It's cool how you can smile and not smile at the same time.

@good-questions

3 жыл бұрын

?

@ilalighieri9093

3 жыл бұрын

@@good-questions expressions shown in the face, it can be seen in one's eyes and brows generally.

@mattmurphy1065

3 жыл бұрын

@@ilalighieri9093 I was going to mention that I believe it is her eyes.

@ilalighieri9093

3 жыл бұрын

@@mattmurphy1065 absolutely. smiling eyes are the big teller, particularly now with the prevalence of masks.

@quaidcarlobulloch9300

3 жыл бұрын

That is cool

"Tolerance is usually the policy I see people advocate" whaaa.. ohhh this was made in 2015, that explains things! Love your channel, Julia, thank you KZread algorithim!

@angadsingh9314

3 жыл бұрын

Hahaha

@festive5476

3 жыл бұрын

xD

@Idontwannashutup

3 жыл бұрын

@@festive5476 all praise the one word KZread name. WE HAVE NOTICED YOU OLDF2G

I love that you can be a friend even in moral discussion. Your open mind does have its boundaries that should be held. Others violating them should be resisted.

Think more as Positive habit mindset... Vs Think less as Sunday building Arrival-Departure drive but how to appreciate myself those moments I got a chance to drop my mother in her work place is the moment I learnt more about how to drive confidently

It could be argued that tolerance is a precursor to engagement, especially in a confrontational environment.

Speaking as someone who's taught moral philosophy at university for many years, this is an excellent video! It captures what I try to do (and encourage) in my classes.

@Seanonyoutube

3 жыл бұрын

Does it work? Seems like “engagement” these days ends up meaning that those with more conservative views are disregard in favor of the progressive minorities who are trying to “dismantle the structures of power” etc. in this social climate, how can someone perceived as “privileged” be able to convey their views and be taken seriously by those progressive folks?

@peterdesmidt8742

3 жыл бұрын

@@Seanonyoutube That's not what I do. My student evaluations are highly positive, and many of my students are very conservative.

@Seanonyoutube

3 жыл бұрын

@@peterdesmidt8742 you must not be in the schools i’m talking about.

The tolerance approach is probably the most common approach because most people cannot handle criticism. When you criticize someone, you do not know what will happen. That entity may turn violent. That entity may storm off and forever hate you. Most people have exceptionally poor social skills, so they cannot handle anything at all.

Think more the hardest way as the *Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists* . Vs Think more the hardest way as how This Interpersonal Declaration is proclaimed as a standard of professional conduct for Journalists engaged in gathering, transmitting, disseminating, and commenting on news and in information...

I think this woman will do a better job than me in living my life

@logielleEntiopya

3 ай бұрын

​@@greenrockyroad3845 I believe its a lighthearted way of stating that she seems highly intelligent and rational, possibly great at decision-making.

Great video! I agree and have found your recommendation to be useful in most other forms of disagreement as well. Out of curiosity, is there any place online or elsewhere where you have spelled out your meta ethical world view?

@measureofdoubt

8 жыл бұрын

+Jeff Nippard There is, though it's a few years old now! But I still stand by the gist: measureofdoubt.com/2011/04/01/whats-my-ethical-system-a-disambiguation/

@JeffNippard

8 жыл бұрын

+Julia Galef oh that was excellent! Thanks Julia!

@No_Avail

8 жыл бұрын

+Julia Galef I'm reading the linked post and just wanted to mention that metaethical error-theorists (nihilists) don't believe that moral propositions are neither true _nor_ false. As their label suggests, they believe that *all* moral utterances are false only, because to them moral discourse intends to be cognitively meaningful, and merely falls short on the accuracy front. Those who subscribe to metaethical non-cognitivsm (projectivists, fictionalists) are actually the ones who believe that moral statements can be nether true *nor* false, as they don't regard the project of morality as being in the business of truth and falsity in the first place. Weirdly, this places both error theory _and_ robust realism under cognitivism and its categories of meta views.

@mrdrsir3781

5 жыл бұрын

Jeff Nippard oh my goodness best crossover episode ever in the comments right here.

@kdo2300

5 жыл бұрын

@@measureofdoubt It's bizarre that that you would be a moral nihilist/error theorist and claim to pursue "moral progress". How do you "keep an open mind" to moral evaluations you ultimately think are held in error? Why would you want you mind convinced from one set of errors to another?

Think more the quickest intuitively way as F is for *Frustate* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as F is for *Fate* again

Think more this is why I needed to be more focus on what I specifically argued about repeatedly, by leaving behind what's that makes me feel like I'm being stucked in the same level of understanding... Vs Think more but will you like what I decided continuously

I'm really loving these videos they're fascinating.

I'm confrontational when I drive, Tolerant at work and engaging in my relationship.

@larrybeckham6652

3 жыл бұрын

I was a confrontational driver in Texas, then I witness some gunplay and decide to more tolerate and alive. I learned to mediate in traffic.

Think more it's not about being nice randomly at this point.. Vs Think more it's about being specifically at this point

Think more the quickest intuitively way as Y is for *Yours* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as M is for *Mine* again

the problem is that most people would use confrontation as their form of engagement while still believing that they are going for the third option

@evannibbe9375

3 жыл бұрын

The people that are talking to people using engagement will generally see it as confrontational, since most people don’t think like Julia Galef as far as desiring to do things in a more moral fashion than they are doing now.

@jelly-li1vx

3 жыл бұрын

@@evannibbe9375 assuming the engaged views the engager as confrontational is a confrontational mindset.

Julia, you seem to be an incredibly reasonable person (literally), which I find most commendable. As such, your proposed approach of engagement makes so much sense. However the approach of engagement presupposes that people are reasonable and, in particular reasonable in moral discussions. It supposes that the basis for people for acting is the reasoning behind it, i.e. the observed behaviour of people is a product of the reasoning that lies at its foundation. This is as it should be in my opinion and ,if I understand you well, this is what you'd advocate as well, correct me if I'm wrong. In my experience, it works more or less the other way around for the great majority of people. In my experience, people tend to act as they please in principle, and find the justification they need that can justify their desired behaviour. You could call it cognitive dissonance. People tend to find a "credible" reasoning that they can get away with (including towards themselves) that can justify their desired behaviour, even without knowing that they are doing it. Examples: - _I want to have slaves, but owning another person seems immoral._ Conclusion/justification (among many possibilities): coloured people aren't fully humans. - _I like eating meat, but animals seem sentient._ Conclusion/justification (among many possibilities): it is the way nature behaves, it is natural. (As a kid, I was actually told fish don't feel pain, which seems most unlikely to me) - _I want to make genital modifications to my baby, but it it implies forced altering of the body of another individual._ Conclusion/justification: this is part of religion practice and religion is a personal matter. As a parent, my child is my full responsibility and I get to decide for her/his well being. That being said, I still think that something like engagement is the only reasonable option there is, I at least can't think of a better alternative. In practice, I'd like the discussion about what basis is acceptable for moral justification we find acceptable to have a much more prominent place in our society and/or education. The truth is, it is an uncomfortable discussion for the majority of people, which I understand. And whether people realise it or not, comfort is (still) a major basis for deciding what to do and what not, including addressing this question. And why questioning something that suits oneself and that one can get away with socially (for the moment)? Tragedy of the commons wouldn't be a reality if people were moved primarily by moral reasoning and not/less by comfort. Still, something like engagement seems to be the only viable option. If I am not mistaken, attributing authority to a morally superior person in the form of a philosopher-king was the solution that Plato proposed in The Republic. However, in practice it is (almost) impossible to make this work and in practice this model will lead to totalitarianism. Marcus Aurelius seems a lucky exception in that regard.

@MrNewberryL

8 жыл бұрын

+Bos Landschap First of all, I just want to say I think that's overall a great comment - just for its civility and thoughtfulness. Great. I just wanted to pick up one point here. I think as a psychological fact, it's true that humans frequently come up with post-hoc rationalisations for their behaviour. So, the sceptic may take this as evidence that genuine rationality doesn't apply in moral matters, we just cynically, if subconsciously, invent stuff after the fact to shore up our own interests (or something like that). Moral justification is not possible, or at least not the norm, in humans. Alternatively (and I think, rightly), we could take from this observable tendency to rationalise or invent that we humans actually acknowledge that reasons are requirements. If humans were thorough-goingly cynical, for example, they wouldn't *need* to rationalise away their behaviour: the slave-owner wouldn't need to think of his slaves as less than human. If we come up against a strong case against our conduct, we (I think most of us) either search for new reasons or cease conducting ourselves in that manner. I think even if we have spurious tendencies, they are nonetheless evidence of a deeper recognition of the demand to justify our behaviour - which means being argued with and persuaded otherwise remains an option (at least, in principle).

@Neonb88

8 жыл бұрын

Excellent comment! It is also worth noting that given the choice, I would expect that most people prefer tolerance to either engagement or confrontation. I don't have data to support this belief, but my heuristics that evaluate my experiences tell me that's roughly the case. Considering this is true, confrontation as a strategy used by a small number of people may not be the worst strategy. Take, for example, the approaches to the slavery question taken by historical figures in United States history. Henry Clay was supposedly known as "the Great Compromiser" in his day. His preference for tolerance succeeded in delaying the Civil War for decades, and he was active in politics to the extent that he ran for president three times. Whatever you think about Henry Clay's contribution to U.S. society, most historians argue that Abraham Lincoln's impact was much greater. Lincoln probably didn't WANT to fight the Civil War, but doing so resulted in progress. It would not have been practical to advocate that all the Southern white landowners who had based their livelihoods around slave labor for many generations should just ASK the Northerners why slavery was wrong. People need to survive before they can contemplate complicated moral issues and behave consistently with their conclusions. Survival, while easier and easier for the vast majority of humans, still isn't easy. Furthermore, reproductive success doesn't necessarily result from behaving rationally and morally. Although confrontation may not be pleasant, history provides evidence that people tend to take the path of least resistance, making it necessary to confront moral issues from time to time. This does not have to happen violently, though. You could call the Seneca Falls convention "confrontational," but the ideas espoused there did eventually make their way into the Constitutional amendments, without any need for a war or massive reform of economic systems. Great video, Julia. You make me consider ideas that I wouldn't otherwise work through so rigorously

@unbr34k4bl3

7 жыл бұрын

Bob Landschap I think you are totally right, but in my experience it hardly ever comes to that introspective point. Most people when confronted with moral questions don't follow the "I like x, but x seems wrong to me" thought, they rather go "I like x, and x is done by most people" or "I like x and morality is subjective" completely dodging any thought that might even lead to the conclusion that they are in conflict with their own morality/reasoning. So pushing someone to actually state "I want to have slaves, but owning another person seems immoral" is something I hardly get from anyone, because the next step would be justification or easily debunkable denial/fallacies. I thought of an approach to moral discussion that tries to force those questions on people. Specifically on eating meat, I think most people's individual morality would already support a vegetarian diet. So I'd like to try (haven't yet) not to argue that eating meat is wrong but that the person that I am arguing with already thinks that eating meat is wrong and just doesn't realize it yet. If you're interested, it goes a little bit like this: Suppose you kill a man that has severly reduced mental capabilities to get 100$. He has no family or friends, the death is instant and painless and you will face no consequences. Would your personal, subjective morality allow this to be viewed as a neutral or positive thing? I'd assume most people would say "no". Out of this, I think, can only follow that eating meat is wrong, given you don't use logical fallacies or arbitrary rules. (btw: anyone who'd like to put holes in this argument, please do, I'd like to improve it) This of course assumes that the other person would like to have internally consistent views on morality and don't say "well, but if I do it it's ok".

@2Truth4Liberty

7 жыл бұрын

+unbr34k4bl3 RE: [[ kill a man . . . . eating meat is wrong, given you don't use logical fallacies or arbitrary rules. ]] For a human (man/mankind) to identify a logical difference between a man(mankind) and all other creatures is not arbitrary and requires no logical fallacy to conclude that killing a man is wrong and eating an animal is not wrong.

@violetlavender9504

7 жыл бұрын

Bos Landschap What if I know that animals feel pain but simply don't feel much empathy for fish. The same was psychopaths don't feel empathy for people

Think more the Hardest way as A is for Animation again Vs Think more the Hardest way as B is for Backup Utility again

Think more the hardest way as E is for Encroachment Vs Think more as F is for Forecast

Very nice video. So sad it took me five years to find it. Moral discussions quickly lead to emotional reaction - discussion rapidly becomes difficult.

Engagement, yes. And the power of asking questions like Sokrates, epistemology is a great tool. At the end of the day, it' is self-awakening that matters, isn't it?

Think more with limited communication tool or device I connected to you on a regular basis... Vs Think more with what's make my mind to never stop thinking judgeably

Think more the hardest way with the habit of practice and practice and practice repeatedly... Vs Think more the hardest way until the challenge I have to repeatedly deal with Deceptions is like hitting every targets I aimed to trigger at

Great insights! However one major problem I see is the inherent “flexibility” of that third option. It’s such a purely conceptual idea, for good reasons, but anyone could make the justification that they’re following that option while still being aggressive in trying to argue their moral beliefs.

At 54, I've tried all 3. Arguing doesn't work. The second option reminds me of a great quote by the recently deceased Dr. Wayne Dyer "Love is a allowing others to be themselves with no insistence that they satisfy you" (paraphrased), which like you said, is a bit unfulfilling. The third option, engagement. Done it, tired of it. It's my experience that people are largely vapid and vacuous, unable and unwilling to listen or change their minds no matter how you articulate your point. I'd say the rate of getting through to someone is less than 5%, which makes engaging a futile waste of precious energy and time, at my age. Thank you for the video. o/

@xeno126

8 жыл бұрын

+sparkymoo At the age of 26 and I agree with you. That's what I had in mind when I watched the video, most people don't have an open mind to discuss and change.

@sparky7718

8 жыл бұрын

Good for you, learning it early on. I've wasted too much time arguing and debating morals & ethics with people. It's like beating your head against the sidewalk. Feels the same as last time I did it. 7 billion humans, we are all different. The rate of success isn't high enough, the masses intelligence is not high enough, to justify wasting time with it. That sounds cynical, yes. But that's my experience.

@AlbertCloete

8 жыл бұрын

+Xeno I think many people do change and are open to change. But if you tell a person why what they're doing is wrong, you're going to meet resistance. Most people are that way. You and I and most other people included, probably. On the other hand, if you can figure out how to promote ideas without attacking people's current beliefs, you'll meet less resistance, and might even get people excited to try something new.

@happypolishboy

8 жыл бұрын

+sparkymoo Engagement + knowing your sphere of influence is where the magic happens. The engagement method applied to a situation where all logic suggests I will fail puts me in a worse position for the next moral disagreement. (It can also start to feel a bit like broadcasting rather than engaging...)

@kant12

8 жыл бұрын

+sparkymoo Personally, I enjoy the process of argument and getting a chance to test my ideas on other people. It helps me with my own understanding. Don't worry too much about changing other people and it's not a waste. :)

Think more as remaining 16 minutes before lunch bell ring... Vs Think more to remain calm and quiet in a situation of being helplessly helpless

Julia, are you familiar with the scientific method(theory / hypothesis ?= true/false) and philosophy? I like your idea of engagement and it makes sense but didn't really describe a path to less confrontation / tolerance. Unless I missed something? . . .

The engaging person will usually turn into the confrontational person once they realize their great wisdom is falling on deaf ears.

@jamx97

4 жыл бұрын

Or when they realize their great wisdom is actually silly putty.

Option 4 would be culling, but that might just be a more extreme form of confrontation

@anantprakashsingh8777

3 жыл бұрын

Option 5, violence

Think more as M is for Mischievous Vs Think more as N is for Nourisher

Think more the hardest way as how *There are books on photography having a major part of the content as photographs, whereas 'The Life and Time publications' series of books on various topics like forests, marine life, automobile, architecture etc have so many visuals along with the text that it gives an entirely different experience of reading books* . Vs Think more the hardest way as how *The Periodical are published texts that appears in a regular interval of time*

One of the main problems is that, generally, people are more willing to listen to someone claiming that what they think is right is wrong than to someone claiming that something they think is wrong is right. If we applied Engagement on practice, I suspect we would end up with an over-moralized society, since more people would switch from "this is right" to "this is wrong" than the other way around. I even think this is actually happening in the real word...

@iangrant9675

5 жыл бұрын

I had never thought about this before, and it's a _really_ interesting observation! Thanks!

@evannibbe9375

3 жыл бұрын

In Saudi Arabia, there is an equilibrium point between the amount of moralizations: Idea 1: Banning women from driving cars (it is not moral for women to drive; it is moral for government to intervene to stop them) Idea2: Banning the enforcement of the ban on women driving cars (it is not moral for the state to prevent women from driving cars; it is moral for women to drive cars). This applies to many things in moral frameworks with respect to how new things can be stopped because stopping something is the moral thing to do, and then deciding that it is not moral for there to exist a way to stop something. TLDR; for every political action there is an opposite (and sometimes equal) cost against another group (current or future).

I think this is great. As a vegan, I see a lot of people advocating veganism in very confrontational ways (often these are the ones that also use misinformation abundantly). Of course, this might to "convert" some people, but or most this will only bring them to want to slap the vegan before they back away and reinforce their prior beliefs (the backfire effect). I don't know if you're a vegan or not (I'm getting that you're not), but you might want to look up The Vegan Strategist, who advocates for this type of strategy for the vegan movement. Basically, it's a lot more efficient when trying to reach people who will become vegans for rational rather than purely emotional (or dietary) reasons.

Where did you go Julia? These are great talks.. thank you and hope you are doing well.

Think more the hardest way as how a *Specific Purpose Software* is designed to perform specific function Vs Think more the hardest way as how a *Spooling* is defined as the process of waiting for the execution of tasks in batch processing operating system

Living in Germany in Covid Times this video pretty much sums up why our society is dysfunctional at the moment.

The strategy of engagement seems inherently unstable. Without actual results in changing other's minds, it quickly turns to either confrontation or tolerance.

Think more the hardest way as O is for Opening Vs Think more the hardest way as P is for Printing

Think more the hardest part to be fool not by twisters... Vs Think more the hardest part to remain originally

Sorry for gushing... You're a visionary and we need more people like you and more content like this front and center! Makes me optimistic about the future rather than most other content we are fed.

How do you engage these conversations if everyone is happy being oblivious and time is of essence ?

@Nickwritespoetry

3 жыл бұрын

I think that's a good question. In that scenario, I think we need to scramble like hell to share our point of view with a sense of urgency both with people we know as well as on social media. With regards to especially antagonistic people or special interest groups, you'll have to be confrontational to demonstrate the urgency of the matter.

@buckplug2423

3 жыл бұрын

These methods are obviously only viable for people actually willing to put the time and effort into growing intellectually.

Think more the quickest intuitively way as Q is for *Quit* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as Q is for *Quiet* again

I find after years of trying to make a positive change my tolerance became one of apathy. Why bother nothing changes? So just let people be. I used to engage all the time but I found people’s thoughtlessness and the attitude of uncaring for others immeasurably frustrating and ultimately I backed off from trying. A constant up hill struggle with no mercy, rest or companionship.

@harshilsangal6226

3 жыл бұрын

I understand she's speaking of the ideal attitude a community should hold towards conversations about what we consider to be moral/immoral, but her example about a meat-eater approaching a vegan in a genuine effort to engage in good-faith conversation, with the intention of modifying their behaviour based on the arguments brought up in that conversation seems incredibly out-of-touch to me. As you said, people simply don't care.

@newyoutube5645

3 жыл бұрын

That's why there is something called community. If you're just nobody and alone and you're trying to change many people then they wouldn't listen. That's why be more influential, if not get a group. With a great number comes great power. Yeah it's hard but it's more plausible than doing it alone.

@thelifeandtimesofjames4273

3 жыл бұрын

@@newyoutube5645 I don’t like herds. I actually might if people lived up to my standards but the vast majority do not.

@newyoutube5645

3 жыл бұрын

@@thelifeandtimesofjames4273 Yeah I actually get what you mean. But one think that keeps me from staying away from other people is sometime I realize that I maybe wrong about things, and if everybody agree would it be a better solution? I mean people do things like communism because they want to make all people agree with their points of view.

@thelifeandtimesofjames4273

3 жыл бұрын

@@newyoutube5645 but this is my problem. I expect people to choose the same as me but they don’t. I do not force anything on anyone. We seem to have plateaued at ‘oh well, never mind’ mentality. We should be pushing forward to make things better not desperately gripping on to the now and trying not to slip backwards.

The kind of tolerance you are describing is often rooted in a "postmodern" loss of belief that there are in fact moral truths. What's the point of arguing about social, political, religious, or philosophical questions if there are no definite, objective standards to which to refer? Genuine engagement or dialogue requires a commitment to the validity of truth, so perhaps a video about this topic itself is in order.

Think more the hardest way as *Sender(communicator)* the first factor essential for any communication to take place is the sender who wants to send a message to the person with whom he/she is communicating... Vs Think more the Hardest way as*Message* the second factor which is the end result of ideas, emotions and thoughts that the sender feels necessary to communicate.

Think more "if in that case, may be .... for you... Vs Think more if in that case may be you cannot find out my face eternally

As a wise man once said,Probably me "Advice: Wise men don't need it, fools won't heed it."

@Grantovius

3 жыл бұрын

Alternatively, as another wise man (for his time) said, "the wise man listens to good advice, accepts instruction continually, and proactively seeks out wise counsel".

@danielperfiloff9142

3 жыл бұрын

I believe it is Hesiod: "Best is the man who can himself advise;/ He too is good who hearkens to the wise; / But who, himself being witless, will not heed / Another's wisdom, is worthless indeed."

I am a very serious Christian --- I disagree with many current social norms: Homosexuality, trans, abortion. I can engage on most issues, but those are rigid and I won't budge on any of them. Example: One of the relatives in my family is gay and most of us in the family will not even let that relative be alone with the grandkids or children in the family (most of us a very serious Christians). He and his gay friends and even my mother think we are mean, I suppose, and I just tell them they are Godless heathens and Pagans and I don't want them influencing the children. Another one, I will not allow anyone I recognize as man to enter a bathroom any lady in my family is occupying, no matter what the law says. I'll be as nice as I can and I'll politely ask the person to wait, but if it comes down to it and he won't wait, I'll physically prevent him from entering until my family member exits the rest room. I am willing to go to jail over it if necessary. I don't know if this will ever happen, but I doubt that I will be the only one to go to jail over it and it is just about impossible to enforce a law that more than 1-2% of the population willfully break. As a Christian, I do not believe people can change gender and there is no gender type other than Cisgender. I will never acknowledge a transition nor will ever address a man by a females pronoun . I am more than happy to address people by name. I think you will find my view on the trans issue is quite normal,

@evannibbe9375

3 жыл бұрын

It is human nature to come up with a moral framework. It is also human nature for other humans to come up with a moral framework that is predicated on justification of their current behavior. In a democracy, this debate in what moral framework is the right one is acrimonious because unless your moral framework can be maintained over the majority (and hopefully a supermajority), the moral framework of justification of your current behavior will inevitably cause your framework to cease to exist (or force those who believe in it to form a different country (a la what Utah has done)). This fight between frameworks is the very thing which makes all wars the world has ever seen possible, where tolerance has invariably just meant that a country is going to switch to whatever framework is the loudest (requiring intolerance of the new intolerances in order to maintain the current system). tldr; the people advocating for a change in moral frameworks will eventually get their way, especially if they are hypocritical.

@chrisschene8301

3 жыл бұрын

@@evannibbe9375 For me, war is preferable to giving in on certain boundaries. After all, when I was in the military and they provided me a military weapon and told me under which circumstances to shoot and likely kill people , that just happened to be in line with my beliefs at the time. I would have followed my orders, thankfully I never had to actually shoot a person. I actually have given a great deal of thought as to the circumstances under which I would be willing to use lethal force and I have very well thought out redlines.

Think more as "__" Vs Think more the hardest way as *blanks* which means a space to be fill in

Think more when I know flipping the pages of my past reading materials are not important enough... Vs Think more what's matter is when I know the truth of my frequent failures are my solid foundation tips to not change even if everyone tells me to

"Engagement" is just another way to say "confrontation". That's literally the technical term the military uses: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_(military)

@Muaahaa

3 жыл бұрын

It also means "a pledge of marriage", or an "appointment", or a "promise". So interesting how the same word mean so many different things. Who knew?

@neetpride5919

3 жыл бұрын

@@Muaahaa My point is that's probably not the best word for what she's trying to do here

@xanderberg3653

3 жыл бұрын

@@neetpride5919 I appreciate her word choice. I think it does everything it needs to. I would be interested to hear what you would suggest as a better alternative although even if your selection is an amazingly succinct and perfectly connotated word, I don't think this video would require any alteration.

@terben7339

3 жыл бұрын

I was thinking that one person's engagement is another person's confrontation. Some might even think that fewer picnics and facebook groups might be a positive outcome.

I like the 'opt in ' option; it means I can opt out.

@nassimabed

3 жыл бұрын

Indeed. The undertones is some sort of a totalitarianism of political correctness. Very Animal Farm, isn't it...

Think *HIGH ANGLE* high angle shot which means pointing the camera lens down Vs Think *PAN* a most common movement of camera from left to right or vice versa giving the scene a panoramic view. How this movement of camera follows the action while the camera platform remains stationary

Think more the Hardest way as how in one of Alfred Hitchcock's experimental movie "Rope", the entire movie was filmed in a single shot Vs Think more the Hardest way as Director's role during Pre-production, Understanding the Script, Script breakdown, Gathering the creative team, Casting actors, Scheduling hunting, Location Hunting

Engagement is predicated on tolerance.

@nassimabed

3 жыл бұрын

Check what Zizek has to say about political correctness ;)

Listening to this, I find myself wondering if it's even helpful to try to formulate a correct response to all moral disagreement. For one thing, we haven't yet agreed on what we mean by the word 'moral'. For many--possibly a majority of all humans--morality is essentially the path we take to avoid displeasing some god or gods. For others, morality is sanctioned by social norms and seeks nothing but community approval. Not many philosophers are likely to attach high value to either of these approaches, but still we can't ignore them altogether, because we encounter them every day. I think most ethicists today would link morality to human well-being and the avoidance of suffering, but that isn't everyone by a long shot. And if we're going to choose amongst these competing moralities, looking for one that's more 'enlightened' than another, then we're into the question of what 'enlightenment' is. It's possible that the investigation in this video began with some moral axioms that were never stated; the most useful way to begin would be to state those axioms, if only to be really aware of what they are. Also, Julia, you offer three approaches and state your preference, but you haven't stated any kind of criterion. Are we to choose the approach that best expresses our own moral integrity? Or the one most likely to produce a desirable outcome for (a) oneself (b) the other party to the disagreement or (c) some third party? Or what? Are we just trying to be right? Are we trying to do good? If we're trying to draft a moral calculus here, we're not making very much progress.

@greyeyed123

3 жыл бұрын

In my experience, many people are just trying to "get by" or "survive", and so want to keep things as simple/traditional/expected as possible. They then see any suggestion that they change in any way (even for the better) as a threat to their very survival, and react against it accordingly. A global pandemic and wearing a mask are unexpected, complicated, and not anything any of us has traditionally dealt with. That makes it difficult to "get by" and "survive", so some people simply ignore it as if it isn't real, weave conspiracy theories so they can ignore it, or fall back on traditional attitudes (if "those" people or the government tell me to do it, I'm not doing it). I think it is similarly difficult to get such people to change their actions or attitudes about any moral issue. The best way to get SOME change in my experience is to get their trust through long lasting relationships with sincere caring. Sadly, this is extremely difficult, may result in only small changes, and may be impossible if geography separates different pockets of cultural attitudes.

@thedillestpickle

3 жыл бұрын

@@greyeyed123 Do you wear a mask when in the company of your own family? Just something I've noticed, that many, and probably the majority, of those who will talk down on the "anti-maskers" are also not wearing mask when in the company of their friends and family. I call the whole the thing hypocritical, and the very debate is mute.

@greyeyed123

3 жыл бұрын

@@thedillestpickle The infection can only come from outside the family if everyone in the family is masked everywhere else. The infection cannot spontaneously generate within your household. (And the word is "moot", not "mute".) And I of course mask around friends. I have no idea where they've been! But seriously, the people in my family have chronic underlying health conditions. I don't have the luxury to pretend this is no big deal. Many who thought this was no big deal are now dead. If everyone would have taken this seriously from the beginning, this would be long over by now. The ignorance of pretending it would all go away and we wouldn't have to do anything to stop it is why we are approaching 600,000 dead. Masks are not--and were never--a "power grab" to take your freedom. If everyone had taken this seriously and done what they were supposed to from the beginning, nothing would have needed to close, or certainly not for so long. The very people complaining about closures and masks are the ones who made it worse (and necessary) in the first place.

@thedillestpickle

3 жыл бұрын

@@greyeyed123 You assume that most people are following protocols at all times, and that it is just a minority of selfish people entirely responsible for maintaining the spread. Most people are hypocrites and virtue signalers.

@greyeyed123

3 жыл бұрын

@@thedillestpickle Are you trying to imply that the people advocating for masks are not really following the protocols, and the ones refusing to wear the masks are...what? How are you trying to reverse the obvious? And why? What's the point?

Think more the hardest way as R is for Rest Vs Think more the hardest way as T is for Treat

Think more the Hardest way as E is for Enthusiastic again Vs Think more the Hardest way as F is for Fantastic again

I hate confrontation too. Family life is hard these days.....😢

Engagement appears to be a blend of confrontation and tolerance.

@driphtwood

3 жыл бұрын

I don't actually think so. I think it brings something to the table not present in the other strategies: individuals seeking out their critics. In confrontation, you have critics seeking out others, and in tolerance you have neither.

Think more the hardest way as M is for Motion Vs Think more the hardest way as N is for Notation

Think more until we visualise that a casket is a perfect place to sleep.. Vs Think more until we visualise that a bed is still a final resting place of a soul

what I am sure about Julia Galef is that she is beautiful.

How about keeping everything off social media?? Sounds like pissing matches online. Keeping life off the internet solves many unneeded issues???

Think more the hardest way as how *It was only on 29 January 1780 in Calcutta, when James Augustus Hockey published the first Newspaper of colonial India in English* . Vs Think more the hardest way as how there was a column named *'a poet's corner'* where Hickey presented his critical views and this weekly also carried notices and advertisements related to the articles for sales.

Think more the hardest way as how in *Numerical Accuracy, it should be understood that integer constants are exact quantities, whereas floating point constant s are approximations* Vs Think more the hardest way as how *A character constant is a single character enclosed in apostrophes*

So could 4 be “setting an example?” You do your thing and hope the other person sees it and follows?

@dukereg

3 жыл бұрын

Yes! People react defensively to advice and modelling has been shown to influence others behaviour.

In other words: "How to sow discord while being able to claim the moral highground."

Think more the hardest part that I should only think for myself... Vs Think more the hardest part that you should only think for yourself

Think more as wise as how not to be fool by the likeness, the choices of others Vs Think more the hardest way with the stuff that makes me remain calm and content

Confrontation seems ideal when the matter is urgent or other methods have failed. Consider the Civil Rights Movement and the Civil War.

How about hosting a Moral Engagement Dinner on a topic, so people can think ahead and come prepared... .plus FOOD!

@missycalimba

3 жыл бұрын

Sounds good. I'll bring the roast boar!

Think ⬆️💎 Vs Think more when the road direction is straight forward ahead

Think more as wise as possible to fool not with the delayed minutes that I focused on failures... Vs Think more as wise as possible with how I progress my honesty thought in my past 3 holiday days of a week

Surely it's our moral conditioning that has us believing in "moral progress" as good.

I'm a meat-eating smoker who enjoys hunting and loves a juicy prime rib or sirloin, so I'm not a stranger to this issue. Engagement is stupid. Don't do it. Otherwise, I'll just concentrate on all the reasons you suck as a person for passing judgment on me. Passivity would have no effect on me. I wouldn't notice you being passive. I'm not a fan of the way you put your solution "encouragement" and including "a little social pressure." In reality, I'd like to quit smoking, and wouldn't mind cutting down on my cholesterol, but listening to someone tell me how bad smoking is for me just makes me want to light up more. Tell me how great being a vegan is, and I'm running out for a Quarter Pounder. If you're dealing with a Ted Nugent, you're never going to get him to quit hunting - forget about, accept it. So point #1 - is this really an important piece of this person's life and their identity? You could never get some celebs, e.g., to give up their habits because it's a part of their identity, their persona, and in most cases, their income. But in other cases, "normal" people don't need to live their lives vicariously through celebrity images. So firstly, if you really give a shit about their actions in the first place and aren't just being a bullshitting engager / poser, find out why their so tied to their action that offends you so much in the first place. Second, question if you're really offended by that action in general, or if it's because it's that person in specific. Finally, if you can get to this point after passing the above, express your concern for what harm this is doing to the person committing the action. Smoking is easy ... red meat is a little harder, and stuff like hunting is tough, unless it's for endangered species. But this will let those of us who are stubborn at least your criticizing because you care. Just be ready for our feedback.

@DaProHobbit

7 жыл бұрын

I don't think the main argument for veganism is because of the personal harm it does. And I think people's compassion is greatly underestimated- it's been the driving force of most of the great social justice movements throughout history.

@tylernichols031986

7 жыл бұрын

Basically I read your statements as "If you really care about me show me how what I'm doing negatively affects me." Problem is there are things that you could do that benefit you and negatively affect others. At one point do we start caring about the world and not our self.

Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as I is for *Ink* again Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as J is for *Jacket* again

Think more the hardest way since the last comment, 1440 seconds ago... Vs Think more the hardest way when I repeatedly assured myself not to be fool, it means not to be fool either by how hard those who tried to bring their level of considering things from their persuasive point of view

This is really interesing, Julia. I'm actually vegan and I've been trying to find a way to reach out to people and really convince them, but I've been unable to do so. The engagement strategy sounds interesing to give a try, though. I'd appreciate if you can dig into this a little more. Nice video!

@PayneMaximus

7 жыл бұрын

Actually, no. The problem is that engaging with meat eaters is difficullt even with Julia's recommendation. Most don't really want to discuss anything, and just rather want to mock you with "arguments" like "bacon though".

@squeekywheel9591

7 жыл бұрын

Maximus: with all due respect, is it your place to question this? You are assuming you have the higher moral ground. How can you be sure of this? Cats eat mice.

@PayneMaximus

7 жыл бұрын

Squeeky, are you meaning to discuss veganism? If that is the case, hit me a pm and we can talk; I'm afraid it will detour from the original comment.

Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as Q is for *Quietness* again Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as R is for *Responsibility* again

When I'm wise, don't fool me Vs When I'm a good person don't treat me like a badass

Think more the Hardest way as O is for Obstacle Vs Think more the Hardest way as P is for Perishable

Think more to realise those moments when I joined myself that I actively participated in Awareness activities, Training Camp, Workshop, Documentary Movie releases or filming screening, one day or week Field camp, accompany to Teachers on their duty, accompanied to church elders, Reverend etc Vs Think more but as a person who remained faithful to God

Think more the spirit of go beyond in-depth Vs Think more the spirit of going beyond doubts and confuses

Think more the hardest way of thinking for self only... Vs Think more just like everyone else does for themselves

Think more as wise as how I can't be fool like a person who die-hardly tried to impress you... Vs Think more as wise as what's makes me to trustedly open to you faithfully

Think more the wisest way as *how in Communication Dynamics, it has to be part of dynamic concerns* Vs Think more the wisest way as how in *Introduction of Communication Dynamics* where part of that dynamic concerns such as the subject or topic , be it simple or complex

Think more the hardest way to play the day with the ability of what I feel satisfied with what I had.. Vs Think more the hardest way as wise with the elements of how to seek what I always love doing

Think more after a 20-30 m distance walk within the house compound at dark time.. Vs Think more after checking out the stuff that I may forgetably left in the garden during day's working hours

my dear julia sometime we have not sufficient informations about arguments for decide what is the best thing about the moral.....past time passsing near a cage where there was a pig jailed and looking in his eyes i have see a big sadness, so i have understand that they too have emotions, affections and spirit to survive and love life like us....in another way i have informations that we must eat meat for out healt.....this has create a opposite thougts in my minds.in one side the sensibility and the moral and in another side the scientific theory...sometimes we have not possibilities to form a right and rational thought...we must live in the doubt and our mind dont live it well cos need a solution.....when the two rationality are at the same level, how find the solution? i have think to take more informations.you think is the right way? will you help me pls?

Think more as S is for Second/Summer/Spring etc Vs Think more as T is for Time-table etc

Think more the hardest way as how *Operands that differ in type may undergo type conversion before the expression takes on its final value* Vs Think more the hardest way as rule 1 that is apply whrn neither operand is unsigned in such a way *If both operands are floating point typeswhose precision differs, the lower-precision operand will be converted into thr Precision of the other operand*

Think more with strong Intuitive mentality.. Vs Think more did I just left the particular video without commenting or did the comments itself disappear automatically

Think more as Q is for Quark Xpress file format sign Vs Think more as R is for Rupee symbol sign

Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how in *Operations on Pointers* we saw that an integer value can be added to an array name in order to access an individual array element. Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how in *Preliminaries* before considering the detailed control statements available in C, first we need to form logical expressions that are either true or false.

Think more the hardest way as M is for Mercury again Vs Think more the hardest way as N is for Nickle again

Think more the quickest intuitively way as *Vedic* again Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as V is for *Venom* again

Think more the hardest way as O is for Optic Vs Think more the hardest way as P is for Public

Think more to focus concentratedly Vs Think more to concentrate focussingly