Still not the point of a live-chat application. The use case is not the same as a forum. You want an archive where everything is well-organized and most questions have already been answered. Discord and other live chat services are more like live tech support, to fill the gap between the raw technical documentation found in GitHub, and the just getting started guide or FAQ, which are usually lightweight enough that they could be posted anywhere. Discord doesn’t exist to be an archive that holds all the knowledge, discord exists so that when you open an app, you can go in, ask a couple questions, and hopefully someone will get to you in a couple minutes, at most, rather than in a couple days.

So he’s basically just a liberal, right? Similar expansions of the police and increasing militarization happened under thatcher and reagan. He might call himself an “ancap”, but he’s probably just gonna be the same as them, in practice, since we live in a globalized economic system. No call from me on whether or not he’s going to be worse or not as bad, but he just seems like he’s basically the same as them ideologically.

It’s sort of really dependent on what people want out of you, which has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes people just want someone to vent at, or, they want someone to kind of be like “hey that sucks sorry about that”, and actually care about them and their hardships (these are usually the situations in which people are facing some sort of inevitable problem that they have the solution for, but the only solution sucks), what they need is emotional support, and probably a boost to their ego. And then sometimes people have been like, facing what’s an unsolvable problem, and they just need kind of a new, fresh pair of eyes on it. The latter is the circumstance in which people will be more open to obvious solutions, because sometimes people just won’t think of them for whatever reason, could even be as simple as just forgetting that something existed. I think, in either case, it’s usually a decent idea to ask obvious questions, and if you end up stepping on a bombshell (“well I ALREADY THOUGHT of THAT!”), that’s usually more of a like, that’s indicative of something that you both have to defuse in the moment, but that’s also something that you can sort of question why that was placed there, and what the foundation of it was. Usually, though, that’s something you reserve for later.

I don’t think asking questions can ever be a bad thing, really, especially if you’re not cutting anyone off. That’s not in counter to the post, or anything, I just think it’s generally a very good idea. You can honestly listen to someone with questions, and it shows that you’re thinking about their problems in a way that’s more real than just like, making eye contact, saying garbage platitudes, and then kind of being like the human equivalent of a teddy bear or some sort of comfort object for someone. A well directed question can often get more to the root of the problem more than anything else, I think. You can also direct people around with questions, but that’s maybe best left for your good faith actual listeners, rather than people who just want to abuse their question-asking so they can direct someone towards what they think the solution is.

I dunno. people are just like. Not good listeners, at all. I’m not, most of the time, I like to think that I’m decent at it when there’s something that matters, but then I also have a pretty big brainfog whenever this shit happens, and I forget to ask questions sometimes, which really, really, impairs your ability to comprehend the whole situation. The biggest thing is just trying to piece everything together, right, that’s a good use of your conscious thought. A bad use of your conscious thought is thinking about what you’re gonna say next, or remembering whatever like. scripted response you’ve come up with for this scenario, slotting this scenario into a specific “problem” set that you’re gonna pretend that you’ve already solved.

On the flip-side, I do find it kind of annoying when you ask someone some question like “well have you tried talking to them?”, and they interpret that as “what do you think I’m STUPID do you think I haven’t TRIED THAT!”, when usually the purpose of a question like that is more like “what was the result when you talked to them?”. It’s to spurn on more context, it’s a platform to vent more, basically. The language of the question could be more precise, yes, but oftentimes people are so used to not being talked to and engaged with as human beings, that they kind of default to taking every question as a bad faith attack on their intelligence as a sort of defense mechanism, or something. It’s kind of annoying, and when that happens you have to deliberately be more precise and be more careful to get across explicitly that you’re invested in their life, but it’s just like. It’s just a thing I’ve noticed that people do sometimes, I guess, what I’m saying is, be on the lookout for that more. Don’t get mad when/if that happens, just be like, oh, my bad, sorry, that’s not really what I meant to say, I meant to say (insert more precise and carefully worded question here).

That’s it, that’s all I got.

edit: Actually it wasn’t. Most of the time, the solutions you’re proposing are garbage, and your partner (usually, unfortunately, could be whoever you’re talking to) is elevating the conversation to a more top down view of why all your solutions suck. The reason it’s important to ask questions is because the problems everyone is having are usually more complex than the solution you can come up with in five seconds. People aren’t like, “how do I fix my toilet”, and then you just tell them to turn off the water. The problems people have are way more complicated than that. At least give it five minutes of listening, you will be impressed by the results.

The reason zero tolerance policies get so often implemented is because kids tend to be much smarter in how they go about being dicks to one another than in how they do their schoolwork, or, in how they do almost anything else. If you implement one-sided policies that favor the bullied, it’s then in the bully’s best interest to instead appear bullied, which can end up being a pretty common tactic anyways. There’s also more circumstances under which bullying can take place than just physical. Verbal bullying is much harder to prove and do anything about, and the worst is probably when some random kid gets dogpiled for being different, there’s not much teachers can do about that even if it’s relatively obvious. Which is also resting on the assumption that the teacher isn’t also taking part in the bullying as a way to be seen as “cool” by their students, which is unfortunately something that’s not uncommon. There’s also mutual bullying in which kids can egg each other on until one goes too far, and then maybe zero-tolerance policies end up making some sense, as the group’s behavior as a whole is what really needed to stop.

I think taking a more top-down view of the problem, it would seem to me that there’s a similar problem going on to when reagan defunded all of the mental institutions, or whatever metaphor you’d wanna use here. There’s a lot of attempts to make things right by removing things, rather than adding things. It’s bad to lower a student’s grade as a result of their malicious behavior, rather than their output, and usually bullies have bad grades anyways. Can’t impose on the parents at all because the parents of bullies tend to either be nutso helicopter parents, or tend to be bullies to their children. And then sending kids to other school districts usually just ends up condemning then to a boiling pot of other kids who are maybe worse, or will exacerbate their behavior as it isolates them more, and in extreme cases it can lead them to criminality. Results are going to be kind of mixed on student counseling, if you have a therapist or psychiatrist on campus that’s extremely lucky and can also have mixed results, and there’s really not anything else you can offer kids other than that, for a variety of reasons. It’s relatively hard to get people to stop being self-destructive in the best of times, as an institution, and it’s much harder when those people are kids, and when you’re inevitably going to be some underfunded institution, since schools funded by the rich, and their property taxes, tend to have children that will engage in less bullying, even if those kids are subject to other psychologically unhealthy pressures.

We could probably solve a good amount of this by just funding schools federally on an equal basis, or with voucher programs based on student population, but nobody wants to fund/expand those programs because schools tend to be underfunded and give bad results already, and we unfortunately have a tendency in this country to give something less money when it performs poorly, as some sort of sacrifice to the free market.

Is it actually not profitable or is this one of those tax writeoff bullshit things where it makes them money in some indirect way

Tell me whether or not they have any good black bean tacos. I’m interested in their bean variety, because I’m not sure to what extent they have the same beanage as over here. I have to expect that they have some level, as otherwise you’d get no bean paste pastries, no miso soup bean stock, yadda yadda. I expect a full report on my desk by may 2024.

I think most weapons, including lack of weapons, benefits from surprise attacks from behind.

You’re just a brat. That’s all. Brat. Annoying, ignorant, spoiled brat who cannot appreciate the good stuff they have.

This seems like a really good way to engage with people and change their minds, and get them to enjoy the things in their life. Definitely not contributing to the problem, or you just taking out whatever issue you have here on other random passersby of the thread. Very cool.

I dunno man, I’ve met some of my peers. The vast majority of them are just normal people, right, living their lives, totally nice, but then some of them are really fucking stupid or mean, and I kind of wonder if this narrative that gen Z will save the world is true at all, or if it’s just that same sort of nonsense, that all we’ll have to do is wait and things will somehow get better.

The naivety there isn’t so much that soldiers would be incapable of fighting the US citizenry in a large scale war, but more that the framing of the question is false to begin with. It’s way easier for soldiers to commit small scale acts of terror than large scale genocides, and it’s always easier to commit acts of terror on minorities or the “other” rather than on the gen pop. If we were to see any domestic american guerilla warfare (I find this kind of unlikely compared to the rising amount of lone wolf, stochastic incidents), then it’s likely that even the regular population would get fed a ton of bullshit about the opposition being subhuman, or something to that effect. Larger scale versions of how, every time a black guy gets shot by the police, everyone trots out every encounter he’s ever had with the police within like 12 hours of the incident. Character assassination, but at a group level, instead of on the individual level.

yeah, but their taco bell kind of sucks major ass because they don’t have access to the same ingredients, or something along those lines, I can’t quite remember.

That sucks, but I also kind of empathize with wiki mods, cause it’s really hard to know when to cut stuff down. I remember seeing a while back a bunch of people that migrated out from wikipedia to some completely unknown new wiki nobody will ever hear about, because they were working on chronicling all the roads in america with screenshots and notes of location and historical details about it all. Wikipedia didn’t really get it, as it’s more like a kind of academic and news aggregate, and there was nothing really there to aggregate, it was just an infodump of a bunch of different stuff. If wikipedia was a 1-1 map of the world, then it would be the size of the world. Or bigger, if you include historical stuff. No way you’re fitting all that on a 102 gig drive, or whatever the size of wikipedia is. Plus there’s hosting costs to consider, so it’s not like they could do that even if they really wanted.

There’s still good and plenty fuckery that can happen with citing books, though. Depending on the obscurity of the book, whether or not it’s out of print, or just has been outright destroyed, it might be really hard to access a copy, and check the source, especially if someone doesn’t have access to the internet archive or library genesis, i.e. digital scans of said book. There are reprints and new editions, sometimes not noted by the author of the citation (the author might have no way of knowing, depends), which can change or remove quoted passages. The internet also contains the ability to mass copy anything you want, and cite that copy, like what the internet archive does with the wayback machine, so if you have a citation of a webpage it’s probably a good idea to copy that in time and then spread it around anyways just for the sake of posterity and accessibility, especially if it’s obscure or is likely to be changed or removed. Same as you might for a book, except much easier, it’s much harder to copy a whole book in context and spread that around compared to a webpage.