#sense of logic

[duckysprouts]

jbsss episode 10

this would make very little sense if u didn’t read the rest of the comic

but yeah, bella has some stuff mixed up, though she means well. she and edward will have a very different relationship in this timeline

i imagine that bella is also Not Normal, cause normal girls don’t fall in love with stalkers. she’s gonna take her weirdness in a totally opposite direction this time

[ganondoodle]

then perish.

[pro-sipper]

Genuinely asking because I want a real answer for once but HOW can antis say with a straight face and no sense of irony that two characters stabbing each other is just silly fun times but rape is what's weird and gross?

BOTH are criminal acts, BOTH are harmful, where does the distinction really lie?

[transgender-byrne-faraday]

why do baby seals look like they're on the verge of tears constantly. they legit have NO reason to be that upset.

[aropride]

sometimes i forget most aro people are aro in the "dont/rarely feel romantic attraction" way because im aro in the "dont/rarely feel romantic attraction and also i think we need to restructure society and probably get rid of marriage" way and i'm deep in the trenches of Thinking about it that i forget that's not like the default position for most people not even for most aros

[mentalisttraceur]

You're wrong and I don't like that! But seriously though:

TL;DR heuristic: give every wrongness a presumption of more harmfulness than you can see.

I fully agree with OP as practical on-the-ground advice. This perspective will help you be effective. It also, I suspect, correlates strongly to better mental health.

But the problem I have is that you are severely under-valuing how reliably stochastically harmful being wrong can be, and how much preventative/corrective impact a general opposition to wrongness can have if correctly directed. Though full disclosure, I do err too much the other way, so take the severity/emphaticness of my words with a grain of salt.

You cannot isolate objective errors of facts and reasoning to the point that they stop having significant probability of real harmful consequences.

Sound logic and true beliefs are profoundly interlocking. When you have enough of those two things, you are so thoroughly, game-changingly empowered to make your life better, that the mere absence of that is a serious harm (both to the wrong person, which is already bad enough life damage to be worth fighting for if you care about them, but also to anyone they have sufficiently strong influence on, especially any children who are still taking authoritatively presented statements as True and Right and carving their first moral intuitions with emotional reactions to how others react to them and treat them).

Every confidently held error can only exist by either being isolated to the point of not affecting behavior and externally consequential thought, or by warping your system of beliefs and reasoning to accommodate it (I like to call the generalization of this idea "logic bending", a more neutral term since technically it goes both ways: introducing more true beliefs and sound conclusions, or other psychological rewards for valid reasoning, can bend a warped sense of logic into closer alignment with sound logic).

Meanwhile, the life-improving and empowering benefits of being systematically righter only really start to snowball when your system of beliefs and reasoning has grown very comprehensive, allowing you to start getting those efficiency gains where many seemingly disparate things start to fold into elegantly unifying principles which in turn enables you to cover more ground in more problem spaces with less thought, less special-cases habitualized into the wetware of your brain, and less bits of knowledge... Such systems would struggle to fit much error without losing too much of the unifyingly-simplifying-yet-still-reliably-correct shape they need to stay as effective.

Also, errors are subject to memetic and cognetic evolution. Some errors are best thought of as literal parasites, evolved to virally spread themselves and co-opt their host humans into spreading them (in symbiosis with other errors, because errors cannot avoid noticable contradiction with the real-world without cancelling out their effects in the most obvious cases - which crucially is not the same thing as the most ethically important cases).

Anyway, if your criteria is just "observably ok results", you're necessarily going to underestimate the harm potential, because you'll be limited to just the concrete harms within your ability to see or within the ability of people around you to explain in a way that's compelling to you. When you treat every error as what it is - a reproducing landmine which will blow up into real harm when given the right circumstances - your estimate of harm probability distribution over possibilities in the absence of full comprehensive observation and analysis is going to be more accurate.

P.S. I spent most of my conscious life being able to observe the not-ok results of various ways people were wrong in their heads, but it would take literally 15-20 years for me to gain the ability to translate that shape of wrongness, hurt/harm, and causal relationship between them into words that others reliably understood and which I could at least in principle defend against most dismissals/rationalizations/etc. (Moving countries as a kid probably added a couple years to that 15-20; having access to the internet, English, and the results of modern psychology probably shaved off a decade or four.) At the latest by my mid teens, I even had an intuitive grasp of "cognetic opening" as an abstraction of the commonality between a lot of little wrongs in the mind with material ethical consequences that basically everyone infuriatingly blindly thought harmless. I struggled to put it into words for at least a decade to get anyone else to see it, even though I thought with it fluently. And it is overwhelmingly the pattern in my life that when I react to some cognition as bad, I can't think of a concrete example that the person finds compelling, but inevitably they or someone else eventually has something go worse because of it.

Hmm. Right, ok, so, there's two grounds on which you can evaluate an "ideology".

One ground is like, its abstract correctness. Are its factual claims right? Are its ethical claims agreeable to you?

This is how you should evaluate your own belief system. Being correct is very useful, so it's in your interest to try to be correct.

The other way you can evaluate an ideology is like... does it produce generally ok policies? What are its effects?

This is a lower bar. An ideology which is factually and ethically correct (by your standards) will necessarily produce ok effects (by your standards) when you believe it. Uh actually this probably isn't strictly true but it's true enough.

Anyway, it's the second criterion that you should use to evaluate other people's belief systems, I contend, unless you know them really well and know them to be amenable to certain kinds of rational debate.

Why?

Because asking that everyone be actually correct is far too much. That will never happen. It's a pipe dream. You're going to have to get used to living in a world full of people you think are wrong about shit. On the other hand, asking that everyone (or most people, or everyone in power, or whatever) believe stuff that leads to not-too-heinous consequences is a more reasonable goal. It's something I can get behind.

"This ideology produces observably ok results, but it's Wrong" is not a complaint I find very sympathetic. Ok, it's Wrong. So don't believe it and move on.

I think this follows from my "leave other people be unless you really have to" moral intuition. A guy believing a wrong thing is not enough to make your frustration at him sympathetic to me. I mean in a serious context, not just in terms of shooting the shit and complaining online. It's not enough. The guy needs to actually be doing something problematic. Otherwise "he's wrong and I don't like that" doesn't compel me.

[carto0ncritter]

I got back into ATLA, and I've gotta talk about how Aang may have wanted Katara, but he needed Toph.

Aang needed someone who would challenge him, not someone who would be his "safe haven". While Katara often coddled/mothered Aang, Toph was always his equal. The two of them could have fun together without the mother-son/big sister-little brother undertones Kataang had. Katara always sheltered Aang, which is why he never grew and developed as a character, not even as an adult. If Toph saw Aang emotionally neglect two of their three kids because only one was an Airbender, she would have, 100%, put him back in his place because she never sugar-coated ANYTHING and faced problems head-on.

THIS is who I wanted Aang to end up with. Toph might not have been the one he wanted, but she was the one he needed.

These two were made for each other, just like Zuko and Katara (the two characters with the strongest emotional connection in the entire show, who understood one another like no one else + let's not forget all the romantic coding, thematic significance and symbolism that their dynamic is full of)

[wardinespurrit]

redid my hms designs. i go on a ramble in the tags beware

[ittybittyremy]

"While all this is happening, Orym has gone full shell shock mode. He's not talking anymore. He's going to go slump down onto a rock and is listening to all the debating at this point and he doesn't know what to do. He's been so sure for so long, and doesn't know what to do. Going in feels so wrong to him. But he hears the logic that it's only a matter of time before someone or something, a day from now, a year from now, six months from now. And just let's them figure it out, because he's took all his energy to make it to this point."

- Liam, C3E118

[finntias]

they put me in a room. a rubber room. with the distortion. the distortion made me crazy.

[lackpenny]

a broken man's last effort, all for nothing

[bekkathyst]

I have now gotten two mysterious Amazon packages delivered to me with my name and address on them that I never ordered.

The first was some kid bunny ears and a small set of Minecraft legos, so I automatically assumed that someone sent that to us for the kiddo for Easter. There was no gift message included, so we didn't know who.

But then after asking all our friends and relatives, we realized that no one had ordered them. Weird.

Then, today, I hear a truck pull up and I jokingly said to Antonio "hey, maybe it's another mysterious package!"

So I looked out the window, and it was indeed an Amazon delivery driver. He dropped a package at our front door and left. No way.

I picked it up. Printed on the outside of the box was a picture of a toilet seat, and that was exactly what was inside. I felt absolute disbelief at this point. Our toilet seat had just started getting wonky like a week ago and I was thinking that I should replace it soon. The only person I said this to was Antonio. Neither of us ordered it, and if we had, we wouldn't have used Amazon anyway. Wtf. Not only that, but it perfectly fit our toilet?? Which, okay, there can't be that many sizes that exist so that's probably just a coincidence.

And again, no gift message or anything like that. Not that I wouldn't expect there to be, but I searched the package multiple times for some kind of explanation. Nothing.

It would be funny if it wasn't so weird. Idk what to make of any of this. Everyone in our lives swears they haven't sent us anything and I mean I believe them because it's such a random assortment of items.

I contacted amazon and they basically said "we can't tell you who purchased it because you didn't, but don't worry you can keep the items. If you don't want them, just give them away"

This is definitely the weirdest thing to happen so far this year lol

[robo-milky]

May you enjoy listening to Neige’ radio 🏹🎊

[geraskierfanficprompts]

Prompt 136

Contrary to popular belief, Jaskier was the one who said no to riding a horse. Jaskier willingly walks alongside Geralt and Roach. Because Jaskier is afraid of riding horses. Don't get him wrong! He loves horses! Just not being on them as they run 48 kilometers per hour. When Jaskier sprains his ankle walking, however, Geralt decides enough is enough and it's time to teach him how to ride and help him face his fear. Jaskier sits in front of Geralt on top of Roach as Geralt teaches him how to ride, and every time Jaskier gets too nervous, Geralt will hear his heartbeat tick up, and he'll hug him, or praise him, and Jaskier will calm again. Jaskier's been getting better. To the point that Geralt can now just walk alongside Roach and Jaskier, hand resting on Jaskier's leg or back. Geralt decides to surprise Jaskier with his own horse! Geralt finds something sturdy and gentle, but also pretty, knowing his bard will love to comb and braid the horse, and will want to show it off. It's a white horse, which certainly won't stay white on the road, but then again, Jaskier will most likely delight in cleaning the horse and admiring it's sheen when it's washed. Geralt presents Jaskier with his horse, and Jaskier is overjoyed. Sobbing with happiness, hugging and kissing the horse, and Geralt has never been more in love with his bard. The first time Jaskier rides his own horse, they go at a very gentle slow pace, as the horse seems unsure about being ridden. Jaskier cajoles and consoles it through it all, and soon enough they're riding at steady paces, both Jaskier and his horse now feeling safe and brave enough to go at a normal pace, sometimes even a bit faster. Geralt is happy. Until one day, big white wings materialize on the sides of Jaskier's horse, and the damn thing takes off with Jaskier still on it. Shit.

[acochleola]

shitpost

[gunsatthaphan]

"do you like me?"