u/Hatrct

By not upvoting helpful topics, you are complicit. The fact is the number of upotes in a subreddit are an indication of how believed that topic is on balance. So if you see a topic that you think is helpful, you should upvote it. Stay on the right side of history. All too often, when people post a helpful topic, a few [will not use term because I don't want to get banned] users gang downvote it to censor it: these people make no sense: if they are so convinced that it is wrong, then why not use rebuttals? Why censor it via downvotes? So others who think that on balance a topic being read can help the world more than harm it, have a duty to upvote. Especially when they see it is at 0 upvotes. This is more the case when now there are targetted bots going around downvoting certain topics. I noticed that sometimes when I post controversial topics, it might get a few upvotes first, but then suddenly it goes below 0, and hovers at the 45-49% upvote rate, below .5 keeps it at 0 and not 1, this significantly reduces visibility. I believe bots may be doing this to shut down the proliferation of certain viewpoints. So don't forget to upvote these types of posts.

Let's use some basic logic. All means of meaningful communication are monopolized by the oligarchy. The same small handful of billionaires/corporations own all the mainstream media sources, from TV channels to big tech.

Yet you have these youtubers for example who pretend they are "anti-establishment". Yet they get millions of views.

Ask yourself: why would big tech companies allow this? Yes, they make profit off of it, but it fails a long term cost/benefit analysis: if such ideas become popular, the small handful of people who own these mainstream communication channels would lose their relative advantage to begin with. I mean it makes logical sense: if truly anti-establishment figures were allowed to talk freely, eventually people would wake from their slumber and realize that the establishment is not good for them, and eventually there would be meaningful changes. Yet we never saw those changes.

So I don't believe any figure who is popular: if they got popular, they were allowed to get popular, if they were allowed to get popular by private businesses who do not have to provide freedom of speech, then they will not be allowed to get popular. So if they are popular, that means ultimately their views are pro-oligarchy/esablishment.

Isn't this why 100% of popular figures support 1 of 2 establishment parties (Dems/Reps)? Have you ever seen one popular person or group unequivocally denounce both parties? Of course not, because both parties are effectively run by the same oligarchy, and that same oligarchy owns all the communication channels, they would never tolerate "meaningful dissent". They only allow "controlled opposition" to give people the illusion that they have choice and freedom of speech, so that people don't realize the truth.

For example I got censored/unabled to post in multiple (dozens) of very familiar places let's just say it is quite familiar to here but it includes all the high traffic let's call them "hubs" and that I am relegated to post this stuff only on low traffic subs like this one. The higher ups know that they can afford to give freedom of speech if it doesn't reach enough people: so they allow it to maintain the illusion that they are in favor of and allow freedom of speech. But practically they do everything in their power to censor. So if I get censored for calling out both parties and truly being pro middle/working class, if as a random anonymous person I don't have the freedom of speech to say this on any part of the internet or any media that will get a meaningfully high audience, and if you combine that with the fact that 100% of these popular so called "anti establishment" people at the end of the day support 1 of 2 anti-middle class oligarch-run parties, then this would all start to make logical sense. Why do you think 100% of the popular figures on the internet and channels are trying to divide + conquer the middle/working class into worshiping 1 of the 2 parties and hating the other? Who wins? The establishment as a whole, which both parties serve. But nobody who is truly anti-establishment is allowed to reach a meaningful audience.

There is this massively widely believed notion that there is too little productivity in society. They are always trying to improve productivity. Always focused on numbers.

People are so enthusiastic for how AI will "increase productivity".

But to me this doesn't make sense. I think we are pretty productive.

We already have so much advanced technology and machinery. Things that used to take days can be done in seconds.

The fact is that productivity has continued to rise.

And yet, as productivity rose, income and satisfaction decreased.

So I am not enthusiastic about AI or robots. I think we already have a lot of free time, but we are not happy regardless.

How much of a practical difference will robots make? Ok let's say they can cook and clean. Really how long do we spend on those now? Will we really be that much happier?

I think the question to ask is why has income and satisfaction decreased as productivity increased, at least in the last half century or so.

So I think AI and robots will continue this trend: the net benefits will be monopolized by a few, but they will continue to work the masses even harder, while giving them disproportionately lower benefits.

It is like when they say the earth's population is too high, that there are not enough resources/there is scarcity. But I don't think this is the case. If 1 person can own multiple yachts, surely there is enough to go round at least twice over. So I think these kinds of silly neo-malthusian beliefs are just being used by the billionaires to justify the existing system, no wonder Bill Gates is a malthusian.

So to sum up, I don't think we have a productivity problem. I think we have a distribution problem.

If you look at history 1 thing has not changed. People keep falling for charlatans. As a result, we have unnecessary problems.

Whether it is politicians or self-help "gurus", they just tell you what you want to hear.

I don't understand why people can't ever pick up on this.

They keep viewing the youtube videos of charlatans and buying their books.

Do you know how the publishing companies operate? Do you think they care about you? Do you think they care about improving the world? The ONLY thing they care about is maximizing profit.

Therefore, we remain PERPETUALLY stuck in a CLOSED LOOP cycle: people are naive and uninformed->publishers publish books that meet the EXISTING mindset of the masses: this means they publish the books that tell people what they want to hear. This means they REJECT books that say the truth, because there is no DEMAND for them, and they won't sell, because people don't UNDERSTAND and are not capable of getting past their INABILITY to hear the truth.

So it is a closed loop cycle. A book being ACCEPTED for publishing, then selling a lot on top of that, is a major red flag: it means it is likely just telling people what they want to hear. The books that would actually contain knowledge that can help people and the book will NOT be accepted for publishing in the first place, because publishers know there is no demand for it and it won't sell. The paradox is that if the masses had the basic level of knowledge to know all this, nobody would NEED to publish a book with genuine solutions because there would not be all these unnecessary problems in the first place, because the masses would be enlightened enough to not cause these problems in the first place.

So how publishers work is: "guys, right NOW people are gullible, right NOW appeal to authority fallacy is rampant, how do we milk AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE from them?" They are NOT going to promote books that help MEANINGFULLY reduce this. They ONLY care about profit. That is why a famous person literally shiz out a GARBAGE book and it WILL BE published, yet if an "unknown" person publishes the best book ever that can meaningful change the world, they will get rejected. Because the masses operate based on appeal to authority fallacy: they think if a NAME says "car" it means MORE THAN CAR if an "average" person says "car. They don't UNDERSTAND that car=car. And publishers know this. So they CAPITALIZE on it and want to PERPETUALLY perpetuate it. The publisher gives zero damns about the content of the book or how it will help people or change the world, they ONLY care about profit. And EVERY other medium in this system works the same way: e.g., youtube cares about ad money, NOT about whether the content of the video is enriching.

How can people be so GULLIBLE to fall for those lame "endorsement quotes" on books? Authors glazing each other. Do you think that is genuine? What happens is that a famous person writes a garbage book, the publisher says: accepted, you are famous, you can make us money. Then the publisher contacts the other authors that write about relevant books and says "can you do us a favor, we will do the same to you for future books", then that author writes a "foreword" or a quote saying something "x marvelously writes this book and captures all the important essence of ...". And gullible masses see that and say: TAKE MY MONEY FAMOUS PEOPLE HAVTH SPOKEN!

I mean there are TONS of charlatans, NONE of them made ANY MEANINGFUL change for humanity, just hot air to enrich self: this is logically 100% proven: this is why we still continue to have so many BIZARRE and unnecessary problems. Yet the masses continue to believe them. It was the same 1000 years ago, it is the exact same today.

There are NO "hacks" or magic solutions. There are no genuine politicians: they are controlled opposition. The system is broken from the root and is CIRCULAR: nobody OUTSIDE the system is ALLOWED meaningful opportunity to reach the masses. All these charlatans just serve as distraction. When will people wake up.

How come it is permitted for auto insurance companies to discriminate based on sex (charging males higher rates)?

I believe there was a 1992 ruling in Ontario Canada that permitted this.

However, as far as I know, the exception built into the law for private corporations included a list that contained both sex and medical disability. That is why for example for life insurance they can charge you higher rates if you have poorer health.

However, the question comes to mind, how come those with ADHD, who are also more likely to be involved in car accidents as a group, do not have to pay higher car insurance rates when males do? How come those who drink and drive get severe penalties but those who get into an accident and have ADHD are not checked to see if they took their medication?

There is a lot of stuff on social media that is making people believe almost everyone is a narcissist.

A large subset of "narcissists" are not actually narcissistic. They simply cannot tolerate anxiety, so they need to be in control and think that their way of thinking or doing things will always protect them and is right, so they will flip when someone questions their ways or routines or wants to try something another way. On the surface, this appears like narcissistic behavior ("only my way should be tried"). Another variant of this is really intelligent people who are objectively right almost all the time and they go through life being told they are wrong and that there are better ways to do things, but 95% of the time they are indeed right, so it bothers them/they perceive it as a waste of their time to listen to others most of the time and stick with their ways. Another variant of this is people who cannot tolerate feelings like guilt if called out, so they double down and blame others/fail to take accountability. However in all 3 of these variants, these people often are high in conscientiousness (in first 2 variants) and in general have empathy for others (in all 3 variants).

True narcissism is more like when someone actually believes they are special/should have special privileges, and become angry when people do not treat them like this, and in general they are low in empathy. The root of it is an extreme deficiency of self-esteem, which causes them to be delusional about their identity/value in the opposite direction as a subconscious defense mechanism.

It feels like the world died.

I just can't find any media (e.g., books, movies, shows, games) that give me the same excitement as the classics before.

I know some people will say this is just due to age, but I think it is more than that.

I think there has been an actual reduction in quality. Maybe everything has already been explored/there are no new concepts. So the more recent material is just filler/repetitive.

It seems like I already watched all the good movies, already watched all the good tv shows, already read all the good books, already played all the good games.

I don't remember the last time I got that rush of starting a new book/show/movie and being sucked in and invested. Now it is just a time passer.

Seriously, when was the last time a new actually funny sitcom was made?

Maybe there are some good movies here and there, but it seems like significantly less than before. Same with TV shows.

I wish I could go back to the beginning of for example starting the Harry Potter series for the first time, watching the office for the first time, watching LOST for the first time, playing classic groundbreaking video games for the first time, playing my first online FPS for the first time, that excitement when batman the animated series theme song comes on Saturday morning, first time feeding my neopet, etc..

It seems like everything is already over and there is just numbness left. And no, I am not depressed. This is not depression. It is numbness/lack of novelty. There is a clear difference and I have enough life experience to know the difference. In fact in terms of mental health I am overall better off than the times I used to enjoy those classic novel media that excited me.

Though I agree part of it is age, but not related to media. Rather, more related to things like relationships. For example, getting that rush of meeting a good friend for the first time. But with enough like experience you become jaded and get better at understanding human behavior and it loses its magic/you see the ugly truths. Also it is relevant to experiences. For example as a kid going to the amusement park seems like magic, as an adult you are indifferent. The more experiences you tried, the less novel and exciting they get. But the thing is, even if I try a completely new experience I never did, I don't know, say skydiving, I just know I still won't get that excited over it, it might be good enough to motivate me to go through with it, but at the end I would probably at the very most rate it a 7/10. I just don't find myself being able to have a 9/10 or 10/10 experience in anything ever again. Or even having one of those 5 minute literal rolling on the floor laughing sessions you would have with friends as a kid and remember for the rest of your life. Sure I still, sometimes even harder, but I have not had one of those level laughs in I don't know how long. That magic rush of novelty or excitement, I don't remember the last time I felt it.

Unfortunately the vast majority of people are unable to handle the truth. That is why cognitive dissonance is so prevalent. When you tell someone something that clashes with their subjective pre-existing beliefs, or makes them feel bad, they will automatically claim/believe that you are 100% wrong. They will interpret what you said as a personal attack, even though this makes no sense because you don't even know them, you were not even talking to them, or in cases you did, it is not about them it, it is about the topic. But because they can't tolerate the truth/anything different from their pre-existing beliefs, they use this counterproductive defense mechanism and attack you and say you are 100% wrong, and double down and claim their pre-existing beliefs are 100% correct.

Sometimes it makes me depressed just how prevalent this is. It is like this from the bottom to the top.

Recently I posted a topic on a more academic sub, where you would naturally expect people are more open to civilized and logical discussions, but how it went was exactly like talking to anyone else/any other sub. I posted a topic with the argument that judges have too much power. I wrote over a page using many logical arguments. I gave specific video examples, including one in which a judge gave a 22 year sentence to someone, then that person upon hearing it yelled at the judge. Then the judge added 6 years to the sentence on the spot due to vengeance. I criticized this judge, saying imagine how little emotional regulation you have that when someone just heard they got 22 years you are that fragile that you interpret their yelling as a personal attack and give them literally 6 years more just for that. I said this is not reasonable and that this is widespread in terms of judges.

I gave specific logical arguments, saying how the education system needs to reform so that judges learn the basics of relevant subjects like psychology, history, sociology, etc... because how can you be expected to make a balanced judgement when you are clueless in terms of what governs and causes human behavior? I also said that judges need to be taught critical/logical thinking, because again, the job of the judge is to weigh all the points and make logical sense of them and come up with a logical and balanced decision. How on earth can you do that if you are weak at critical thinking, and you use emotional reasoning and bias instead, to the point of giving 6 years just for a bit of yelling in court?

Unfortunately, people claimed that 100% of what I said was 100% wrong, that none of what I said made sense, solely because they said that I was "judge bashing". I don't understand how this made sense: in my post, I literally wrote I did not believe in free will + I said we need to consider the background factors that cause crime and address those rather than solely blaming criminals and keep giving them long sentences that just makes them use up more tax money and makes them become more involved in crime and the identify of being criminal while in prison, increasing recidivism rates. I used logical arguments, saying how regions with better social supports and less wealth disparity have significantly less crime, and that history shows that long sentences on their own/without focusing on such root factors of crime do not reduce crime.

You don't have to agree with all, or anything, I said. But how is what I said outrageous? Why does it deserve hate? Why try to censor and shut down what I am saying? If you think it is outrageous, why not present some logical counter arguments? Instead what happened was people personally insulted me, downvoted/censored my post while offering 0 rebuttals, and then bizarrely, on top of that, after this emotional reasoning of theirs, bizarrely projected and said "100% of your post is automatically nullified because you "engaged in judge bashing". What does this even mean? How can I be blaming/bashing judges when I literally wrote that I don't believe in free will? How can you "blame" and "bash" someone if your entire argument is that human behavior is based on past events, and when the main point of my post is that therefore we need to identify and change problematic root causes. I applied that to criminals. I also applied it to judges, which is why I said I believe the educational reforms I stated are needed for judges.

Even if I did "engage in judge bashing", how does that on balance/overall nullify 100% of my points? This issue with judges is important, it can be a life/death issue. So a basic cost/benefit analysis is needed here. If there is a fire and someone yells at you "buddy get the f out the way" how does it make sense to say "No, I will sit here and burn alive because you did not use a tone that pleased me sufficiently". And then they bizarrely say my post was "emotionally charged"? Obviously, in order to address a problem, you need to identify the issues. When I am saying these are the problems with judges, I have to show what problems I am talking about. How can I ignore/hide these? I should ignore them and say "judges are perfect, but here are some reforms". Why would there be reforms if they were perfect? Why would one consider constructive criticism as "bashing"? That says a lot about themselves, not me: they can't handle the truth of my post/how it made them feel, because they also use emotional reasoning like the judge, so they developed an in the moment fight/flight response, and could not handle the truth of my post, and so used cognitive dissonance to say I was completely wrong, and then they projected their emotional reasoning into say I used emotional reasoning.

This is why people are afraid to discuss controversial subjects. So instead they keep it inside, then there becomes polarization. Because you have 2 groups who believe they are right, and neither allows the other to provide constructive criticism, and shuts down 100% of what they say. Then both sides feel wronged and have to bottle everything inside, then this causes resentment and more of a doubling down on pre-existing beliefs, and causes more radical beliefs, and more anger and hate and division. So just because something makes you feel bad, you should not automatically claim they are 100% wrong and you are 100% perfect and right, you should give yourself some time and practice to sit with the new arguments and any negative emotions it causes: these are temporary, it won't always feel like that. But if you shut it down automatically each time, how can you ever learn new things or grow or refine your own thinking?

For me it is is subscribing online. Whether to youtube channels or subreddits. If I was to search for something I search manually, or bookmark it, and with youtube now there is algorithm. Another related thing is buying things based on ads online. I never understood why someone would go like "I am reading a fitness article, it has an ad for a supplement, I'm doing to click the ad right now and buy the random supplement online." Rather, my logic would be "I want a supplement" which then makes me research online for which the best one is for my needs, then I would buy it based on my research. Yet online advertising is a multi billion dollar industry based on people immediately buying from a random ad that spawns.

It is widely believed that capitalism is a prerequisite for innovation/that innovation cannot occur without capitalism/profit motive.

This is simply not true.

Having said that, it is true that capitalism can in many cases/domains spur innovation.

However, what is not talked about is how capitalism can inhibit innovation as well.

The thing is, when everything is based on profit, it limits everything to the zeitgeist. Because that is where the demand is. If something cannot make profit, it is rejected. And for something to make profit, it needs to be consistent with the zeitgeist. Therefore, anything proposed or built outside the zeitgeist, regardless of its value and utility, will not be permitted to succeed. In this way, capitalism stifles innovation and change.

Let's use the example of books.

Now there are a lot of good books. But the issue is that they are all within the zeitgeist.

The issue is that no book outside the zeitgeist, regardless of its value and utility, sees the light of day.

If you write a high value book that is outside the zeitgeist, you will not be able to have it published by a major publisher. If it is not accepted by a major publisher, you will be forced to self publish and that means it will not be read by a meaningful amount of people.

So how do publishers determine what they publish? The sole determining factor is profit. "Will this book make us money?" That is why we are stuck in a loop: within-the-zeitgeist books will sell because they have high demand, but they have high demand because they are within the zeitgeist.

If you go outside the zeitgeist, regardless of how valuable your book is, there won't be demand for it. But this is basic logic: because if this was not true, you would not need to write the book in the first place/the information in the book would already be known (in cases of non-fiction). The demand issue applies to the publisher as well: the publisher itself will not understand or appreciate your book, so they will think it is not good. But who are they to determine this? They too are incapable of operating outside the boundaries of the zeitgeist. And, in the rare case that the publisher is able to think outside the zeitgeist and see the value of your book, they will still deny it because they know the masses will not, so it fails the profit test, and it will be denied all the same.

Capitalists claim that unless you get paid, you will not do anything.

But there seems to be major flaws with this logic.

First of all, the capitalist system itself commodifies everything, so it forces you to have money to do everything. Therefore, in terms of cause and effect, is it that it is human nature to fail to do anything without profit motive, or that capitalism forces one to seek money?

Secondly, it is much more plausible that humans are hardwired to chase self-interest as opposed to money, that is, money is only one avenue of self-interest: self-interest can come in different ways, even via empathy. This is very easily able to be proven: money is a relatively modern invention.

Consider reviews. Why do so many people leave reviews of products/businesses for free? This is something businesses would wish to pay for. Like testimonials. But we see that people do this for free. Why? Because it shows humans have a natural desire to be heard. So this is one proof that not everything needs profit motive to be implemented.

The other major flaw with capitalist thinking is that "capitalism lifted the world out of poverty". This is such as silly and superficial statement. It implies that the natural order of the world was poverty, until capitalism heroically "changed the natural horrible order". This simply doesn't appear to be factual. You can't apply modern lens to ancient people. Humans were doing fine before. They had different problems, but they also had less of many modern problems. It is difficult to compare, and on balance they were not doing bad. It is only after agriculture revolution that major problems were introduced, but even that is exaggerated. For example in Europe even after the fall of feudalism people had nostalgia for it. So it can be fair to say that capitalism refined things compared to agricultural revolution and beyond. But human history spans way before 10k years: for the vast majority of our history we were fine. "Nature" was not brutal. Yes it could be, but it also had much less daily stressors. And people back then had nothing to compare it with, they were doing just fine. It is just silly to say "because people did not have running water in faucets and laundry machines and AI they were horribly abused and oppressed and suffering on a daily basis". They managed fine/it was nature/normal. And it is also illogical to say "ok then right now, when your whole life you lived in a city, go in the middle of a forest alone and then tell me capitalism is not needed".. it doesn't work like that.

Now there are a lot of good books. But the issue is that they are all within the zeitgeist.

The issue is that no book outside the zeitgeist, regardless of its value and utility, sees the light of day.

If you write a high value book that is outside the zeitgeist, you will not be able to have it published by a major publisher. If it is not accepted by a major publisher, you will be forced to self publish and that means it will not be read by a meaningful amount of people.

So how do publishers determine what they publish? The sole determining factor is profit. "Will this book make us money?" That is why we are stuck in a loop: within-the-zeitgeist books will sell because they have high demand, but they have high demand because they are within the zeitgeist.

If you go outside the zeitgeist, regardless of how valuable your book is, there won't be demand for it. But this is basic logic: because if this was not true, you would not need to write the book in the first place/the information in the book would already be known (in cases of non-fiction). The demand issue applies to the publisher as well: the publisher itself will not understand or appreciate your book, so they will think it is not good. But who are they to determine this? They too are incapable of operating outside the boundaries of the zeitgeist. And, in the rare case that the publisher is able to think outside the zeitgeist and see the value of your book, they will still deny it because they know the masses will not, so it fails the profit test, and it will be denied all the same.

Is it just me or is the word "scarcely" used an awful lot in the books. Is there a reason for this or just a coincidence?

While this series is technically for children, it has pretty deep themes.

Did you pick up on the themes as a child? If your teacher read it to you did they explain it?

If you did not, I suggest you re-read as an adult.

I searched the web and unfortunately did not find any satisfactory analyses of the themes of the series so I will summarize my own here.

For example some online analyses say the books criticize adults. But it actually goes deeper than this. I don't find it to be adults vs children, I find this series to be a critique of society and its structures as a whole.

The themes are that people do not think deeply, they just look/think superficially. That is why Olaf is able to trick everyone with disguises. And some of the people Olaf tricks are considered to be intelligent by society, yet the Baudelaires are not believed because they are "just children". so this book can also be considered to criticize appeal to authority fallacy and criticize how much emphasis society puts on rank and titles. It even directly makes fun of this by mentioning Mr. Poe's nonsensical head of orphan affairs title. It also does this well in Hostile Hospital Hospital, and through some other books where people believe something just because it is in the newspaper. Similarly, it also shows how often incompetent/rigid rule following people are the ones who are put in positions of power (the principal in Austere Academy, again Mr. Poe).

It also criticizes how there is so much bureaucracy and excessive, often counterproductive rules and conventions in society. This is probably best highlighted in Hostile Hospital, where Hal seems to think you have to maintain the records in an exact manner but never actually read them. Similarly, it criticizes the education system and its heavy focus on rote memorization as opposed to critical or practical thinking, e.g., in Austere Academy where the children have to memorize measurements and stories all day.

It also criticizes power imbalance in society: those in power make the laws/rules, with technicalities, sometimes making it impossible for others to follow (e.g., the contradictions in Austere Academy, if you went to certain parts of the building you would be stripped of silverware yet you were instructed to go there by authority),

It criticizes the excessive trust people put in technology while using it as a substitute rather than complementing their own thinking, e.g., the principal in Austere Academy saying "the advanced computer" will detect Olaf. This has aged like fine wine, people are making this mistake with AI these days.

It also criticizes group think, (Vile village and the end for example).

It also shows how people can be irrational when they let their emotional reasoning take over (the Aunt in Wide Widow being consumed by her fears), Jerome, who was a good guy but could not tolerate any distress so he would not argue with Esme or anyone else no matter what they said or did. Similarly, it shows how people use emotional reasoning and act based on what feels good to themselves in the moment as opposed to logic that can actually help others, e.g., the unhelpful songs by V.F.D. in Hostile Hospital.

It also shows how people can become evil when they are given power, and how they let their vulnerabilities/unmet needs blind them, e.g., the "freaks" in Carnivorous Carnival who join Olaf, and perhaps many of the original troupe members as well (as many of them had abnormalities, like the hook handed man). Similarly, it shows how people focus on what they don't have rather than what they do have/wanting to be like others at all costs, e.g., Kevin believing he was a freak for being ambidextrous (even though it was actually an advantage) and thinking it was worse than objectively much worse abnormalities.

It also shows how superficial people are and how they are slaves to social trends (Esme).

I could go on and on. This series was a goldmine of deep and relevant themes. It is heavily underrated in this regard. The amazing thing is that Handler is spot on: these are indeed significant issues in modern society and they are the root of most of our problems.

This likely has been done in the past but I don't see any new entries so I don't think it can hurt to ask.

For me it is between hostile hospital, austere academy, and bad beginning.

Bad beginning is the first and classic so you can't go wrong with it.

Austere academy introduced quagmires, in a sense this was the first book where even though miserable things happen to both sets of orphans, the fact that the Baudelaires finally have friends their own age made it happy in a sense and also more dramatic, It was also unique in that it was the first book with no formal guardian. Also cake sniffing factor gives bonus points. As a side note, I always interpreted "cake sniffer" to mean/imply "those who can't afford cake/presents/toys yet they desperately seek it", standing for being an orphan/poor kid.

But I gotta give the nod to hostile hospital because of its theme. It is in my opinion the strongest and most accurate and applicable and important critique of modern society and its institutions, while the book is also not lacking in any other sense (e.g.,, the plot, characters, storytelling, etc..).

It is just a business. All they care about is views/profit. Not journalism.

The mainstream media is owned by the same few oligarchs. They don't want you to know the truth, they just want to push a narrative on you so you act/belief in a manner that benefits the oligarchy.

CNN worships Democrats, Fox worships Republicans. They each claim to be 100% correct and that the other side is 100% wrong. 0% grey area. 0% journalism. 100% outrage and clickbait.

Then you have those independent youtubers who present alternative news.

The vast majority are Democrats.

But they do the same as CNN. The only difference is that they are more pro Gaza than CNN. Other than that they are the exact same.

It is 0% journalism. 100% tribal mentality.

100% of their videos are vilifying Trump: 100% of his policies are 100% bad according to them. And outside Gaza, they support the Democrats 100%, because they are so caught up in Trump hate. They claim to be progressive Democrats but in practice they just serve the mainstream oligarchical Democrats. And this is why they are allowed to continue posting on big tech like youtube: because if they were truly progressive, big tech would censor them: people do not seem to understand this basic logic. There is no freedom of speech in reality. If you "actually" go against the oligarchical system, since they own all communication channels, they will censor you. If someone is allowed to speak/have a meaningful/sizeable audience, that means they are ultimately working in favor of the oligarchy, otherwise, the oligarchy would censor them, because the oligarchy owns all communication channels. This is very simple logic to grasp, yet people tend to not realize it. That is why even on reddit if you post against the oligarchy, you will be censored/banned from all high-traffic subs: they will allow you to post on the smaller/low traffic ones like this one to give the illusion of democracy freedom, but you will not be permitted to have a large audience/make meaningful change. So anybody who has a sizeable audience is not progressive/anti-oligarchy, they are pro-oligarchy, no matter what they claim to be.

This is not journalism. This is garbage.

Every single day they put out multiple videos: this is just for money. There is no need for multiple videos per day. This is a business. Their goal is to gain more views/clicks. So they talk about what Trump did and make 12 videos a day based on it, and in that they mock him like school children, imitate his voice, etc... while claiming that he is bad because he does these things. They are all hypocrites.

You don't need to make 48 videos a day about the same thing. It is wasting people's time. It is not value. It is not being objective. It is not objective analysis. It is analysis for the sake of profit-driven analysis. And when you FORCE content, you introduce more and more subconscious bias. It is a heap of repetitive, thoughtless, useless garbage.

When you START with a stance, and then you FUNNEL EVERTHING WITHIN that PREDETERMINED stance, that is worthless. It is creating nothing new. It is just regurgitation. It does not allow for meaningful discussion or learning anything new. "Trump bad we perfect" and just rinse repeat. It is very lame and a waste of time. I have no idea how people have not picked up on this and continue to religiously watch and worship these charlatans. They offer nothing to the world.

And this is coming from someone who on balance thinks the vast majority of Trump's policies are garbage. But that doesn't mean I will automatically say 100% of what he ever said or done is wrong solely because he is Trump. For example, I support his recent vaccine stance, because it is indeed conducive with the real science and common sense. But these brainwashed "progressive Democrats" who know nothing about science automatically assume it is bad and automatically assume that the big pharma-worshipping Democrats actually care about science/health. Trump also cares about corporations over people, but on the vaccine issue in particular, perhaps he did not get benefits from big pharma, so he is not shilling for them, or he figures he can get more political brownie points by catering to his base on this issue. Whatever the reason, his stance on that makes sense. But these progressive democrat channels simply knock it down because it is Trump. That is why nothing they say can be meaningful: it is just silly tribalism with no logic or substance.

Nancy McWilliams appears to be saying neurotic/borderline/psychotic can be personality styles/level of personality organization, and not psychiatric disorders, e.g., someone with depression/anxiety can have psychotic level personality, which means that they use extreme 1st order defense mechanisms like denial or splitting. And that this does not necessarily mean they have schizophrenia or a psychotic disorder. However, several times McWilliams mentions how antipsychotic medication were a godsend for these patients. So if someone requires antipsychotics, how is that just personality? Doesn't that mean they indeed do have a psychotic disorder or schizophrenia (disorder as opposed to just personality)?

The thing is I actually agree that depressed/anxious people can be at borderline or psychotic personality levels (i.e., they can use a lot of 1st order defense mechanisms, likely due to trauma rather than having a neurobiological disorder like schizophrenia), but I don't understand how/why antipsychotic medication would work for them, because these medications work for schizophrenia, which is a neurobiological disorder (which can be triggered by trauma too but the genetic predisposition still has to be there- there is no way all the people who use 1st order defense mechanisms/are at psychotic level of personality organization have this genetic predisposition). You would expect that SSRIs would be used for someone with dep/anx + borderline/psychotic level of personality organization to take the edge off and increase serotonin to further relax mood, not antipsychotics, which are specifically working on parts of the brain/neurotransmitters implicated in schizophrenia, which is a neurobiological disorder.

Where do we draw the line on which is causing what? I will use a case example:

I am a human too. So this means sometimes I procrastinate. But if I procrastinate, I realize I am doing so. For example, if I am procrastinating on going to the gym, I might watch an entertaining tv show instead. But I know that I am procrastinating, and I do not believe the tv show is going to magically make me lose weight.

But the vast majority do not seem to be like this, which is what I don't understand. Instead of going to the gym, they repeatedly and religiously watch videos by blatant charlatan content creators on youtube who keep spamming/recycling the same content in different repeat videos, promising magic supplements and magic superfood and magic diets to magically lose weight. It is the same thing with those who watch those get rich quick videos.

Now, I know that repeatedly watching videos about weight loss is much easier than actually doing what is needed for weight loss: going to the gym and fixing diet. And I know this is why people watch the videos instead. So it is a form of procrastination.

But what I am baffled is that they cognitively believe the content of the videos. Again, refer back to me TV show example. If I skip the gym and watch a TV show instead, I cognitively know I am procrastinating/I know the TV show will not help me lose weight. The TV show, while it will not help me lose weight, still has some purpose, it is entertaining. But watching a charlatan make a video about weight loss has 0 value, 0 entertainment. It is 100% a waste of time. It is logically analogous to going up to your wall and repeating "there once was or wasn't a hippo, also, astronauts. In other news, 1+1=3" then repeating this line over and over again. There is absolutely 0 utility or validity. But the vast majority, who repeatedly and religiously watch nonsensical charlatan youtube videos promising magic weight loss, do not cognitively realize what they are doing: they literally believe that watching those videos are more efficient and productive in terms of losing weight as opposed to going to the gym and fixing diet.

So that is where I am confused. Is this a cognitive deficit they are displaying (they literally believe the charlatans/they literally believe watching those videos instead of going to the gym and fixing their diet will make them lose weight), or is it that their level of procrastination is so high/their thinking is clouded by immensely high levels of cognitive dissonance and the emotional pain (guilt?) that is caused by realizing that they are doing something mutually exclusive to their weight loss goals (wasting time watching nonsensical videos that are mutually exclusive to reaching their weight loss goals) instead of doing what they actually need to do to reach their goals?

So that was a case example. I think it largely boils down to cognitive dissonance. I will use the classic smoking example. It is said that if you tell a smoker smoking is bad, they will downplay the negative health effects in order to justify continuing to smoke. This is an example of cognitive dissonance. But is it cognitive, or emotional? How can it be that a grown adult can possibly convince them of something so bizarre? It is like believing 1+1=3, or not understanding that 2+2=4. So how can it be cognitive? So this leads me to believe it is actually emotion, the smoker feels guilt at not being able to quit smoking, so then that leads to the faulty cognition. But even then, it is still a chicken vs egg, because even if the emotion exists, how can it be that extreme that you literally are able to convince yourself that 1+1=3? So isn't cognition still involved? This is something I simply can't wrap my head around. I am not a smoker, but if I was, and someone said it is bad, I would say "yes, I know it is bad, but I simply can't stop." I can't fathom being able to cognitively convince myself that it is not bad, it would be like believing 1+1=3 or that a cat is a dog. So I don't understand how emotions, even if extreme, can distort cognition to such a degree. I do understand how emotions can distort cognition in cases where things are not always clear, but I don't see how in literal 1+1=3 examples this can be the case.

So do those who believe the equivalent of 1+1=3 indeed have cognitive deficits? But all of them passed grade 1 math, and there is no indication that they have significant IQ deficits/they seem to be operating fine in other domains, so how can this be? Does the amygdala literally take the PFC offline in that moment? But even if this is the case, doesn't the brain have memory, even after that moment people do not realize this. So is it that every time a memory associated with this situation pops up, the amygdala immediately completely takes the PFC offline? Maybe that makes the hippocampus not be able to write it into memory in the first place? But again, very simple examples/situations from relevant previously stored information is needed to make such easy inferences, for example, if you know 1+1=2 you should infer automatically that if there is 1 apple and you add another apple then you have 2 apples, you do not need to be literally shown the 2 apples being put together to make this inference.