mbohu

Yeah, I mean spending $300/week on tunnel coaching is one thing, but I do draw the line at 20 bucks per year!

I can't speak to your question, as it definitely took me a lot of tunnel time--and even after, for example, being able to do sit-to-head transitions over the back very consistently in the tunnel, it still took me quite a few jumps to consistently find head-down in the sky through these transitions. I am interested though, what your reason is for learning head-down without the assistance of time in a tunnel. Is it a philosophical/puritan reason ("real freeflyers don't learn in the tunnel") or is there a practical reason (no tunnel in the area, etc.)? If I had to venture a guess as to how many jumps it would take to achieve any sort of basic control in a head-down position (starting at zero head down experience), I'd say at least a couple hundred jumps--for many, probably more.

Yes, I was just talking about the specific people I mentioned (even though, yes, I could probably list a few more examples). But again, in the case of these individuals, it's hard to argue that they are acting in bad faith or craving a right-wing anti-woke audience. And of course, I could list a whole lot more people where what you say applies. (Well, maybe I can't. I just don't listen much to them.) Absolutely. I don't think they are. Neither am I intending to, by pointing out they make some good points. Yeah but see, that is kind of an anti-woke statement in itself . Because the woke thing would be to let them define their own identity on their own terms, and they do identify as anti-woke or at least woke-critical. and wait, where have we heard this before: you are really a ..... because the definition of the word ..... is .......? Insert <man> <man> and <having a penis>. ...and the statement is anti-woke Insert <racist> <racist> and <advantaged by structural inequalities> (or simply <white, male, cisgendered and heterosexual>) ...and the statement becomes woke

The entire first section of your last reply boils down to the argument: "They are not arguing in good faith." I think this is not at all true of the specific people I listed. But it is also a point that simply cannot be argued, as we cannot objectively observe their intentions. Yet, if you listen to any of them, I think the indications are pretty obvious. One thing can be judged objectively though, and that is that all of them had huge audiences before they ever talked about wokeness or related topics. So no, Sam Harris would not loose 99% of his audience. In fact, his other views--for example on religion, on trump, on science, etc.--are so diametrically opposed to most of the audience that I think you are describing, that it's hard to imagine he has a large audience in that group at all. Not sure how someone arguing against some aspects of what is called "wokeism" is related to terrorism? However, yes: There are extremely valid observations and realizations in Marxism, and yes, they should be engaged with honestly and should even be adopted, where they point to truth, and the fact is they HAVE been adopted in our culture...just no one admits or remembers where they come from (actually some underlying principles in wokeism have their roots in ideas, first popularized by Marx) and of course the same is true about Machiavelli. Haven't read Kaczynski, but a search says that "The manifesto argues against accepting individual technological advancements as purely positive without accounting for their overall effect"--well, I doubt he's the first to say that, but it's hard to argue that this idea doesn't have value (maybe we can just go to a different source?)...Ok, with Limbaugh you got me! Not sure what you are trying to get at with "terrorism": only one of the 4 you mention has anything to do with terrorism and none of the people I mentioned does. I may be missing your point here. No. Neither would be saying that people who oppose aspects of "wokeism" oppose aspects of "wokeism". But saying they are unaware of systemic inequalities is either just false (when applied to people who have written about these topics extensively, so cannot be unaware of them) or it is a rhetorical strategy.

Right, you always have extremes. But it's more about the ones who call themselves anti-woke, or who get called that by others. Have you listened to John McWorther, for example, or read some of his NYT articles (or maybe read his book called "woke racism"--I mean what else could be more anti-woke? I admit I haven't read that book (yet) but I've listened to him quite a bit and read his articles--on various subjects, including "wokeness") There is simply NO WAY to accuse him of not being "alert to injustice in society" or simply unaware of structural inequalities--neither can you accuse Sam Harris of that, if you listen to his podcasts. They are strong critics of the thing that many do call "woke" (both on the pro- and anti- side) And on the pro side: Have you read "White Fragility"? This is considered a cornerstone work in this area (I have to admit I could not get very far through it, but enough to confirm that the summaries I've heard in podcasts seem to be accurate) The conflation I may be guilty of, is not coming out of nowhere! The attitudes/philosophies/statements I mentioned, are not only criticized by the "anti-woke" but are promulgated actively and proudly by some of the strongest advocates of the "pro-woke" movement. Again, to come back to the original start of the topic: There are many that are considered "anti-woke" that have very valid points to make. I think they should be listened to and their ideas integrated. They can't be dismissed as being unaware. But even from a purely strategic point of view (if one wanted "wokeness"--by whatever definition one may hold--to win out) it seems to be bad strategy to simply assume and declare that the "anti-woke" are simply not aware, or unconsciously racist/sexist/etc., when it is obvious to many people who listen to them, that this just simply isn't the case. It would be good to familiarize ourselves with what they talk and write about, and what their real points are. (Even if it is just to oppose them.) PS: You have a point there, of course. Yet as much as the expression of that backlash should be listened to in terms of making space for the expression of the anger/rage/etc that may be behind it--I don't think it should be listened to in terms of basing real solutions on it.

Well....that may be true in respect to SOME "anti-woke" people and their beliefs and attitudes, but I really think we are missing something when we pretend that at least some of the critics of "wokeism" don't have a point at all, and are either simply racist (either in the old or the new meaning of the word) or completely unaware of systemic inequality and subconscious biases of different groups. I'm thinking of people like John McWorther, Sam Harris, Glenn Loury, Jonathan Haidt, Bill Maher (for the fun of it!) and many other thinkers, that are very clearly aware of systemic inequalities and hidden social biases, and at the same time are concerned about certain aspects of what some call wokeism. I know from experience, that many of us progressives simply haven't looked very deeply into the criticisms of wokeism and dismissed them out of hand, simply out of a (generally laudable) desire to side with the suppressed or disadvantaged (or those that we think to be.) After all, that has always been our project and our heart's inclination. However, I think it does us no good to ignore well articulated and well thought out criticisms that may sound to others--less inclined to our worldview--as obviously valid and true. The usual defenses of "if you're anti-woke you are simply unwilling to look at your (or your culture's) inherent and mostly unconscious biases and structural inequalities" or "critical race theory is only an obscure legal theory and nothing else" are somewhat weak and factually just not true--no matter how good our intentions. Yes, there are great insights in post-modernist philosophical thought, critical theory (maybe a bit less so, in my opinion), intersectionality, and some other underlying pillars of what most people understand as "wokeism" (although most woke people do not actually understand or are even interested in these theoretical underpinnings); but there are (in my opinion, as well in those of some damn smart people with otherwise very progressive attitudes) some REAL problems in these theories, especially when taken to the extreme. Statements like: " there is NO objective truth, and EVERYTHING is only social construction", "since EVERYTHING is social construction, and social construction is controlled by the ones with power, ONLY power-relationships are important and relevant", "only membership in racial, sexual-orientation, sexual-identity, etc. groups determines your status and power", "intersecting group membership should therefore completely govern what you are allowed to talk about, comment on, etc.","intention is completely irrelevant and only the 'perceived offense' determines racism and sexism, etc" .... --these are all extremes that are present and (in my opinion) problematic, and they are not solely used by the "anti-woke" to argue against "wokeism" and scare the conservative masses into a frenzy (although that is MOST CERTAINLY also happening!) These attitudes are also freely expressed (in talks, at rallies, but also in books and "scientific" papers) by proponents of the "woke" philosophy. To deny that, or to not make the effort to find that out, if one honestly does not believe it, is, I think, not helpful to our cause of honestly trying to address the biases, inequalities and systemic problems that clearly still exist. I think it's worth the effort to wrestle our own knee jerk reactions and unconscious biases (how ironic!) and look into these issues more deeply. But then what do I know. I am a white European male, who lived his entire life not questioning his sexuality and gender identity...so I probably need to shut the F up!

As a non US born, I agree and not much else needs to be said (as long as we are talking about how I feel about it.) Possibly yes (not necessarily that list, but something like it). But here is the difference to me: killing, to prevent someone from doing terrible, massive harm--as long as that person is still involved in doing the harm (or has the power to do it)--may be justified (and if one gets a little satisfaction from that to "get even", well so be it--that's human) ...but the very idea of institutionalized punishment, especially punishment by death, is an idea that will hopefully outlive its attractiveness, as we evolve as civilizations. Once the perpetrator is not anymore able to commit the acts for which we want to "punish" him, I think the very idea of punishment is weak and useless--especially when administered in an institutionalized way. Taking away the very means as well as (when possible) the causes/desires for the "evil"/undesired actions of the perpetrators is much more powerful and ultimately much more satisfying.

Well, that makes sense, from their perspective, though. If you believe there is an absolute Good and an absolute Evil, that these two are at war with each other and that the absolute Good is completely represented by a personal God, and the absolute Evil by his opponent, who tries to take over people's minds: Well, then you cannot possibly be for democracy, because it does not matter to you what a majority of people want. All that matters is that the will of God wins out in every way and on every issue. Not only must you think this is the best outcome for yourself (because it's the God you believe in) but you believe it is the best outcome for everyone, including those who are "misled" by God's opponent. There is no way around this problem. Of course, one can hope to convince everyone, or a majority, to drop this belief, and become an atheist or at least an agnostic, but it does not seem likely at all that this will happen in the near future. So, how do we proceed from here?

Will do.

I just ordered it on Amazon. Thanks for the tip!

Only additional problem with this is that these various things (different types of fuels as well as materials) are all made from different parts of the extracted raw resource, so we cannot stop burning fuel and then use this leftover oil to make plastics, for example. The part used for fuel is only (or mostly) useable for fuel, and the part used for plastics is only useable for that (again, as I understand from reading and talking to people in tge industry). This also creates the problem that just replacing fuels by alternative propulsion systems, does not solve the problem of needing more fossil fuel extraction, because we would still need the same amount unless we also replaced plastics (and fertilzer, clothing, rope, paint, asphalt, lubricants, medicines, solvents etc etc) The composition of useful parts is different for each type of extracted oil, but never to the extent that one part can replace the other, and generally it's pretty similar. When I used to look at a chart like the one below, I used to think, we just choose to use oil in these proportions for these purposes, but apparently this is not so. The proportions are more or less predetermined by the quality of the oil itself:

Yes, that's a question we'll have to come to terms with sooner or later--independent of the current distractions and divisions (not that they aren't serious as well.) No matter what the ultimate quantity limit of fossil fuels on the planet is, fact is: 1) They took millions of years to be created and we are burning them down tens (or hundreds?) of thousands of times more quickly (i.e.: they will run out) 2) The energy they are supplying (as well as the materials) are completely at the base of almost everything we do right now; our entire way of life is completely impossible without that amount of energy 3) There is no great incentive to reduce their use, because we are only paying for the cost of extraction, not the real cost of what it would take us (or nature) to recreate them, or the costs to the environment for generations to come, etc. So they are extremely underpriced and we only do not notice that, because the real costs are (or have been) very much projected into the future, or otherwise externalized 4) It's not even really a question of when we run out completely of fossil fuels, but when we run out of fossil fuels, that can be extracted with less energy use, than they will provide after extraction. Original oil was best in that way, fracking already has a much smaller payoff (even ignoring all the other issues that it may have). Eventually we may come to a point where there may very well still be significant untapped sources of fossil fuels in the ground, but getting them out of the ground would take more energy than the extracted resources can provide. 5) We have a worldwide economic system that depends on constant growth for its very existence. On the other hand, it seems that--on a worldwide scale--there is an almost exact one-to-one relationship between total energy usage and total GDP (so if GDP goes up, energy use goes up by the same percentage) This means, if we want to preserve this system without changes, not only do we need to continue to use the amount of energy we use now, we need to increase our energy use exponentially--and in fact, we have been doing this, which is why all this new sustainable energy creation we have recently added, has not helped us to reduce our fossil fuel use, and has instead just added additional capacity to our system, and been used up in addition to the fossil fuels. The following is not meant to be a realistic scenario that we'll ever have to deal with, because other things will (have to) happen long before that happens, but mathematically speaking, this is a very sobering (and interesting) thought exercise: • Most economists would think that a GDP growth of 2.3% is quite conservative and required to keep an economy healthy. • If we applied that growth worldwide, it means that about every 30 years GDP doubles and every 100 years it grows tenfold • If the relation to GDP and energy use remains constant (as many argue it must), energy use (and therefore energy-production/extraction) has to grow tenfold every 100 years. • Therefore, looking at this in even tiny time periods as far as the evolution of humanity is concerned: > within a few hundred years we would have to cover the entire surface of the earth with solar panels, even if we could get solar panels to 100% efficiency (right now we seem to be at 15%-20%) just to get all the energy we need > even if we built a sphere around the sun and captured all of its radiated energy (rather than just what hits the earth) that would give us about 1,000 years at that growth rate > Even if it was physically possible to transfer energy at speeds faster than light, so we could capture energy from suns other than our own, in 2,000 years, we'd need more energy than the output of all suns in our galaxy combined. Sure, it's ridiculous...but then again: No economist is called out for being ridiculous when they demand (constant and exponential) growth of GDP

Yup. I'll give it a try. First though, the only thing that is accessible without pay, is the single paragraph summary, and the PsyPost Article, right? So that is what we are discussing, right? So, first, I would say, that seems relatively obvious and common sense, no? All that is saying is that if someone holds a strong view (right or wrong...or unknown), and you put them into a situation where they are being confronted with a much larger group of people in opposition to that view, they will get more aggressive and defensive about defending their view. That seems not at all surprising, does it? I mean, if you put a group of fighters up against a much larger group of fighters, the members of the smaller group will (need to) fight much harder and do whatever they can to oppose the perceived threat.--no? Now, what I find interesting is that this says nothing about the correctness of the view. Just that it is strongly held and that it is not held by a majority. However, later it becomes clear, by the actual issues mentioned and by the assumption one can make about what the authors think the "correct" views are, that they were starting with the assumption that the minority views are incorrect (or they were only interested in cases where the minority views were incorrect--or perceived as such). To use an example from the article: They deemed Jehova's Witnesses as “members of a fanatical religious group”, and then concluded that they are more fanatical and their views are in the minority (seems like a conclusion already included in the setup, no?) But it seems to me that the study then also concludes, that if "evangelical Christians" would live in a society dominated by Jehova's Witnesses, and therefore hold the minority view, the evangelicals would then become more fanatical, and the Jehova's Witnesses less so, right? So I am a bit confused about what the new insight is, here. Is it just: When you hold a view, and then find out that you are in the minority, there is a good likelihood that you will become more fanatical about it as a defense against being in the minority--no matter if your view is correct or not? If so, my own reaction would be: Yes. That makes sense...but also: duh! Is there more to it in your estimation?

Not really true in my experience from talking to some pro-Trump people. (I am not talking about Trump himself, of course. By any estimation he is simply a narcissist who couldn't care less about anything but how it affects him--and quite a few of his fans agree with that estimation, but they don't care, because they like what they think he will do) There are at least some who were driven to him by a feeling that they have been screwed by "the system" (or they would say: "by the elites") and that he will get back at them, to their benefit (or if not to their benefit, so at least to inflict pain on the elites as well.)

Yes, thanks. I was aware of at least part of the history. Interesting details in respect to Republicans and Democrats in the US. Again, I think it is much more useful to start looking at this by completely ignoring the history and political parties, because if you start there, you run the danger of identifying with a tribe/party FIRST and then tending to adjust your opinions to what matches the party's position on them. If we start at the bottom, let's say with "values" or philosophies, then there are a few things that sometimes (but not always) fit into the right-left dichotomy. The first is one you mentioned: Progressive (=wanting change and progress, stepping on the gas, so to speak) versus Conservative (honoring the past, careful and distrustful of change, and sometimes even wanting to go back to the past, or even believing that progress is an illusion and history is static or circular at best) --but right away, we find that this does not fit the current political reality perfectly, as there are some parts of "the left" who find their golden age all the way back in the pre-agrarian-revolution times (extreme environmentalists do, and the extreme end of the woke crowd as well--because that time was supposedly pre-exploitation (of nature and of anything not white male) ) So it's not a perfect match. Then there is: Authoritarian versus Libertarian (or Liberal) I always thought the Right was pro authoritarian ("law and order") and the left liberal. But in some respects this has now reversed, or at least been totally confused. Generally you find aspects where the American right is much more authoritarian, but also where the left prefers authority over freedom (for some time the left was for more control economically and more freedom socially...but even that is not a defining faultline anymore) Then there is one I think lies pretty deep psychologically and still mostly applies: Internal versus External causation. Do we see problems and solutions as existing primarily internal (the evil person shooting people, the lazy person being homeless because they aren't disciplined enough, etc.) or do we see problems and solutions primarily on the outside (lax gun-laws, or a system that does not support disenfranchised groups and drives them into poverty, etc.) Mostly, this matches right versus left pretty well. (And of course it should be obvious that neither side has 100% of the truth here) There is also Individualist versus Collectivist (which is similar to the above but not 100% the same) and this at first seems to match the right versus left divide, but when you look a little deeper into the religious right (which professes individualism but practices collectivism in their religious affiliations) it gets complicated here as well. So again, we could use a much more nuanced set of scales (or we could just look at every issue individually, anyway)