What are you thinking right now?

[TheRealCallie]

actually i got to take urban dictionary seriously because of having high ranking in google results when searching for a meaning

pfft, that's doesn't mean anything. lol

last year i couldn't find on the whole internet the meaning of the slang "fresia" which was being used here a lot

Well, that's because whoever put the censor on decided what the change would be, so it's literally only here that you will find that. Also honeysuckle.

 

[Minus]

actually i got to take urban dictionary seriously because of having high ranking in google results when searching for a meaning

You can do as you wish. I am not saying it is worthless, but it does show how many differing ideas people can have on what some of the terms mean.

 

[Papagenox]

You can do as you wish. I am not saying it is worthless, but it does show how many differing ideas people can have on what some of the terms mean.

it's ok enough for a foreigner who learned English mostly from movies and wikipedia

 

[TheSkaFish]

We value hard work and rugged individualism.
I think that is commendable.

That's the thing though.

I think capitalism has become too extreme for most people. Most people can't live up to those ideals.

The world has become more competitive, and a person needs to be more competitive just to do "just OK" anymore (and that's just economically, not even taking the dating market into consideration) but people haven't become more intelligent to match.

I feel like the reason that most people are "most people" - why most people struggle with making money, is because they lack the intelligence to do anything well enough, that makes enough money. They're simply not smart enough/can't process enough complexity to do the "right" careers. Most people's "hard work" just isn't considered difficult enough to have much value. They aren't cut out for the game of individualism, just because they were born that way. In a purely Darwinian sense, most people aren't "good enough". They aren't good enough at anything to have a competitive advantage for life.

This also combines with NOT having interests that just so happen to be well-paying careers.
Of course, it stands to reason that people don't tend to be interested in things they aren't good at.
It doesn't feel like there is much of a point being interested in something you feel like you can't do.
And doing things badly to "just OK", is not fun, interesting, exciting, encouraging, or makes you feel good about yourself.

It could be said that it's just natural selection, that nature is just correcting itself, and those that are not competitive, won't survive.
But I feel like as sentient life, we can do better. That's what I thought it meant to live in a civilization.
In the Third World, you survive only as far as your strength, cunning, and/or family money, or luck, will allow.
In the First World, I thought we took care of our own, regardless of physical or mental ability, because I thought we had kinder, gentler values. I thought we were more ethical, and our culture valued life more. I thought First World countries cared about providing a good standard of living for its citizens, whether they were "good enough" or not, because we can - because we're capable of it, and because it's the right thing to do. I thought the people running things were benevolent leaders that knew most people couldn't live up to the highest standards, and saw themselves as the caretakers of civilization. Like they knew most people couldn't do much beyond live their lives and be entertained, but because we were an advanced and moral society, we took care of our population.

I've wondered all my life, what are all the non-math/science-smart people supposed to do? Because the world is getting more technical every year. A person needs to be able to process more and more complexity to stay relevant. A lot of people can no more do that, than they can stay competitive in an athletic sense. At least, that's how it's always looked to me.

Then there's interest. It helps when a person is actually interested in engineering or something like that. Interest in something makes it more inspiring to go through pain for it. I run, and it's not comfortable, but I want to not have a potbelly enough to keep doing it. But without that, then it's like forcing yourself to be something you're not. Then, it makes a person feel stuck in a life they don't like, and negative. And negativity is a turnoff. It's hard to attract a woman when you hate your life because of what you have to do for a living. What would you talk about on the date? What vibes would you give off? The competitive world kind of imprisons people in their own lives. It's great if a person's interests, and what they're good at, just so happens to align, and just so happens to be the right stuff. Otherwise, not so much.

Honestly, I think even you could benefit from a less competitive world. If you had more work/life balance, if you could still have a good quality of life for less working hours, then you could have more hours outside of work to do things that would give you more conversation material to interest and impress women with.

 

[kaetic]

We value hard work and rugged individualism.
I think that is commendable.

Do you live in the US?

If so, this has not been my experience.

 

[TheRealCallie]

Do you live in the US?

If so, this has not been my experience.

He said we VALUE that, not that we GET that. Lol

 

[Unsigned]

Do you live in the US?

If so, this has not been my experience.

Yes. NYC Metro Area. I've worked in financial technology since 1987 - started at 21. Worked my *** off.
I'm taking it easier now, because I am getting ready to retire.

 

[user 191088]

In the Third World, you survive only as far as your strength, cunning, and/or family money, or luck, will allow.
In the First World, I thought we took care of our own, regardless of physical or mental ability, because I thought we had kinder, gentler values. I thought we were more ethical, and our culture valued life more. I thought First World countries cared about providing a good standard of living for its citizens, whether they were "good enough" or not, because we can - because we're capable of it, and because it's the right thing to do. I thought the people running things were benevolent leaders that knew most people couldn't live up to the highest standards, and saw themselves as the caretakers of civilization. Like they knew most people couldn't do much beyond live their lives and be entertained, but because we were an advanced and moral society, we took care of our population.

What is this even supposed to mean? that in peripheric countries people are less ethical, that their cultures value life less and that their values are less kind, less gentle? If that were the case, you wouldn't go around bombing, killing, pillaging and raping while they are the ones that are bombed, killed, pillaged and ***** out of existence. Jesus Christ, the stuff gringos say... Caretakers of civilization? What is this, Plato's Republic?

Advanced, moral and always looking after their own kind - that's what the nazis thought of themselves. Doesn't mean they were any of those things.

 

[kaetic]

I'm thinking this conversation is way too deep for me right now. I'm just laying here trying to remember how the chocobo song goes.

 

[FFurry]

I've wondered all my life, what are all the non-math/science-smart people supposed to do? Because the world is getting more technical every year. A person needs to be able to process more and more complexity to stay relevant. A lot of people can no more do that, than they can stay competitive in an athletic sense. At least, that's how it's always looked to me.

Yes, but now even the math/science people must be the best of the best. In the "old" days, employers were tripping over themselves to hire coders and tech people. Nowadays, it's more like applicants tripping over the masses of other applicants trying to get at the few available positions.

 

[ardour]

That's the thing though.

I think capitalism has become too extreme for most people. Most people can't live up to those ideals.

The world has become more competitive, and a person needs to be more competitive just to do "just OK" anymore (and that's just economically, not even taking the dating market into consideration) but people haven't become more intelligent to match.

I feel like the reason that most people are "most people" - why most people struggle with making money, is because they lack the intelligence to do anything well enough, that makes enough money. They're simply not smart enough/can't process enough complexity to do the "right" careers. Most people's "hard work" just isn't considered difficult enough to have much value. They aren't cut out for the game of individualism, just because they were born that way. In a purely Darwinian sense, most people aren't "good enough". They aren't good enough at anything to have a competitive advantage for life.

This also combines with NOT having interests that just so happen to be well-paying careers.
Of course, it stands to reason that people don't tend to be interested in things they aren't good at.
It doesn't feel like there is much of a point being interested in something you feel like you can't do.
And doing things badly to "just OK", is not fun, interesting, exciting, encouraging, or makes you feel good about yourself.

It could be said that it's just natural selection, that nature is just correcting itself, and those that are not competitive, won't survive.
But I feel like as sentient life, we can do better. That's what I thought it meant to live in a civilization.
In the Third World, you survive only as far as your strength, cunning, and/or family money, or luck, will allow.
In the First World, I thought we took care of our own, regardless of physical or mental ability, because I thought we had kinder, gentler values. I thought we were more ethical, and our culture valued life more. I thought First World countries cared about providing a good standard of living for its citizens, whether they were "good enough" or not, because we can - because we're capable of it, and because it's the right thing to do. I thought the people running things were benevolent leaders that knew most people couldn't live up to the highest standards, and saw themselves as the caretakers of civilization. Like they knew most people couldn't do much beyond live their lives and be entertained, but because we were an advanced and moral society, we took care of our population.

I've wondered all my life, what are all the non-math/science-smart people supposed to do? Because the world is getting more technical every year. A person needs to be able to process more and more complexity to stay relevant. A lot of people can no more do that, than they can stay competitive in an athletic sense. At least, that's how it's always looked to me.

Then there's interest. It helps when a person is actually interested in engineering or something like that. Interest in something makes it more inspiring to go through pain for it. I run, and it's not comfortable, but I want to not have a potbelly enough to keep doing it. But without that, then it's like forcing yourself to be something you're not. Then, it makes a person feel stuck in a life they don't like, and negative. And negativity is a turnoff. It's hard to attract a woman when you hate your life because of what you have to do for a living. What would you talk about on the date? What vibes would you give off? The competitive world kind of imprisons people in their own lives. It's great if a person's interests, and what they're good at, just so happens to align, and just so happens to be the right stuff. Otherwise, not so much.

Honestly, I think even you could benefit from a less competitive world. If you had more work/life balance, if you could still have a good quality of life for less working hours, then you could have more hours outside of work to do things that would give you more conversation material to interest and impress women with.

The reason we have welfare states in the developed west is because the 'lower classes' voted in left-leaning governments during the early-to-mid 20th century, when there was enough economic development after a century or so of economic exploitation of workers. It's got little to do with a humanistic cultural heritage. How do you reconcile that view with the Transatlantic Slave Trade or the plundering of India for example?

 

[TheSkaFish]

The reason we have welfare states in the developed west is because the 'lower classes' voted in left-leaning governments during the early-to-mid 20th century, when there was enough economic development after a century or so of economic exploitation of the working classes. It's got little to do with humanistic cultural heritages. How do you reconcile that view with the Transatlantic Slave Trade or the plundering of India for example?

Yeah I can see that. Unfortunately it seems like we are heading back in the wrong direction.

The slave trade and India, I thought, were bad episodes that we grew out of in time though as we realized it was wrong.

The West was presented as having humanistic cultural heritages growing up though. That was the feel I got from it. Just look around, a lot of people still believe it.

 

[user 191088]

The curious thing is that one would elect the liberal bourgeois state as the incarnation of morality and humanism in politics when it is, in fact, the type of state that is the least preoccupied with morality and anything of the sort, that one would dignify it with the honor of being the bearer of such an antithetical flame. It is driven by people that are concerned with nothing but making money and the cogwheels of the economy spin. It is no secret that liberal political theory has always considered both law and the state to be merely guarantors of certain irreductible individual rights, never truly bringing upon themselves the duty of leading the population to virtue, as Aristotle would have advocated for. Yes, even though it should be the purpose of the state to instill virtue in the citizenry, that does not preclude neither slavery nor the economic exploitation that comes with it, as for centuries slavery was considered to be a morally legitimate activity. After all, if no one bothered to bring sub-Saharan savages into captivity, they would remain living lives of barbarism, fighting tribal wars and worshiping false gods, and what good would that be? Even more curious is the fact that it wasn't the virtuous state preconized by Socrates' pupil and his pupil's pupil that brought down the instution of slavery for good, but rather the blind pursuit of one's own, personal interests that, in true Smithian fashion, brought about social progress at a time when capitalism and the bourgeoisie were still progressive elements of a - by comparison - rather archaic society.

 

[ardour]

Yes, even though it should be the purpose of the state to instill virtue in the citizenry

A form of authoritarianism you agree with. Or is this a controversial thinking out loud sort of statement?

that does not preclude neither slavery nor the economic exploitation that comes with it, as for centuries slavery was considered to be a morally legitimate activity. After all, if no one bothered to bring sub-Saharan savages into captivity, they would remain living lives of barbarism, fighting tribal wars and worshiping false gods, and what good would that be?

Ah yes, the civilizing mission. Except it's their right to both live as they please as well as inhabit land they lived on for millennia.

 

[user 191088]

A form of authoritarianism you agree with. Or is this a controversial thinking out loud sort of statement?

It's a demonstration of how humanistic, how morally superior, kind and benevolent and gentle the "West" has been for centuries. If it were to suddenly change its nature, one would have a lot of explaining to do, because water does not simply turn into wine from one moment to the next, despite what scripture says.

 

[TheSkaFish]

What is this even supposed to mean? that in peripheric countries people are less ethical, that their cultures value life less and that their values are less kind, less gentle? If that were the case, you wouldn't go around bombing, killing, pillaging and raping while they are the ones that are bombed, killed, pillaged and ***** out of existence. Jesus Christ, the stuff gringos say... Caretakers of civilization? What is this, Plato's Republic?

Advanced, moral and always looking after their own kind - that's what the nazis thought of themselves. Doesn't mean they were any of those things.

That's just how things looked to me growing up, and how they were presented to me, in school and in the wider culture.
Basically I thought the West were the "good guy" countries, or like the Federation from Star Trek.
Sure, we had some bad times in the past, but we learned from those, outgrew it, and moved on to something better. Or so I thought.

I don't think Europeans are necessarily "better" than anyone else, or even different, in a biological sense.
But I do think there is a lot of bad things, that go on a lot more outside of the West than in it - the mistreatment of women, children, and animals, for example. In a lot of the developing world, those groups don't even have full rights, and it's the cultural norm that it stays that way. That's the thing I feel is iffy, the cultural norms.

I'm not saying the West is perfect, or that bad things never happen here, or that everyone here is kind and moral. The West has at different times messed up heinously, even to its own citizens that put their trust in it. But I think the West has (overall) more freedoms, rights, and less violence/casual brutality as a routine fact of life.

 

[Draven]

I have an ear ache. I'm weak and vulnerable. I'm gonna ...

 

[Draven]

My earache is so much worse and I'm really gonna cry. I'ma do it.

 

[okidoke]

My earache is so much worse and I'm really gonna cry. I'ma do it.

You need to go to a doctor. I’ve had bad ear aches in the past, and the last time a few years ago now, it was from getting an infection from a private pool. I ended up having to go to hospital at 2am because the pain was so severe. A good clean out, antibiotics and strong painkillers did the trick. Apart from the ocean, I never swim in any other water without ear plugs.

 

[Draven]

You need to go to a doctor. I’ve had bad ear aches in the past, and the last time a few years ago now, it was from getting an infection from a private pool. I ended up having to go to hospital at 2am because the pain was so severe. A good clean out, antibiotics and strong painkillers did the trick. Apart from the ocean, I never swim in any other water without ear plugs.

I probably would if I had health insurance and I haven't been to a hospital in years. I really don't know what they'll do. I've always heard about how this hospital closest to me is incompetent. I really don't know. Plus I'm sure they'll charge me a serious amount of cash. I might have to thug it out and cry every now and then. This is only the second day so maybe it'll get better tomorrow or the next day. Thanks for saying something okidoke. I've been rubbing places and taking 'tik tok' advice for now. If I catch a fever I'll consider going after a day of that fever.