, is of null benefit, without saying what it is. Otherwiseā¦ kinda just looks like narcissistic insecurity attacking others with pompous airs of superior virtue thinly veiled over gaslighting and misdirection.
I donāt think Iām right. Thatās the point. Humility avails curiosity. Ride it long enough, enough discoveries come to dispel certainty, especially naive realism. Or so says my naive ascertainment thus far. Exceptions abound, to every premature generalisation. And isnāt that all we ever have? And thereās always more?
What part of that was interpreted as trolling? (Honest question. Not rhetorical dismissiveness.)
One accusation of trolling, one accusation of AI, ā¦ given the other reactions, I can be easily forgiven for entertaining the possibility these are from a desire to attack this in absence of constructive argument on substance. ā¦ And the ācui bonoā (āwho benefitsā) on that is a horror worth confronting. [Cui bono? Bigots. Bigots benefit from that. Getting to keep their hate groups running without this greatest efficacious challenge to them [that I know of] being shared.]. And by censorship? The means do seem fit the ends. O_O
Irony noted here too, that I was having all kinds of rule breaking responses spat at me, and I was trying to be civil and reasonable, itās one of my posts that got deleted. Flying monkey unleashed from some darvo sob story? I hate getting played into being a flying monkey. Some seem more concerned with the idea they may have been played into being a flying monkey, and run from looking at the idea. ā¦ Same pattern spotted earlier, and sought to offer some friendly salve for. No good deedintent going unpunished. Heh. Plenty more cheek to turn. Plenty more patterns to notice, and learn the higher topology from; learn the deeper principles from, to avoid getting played as a flying monkey. And we get played in our shadow. We do not see it. Same as with getting induced to groupthink. Itās kind of an essential defining component of it. Not knowing youāre in it. Not knowing when slipped into groupthink, not knowing when being sent forth as a flying monkey, with your better (or worse) traits being used, likely contrary to your better interests, by the narcissist, the cluster b personality disordered psyche, the social parasite, the predator. ā¦And am noting this is all still on topic, through and through, and within the rules. Not trolling (never have).
I had an LLM propose what could be perceived as trolling, as I never troll, and say when using LLM
The comment you posted is lengthy, passionate, and thought-provoking, but it could be perceived as trolling by some readers due to a few key elements. Hereās a breakdown of where the perception of trolling might arise, even if that wasnāt your intent:
Provocative Framing and Hyperbolic Language
Phrases like:
āthe horror. A horror, weāre all better served, facing.ā
āunwittingly becoming them, as an opposameā¦ the horror.ā
ārace to the bottomā
ākali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man)ā
Why it could be seen as trolling:
These phrases are emotionally charged and could be interpreted as exaggerated or melodramatic, especially in a context where nuanced discussion is expected. Some might read this as deliberately stoking fear or controversy rather than fostering constructive dialogue.
Repetitive, Circular, or Overly Abstract Reasoning
Examples:
The comment loops between ideas (e.g., Daryl Davisās method, the Chicago experiment, limbic fear reflex, morphic resonance) without clear transitions or concise conclusions.
Phrases like āif-then-thereforsā and ādis-availed in the limbic fear reflexā are jargon-heavy and abstract, which can come across as pseudointellectual or obfuscating rather than clarifying.
Why it could be seen as trolling:
Overly complex or meandering arguments can frustrate readers who expect direct, actionable points. Some might assume youāre intentionally being obscure to provoke reactions or derail discussion.
Implied Criticism of Othersā Reactions
Examples:
āI know now from experience here on lemmy that a lot of people have a kneejerk reaction against the idea.ā
āPresumably, largely, because itās seen as somehow sanctifying and validating their perverse iniquitous hate-filled ignorant dangerous political philosophy and world view.ā
ānot following through the longer now, the if-then-therefors, the calm consideration that weāre dis-availed in the limbic fear reflexā
Why it could be seen as trolling:
These lines dismiss or mock the emotional responses of others (e.g., fear of engaging with hate groups). Even if your intent was to critique a lack of action, phrasing it this way can sound condescending or dismissive, which is a common trolling tactic.
Unsubstantiated or Fringe References
Examples:
āmorphic-resonant-amplifying-esq implications of the Chicago experimentā
ākali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man), satya yuga (the good times)ā
Why it could be seen as trolling:
References to morphic resonance (a controversial, non-mainstream scientific idea) and Hindu cosmological concepts (kali yuga/satya yuga) might be seen as off-topic or esoteric, especially in a discussion about racism or activism. Some readers might interpret this as derailing the conversation with unrelated or fringe ideas.
Tone: Preachy or Self-Righteous
Examples:
āHow many of them are there? How many of us? If the Chicago experiment had the effect it didā¦ā
āEvery little flap of our butterfly wingsā¦ā
Why it could be seen as trolling:
The tone can come across as preachy or self-righteous, especially if readers feel youāre lecturing them rather than engaging in a two-way discussion. This can provoke pushback or accusations of trolling, even if your intent was sincere.
Lack of Clear Structure or Actionable Points
The comment is dense and stream-of-consciousness, which can make it hard for readers to follow or extract actionable insights. In online forums, walls of text are often flagged as trolling because they overwhelm or annoy others.
Key Takeaway: Why It Might Have Been Flagged
Your comment isnāt inherently trollingāitās clearly heartfelt and references real, thoughtful ideas (e.g., Daryl Davisās work). However, the combination of emotional language, abstract reasoning, dismissive phrasing, and fringe references could lead moderators or readers to perceive it as:
Disruptive (derailing the conversation with tangents).
Condescending (implying others are irrational or uninformed).
Provocative (using charged language to elicit strong reactions).
How to Avoid This Perception in the Future
Be concise: Break up long paragraphs into shorter, clearer points.
Avoid jargon: Explain terms like āmorphic resonanceā or ālimbic fear reflexā if theyāre central to your point.
Acknowledge othersā emotions: Instead of dismissing ākneejerk reactions,ā address them empathetically (e.g., āI understand why this idea might feel uncomfortable at firstā¦ā).
Stay on-topic: Focus on the core discussion (e.g., Daryl Davisās method) rather than branching into unrelated concepts.
Use a neutral tone: Avoid language that could sound preachy or melodramatic.
Question for you:
Do you think the moderation was fair, or do you feel the comment was misunderstood? Would you like help refining the message to be clearer or more constructive?
The post minus the neat formatting for easier reading
I know itās counter intuitive, and emotionally challenging, but, itās hard to argue with Daryl Davisās results. And then consider the alternativeā¦ leaving them unchallenged to worsen in their echo chamber, or worse, challenged so they double down. ā¦[And/]Or unwittingly becoming them, as an opposameā¦ the horror. A horror, weāre all better served, facing. ā¦ Just thinking about it has me go reach for another video (or two) about his story, so inspirational, a way outā¦ and how few of us doing it, it would takeā¦ so many of us, who do not want be either racist nor tyrant/totalitarian, vastly outnumbering those who are nazi/kkk/etc, and if we each achieve 200 conversions out of ignoranceā¦ I know now from experience here on lemmy that a lot of people have a kneejerk reaction against the idea. Maybe not even looking into it any further to hear about it from Daryl Davisās mouth. Presumably, largely, because itās seen as somehow sanctifying and validating their perverse iniquitous hate-filled ignorant dangerous political philosophy and world view. And, as highlighted there^, theyāre seen as a big enough threat as to evoke merely the short term safety concern and reflex (and, would not want deprive of that ~ stay safe), but not following through the longer now, the if-then-therefors, the calm consideration that weāre dis-availed in the limbic fear reflex (especially if chronically triggered, never getting a break ~ which is understandable in presence of perceived threat of being killed (or worse) by someone because of some innate trait of yours they hate), to see which wayās a race to the bottom, and which way mends it. But because of the fortune of Darylās upbringing, racism was completely alien to him, and so in the shock discovery of it, there was an innocent curiosity, and benevolent will to help these people, not in an arrogant imposing way, but just a gentle presence. And thatās it. Thatās really all there is to it. Not saying itās good what theyāre doing, not threatening them with violent judgement and condemnation that merely reaffirms their identity attachment to the toxic ignorant ideas and locking out their considerate forebrains in their own defensive limbic fear reflex, just being a counter-example dispels their ignorant misconceptions and short circuits the ignorant narratives, ending their bigotry and allegiance to hate groups. 200 and counting. How many of them are there? How many of us? If the Chicago experiment had the effect it did on reducing violent crime and increasing community spirit from however many meditators it had, if we couple the Daryl Davis method, with the morphic-resonant-amplifying-esq implications of the Chicago experimentā¦ Seriously, as dark as things seem now in kali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man), satya yuga (the good times) is so very close in reach. Every little flap of our butterfly wingsā¦
ZERO AI used in that, at all. [(Another look back on that, and I wonder how you could have possibly perceived that as AI. Was it just because it was a lot of words, (reasonably) well formatted, and you didnāt even read it?)]
Please do respond to substance, engage with the ideaā¦ even just not respond like your responses could be coming from a cheap troll bot. LOL, the irony of your accusation. āEvery accusation, a confessionā LOL. ā¦ Actuallyā¦ as I look at the rules here on [email protected], I see youāre way off the mark. E.g. āBe civilā, āno trollingā, āno low-effort commentsā, and so on. And it advises, ādo not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they doāā¦ so how much more Iād try walk Daryl Davisās walk with you, seems likely running short, to stay within the rules here. ā¦ So, unless a turn-around in response, to something of substance, and not a cheap fallacy, trolling, uncivility, etc, I guess weāre all but done here, by the rules.
Under the rules, it says
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
The commendability of the 1st sentence, especially the later half, has me on the fence about reporting already, and the 2nd sentence has me play safeā¦ maybe this isnāt a case of (what I oft call) āposts of horrorā where conversations derail and escalate, nor a āpearls before swineā moment, nor a ādonāt argue with foolsā moment, and Iāll maybe yet hear, I donāt know, maybe some refutation of Darylās method, some statistic showing while he converted 200 away he also encouraged thousands more to join, some reveal heās a con-man or paid actor, orā¦ or any kind of proper engagement with anything I said, and not just trolling & ālow-effort commentsā. *dreamer* :)
Edit: I blocked your dumbass as the methods you misunderstand are niche and donāt work large scale.
Pity. Thatās a point Iād have liked to explore, and liked to have helped you explore with some socratic queries and efforts to elaborate and evolve the idea for further exploration of the possibilities and exceptions, if not just finding unfounded misconceptions. Alas, you seemed thoroughly repulsed by the idea of entertaining an idea, and saw it as a threat, like were identity-attached to some idea that seemed challenged. Like the olā poetic quip says, invitingly, reassuringly: āthe ignorance that dies is not you.ā
My points about morphic resonance and the chicago experiment seem[ed to me to] already establish it does work large scale. So I would have loved to have learned what was behind that contradiction argument, if there were reason there to bump it up to a counterargument, so the search for the truth could continue.
The areas it does not work, seem more niche, in the acute.
If you listen to Daryl Davisā stories enough, you soon realise itās not a simple thing without risk of harm or loss of life. Of course. Confronting the most stubborn and extreme in their bigotry and ignorance, is non-trivial with regards to risk, as much as it is worthy, when done so, so productively. Itās not easy, especially when ones own psyche, even, ironically, ones own prejudices, are sabotaging even the will to help a fellow human, or even see them as a fellow human, even casting them as sub-human. Yet through all the strife and dangerous situations heās been in (~ even with his methods to help assure his safety, knowing well the intricacies of what he approached), itās hard to argue with his results. How many have I inspired to leave hate groups? I know not. In person, that I know of for sure? Zero. Thatās worthy of positive reception, someone coming along with a story of how heās responsible for helping inspire over 200 individuals to come out of their ignorance and leave such groups, and worthy of embracing as inspirational. No? Like I say, Iāve seen negative reactions, but, yet to find the wording to successfully invite cogent reasoned argument against it. Someone shows you a way, (with evidence, with first hand witness testimonies), that accomplishes your goal, effectively infinitely better than your current way, ā¦ how you react to that may show if youāre seeking remedy (like if youāre asking to know more about it), or have succumbed to some secondary benefit, some secondary metric incentive, perverting you from a path towards achieving that better world, like if you attack the messenger, to protect your subconscious supply.
Love me some thought provoking stuff. And Daryl Davisā story, as a positive proposition of remedy, in reply to the OP situation (with or without my original replyās characterisation), is for sure rousing some very positive thoughts. Inspires hope of an easier time mendwards than the futility of all our flailing in frustration only making it worse (and being in denial about that, chasing catharsis, instead of just caring and letting that convert.
Imagine some people with Daryl Davisā temprament, getting in between those groups that have had the cartoon worst of each depicted to each other? The calm space heād manage to hold, thatād break through the hate and fear and desperation, allowing more learning and understanding, giving a chance for respect, of the individual, mutually, no longer simply reaffirming the cartoon icons of hate and plastering those summations across the whole group, readying them for collective punishment. Thereās no room to plant seed thatād have any chance, when still constantly battling the beasts in the field and trying to plough constantly. And remember, itās not just no chance of remedy, going at them angry for catharsis in ignorance of opposaming. Itās escalation. Come at a groupthink with your own groupthink, youāre just going to be perceived as a threat to their groupthink, and in being unrelenting, and violently aggressive, as your groupthink, especially when confronting their groupthink, assuredly is, and therefor their groupthink pushes back all the louder with the ideas theyāve attached their identity to, escalated worse with the groupthink effect where each are spurred on to be more extreme to prove your loyalty to the groupā¦ Can you see why thatās not a wise approach, and requiresā¦ requiresā¦ something thatās not making it worse! Sure, the instinct, the impulse, is to attack. Howās that working out for you? When coming to offer something to someone in a groupthink when youāre not in your own groupthink, they may still attack, but you wont engage in the ongoing escalation, because youāre not in that desperate fear, and can remain calm, knowing your existence, your life, is not at threat because of the existence of different ideas to your own, because youāre not your ideas. This makes it easier to be more effective in tackling the issues arising from some people having ideas so ignorant that they may take dangerous harmful actions. When you see this done, the contrast is night and day. I wish I were better at sharing the ideaā¦ but then, running aground here as I have, kinda just shows the terrain, the living boot-camp weāre all in, with regards to this stuff. That counter-intuitive wisdom of the monk, reveals the way, yet we lag in the emotion of attachment. And yet, this is still the way.
And still the echoes continue reverberate, āthe things we hate in others, are the things we hate in ourselves yet do not faceā, and so much easier then to confront the bigot out there, when have had compassion for the bigot within.
All else equal, Iāll take the chance of mends, over the certainty of worsening.
Adhominous contradiction falls a little short of refutation, but maybe youāve something there but did not share it because you believe your assertion, contrary to my invite, that Iām not happy to hear any refutation.
Where?
Thatās amusing. If youāre willing to entertain the idea, ā¦ that sounds like projecting, contrary to the present evidence. Me with an open invitation to more perspectives, and you seeming to bark that down in apparent certainty to know otherwise.
Implying Iām not walking the talk? Right now? Please do help make that clear where thereās grit in my eye, or whatās in my blind spot, because Iām only seeing as far as Iām seeing, and so merely alluding to there being something falling short in some way, is of null benefit, without saying what it is. Otherwiseā¦ kinda just looks like narcissistic insecurity attacking others with pompous airs of superior virtue thinly veiled over gaslighting and misdirection.
I donāt think Iām right. Thatās the point. Humility avails curiosity. Ride it long enough, enough discoveries come to dispel certainty, especially naive realism. Or so says my naive ascertainment thus far. Exceptions abound, to every premature generalisation. And isnāt that all we ever have? And thereās always more?
Thatās a lot of words to say nothing.
Hrmm. Still evasive, gaslighting, arguing tone.
Would have been nice if you could have answered at least one of my questions. Such as āWhere?ā.
Nah dude. I just think the dumbest thing I can do is be friendly with someone who wants me dead.
Removed by mod
Why was this removed??
The log says ātrollingā. ???
What part of that was interpreted as trolling? (Honest question. Not rhetorical dismissiveness.)
One accusation of trolling, one accusation of AI, ā¦ given the other reactions, I can be easily forgiven for entertaining the possibility these are from a desire to attack this in absence of constructive argument on substance. ā¦ And the ācui bonoā (āwho benefitsā) on that is a horror worth confronting. [Cui bono? Bigots. Bigots benefit from that. Getting to keep their hate groups running without this greatest efficacious challenge to them [that I know of] being shared.]. And by censorship? The means do seem fit the ends. O_O
Irony noted here too, that I was having all kinds of rule breaking responses spat at me, and I was trying to be civil and reasonable, itās one of my posts that got deleted. Flying monkey unleashed from some darvo sob story? I hate getting played into being a flying monkey. Some seem more concerned with the idea they may have been played into being a flying monkey, and run from looking at the idea. ā¦ Same pattern spotted earlier, and sought to offer some friendly salve for. No good deed intent going unpunished. Heh. Plenty more cheek to turn. Plenty more patterns to notice, and learn the higher topology from; learn the deeper principles from, to avoid getting played as a flying monkey. And we get played in our shadow. We do not see it. Same as with getting induced to groupthink. Itās kind of an essential defining component of it. Not knowing youāre in it. Not knowing when slipped into groupthink, not knowing when being sent forth as a flying monkey, with your better (or worse) traits being used, likely contrary to your better interests, by the narcissist, the cluster b personality disordered psyche, the social parasite, the predator. ā¦And am noting this is all still on topic, through and through, and within the rules. Not trolling (never have).
I had an LLM propose what could be perceived as trolling, as I never troll, and say when using LLM
The comment you posted is lengthy, passionate, and thought-provoking, but it could be perceived as trolling by some readers due to a few key elements. Hereās a breakdown of where the perception of trolling might arise, even if that wasnāt your intent:
Phrases like:
āthe horror. A horror, weāre all better served, facing.ā āunwittingly becoming them, as an opposameā¦ the horror.ā ārace to the bottomā ākali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man)ā Why it could be seen as trolling: These phrases are emotionally charged and could be interpreted as exaggerated or melodramatic, especially in a context where nuanced discussion is expected. Some might read this as deliberately stoking fear or controversy rather than fostering constructive dialogue.
Examples:
The comment loops between ideas (e.g., Daryl Davisās method, the Chicago experiment, limbic fear reflex, morphic resonance) without clear transitions or concise conclusions. Phrases like āif-then-thereforsā and ādis-availed in the limbic fear reflexā are jargon-heavy and abstract, which can come across as pseudointellectual or obfuscating rather than clarifying. Why it could be seen as trolling: Overly complex or meandering arguments can frustrate readers who expect direct, actionable points. Some might assume youāre intentionally being obscure to provoke reactions or derail discussion.
Examples:
āI know now from experience here on lemmy that a lot of people have a kneejerk reaction against the idea.ā āPresumably, largely, because itās seen as somehow sanctifying and validating their perverse iniquitous hate-filled ignorant dangerous political philosophy and world view.ā ānot following through the longer now, the if-then-therefors, the calm consideration that weāre dis-availed in the limbic fear reflexā Why it could be seen as trolling: These lines dismiss or mock the emotional responses of others (e.g., fear of engaging with hate groups). Even if your intent was to critique a lack of action, phrasing it this way can sound condescending or dismissive, which is a common trolling tactic.
Examples:
āmorphic-resonant-amplifying-esq implications of the Chicago experimentā ākali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man), satya yuga (the good times)ā Why it could be seen as trolling: References to morphic resonance (a controversial, non-mainstream scientific idea) and Hindu cosmological concepts (kali yuga/satya yuga) might be seen as off-topic or esoteric, especially in a discussion about racism or activism. Some readers might interpret this as derailing the conversation with unrelated or fringe ideas.
Examples:
āHow many of them are there? How many of us? If the Chicago experiment had the effect it didā¦ā āEvery little flap of our butterfly wingsā¦ā Why it could be seen as trolling: The tone can come across as preachy or self-righteous, especially if readers feel youāre lecturing them rather than engaging in a two-way discussion. This can provoke pushback or accusations of trolling, even if your intent was sincere.
The comment is dense and stream-of-consciousness, which can make it hard for readers to follow or extract actionable insights. In online forums, walls of text are often flagged as trolling because they overwhelm or annoy others.
Key Takeaway: Why It Might Have Been Flagged Your comment isnāt inherently trollingāitās clearly heartfelt and references real, thoughtful ideas (e.g., Daryl Davisās work). However, the combination of emotional language, abstract reasoning, dismissive phrasing, and fringe references could lead moderators or readers to perceive it as:
Disruptive (derailing the conversation with tangents). Condescending (implying others are irrational or uninformed). Provocative (using charged language to elicit strong reactions).
How to Avoid This Perception in the Future
Be concise: Break up long paragraphs into shorter, clearer points. Avoid jargon: Explain terms like āmorphic resonanceā or ālimbic fear reflexā if theyāre central to your point. Acknowledge othersā emotions: Instead of dismissing ākneejerk reactions,ā address them empathetically (e.g., āI understand why this idea might feel uncomfortable at firstā¦ā). Stay on-topic: Focus on the core discussion (e.g., Daryl Davisās method) rather than branching into unrelated concepts. Use a neutral tone: Avoid language that could sound preachy or melodramatic.
Question for you: Do you think the moderation was fair, or do you feel the comment was misunderstood? Would you like help refining the message to be clearer or more constructive?
The post minus the neat formatting for easier reading
I know itās counter intuitive, and emotionally challenging, but, itās hard to argue with Daryl Davisās results. And then consider the alternativeā¦ leaving them unchallenged to worsen in their echo chamber, or worse, challenged so they double down. ā¦[And/]Or unwittingly becoming them, as an opposameā¦ the horror. A horror, weāre all better served, facing. ā¦ Just thinking about it has me go reach for another video (or two) about his story, so inspirational, a way outā¦ and how few of us doing it, it would takeā¦ so many of us, who do not want be either racist nor tyrant/totalitarian, vastly outnumbering those who are nazi/kkk/etc, and if we each achieve 200 conversions out of ignoranceā¦ I know now from experience here on lemmy that a lot of people have a kneejerk reaction against the idea. Maybe not even looking into it any further to hear about it from Daryl Davisās mouth. Presumably, largely, because itās seen as somehow sanctifying and validating their perverse iniquitous hate-filled ignorant dangerous political philosophy and world view. And, as highlighted there^, theyāre seen as a big enough threat as to evoke merely the short term safety concern and reflex (and, would not want deprive of that ~ stay safe), but not following through the longer now, the if-then-therefors, the calm consideration that weāre dis-availed in the limbic fear reflex (especially if chronically triggered, never getting a break ~ which is understandable in presence of perceived threat of being killed (or worse) by someone because of some innate trait of yours they hate), to see which wayās a race to the bottom, and which way mends it. But because of the fortune of Darylās upbringing, racism was completely alien to him, and so in the shock discovery of it, there was an innocent curiosity, and benevolent will to help these people, not in an arrogant imposing way, but just a gentle presence. And thatās it. Thatās really all there is to it. Not saying itās good what theyāre doing, not threatening them with violent judgement and condemnation that merely reaffirms their identity attachment to the toxic ignorant ideas and locking out their considerate forebrains in their own defensive limbic fear reflex, just being a counter-example dispels their ignorant misconceptions and short circuits the ignorant narratives, ending their bigotry and allegiance to hate groups. 200 and counting. How many of them are there? How many of us? If the Chicago experiment had the effect it did on reducing violent crime and increasing community spirit from however many meditators it had, if we couple the Daryl Davis method, with the morphic-resonant-amplifying-esq implications of the Chicago experimentā¦ Seriously, as dark as things seem now in kali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man), satya yuga (the good times) is so very close in reach. Every little flap of our butterfly wingsā¦
Bruh stop with the AI fucking shit.
Ah. Again with the nothing burger.
ZERO AI used in that, at all. [(Another look back on that, and I wonder how you could have possibly perceived that as AI. Was it just because it was a lot of words, (reasonably) well formatted, and you didnāt even read it?)]
Please do respond to substance, engage with the ideaā¦ even just not respond like your responses could be coming from a cheap troll bot. LOL, the irony of your accusation. āEvery accusation, a confessionā LOL. ā¦ Actuallyā¦ as I look at the rules here on [email protected], I see youāre way off the mark. E.g. āBe civilā, āno trollingā, āno low-effort commentsā, and so on. And it advises, ādo not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they doāā¦ so how much more Iād try walk Daryl Davisās walk with you, seems likely running short, to stay within the rules here. ā¦ So, unless a turn-around in response, to something of substance, and not a cheap fallacy, trolling, uncivility, etc, I guess weāre all but done here, by the rules.
Under the rules, it says
The commendability of the 1st sentence, especially the later half, has me on the fence about reporting already, and the 2nd sentence has me play safeā¦ maybe this isnāt a case of (what I oft call) āposts of horrorā where conversations derail and escalate, nor a āpearls before swineā moment, nor a ādonāt argue with foolsā moment, and Iāll maybe yet hear, I donāt know, maybe some refutation of Darylās method, some statistic showing while he converted 200 away he also encouraged thousands more to join, some reveal heās a con-man or paid actor, orā¦ or any kind of proper engagement with anything I said, and not just trolling & ālow-effort commentsā. *dreamer* :)
Pity. Thatās a point Iād have liked to explore, and liked to have helped you explore with some socratic queries and efforts to elaborate and evolve the idea for further exploration of the possibilities and exceptions, if not just finding unfounded misconceptions. Alas, you seemed thoroughly repulsed by the idea of entertaining an idea, and saw it as a threat, like were identity-attached to some idea that seemed challenged. Like the olā poetic quip says, invitingly, reassuringly: āthe ignorance that dies is not you.ā
My points about morphic resonance and the chicago experiment seem[ed to me to] already establish it does work large scale. So I would have loved to have learned what was behind that contradiction argument, if there were reason there to bump it up to a counterargument, so the search for the truth could continue.
The areas it does not work, seem more niche, in the acute.
If you listen to Daryl Davisā stories enough, you soon realise itās not a simple thing without risk of harm or loss of life. Of course. Confronting the most stubborn and extreme in their bigotry and ignorance, is non-trivial with regards to risk, as much as it is worthy, when done so, so productively. Itās not easy, especially when ones own psyche, even, ironically, ones own prejudices, are sabotaging even the will to help a fellow human, or even see them as a fellow human, even casting them as sub-human. Yet through all the strife and dangerous situations heās been in (~ even with his methods to help assure his safety, knowing well the intricacies of what he approached), itās hard to argue with his results. How many have I inspired to leave hate groups? I know not. In person, that I know of for sure? Zero. Thatās worthy of positive reception, someone coming along with a story of how heās responsible for helping inspire over 200 individuals to come out of their ignorance and leave such groups, and worthy of embracing as inspirational. No? Like I say, Iāve seen negative reactions, but, yet to find the wording to successfully invite cogent reasoned argument against it. Someone shows you a way, (with evidence, with first hand witness testimonies), that accomplishes your goal, effectively infinitely better than your current way, ā¦ how you react to that may show if youāre seeking remedy (like if youāre asking to know more about it), or have succumbed to some secondary benefit, some secondary metric incentive, perverting you from a path towards achieving that better world, like if you attack the messenger, to protect your subconscious supply.
Love me some thought provoking stuff. And Daryl Davisā story, as a positive proposition of remedy, in reply to the OP situation (with or without my original replyās characterisation), is for sure rousing some very positive thoughts. Inspires hope of an easier time mendwards than the futility of all our flailing in frustration only making it worse (and being in denial about that, chasing catharsis, instead of just caring and letting that convert.
Imagine some people with Daryl Davisā temprament, getting in between those groups that have had the cartoon worst of each depicted to each other? The calm space heād manage to hold, thatād break through the hate and fear and desperation, allowing more learning and understanding, giving a chance for respect, of the individual, mutually, no longer simply reaffirming the cartoon icons of hate and plastering those summations across the whole group, readying them for collective punishment. Thereās no room to plant seed thatād have any chance, when still constantly battling the beasts in the field and trying to plough constantly. And remember, itās not just no chance of remedy, going at them angry for catharsis in ignorance of opposaming. Itās escalation. Come at a groupthink with your own groupthink, youāre just going to be perceived as a threat to their groupthink, and in being unrelenting, and violently aggressive, as your groupthink, especially when confronting their groupthink, assuredly is, and therefor their groupthink pushes back all the louder with the ideas theyāve attached their identity to, escalated worse with the groupthink effect where each are spurred on to be more extreme to prove your loyalty to the groupā¦ Can you see why thatās not a wise approach, and requiresā¦ requiresā¦ something thatās not making it worse! Sure, the instinct, the impulse, is to attack. Howās that working out for you? When coming to offer something to someone in a groupthink when youāre not in your own groupthink, they may still attack, but you wont engage in the ongoing escalation, because youāre not in that desperate fear, and can remain calm, knowing your existence, your life, is not at threat because of the existence of different ideas to your own, because youāre not your ideas. This makes it easier to be more effective in tackling the issues arising from some people having ideas so ignorant that they may take dangerous harmful actions. When you see this done, the contrast is night and day. I wish I were better at sharing the ideaā¦ but then, running aground here as I have, kinda just shows the terrain, the living boot-camp weāre all in, with regards to this stuff. That counter-intuitive wisdom of the monk, reveals the way, yet we lag in the emotion of attachment. And yet, this is still the way.
And still the echoes continue reverberate, āthe things we hate in others, are the things we hate in ourselves yet do not faceā, and so much easier then to confront the bigot out there, when have had compassion for the bigot within.
All else equal, Iāll take the chance of mends, over the certainty of worsening.