Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 1 day ago, 26 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,456,876
Some people lack personal agency. I think you can influence someone while they’re a child, but only indirectly. If someone sees that they can be successful at something and they recognize that they’re rewarded for it, and they enjoy it, then it’s more likely they’ll grow up to be a motivated person. But people also have an innate nature to them. You can’t make someone care about something, especially if they’re not interested in it. I think modern society can be disheartening to people because they’re told that this is a meritocracy (it’s definitely not and never can be and it’s absurd to think life ever could be fair), so when they fail the explanation isn’t that they were unlucky, it’s that they’re inadequate. However, most people end up accepting that they’re inadequate in terms of physicality to be successful in any kind of athletics, inadequate in terms of taste to be successful at any kind of art or music, and inadequate in terms of intelligence to ever try to invent anything.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 day ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,456,878
I think the biggest problem is when people become afraid of thinking because there are two very harmful societal ideas in America at least: the idea that intelligence is immutable and the idea that it’s okay to be afraid of things like math because some people "just aren’t math people." If you think about different things people can be successful at, athletics, music, art, math, science, engineering, etc. if you think about it, the realm that requires the least amount of giftedness in terms of genetics or nepotism are actually the STEM related categories. You can’t control whether your specific tastes in what you think good music is align with everybody else, because it’s subjective. The same with art. And you’re unlikely to be successful unless you either have a way to boost yourself early on, or have a way to survive while you’re not popular enough for it to be profitable, both of are easier if your parents are rich. If you want to be a professional basketball player, you need the right genetics, if you’re five feet tall, forget about it. If you want to be successful at some form of engineering, you just have to know math and physics. Unless it’s software related, then you usually don’t even need to know physics. The prospect of profiting off of some sort of invention, whether it’s a patent for some physical form of technology or an app or something, my calculation is that it’s higher than being a successful athlete or a musician or something like that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 day ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,456,880
Then with politics, people say we have a society founded on the idea of free expression. And I agree free expression is important, but it’s also a little bit bullshit at the same time. What’s bullshit about free speech is your speech doesn’t matter at all unless you have the financial means to amplify your voice. If you’re not a multi millionaire I would advise against running for public office unless you can find a way to become a multi millionaire first, because most successful politicians are multi millionaires and disproportionate amount of them went to Ivy League universities (and usually not because they’re smart).
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 1 day ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,456,881
Even if you have a lot of followers on social media it’s like, sure, social media may have amplified your voice, but on average it’s to the same extent as everybody else. There are loads of people who try so hard to amplify their political beliefs on social media they’ll gain millions of followers, but they never amount to anything more than political commentary, I’ve never seen one of them actually get elected or even try because they’re investing all their time and effort in keeping up with algorithms.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 1 day ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,456,883
And if you do want to be influential in government, the best way to do so is through means that aren’t democratic anyway. Funding election campaigns and lobbying for certain interests regardless of who gets elected, etc.
Anonymous F double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,457,095
@1,456,913 (E)
The AI apocalypse will come when investors realize that the cleverbot economy is more expensive to maintain than salaried American workers.