🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@admitsWrongIfProven

> I am curious as to what you think those are. I don’t remember uttering any concrete steps of action in the near past.

I am not talking about any specific recent past suggestions. As you pointed out we often disagree, this is what we disagree on, not intent, but rather your interpritation of potential solutioins

> To clarify: i am aware that randomness is a part of every success, by the very nature of our reality. I merely wish that returns would not snowball limitlessly, as humans are not good at determining a reasonable “enough”.

If that is the case your argument was poorly framed, since you were arguing about why should someone have success by luck of birth. In reality luck of birth then isnt the issue at all, your issue is that having money makes it easier to make money than not having money (in terms of percentage not absolute return)... thats the snowball effect.. and THAT actually would have been a valid argument in my eyes.

> I agree, though still bounded.

I see no need for bounds. There is nothing that needs correcting just because a persons skills are extraordinarily valuable.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> I do not abhor any aspect of success - i merely wish for a good baseline standard of life that is guaranteed regardless of success. Which is a completely different concept. I mean to lessen extremes, not get rid of differentiation.

No one, especially me, is saying you dont have good intent. The issue is the horrible ideas you think get you there. But thats ok, there are lots of horrible ideas floating around to address issues that would actually make the problem worse (despite the opposite)

> If everyone had exactly the same regardless of what they do, that would be as catastrophic mid-long term as if one person had everything and everyone else nothing.

Thats not how I described your stance. You have often argued that people should not be able to have success as the result of "randomness", and you have also argued people should not make more money when they put int he same amount of time and effort for a task. All of that comes froma sense of equality, but as I've said many times simply making an effort is not what is paid for, the value of that effort (Which is partly a factor of skill) is what determines your pay, and should.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> Oh i don’t simply trust any existing gouvernment to do this well. It would be counterfactual to do so, since social services that exist are plagued by many problems.

Well I never claimed you trusted existing governments. But your stance still boils down to, in theory you want a government to do these things. The fact that you want to fix corruption and ineffiency in the government first is a small detail that doesnt really change what I said.

> I do acknowledge that i wish for things that contain unsolved problems, going where i would like would require work.

Thats universally true and vague, not really an accurate description of what I described.

> You did once use the word “communism”, which makes me think you might associate things i say with aspects of a known past dictatorship - i do not want those. Rather, i am in favour of the idea of working together, which was not a feature there - it was top-down, the opposite of what i want.

I typically use communism in jest, i may have seriously applied it to certain specific ideas, but no I dont have any reason to think you ascribe fully to communism, or even partly.

@admitsWrongIfProven or to be more specific equal, as in, you seem to abhor any random aspect of success. An idea that effort, regardless of how poorly it is applied, should result in equal success regardless.

@admitsWrongIfProven I certainly dont doubt that inheritance exists... but you seem to have this idea that the natural laws of the world should either be fair, or government should make them fair... I disagree, and thus why all of your arguments, usually rooted in that concept, also wont land with me.

@dichotomiker

Im sure some people lost their minds over that one :)

@dichotomiker

So our group server has two components, the group server itself, which is not usually where you will be viewing things or logged in. So no special sorting directly on the group server.

However on our normal server where the users live there is a "group directory" which is how they peruse the groups (as is the case for most fediverse activity). For the group support ont he client side there kinda of storting and filtering yes, but the sorting could be extended a bit to make it more powerful for sure.

@til

@dichotomiker

QWhen you say matodon groups do you mean the group server I wrote several years ago that integrates well with the standard, or did Eugene after years finally implement that feature lately?

@til

@dichotomiker

I havent played enough with lemmy to have an opinion. Very disapointed in their leadership though for reasons related to peripheral projects I wont get into.

@til

@dichotomiker

Correct me if im wrong but this isnt a top level post but rather a comment on an existing post?

@til

Does anyone know where I can find the **full** "Trump made god" video? It looks like gold to mock Trump and im entirely on board for the entertainment.

I do find it odd though its so hard to find the full video, especially considering how much attention it is getting. Usually this would make me suspect it is taken out of context to make it seem more absurd, but frankly, based on what I already saw I am not sure how that is possible. Still, would really like to see the original so I can judge it properly.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> I see no proof of that, not even a hint.

This is a discussion of opinions, and our reasoning. This is not a formal scientific publication. I explained my opinions and reasoning.

As for the hint, yes that you got. Specifically I gave an example, that would qualify as "more than a hint". I could provide more examples to backup what i said as needed.

> So some, but not all? I wonder if you want all humans to live well or just some.

Yes only some rich people who inhereit, the ones who have the same mentality as your average poor person, will loose all their money. On the flip side only some of poor people will also be able to become rich on their own, and those are the people who have the same sort of mentality as the people in inherit their money and manage to keep it or grow it.

> Sleepytime now. Confused on how you mean to argue inheritance, i have not seen one reason why people that get one should, but others not. Sleep well.

Thats easy... they should get it because someone wanted to give something to them, and it was their propery.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> So what are you trying to say here? Because you made it despite the odds, others have to make it, too?

There you go making things random that arent random... What random generator are you talking about and when is the randomness injected into the system? It sounds like you are using "random" as an incorrect fillin for "complex". This are complex, but far from random.

What i am trying to say is that an individual success is largely determined by them and their actions. I am saying the reason it was so easy to me had no elements of randomness to it, it was the result of my choices. Other people should make the right choices, and we should help them do it. Telling them their spot in life is due to random choices and rhetoric about "why should they even try" is not helping them, it is why they are in the situation they are in in many cases.

> Aside those that inherit, it seems.

Nah people who inheret arent the exception. If they have the same mentality as the people who stay in poverty they will loose their inheritance in no time and be in poverty.

> You tout that inheritance was ok, but you give absolutely no explanation on why.

Something being OK is the default. I dont need to prove why its ok that the sun rises at a certain time or why a leaf happaned to be in the middle of the rode... I have no need to explain why its ok because its ok simply because you have put forward no argument as to why it shouldnt be ok

> Born to that mother, nothing to do. Oh, the random mother was a rich one, good. that is great. But if people born to poor mothers are salty, they have no right.

Why do you keep saying words like "random" even after that has been debunked. You know saying the same thing that is shown to be false over and over wont make it true. Ir will weaken your argument though.

> Why?

Your statement used previously debunked falsehoods like "random". I cant answer a question about a statement if the statement uses nonsensical words in the context.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> So you are saying what happens happens. No benefit in thinking about it. I am born to this mother, and father, and that is it.

Not saying that at all. By all means thing about what happens. Obviously you cant change (nor was there any random element of chance) determining who you were born to. But you can certainly think and talk about it and what that means.

> If i am born to little chances at success,

You mean like me? I was born to abject poverty and grew up in it my whole life on welfare.

> why do anything. Why struggle, when life is like it is?

Born to little chances.. have to understnad what that means.. it means the average person will have little chance. It does not mean you have little chance. The chance you have to survive will be determined far more by the choices you make, than the choices thrust on you.

Despite growing up with "little chances" it was quite trivial for me to become successful as early as the age of 15.

I've lived this and already proven its not just possible, its easy.

@admitsWrongIfProven Luck implies there is some element of chance,there isnt. You can only be born to one specific mother, you can never be born to any other mother through an act of chance (short of a few really weird obscure edge cases).

How can something that has no random element to it be luck?

> How would you determine who worked hard? Hard work is no realistic indicator for success. Randomness is involved.

It is of course possible they themselves didnt work hard for it, it very well may be someone else who worked hard who gave it to them somehow... who knows. Point is it wasnt random.

@admitsWrongIfProven Why shouldnt they? They werent lucky, their parents worked hard. They also couldnt have been born to any other person, if they were they wouldnt have been them. So its not lucky since you can only be born to exactly who you are born to.

@admitsWrongIfProven thats seem in-congruent. thats like saying "you know you favor this current color of carpet over women's rights".

You may be better served making your point with an example