Adhominous contradiction falls a little short of refutation, but maybe you’ve something there but did not share it because you believe your assertion, contrary to my invite, that I’m not happy to hear any refutation.
You started with a flase premise
Where?
and seem to think you have to only answer.
That’s amusing. If you’re willing to entertain the idea, … 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 you’re right, go be about it. Be an example.
Implying I’m not walking the talk? Right now? Please do help make that clear where there’s grit in my eye, or what’s in my blind spot, because I’m only seeing as far as I’m seeing, and so merely alluding to there being something falling short in some way, is of null benefit, without saying what it is. Otherwise… kinda just looks like narcissistic insecurity attacking others with pompous airs of superior virtue thinly veiled over gaslighting and misdirection.
I don’t think I’m right. That’s 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 isn’t that all we ever have? And there’s always more?
What part of that was interpreted as trolling? (Honest question. Not rhetorical dismissiveness.)
One accusation of trolling, one accusation of AI, … 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. … And the “cui bono” (“who benefits”) 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, it’s 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. … 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. It’s kind of an essential defining component of it. Not knowing you’re 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. …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. Here’s a breakdown of where the perception of trolling might arise, even if that wasn’t your intent:
Provocative Framing and Hyperbolic Language
Phrases like:
“the horror. A horror, we’re all better served, facing.”
“unwittingly becoming them, as an opposame… the horror.”
“race to the bottom”
“kali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man)”
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 Davis’s method, the Chicago experiment, limbic fear reflex, morphic resonance) without clear transitions or concise conclusions.
Phrases like “if-then-therefors” and “dis-availed in the limbic fear reflex” 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 you’re intentionally being obscure to provoke reactions or derail discussion.
Implied Criticism of Others’ Reactions
Examples:
“I know now from experience here on lemmy that a lot of people have a kneejerk reaction against the idea.”
“Presumably, largely, because it’s seen as somehow sanctifying and validating their perverse iniquitous hate-filled ignorant dangerous political philosophy and world view.”
“not following through the longer now, the if-then-therefors, the calm consideration that we’re dis-availed in the limbic fear reflex”
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:
“morphic-resonant-amplifying-esq implications of the Chicago experiment”
“kali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man), satya yuga (the good times)”
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:
“How many of them are there? How many of us? If the Chicago experiment had the effect it did…”
“Every little flap of our butterfly wings…”
Why it could be seen as trolling:
The tone can come across as preachy or self-righteous, especially if readers feel you’re 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 isn’t inherently trolling—it’s clearly heartfelt and references real, thoughtful ideas (e.g., Daryl Davis’s 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 “morphic resonance” or “limbic fear reflex” if they’re central to your point.
Acknowledge others’ emotions: Instead of dismissing “kneejerk reactions,” address them empathetically (e.g., “I understand why this idea might feel uncomfortable at first…”).
Stay on-topic: Focus on the core discussion (e.g., Daryl Davis’s 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 it’s counter intuitive, and emotionally challenging, but, it’s hard to argue with Daryl Davis’s results. And then consider the alternative… leaving them unchallenged to worsen in their echo chamber, or worse, challenged so they double down. …[And/]Or unwittingly becoming them, as an opposame… the horror. A horror, we’re all better served, facing. … Just thinking about it has me go reach for another video (or two) about his story, so inspirational, a way out… and how few of us doing it, it would take… 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 ignorance… 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 Davis’s mouth. Presumably, largely, because it’s seen as somehow sanctifying and validating their perverse iniquitous hate-filled ignorant dangerous political philosophy and world view. And, as highlighted there^, they’re 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 we’re 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 way’s a race to the bottom, and which way mends it. But because of the fortune of Daryl’s 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 that’s it. That’s really all there is to it. Not saying it’s good what they’re 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 experiment… 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 wings…
Edit: I blocked your dumbass as the methods you misunderstand are niche and don’t work large scale.
Pity. That’s a point I’d 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 ol’ poetic quip says, invitingly, reassuringly: “the ignorance that dies is not you.”
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 Davis’ stories enough, you soon realise it’s 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. It’s 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 he’s been in (~ even with his methods to help assure his safety, knowing well the intricacies of what he approached), it’s 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. That’s worthy of positive reception, someone coming along with a story of how he’s 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, I’ve 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, … how you react to that may show if you’re seeking remedy (like if you’re 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 Davis’ story, as a positive proposition of remedy, in reply to the OP situation (with or without my original reply’s 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 Davis’ temprament, getting in between those groups that have had the cartoon worst of each depicted to each other? The calm space he’d manage to hold, that’d 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. There’s no room to plant seed that’d have any chance, when still constantly battling the beasts in the field and trying to plough constantly. And remember, it’s not just no chance of remedy, going at them angry for catharsis in ignorance of opposaming. It’s escalation. Come at a groupthink with your own groupthink, you’re 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 they’ve 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 group… Can you see why that’s not a wise approach, and requires… requires… something that’s not making it worse! Sure, the instinct, the impulse, is to attack. How’s that working out for you? When coming to offer something to someone in a groupthink when you’re not in your own groupthink, they may still attack, but you wont engage in the ongoing escalation, because you’re 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 you’re 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 idea… but then, running aground here as I have, kinda just shows the terrain, the living boot-camp we’re 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, “the things we hate in others, are the things we hate in ourselves yet do not face”, and so much easier then to confront the bigot out there, when have had compassion for the bigot within.
All else equal, I’ll take the chance of mends, over the certainty of worsening.
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 didn’t even read it?)]
Please do respond to substance, engage with the idea… even just not respond like your responses could be coming from a cheap troll bot. LOL, the irony of your accusation. “Every accusation, a confession” LOL. … Actually… as I look at the rules here on [email protected], I see you’re way off the mark. E.g. “Be civil”, “no trolling”, “no low-effort comments”, and so on. And it advises, “do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do”… so how much more I’d try walk Daryl Davis’s walk with you, seems likely running short, to stay within the rules here. … So, unless a turn-around in response, to something of substance, and not a cheap fallacy, trolling, uncivility, etc, I guess we’re 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 safe… maybe this isn’t a case of (what I oft call) “posts of horror” where conversations derail and escalate, nor a “pearls before swine” moment, nor a “don’t argue with fools” moment, and I’ll maybe yet hear, I don’t know, maybe some refutation of Daryl’s method, some statistic showing while he converted 200 away he also encouraged thousands more to join, some reveal he’s a con-man or paid actor, or… or any kind of proper engagement with anything I said, and not just trolling & “low-effort comments”. *dreamer* :)
No you aren’t. You started with a flase premise and seem to think you have to only answer.
If you think you’re right, go be about it. Be an example.
Adhominous contradiction falls a little short of refutation, but maybe you’ve something there but did not share it because you believe your assertion, contrary to my invite, that I’m not happy to hear any refutation.
Where?
That’s amusing. If you’re willing to entertain the idea, … 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 I’m not walking the talk? Right now? Please do help make that clear where there’s grit in my eye, or what’s in my blind spot, because I’m only seeing as far as I’m seeing, and so merely alluding to there being something falling short in some way, is of null benefit, without saying what it is. Otherwise… kinda just looks like narcissistic insecurity attacking others with pompous airs of superior virtue thinly veiled over gaslighting and misdirection.
I don’t think I’m right. That’s 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 isn’t that all we ever have? And there’s always more?
That’s 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 “Where?”.
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 “trolling”. ???
What part of that was interpreted as trolling? (Honest question. Not rhetorical dismissiveness.)
One accusation of trolling, one accusation of AI, … 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. … And the “cui bono” (“who benefits”) 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, it’s 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. … 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. It’s kind of an essential defining component of it. Not knowing you’re 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. …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. Here’s a breakdown of where the perception of trolling might arise, even if that wasn’t your intent:
Phrases like:
“the horror. A horror, we’re all better served, facing.” “unwittingly becoming them, as an opposame… the horror.” “race to the bottom” “kali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man)” 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 Davis’s method, the Chicago experiment, limbic fear reflex, morphic resonance) without clear transitions or concise conclusions. Phrases like “if-then-therefors” and “dis-availed in the limbic fear reflex” 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 you’re intentionally being obscure to provoke reactions or derail discussion.
Examples:
“I know now from experience here on lemmy that a lot of people have a kneejerk reaction against the idea.” “Presumably, largely, because it’s seen as somehow sanctifying and validating their perverse iniquitous hate-filled ignorant dangerous political philosophy and world view.” “not following through the longer now, the if-then-therefors, the calm consideration that we’re dis-availed in the limbic fear reflex” 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:
“morphic-resonant-amplifying-esq implications of the Chicago experiment” “kali yuga (the age of ignorance, when man kills man), satya yuga (the good times)” 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:
“How many of them are there? How many of us? If the Chicago experiment had the effect it did…” “Every little flap of our butterfly wings…” Why it could be seen as trolling: The tone can come across as preachy or self-righteous, especially if readers feel you’re 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 isn’t inherently trolling—it’s clearly heartfelt and references real, thoughtful ideas (e.g., Daryl Davis’s 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 “morphic resonance” or “limbic fear reflex” if they’re central to your point. Acknowledge others’ emotions: Instead of dismissing “kneejerk reactions,” address them empathetically (e.g., “I understand why this idea might feel uncomfortable at first…”). Stay on-topic: Focus on the core discussion (e.g., Daryl Davis’s 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 it’s counter intuitive, and emotionally challenging, but, it’s hard to argue with Daryl Davis’s results. And then consider the alternative… leaving them unchallenged to worsen in their echo chamber, or worse, challenged so they double down. …[And/]Or unwittingly becoming them, as an opposame… the horror. A horror, we’re all better served, facing. … Just thinking about it has me go reach for another video (or two) about his story, so inspirational, a way out… and how few of us doing it, it would take… 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 ignorance… 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 Davis’s mouth. Presumably, largely, because it’s seen as somehow sanctifying and validating their perverse iniquitous hate-filled ignorant dangerous political philosophy and world view. And, as highlighted there^, they’re 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 we’re 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 way’s a race to the bottom, and which way mends it. But because of the fortune of Daryl’s 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 that’s it. That’s really all there is to it. Not saying it’s good what they’re 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 experiment… 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 wings…
Bruh stop with the AI fucking shit.
Edit: I blocked your dumbass as the methods you misunderstand are niche and don’t work large scale.
Pity. That’s a point I’d 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 ol’ poetic quip says, invitingly, reassuringly: “the ignorance that dies is not you.”
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 Davis’ stories enough, you soon realise it’s 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. It’s 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 he’s been in (~ even with his methods to help assure his safety, knowing well the intricacies of what he approached), it’s 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. That’s worthy of positive reception, someone coming along with a story of how he’s 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, I’ve 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, … how you react to that may show if you’re seeking remedy (like if you’re 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 Davis’ story, as a positive proposition of remedy, in reply to the OP situation (with or without my original reply’s 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 Davis’ temprament, getting in between those groups that have had the cartoon worst of each depicted to each other? The calm space he’d manage to hold, that’d 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. There’s no room to plant seed that’d have any chance, when still constantly battling the beasts in the field and trying to plough constantly. And remember, it’s not just no chance of remedy, going at them angry for catharsis in ignorance of opposaming. It’s escalation. Come at a groupthink with your own groupthink, you’re 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 they’ve 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 group… Can you see why that’s not a wise approach, and requires… requires… something that’s not making it worse! Sure, the instinct, the impulse, is to attack. How’s that working out for you? When coming to offer something to someone in a groupthink when you’re not in your own groupthink, they may still attack, but you wont engage in the ongoing escalation, because you’re 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 you’re 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 idea… but then, running aground here as I have, kinda just shows the terrain, the living boot-camp we’re 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, “the things we hate in others, are the things we hate in ourselves yet do not face”, and so much easier then to confront the bigot out there, when have had compassion for the bigot within.
All else equal, I’ll take the chance of mends, over the certainty of worsening.
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 didn’t even read it?)]
Please do respond to substance, engage with the idea… even just not respond like your responses could be coming from a cheap troll bot. LOL, the irony of your accusation. “Every accusation, a confession” LOL. … Actually… as I look at the rules here on [email protected], I see you’re way off the mark. E.g. “Be civil”, “no trolling”, “no low-effort comments”, and so on. And it advises, “do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do”… so how much more I’d try walk Daryl Davis’s walk with you, seems likely running short, to stay within the rules here. … So, unless a turn-around in response, to something of substance, and not a cheap fallacy, trolling, uncivility, etc, I guess we’re 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 safe… maybe this isn’t a case of (what I oft call) “posts of horror” where conversations derail and escalate, nor a “pearls before swine” moment, nor a “don’t argue with fools” moment, and I’ll maybe yet hear, I don’t know, maybe some refutation of Daryl’s method, some statistic showing while he converted 200 away he also encouraged thousands more to join, some reveal he’s a con-man or paid actor, or… or any kind of proper engagement with anything I said, and not just trolling & “low-effort comments”. *dreamer* :)