Everyone is different buddy. Different people respond to different situations differently.

They still got to spend time with other kids. You could argue that the labour was a normal childhood.

The difference is that Jackson was uniquely isolated. He wasn’t spending his days with other child performers his age, he was spending it with his older brothers and adults.

Jackson was really young when his childhood effectively ended. Five years old. I had a difficult childhood, but I at least got to go to school and have friends and have some modicum of a social life. And even then, I spent most of my college years making up for stages I missed out on in high school.

It’s not that far-fetched to me that he would want to reclaim parts of childhood that he missed out on, and it seems like he also tried to provide that kind of opportunity for other child stars (notably Macaulay Culkin). I’m not saying I’m sold one way or the other, but the notion is definitely understandable.

I’d say more “select from” than “churn out”. It’s not about generating a hypothesis, it’s about having a collection of hypotheses and deciding which should be your default until additional evidence is provided.

Hanlon’s razor says “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”, and “adequately” is pulling at least as much weight as “never”. If stupidity becomes a less adequate explanation, nothing stops you from considering malice as an alternative.

People use things wrong all the time, sometimes the vast majority of the time (e.g. “literally”). Just because people use a concept pseudologically doesn’t make it intrinsically pseudological.

But razors aren’t supposed to be logic in the first place. They’re not objective analytical tools to arrive at a conclusion, because they weren’t designed to be. They’re framing tools to help establish an initial hypothesis.

Occam’s razor doesn’t claim that the simplest explanation is true, it merely says it’s the most practical assumption, all else being equal. If additional data provides more support for a more complicated explanation, Occam’s really doesn’t require you to cling to the simpler one.

Similarly Hanlon’s razor doesn’t claim that stupidity is universally a better explanation than malice, only that is the most practical assumption, all else being equal. It does not require you to ignore patterns of behavior that shift the likelihood toward malice.

Jesus loves her more than she will know

I watch basically everything that isn’t music or advanced mathematics at 2x speed. YouTubers talk so slowly.

I don’t really worry about abandonment at all. If anything, I’d be more worried about the opposite. People like me, and want to hang out with me, and I do not have the time, energy, or desire to hang out with most people. I’ve had more than my fair share of clingy, dependent “friends”, and I’m not a fan. Hyper-independent aloofness has definitely spared me many additions to that unfortunate list.

I don’t disagree that it’s a trauma response, but not always to abandonment (I wish), but often necessity. When you have to do everything, you learn how to do everything, and eventually there’s not much left to rely on other people for.

I’d imagine pretty much anything more than 30 years old without popular music. I just rewatched They Live and I doubt I’d notice if it was at 1.25x.

No, but that energy has been mostly dormant in the public eye for decades. It’s not the origin of leftist country, it’s a revival.

And God created Adam

I dunno, that sounds like a fast track to being the subject of a murder mystery. I think I’m good.

You’ve never heard of the Trans Siberian Railroad Orchestra?

I feel like usually when I hear about some experiment that changes our perception, the time to adapt is typically about 2 weeks, but that number is almost entirely vibes-based.

I’m talking about editing a backlog, like if you record hours upon hours of content, then spend weeks editing them. Think of those hour-long video essays with animations and stuff. If you live alone and stocked up on groceries, you could easily go quite a while without actually having to leave the house.

Again, a pretty specific scenario, but not exactly hard. Not even that farfetched for some niche video essay creator.

I think it would be an unusual occurrence, but not really “hard”. Imagine a YouTuber who edits their own videos. If they live alone and spend an extended period of time editing their backlog, they might not talk at all and only hear recordings.

I can see that, but you can always focus on meeting in person. Just use tech to vaguely call meetings.

Locally

Civilization is basically just bureaucracy integrated over population. Some people figure out how to game the system via the chasm of abstraction between; that’s a function of any sufficiently complex system, look at the speed running community

But ultimately, civilization is just people. All the bureaucracy placed on top of it is just a collection of systems made by people to coordinate themselves. A lot of the dark theatrics are the result of the population becoming so vast that even at the lowest levels, the bureaucracy is distant and abstract. That abstraction alienates people from one another, so they only really know how to interact through the lens of that bureaucracy

The optimism is that you can engage your community. You can meet your neighbors, learn their trades and share yours, start a group chat. You can organize barter networks, childcare rotations, handyman services, mutual aid.

You can join local political groups. Start local political groups. Go to protests and meet people in neighboring areas. Network.

You can promote candidates for local office, and encourage others in your network to do so. You can run for local office, and encourage others in your network to do so. We’ve seen what the other side is offering so far as administrative competence, you think you’re worse?

Go to local events. Talk to your neighbors. Organize with your neighbors. The big system is very top down in its perspective, but it’s really ultimately dependent on the composite people. You can organize the people from the bottom up, and get your friends in nearby neighborhoods to do the same.

If all the neighborhoods are organized, bloodless revolution slides quite comfortably into the realm of plausible futures.

Certainly, but it’s the only real starting place

Google “ferengi rule 34”