- Welcome to abreaction.
heresy against conformity
Recent posts
#1
idea / Re: DiversityWatch
Last post by prime - Jul 09, 2026, 10:53 AMDiversity News (July 9, 2026)
14A, racial violence in sports, Hispanic identity, Botswana rising, alien-hiding judge walks.
https://www.amerika.org/politics/diversity-news-july-9-2026/
14A, racial violence in sports, Hispanic identity, Botswana rising, alien-hiding judge walks.
https://www.amerika.org/politics/diversity-news-july-9-2026/
#2
idea / Re: Divorce, cheating, and inf...
Last post by prime - Jul 09, 2026, 10:31 AMQuoteThe association between women's higher earnings and relationship dissolution was noticeably stronger among couples raising children. Female-breadwinner couples with children were 49% more likely to separate than male-breadwinner couples, whereas childless female-breadwinner couples were 23% more likely to separate than their male-breadwinning counterparts.
This finding suggests that balancing work and family responsibilities may place greater strain on relationships when women have higher earnings, perhaps because household responsibilities remain unevenly shared.
https://www.psypost.org/why-do-relationships-fail-when-women-earn-more-study-challenges-traditional-explanations/
#3
sense / Re: Platonism
Last post by prime - Jul 08, 2026, 04:57 PMEven more, it seems to me that purposive decisions are rare. Most people do what they like doing or are accustomed to doing, and only react if stimulus comes their way. They are lottery players by nature and blame luck for everything that goes wrong in their lives, but attribute to themselves everything that goes right.
#4
sense / Re: Platonism
Last post by sub rosa - Jul 08, 2026, 12:37 PMThis one sounds interesting too.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/a6df1001baa30074fd3f53646ae720bd/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=49061
https://www.proquest.com/openview/a6df1001baa30074fd3f53646ae720bd/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=49061
#5
sense / Re: Platonism
Last post by sub rosa - Jul 08, 2026, 12:31 PMhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09567976241243004
Anendophasia varies in degree and probably maps the Bell Curve.
Then there's also the question of the 'quality and significance' of inner speech - to borrow from academia - for those in the middle who exhibit "some" of that intermittently, roughly 1/4 of waking moments but that sounds like an over-estimation to me.
If it's about what they buy, how they measure up compared to the Jonses, and what a jerk so and so is because they "did me dirty" and how karma should get them (ego)... well, that's not a whole lot.
Only a minority (around 10%) supposedly exhibits no inner speech at all, responding strictly to external stimuli. These are probably the classic tards without the science naming the spade. If you ask Chatty, it walks on eggshells ... 'well it's not really true that most people have no inner speech" then it proceeds to make the technical apologetics above.
Sure it's true. A conscious and vigorous inner wrestling with abstract transcendental, ethical, and spiritual notions (big problems) is simply rare. So that's that.
Anendophasia varies in degree and probably maps the Bell Curve.
Then there's also the question of the 'quality and significance' of inner speech - to borrow from academia - for those in the middle who exhibit "some" of that intermittently, roughly 1/4 of waking moments but that sounds like an over-estimation to me.
If it's about what they buy, how they measure up compared to the Jonses, and what a jerk so and so is because they "did me dirty" and how karma should get them (ego)... well, that's not a whole lot.
Only a minority (around 10%) supposedly exhibits no inner speech at all, responding strictly to external stimuli. These are probably the classic tards without the science naming the spade. If you ask Chatty, it walks on eggshells ... 'well it's not really true that most people have no inner speech" then it proceeds to make the technical apologetics above.
Sure it's true. A conscious and vigorous inner wrestling with abstract transcendental, ethical, and spiritual notions (big problems) is simply rare. So that's that.
#7
idea / Re: DiversityWatch
Last post by prime - Jul 08, 2026, 10:25 AMDiversity News (July 8, 2026)
ICE shootings, Barbara Ann, Indian organized crime, fake refugees, AFD banned.
https://www.amerika.org/politics/diversity-news-july-8-2026/
ICE shootings, Barbara Ann, Indian organized crime, fake refugees, AFD banned.
https://www.amerika.org/politics/diversity-news-july-8-2026/
#8
sense / Re: Platonism
Last post by sub rosa - Jul 08, 2026, 07:31 AMAre you referring to the studies on inner dialogue?
#9
sense / Re: Platonism
Last post by prime - Jul 08, 2026, 05:22 AMWe finally learned last year that most of humanity has no "inner narrative," and I think it is safe to conclude that very few of them wrestle with any big problems whatsoever. They are there for what is convenient and makes them feel good, and anything else they backfill rationalize.
#10
Reply to Daniel
I am replying here, as the directions seemed to be.
Nothing I am aware of but personally, I favor reaching "enlightenment" in a natural state, substance-free, tech-free, gimmick-free.
It depends. Intuitively, some interventions make more sense than others. Life extension, quality of life, reproductive health and fitness, absolutely. Turning humans into machine-hooked vegetables? Probably not.
People of higher caliber - meaning intelligence, realism, big picture thinkers, natural leaders (and empaths, believe it or not). Creating policies and incentives to prevent the struggling and defective from reproducing requires compassion. Part of that is letting natural selection take its course, with an emphasis on female choice unconstrained by fear of starving. It's a much more finely-tuned eugenic mechanism than male choice.
We might have some disagreement here. I see little evidence that most individuals wrestle with those kinds of things. Most stay on script.
A majority, probably. The higher-minded ones tend to want to rise above ham.
Oh, definitely. I recognize the right to subjectivity, in fact, I insist on it; but until I see evidence that animals and animal-like humans are capable of experiencing the kind of conscious love that rises above ham, I reserve the right to see it as inferior/primitive type of love.
I'd have to read more on those before opining.
But once again, my skepticism towards "choice" in the presence of high social pressures and constraints remains.
Note, for example, attitudes towards smart phone use. When the practice reaches a critical mass, the 'choice' to NOT use it acquires increasingly dire consequences. Choice is never outside of social context, so legitimate alternatives and structures must be created, maintained, and culturally defended.
Forcing is rarely required. Social epidemics basically never fail to deliver which is why a counter-epidemic is necessary for choice to continue to exist. Individuals cannot make atomized choices.
I can't have a feeling of indifference knowing how much harm, waste, disruption, destruction and obstruction the overgrown masses of lower humans create unintentionally. This is where I can relate to frustrations with the "lolberts" (lol). We can't out-of-sight-out-of-mind the consumptive masses. They are ultimately innocent in their unintentional harm, but that doesn't change reality. This is why I want them well, then out.
I can't think of myself as a "good woman" since I don't subscribe to universal conceptions of morality. Maybe someone effective who refuses gratuitous cruelty. Otherwise, I may be gold for some, disaster for others, it all depends on "truths," interpretations and goodness-of-fit. I am a fanatic of freedom of association and compatibilism in a wider and deeper sense. We can only be "good" to birds-of-a-feather.
QuoteHello [ ], adding your personal email here, since sadly, the mailinglist will
be/has ended, so just want to be sure you get my reply even if the mailinglist
is no more.
I am replying here, as the directions seemed to be.
Quote>> But perhaps this experience was meant to be achieved consciously and
>> deliberately, and then to be integrated into our core being? So that if we
>> continuously "pound the drum of god" we'll eventually harm ourselves?
>
> It becomes talisman that prevents connection to reality, so I'd say yes.
Hmm... I wonder if there is any research into this?
Nothing I am aware of but personally, I favor reaching "enlightenment" in a natural state, substance-free, tech-free, gimmick-free.
QuoteDo you believe in stretching or eliminating the limitations of nature? Or is
your definition of "nature" so wide as to mean the utmost and final limits of
nature and physics, given what we can do with science?
Or do you view science and technology with suspicion?
It depends. Intuitively, some interventions make more sense than others. Life extension, quality of life, reproductive health and fitness, absolutely. Turning humans into machine-hooked vegetables? Probably not.
QuoteHow do you decide who gets to breed and who does not? And what if your values
clash with someone else's values?
People of higher caliber - meaning intelligence, realism, big picture thinkers, natural leaders (and empaths, believe it or not). Creating policies and incentives to prevent the struggling and defective from reproducing requires compassion. Part of that is letting natural selection take its course, with an emphasis on female choice unconstrained by fear of starving. It's a much more finely-tuned eugenic mechanism than male choice.
Quote>> Yes, there is something charming with how we torture ourselves with our ethics,
>> values, choices, and how we consciously choose to give, love, and so on.
>
> Again, who's "we?" People all over the world ... all 144,000 of them?
Most individuals.
We might have some disagreement here. I see little evidence that most individuals wrestle with those kinds of things. Most stay on script.
Quote> It gets me when people project love on animals: "Oooh, Maxxy loves me!" No it
> doesn't. Maxxy is Pavloving on you, but he would throw you under the bus for a
> piece of ham. Most HINO-s (humans in name only) do the same. They "ham" each
> other. Only an actual Human can love, so protect these people at any cost. A
> smart mind once said "The stupid can't love." Yes, because they're like Maxxy.
Well, actually, it could be argued that humans do the same.
A majority, probably. The higher-minded ones tend to want to rise above ham.
QuoteThe only thing we have to go on is the behaviour of animals and other humans. We cannot look into
their brains and feel what they feel. We only have indications and inferences.
But the good thing is that this is enough. We all have the right to our own
feelings, and if I "feel" that Maxxy the dog loves me, then that's alright.
Objectively, only actions, words, inferences, subjectively, that's where the
magic happens!
Oh, definitely. I recognize the right to subjectivity, in fact, I insist on it; but until I see evidence that animals and animal-like humans are capable of experiencing the kind of conscious love that rises above ham, I reserve the right to see it as inferior/primitive type of love.
QuoteAhh... but I think this rests on a common misunderstanding of transhumanism.
There is nothing forcing in it. Everyone is free to use or not to use any
technology that exists, to prolong life, edit genes, upload themselves into an
AI, or what ever they enjoy. It's about pushing the limits, improving ourselves,
but ultimately, how to do that, which technology to embrace, which technology to
reject, that is up to each and every one of us.
I'd have to read more on those before opining.
But once again, my skepticism towards "choice" in the presence of high social pressures and constraints remains.
Note, for example, attitudes towards smart phone use. When the practice reaches a critical mass, the 'choice' to NOT use it acquires increasingly dire consequences. Choice is never outside of social context, so legitimate alternatives and structures must be created, maintained, and culturally defended.
QuoteAs soon as someone argues for forcing people to accept a certain technology,
then the label (in my opinion) "humanism" is out the window. That would be more
something along the lines of transauthoritarianism or transsocialism.
Forcing is rarely required. Social epidemics basically never fail to deliver which is why a counter-epidemic is necessary for choice to continue to exist. Individuals cannot make atomized choices.
Quote>> Excellent! Then we are at least 2 misanthropes in the world!
>
> As a misanthrope humanist (palm to head, right?) I don't want any of these already-born humans to suffer. I just want them:
>
> - Far away from me and my walk of life.
> - Prevented from perpetuating poor quality of life and suffering (all over the world, because in high-tech era, the Globe becomes a nut).
>
> While they're here, I want them to be OK, but I do not think they should be
> prioritized over higher-minded humans, since that causes the largest amount of
> unnecessary waste and suffering - as those are the most stoic but also the
> most sensitive, creative and most likely producers of good.
Here I have more a feeling of indifference, coupled with a pinch of cynicism,
when it comes to the common man. You are a good woman!
I can't have a feeling of indifference knowing how much harm, waste, disruption, destruction and obstruction the overgrown masses of lower humans create unintentionally. This is where I can relate to frustrations with the "lolberts" (lol). We can't out-of-sight-out-of-mind the consumptive masses. They are ultimately innocent in their unintentional harm, but that doesn't change reality. This is why I want them well, then out.
I can't think of myself as a "good woman" since I don't subscribe to universal conceptions of morality. Maybe someone effective who refuses gratuitous cruelty. Otherwise, I may be gold for some, disaster for others, it all depends on "truths," interpretations and goodness-of-fit. I am a fanatic of freedom of association and compatibilism in a wider and deeper sense. We can only be "good" to birds-of-a-feather.