u/Pleiades_Synced

From my earlier posts, I wrote about the necessity of designing durable counterweights in order to achieve harmony and abondance in society.

What I often noticed is that people seems to care a lot about their own battles, but let assume others intervened here.

That's the principle to organize strikes for others you wish to defend to and have them defend you in return in order to keep a movement that never run out of momentum until you obtain the result you wish for.

The first principle here is to acknowledge that the problems of others are also your owns.

For example, if nurses are to be treated so badly, then this means the quality of health department tend to drop. Same principle for everyone because if people aren't paid enough to live decently then the economy drop and services deteriorate. You have interest to strike for others.

The second principle is to recognize what always happen here. Strikes are expensive for the people doing it because they do it on their time of work or some can't strike at all legally. Government and companies usually wait for the movement to stop and then they get the upper hand in order to impose their terms, which are usually band-aids, not fixes.

Thus, others can strike outside their time of work in exchange for help later. It's about organizing the relay to maintain constant pressure and grow your numbers while minimizing your losses.

The third principle is to acknowledge that it's also beneficial for the state even if they would try to dissuade you to do otherwise. After all, you can only get rich as the basis of your own population making more opportunities and new resources available.

It doesn’t mean either to consume more resources, it mean that a fairer repartition ensure more economic growth and stability. Look at Rockfeller historical example for reference.

The fourth principle is self-regulation. The visible side of the endless strike would usually ends when a reasonable compromise had been reached as a plea for decent living conditions reach the ears more quickly and deeply. As such, this is about leveling the field by going up from the bottom to the middle.

On the same principle, if they decide to have prices go up due to salary going up too, strike again or create the alternative now that you reached more people from different domains.

But let's talk now of the invisible side of it as well and what constitute the true glue of this philosophy.

The filth principle is gratitude. The never ending strike doesn’t end with the demonstration. It continues by being gratefull to those who helped you. Not only I think that albeit flawed, gratitude is its own alternative to money, but I would advance the fact that it help realize how lucky we are to have all of theses, the fact it offers enlightenement to your own condition, make you realize other solutions are possible and maintaining a real life social network.

Therefore, the more available alternatives we get to a system, the more we naturally regulate these.

Again, the more diversity of people are in the strike, the more creative we get at improving our own condition.

That's what I call the way of the myriad.

In conclusion, strike for others too, as their problems as our problems and vice-versa.

So, don't hesitate to suggest your own alternatives too in the comments.

Hi everyone, I think it's time to talk about the necessity of designing durable counterweights in order to achieve harmony and abondance in society by ensuring a fairer world. Let's aboard one of theses.

What I often noticed is that people seems to care a lot about their own battles, but let assume others intervened here.

That's the principle to organize strikes for others you wish to defend to and have them defend you in return in order to keep a movement that never run out of momentum until you obtain the result you wish for.

The first principle here is to acknowledge that the problems of others are also your owns.

For example, if nurses are to be treated so badly, then this means the quality of health department tend to drop. Same principle for everyone because if people aren't paid enough to live decently then the economy drop and services deteriorate. You have interest to strike for others.

The second principle is to recognize what always happen here. Strikes are expensive for the people doing it because they do it on their time of work or some can't strike at all legally. Government and companies usually wait for the movement to stop and then they get the upper hand in order to impose their terms, which are usually band-aids, not fixes.

Thus, others can strike outside their time of work in exchange for help later. It's about organizing the relay to maintain constant pressure and grow your numbers while minimizing your losses.

The third principle is to acknowledge that it's also beneficial for the state even if they would try to dissuade you to do otherwise. After all, you can only get rich as the basis of your own population making more opportunities and new resources available.

It doesn’t mean either to consume more resources, it mean that a fairer repartition ensure more economic growth and stability. Look at Rockfeller historical example for reference.

The fourth principle is self-regulation. The visible side of the endless strike would usually ends when a reasonable compromise had been reached as a plea for decent living conditions reach the ears more quickly and deeply. As such, this is about leveling the field by going up from the bottom to the middle.

On the same principle, if they decide to have prices go up due to salary going up too, strike again or create the alternative now that you reached more people from different domains.

But let's talk now of the invisible side of it as well and what constitute the true glue of this philosophy.

The filth principle is gratitude. The never ending strike doesn’t end with the demonstration. It continues by being gratefull to those who helped you. Not only I think that albeit flawed, gratitude is its own alternative to money, but I would advance the fact that it help realize how lucky we are to have all of theses, the fact it offers enlightenement to your own condition, make you realize other solutions are possible and maintaining a real life social network.

Therefore, the more available alternatives we get to a system, the more we naturally regulate these.

Again, the more diversity of people are in the strike, the more creative we get at improving our own condition.

That's what I call the way of the myriad.

In conclusion, strike for others too, as their problems as our problems and vice-versa.

So, don't hesitate to suggest your own alternatives too in the comments.

From my earlier posts, I wrote about the necessity of designing durable counterweights in order to achieve harmony and abondance in society.

What I often noticed is that people seems to care a lot about their own battles, but let assume others intervened here.

That's the principle to organize strikes for others you wish to defend to and have them defend you in return in order to keep a movement that never run out of momentum until you obtain the result you wish for.

The first principle here is to acknowledge that the problems of others are also your owns.

For example, if nurses are to be treated so badly, then this means the quality of health department tend to drop. Same principle for everyone because if people aren't paid enough to live decently then the economy drop and services deteriorate. You have interest to strike for others.

The second principle is to recognize what always happen here. Strikes are expensive for the people doing it because they do it on their time of work or some can't strike at all legally. Government and companies usually wait for the movement to stop and then they get the upper hand in order to impose their terms, which are usually band-aids, not fixes.

Thus, others can strike outside their time of work in exchange for help later. It's about organizing the relay to maintain constant pressure and grow your numbers while minimizing your losses.

The third principle is to acknowledge that it's also beneficial for the state even if they would try to dissuade you to do otherwise. After all, you can only get rich as the basis of your own population making more opportunities and new resources available.

It doesn’t mean either to consume more resources, it mean that a fairer repartition ensure more economic growth and stability. Look at Rockfeller historical example for reference.

The fourth principle is self-regulation. The visible side of the endless strike would usually ends when a reasonable compromise had been reached as a plea for decent living conditions reach the ears more quickly and deeply. As such, this is about leveling the field by going up from the bottom to the middle.

On the same principle, if they decide to have prices go up due to salary going up too, strike again or create the alternative now that you reached more people from different domains.

But let's talk now of the invisible side of it as well and what constitute the true glue of this philosophy.

The filth principle is gratitude. The never ending strike doesn’t end with the demonstration. It continues by being gratefull to those who helped you. Not only I think that albeit flawed, gratitude is its own alternative to money, but I would advance the fact that it help realize how lucky we are to have all of theses, the fact it offers enlightenement to your own condition, make you realize other solutions are possible and maintaining a real life social network.

Therefore, the more available alternatives we get to a system, the more we naturally regulate these.

Again, the more diversity of people are in the strike, the more creative we get at improving our own condition.

That's what I call the way of the myriad.

In conclusion, strike for others too, as their problems as our problems and vice-versa.

So, don't hesitate to suggest your own alternatives too in the comments.

Hi everyone.

I wanted to give more thought to what I personally call the philosophy of the least evil.

We shouldn't underestimate the ability from humanity to slay dragons.

After all, we destroyed smallpox and the hole in the Ozone layer is slowly filling up.

I just think that discrimination is its own beast to be put down too.

It's why it's important to have an healthy debate in order to avoid fascism and keep your view grounded in reality.

We can all live different and rich lives without having to hurt each other.

Let's now adress the core of the topic.

What is the distinction beetween the divider and the reasonable person ?

The reasonable person can disagree politely, accept to have their views challenged. They allow themselves to get changed by the new informations.

It doesn't necessarily mean they drop their convictions either. They can just choose to pursue it in different ways.

I think a world full of reasonable people is much better, because we avoid a lot of unecessary violence and we can agree on the most prioritary issues like climate change and civil liberties and avoid harmfull behaviors to spread like violence and racism.

A divider is the opposite of that. For various reasons, they came to hate something or someone.

To know the reasons, ask yourself the question:

Do they do it by interest ?

Do they do it because they personally wronged on a rational or irrationnal level ?

Do they do it by imitation ?

Of course, nothing is simple. People are complex. They can evolve between those position. And they can act like a divider on some issues and a reasonable person on other ones.

It doesn't mean either that the people need an outlet. There are much more rich and healthier way to discharge said violence like in art, sports and games, for example, rendering it harmless for others.

And it doesn't mean that, sometimes, we should fight for our own rights.

It's truly about the state of mind as it is about our civilization that is currently in its turbulent adolescent phase.

I'd rather engage the divider with an open hand first.

After all, they can be a misinformed reasonable person.

Or, sometimes, kindness truly help in the process of adressing the true issues behind.

Or It doesn't give leeway in fighting back and let that person waste their energy.

If you can, try to avoid having this discrimination spreading like a fire in other domains and use their own logic to resolve that internal issue.

Questions are usually the most suited way for that.

There is something else that is to be noted. I already explained earlier that the reasonable person can agree to disagree.

This isn't the case for the divider. Ask them what they agree upon.

You'll notice how quickly they'll fall apart. Because an ideology born out of hatred and division can only bring even more in the long run.

You only need to accompany the movement to bring it to the point of powerlessness.

Because, there is only a thin wall of ignorance that prevent said group to fall apart by their own forces.

I wish to conclude on one point, when we had slain our own dragons, we always had visualized first how to do it.

Hi everyone. I think I start to like a lot this subreddit. There are a lot of interesting stuff to read there and I'll put some of my thoughts here during my prep time.

I wanted to give more thought to what I personally call the philosophy of the least evil.

We shouldn't underestimate the ability from humanity to slay dragons.

After all, we destroyed smallpox and the hole in the Ozone layer is slowly filling up.

I just think that discrimination is its own beast to be put down too.

In my earlier post, I adressed why it was important to have an healthy debate in order to avoid fascism and keep your view grounded in reality.

I explained that we can all live different and rich lives without having to hurt each other.

Let's adress the core of the topic.

What is the distinction beetween the divider and the reasonable person ?

The reasonable person can disagree politely, accept to have their views challenged. They allow themselves to get changed by the new informations.

It doesn't necessarily mean they drop their convictions either. They can just choose to pursue it in different ways.

I think a world full of reasonable people is much better, because we avoid a lot of unecessary violence and we can agree on the most prioritary issues like climate change and civil liberties and avoid harmfull behaviors to spread like violence and racism.

A divider is the opposite of that. For various reasons, they came to hate something or someone.

To know the reasons, ask yourself the question:

Do they do it by interest ?

Do they do it because they personally wronged on a rational or irrationnal level ?

Do they do it by imitation ?

Of course, nothing is simple. People are complex. They can evolve between those position. And they can act like a divider on some issues and a reasonable person on other ones.

It doesn't mean either that the people need an outlet. There are much more rich and healthier way to discharge said violence like in art, sports and games, for example, rendering it harmless for others.

And it doesn't mean that, sometimes, we should fight for our own rights.

It's truly about the state of mind as it is about our civilization that is currently in its turbulent adolescent phase.

I'd rather engage the divider with an open hand first.

After all, they can be a misinformed reasonable person.

Or, sometimes, kindness truly help in the process of adressing the true issues behind.

Or It doesn't give leeway in fighting back and let that person waste their energy.

If you can, try to avoid having this discrimination spreading like a fire in other domains and use their own logic to resolve that internal issue.

Questions are usually the most suited way for that.

There is something else that is to be noted. I already explained earlier that the reasonable person can agree to disagree.

This isn't the case for the divider. Ask them what they agree upon.

You'll notice how quickly they'll fall apart. Because an ideology born out of hatred and division can only bring even more in the long run.

You only need to accompany the movement to bring it to the point of powerlessness.

Because, there is only a thin wall of ignorance that prevent said group to fall apart by their own forces.

I wish to conclude on one point, when we had slain our own dragons, we always had visualized first how to do it.

Hi, I was Oratorio from AIwars, I decided to delete and make another account for 2 reasons.

The first to celebrate the change, the second one was to rebuild on an healthier basis.

I think that, indeed, you need to have the right heart to truly change the world. I listened to your advice in the comments.

I didn’t like the fact that my snark infected others. I lived a difficult period and you don't have to carry my own baggages.

All my apologies for that.

It's right, my last message might have sounded hypocritical. I'll make things clearer.

It was never about me saying that I should think for you, it's about giving everyone the opportunity to think for themselves.

If the state doesn’t provide, be in solidarity, create your own system, and it's not entitled to a single dime of it until they decide to take their responsability.

It's about designing titanium grade counterweights for the people that we should be vigilant to maintain.

It's about being pragmatic enough to recognize harmony is your own interest, regardless of the design of the society, of the person you are.

It's about living our own lives, having our own paths, having our own opinions, being unique, all of this while reducing the harm done to others.

It isn't incompatible with advancing either, to get better, to leave an impact, to even do competitions while showing sportmanship.

And even for those at the top, an harmonious society is preferable, because the progresses are much more enormous and advantageous and way less people hate you.

As for me, I have my own progresses to do in my own life. I am considering to also fight other battles.

Sorry, if for this time, I didn’t provided facts or examples. I'll suggest more concrete suggestions next time. I'll hope we'll discuss about it.

I need to advance at my own pace too.

Peace.