Journal of Other Forum Analysis

[benji]

And today in benji posts academic articles that touch on ResetERA.com related subjects that nobody reads raising questions more about why he posts them at all than anything else:

More recent work in epistemology provides further grounds to think engaging with a flat earther can intellectually improve us. First, it can advance our understanding. On the kind of view defended by Kvanvig, understanding is a valuable epistemic good and “a cognitive achievement distinct from knowledge.”9 A Jeopardy! champion might memorize, and thereby come to know, a long list of facts concerning, say, organic chemistry. And this might enable her to dominate the category. But mere memorization does not provide the contestant with understanding. On Kvanvig’s conception of it, understanding involves possessing “a body of information together with the grasping of explanatory connections concerning that body of information.”10 One who understands not only possesses the facts but appreciates how they hang together.
...
There is another, related way engaging with a flat earther can intellectually improve us. Plato’s Meno includes a famous discussion of the question of why knowing something is more valuable than just holding the correct opinion on it. The person who correctly guesses that the road to Larissa is to the left, the challenge goes, will get there just as well as the person who knows the way. So why value knowing? Socrates proposes that the value of knowledge lies in the fact that it is “tied down” or “tethered” in a way that mere correct opinion is not.

Duncan Pritchard elaborates. Suppose the road to Larissa is to the left but it loops around in the opposite direction for a while. The person who knows the way, say, because he has seen the map, will be unsurprised and stay the course. The lucky guesser is more likely to question his choice and turn around.13 Williamson, who uses a different example to make the same point, says knowledge is less susceptible to “rational undermining by future evidence. … If your cognitive faculties are in good order, the probability of your believing p tomorrow is greater conditional on your knowing p today than on your believing p truly today.”14

There is a debate about whether a belief’s being tied down in this sense is a requirement on knowledge and whether the value of knowledge over mere true belief is best explained in those terms.15 But even if it is not a requirement on knowledge or the primary source of the value of knowledge, it is uncontroversial that the kind of stability a true belief enjoys when backed by an understanding of the supporting reasons is epistemically valuable. Engagement with contrary opinions can make our beliefs more stable in that sense. This point was not lost on Mill either. Socratic dialogue and debate, even over propositions we already rightly accept, puts us a position “to attain a stable belief resting on a clear apprehension both of the meaning of the doctrines and their evidence.”16 No platformers worry that engaging with flat Earth arguments will undermine knowledge and encourage an irrational form of skepticism (more on that later). But confronting such arguments from the controlled and comfortable environment of the university auditorium—and in the presence of bona fide experts poised to critique them—can also make one better equipped to spot the errors in similar arguments confronted out there on the mean streets of the internet.

No platformers might concede that we can learn from flat Earth arguments but still insist that no one should be invited to defend them on campus. If there is value to knowing where and why flat Earth arguments fail, why not just have a good prof lay it all out for us? Of course, one could ask that about any prospective guest speaker. Why bring somebody in when you could just have one of our own resident experts read the paper to us and, where necessary, tell us where it goes wrong? As Mill saw it, the point of allowing contrary points of view to be publicly defended is to bring the ideas into “real contact” with our minds. It is not enough to that we “hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, accompanied by what they offer as refutations;” we must hear them from “people who actually believe them, who defend them in earnest and do their very utmost for them.”17

Rather than deny there is any epistemic gain, a different type of argument for no platforming focuses on the costs. All arguments for flat Earth theory have false conclusions and thus are, by definition, misleading. By allowing a flat Earther to defend his stupid theory on campus, we run the risk that he will succeed in changing people’s minds. There are two ways to understand the threat here. On what we can call a “first-person” understanding, the worry is that exposure to flat Earth arguments will end up changing my mind. If I take the arguments seriously, I may either end up a flat earther myself or I may become more skeptical in my beliefs about Earth’s shape than I should be. And this a reason to refuse to engage with those arguments and limit my exposure to them. On a “third-person” understanding, we have epistemic reason to no platform the flat Earther because he might mislead someone else. The third-person approach will be discussed in the next section. In this section, I shall argue that refusing to engage with the arguments of a flat Earther on the grounds that he might change my mind violates the epistemic ideal of following the argument where it leads.

The third-person argument for no platforming commits us to epistemic paternalism. Paternalism in general is the practice of interfering with people without their consent on the grounds that those interfered with will be better off. Epistemic paternalism is the practice of interfering with people’s efforts at inquiry without their consent on the grounds that they will be epistemically better off. Insofar as it is an effort to restrict people’s access to flat Earth arguments for their own epistemic good and without consulting them, no platforming is epistemically paternalistic.
...
Given all of that, it is hard to justify a prohibition against defending flat Earth theory on campus on the grounds that it will make those affected by the prohibition epistemically better off. And it is reasonable to assume the burden is on the no platformer since they are the ones doing the interfering—both with those who might want to hear a flat earther defend his view and with those who might want to bring him in for that purpose. Furthermore, as argued in the previous section, a willingness to engage with flat Earth arguments flows naturally from a commitment to following the argument where it leads. The no platformer is effectively deciding for other people that they ought not follow the argument where it leads in this case.

Levy says paternalistic justifications of no platforming bring their proponents “uncomfortably close to agreeing that they infantilize the audience. To treat others paternalistically is, after all, to treat them as lacking (in certain respects) the capacity rationally to make their minds up for themselves.”46

Spoiler: just because I love most of this section (click to show)(click to hide)

On the most minimal understanding of it, following the argument where it leads opposes dogmatism. Kelly develops the idea further. On the account he defends, following the argument where it leads with respect to p requires whatever attitude you have toward p—belief, disbelief, or suspension of judgment—to be reasonable given your total evidence. But, while holding a reasonable attitude is necessary for following the argument where it leads, it is not sufficient. An inquirer who reasonably believes that p can still be “dogmatically committed”23 to that belief. A subject is dogmatically committed to his belief that p whenever he possesses a disposition to maintain that belief in the face of evidence that makes it reasonable for him to abandon it. To adapt an example from Nozick,24 someone might reasonably believe her grandson is safely playing in the yard because she sees him through the window. But suppose also that Grandma’s desire for the continued safety of her loved one runs so deep she would believe her grandson is safe even if her evidence strongly suggested otherwise. In that case, Grandma has both a reasonable belief and a dogmatic commitment to that belief. One can also harbor a “dogmatic aversion”25 to believing something. A subject who disbelieves or suspends judgment on p might be disposed not to believe that p even if his evidence makes belief rational. Following the argument where it leads is incompatible with dogmatic commitments and dogmatic aversions.

To follow the argument where it leads on this account is to exhibit a kind of “modalized reasonableness.”26 It is a disposition to believe, disbelieve, or suspend judgment on any proposition whatever in response to it becoming reasonable to do so. Kelly’s account explains why following the argument where it leads is plausibly viewed as an epistemic virtue and a fundamental norm of inquiry. To follow the argument where it leads is to follow your total evidence where it leads. Provided our reasoning and sources of evidence are generally reliable, this will get us to the truth most of the time. That is a tautology. Dogmatic commitments and aversions are, by definition, indifferent to the evidence. And that is why the Socratic injunction commands us to overcome them. This also explains why following the argument where it leads is so commonly taken to encapsulate the academic mission of the university.

While there is much to be said in favor of Kelly’s view, it also leaves something out. And this is particularly important to the present discussion. Paradigmatically dogmatic people can meet Kelly’s criteria for following the argument where it leads. Consider an adherent of what C.S. Peirce called “the method of tenacity”. Such a subject maintains belief by “systematically keeping out of view all that might cause a change in his opinions.”27 Practitioners of this brand of “ostrich”28 epistemology might hold beliefs that are warranted given their total evidence. And they may also have a healthy disposition to abandon those beliefs if the acquisition of new evidence makes it reasonable for them to do so. But, as long as their efforts to avoid confrontation with counterevidence succeed, that disposition is never activated. And they never change their minds.

To put the point another way, the most successful kind of dogmatist does not operate by simply digging in and maintaining his current attitudes come what may. That can be hard for even the most devoted of us to pull off in the long run. Despite the conviction and mountains of evidence, Ted Bundy’s mother insisted her boy was innocent. But even she gave up after he confessed in the hours just before his execution. “Experience,” as William James says, “has a way of boiling over.”29 The prudent dogmatist does not try to keep a lid on it but takes the pot off the burner. Dogmatism works best as a resolution made in advance. And it is, as Kripke points out, primarily a resolution “to avoid certain types of contact with alleged evidence, such as reading the wrong books (for they can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion), associating with the wrong people, and so on.”30 But again, a person who does that may still hold a reasonable belief and be disposed to give it up if that is what his evidence recommends.

The problem can be fixed by amending Kelly’s account. In addition to being reasonable in holding whatever attitude one does on p and not being dogmatically committed to that attitude or dogmatically averse to adopting a different attitude, a subject committed to following the argument where it leads is also not dogmatically averse to considering evidence in the first place. By saying that a subject is dogmatically averse to considering evidence, I mean that he is averse for a particular kind of reason. Sometimes we avoid looking into things out of laziness, lack of interest or lack of time.31 That is not dogmatic aversion. When someone is dogmatically averse to considering evidence or arguments concerning p, it is because doing so may result in him changing his mind about p.

Refusing to confront flat Earth arguments because those arguments might change my mind violates the epistemic ideal of following the argument where it leads. The underlying logic is exactly that of the ostrich epistemologist as described by Peirce.
I remember once being entreated not to read a certain newspaper lest it might change my opinion upon free-trade. ‘Lest I might be entrapped by its fallacies and misstatements,’ was the form of expression. ‘You are not,’ my friend said, ‘a special student of political economy. You might, therefore, easily be deceived by fallacious arguments upon the subject. You might, then, if you read this paper, be led to believe in protection. But you admit that free-trade is the true doctrine; and you do not wish to believe what is not true.’
32

Just swap talk of reading a newspaper with listening to a lecture, ‘free-trade’ with ‘round Earth’, ‘political economy’ with ‘astronomy’, ‘protection’ with ‘flat Earth’, and ‘not true’ with ‘stupid’. And then run through the passage again.

In response, a critic may either reject the idea that following the argument where it leads is a norm of inquiry or contend that cases like flat Earth are an exception to the rule. It is not hard to see why one might be attracted to that view. Some flat Earth arguments are, as McIntyre put it, so intricately wrong that even well-educated people can have a hard time identifying why they fail. But since we know flat Earth theory is false, we know all such arguments are misleading. So why risk it? Another remark from Kripke is helpful here. “Sometimes the dogmatic strategy is a rational one. I myself have not read much defending astrology, necromancy and the like. … Even when confronted with specific alleged evidence, I have sometimes ignored it although I did not know how to refute it.”33

It is worth noting that Kripke may be underselling himself. It is hard to buy the idea that the man who, by some accounts, single-handedly reversed the linguistic turn and convinced an entire generation of philosophers to take metaphysics seriously again is incapable of producing any good argument against the proposition that people can predict the stock market by observing the stars or communicating with the dead.34 But even so, what about us mortals? We might not be able to refute clever arguments for necromancy, astrology, and, we can add, flat Earth theory. Does that give us a strong reason to avoid confronting those arguments? And is it a strong reason to keep them off our campus?

No. The risk here is greatly exaggerated. Anyone flummoxed by an argument for astrology or necromancy can often gather compelling counterevidence in a few seconds by pulling out a smart phone. As Cassam reminds us, “the internet enables the propagation of crackpot theories [but] it also supplies the resources required to rebut them.”35 Refutations of some flat Earth arguments—including, for any cheaters out there, the lighthouse argument—are also easily obtainable. Of course, as McIntyre reminds us, that will not always be the case. But following the argument where it leads does not require changing your mind whenever you run across an argument you do not know how to refute.

To see why, consider the epistemic position of the sort of person Kelly calls “the Average Eleatic”36—an unsophisticated inhabitant of the ancient world—who confronts one of Zeno’s famous arguments against motion and is unable to provide any compelling account of exactly why or where it fails. The Average Eleatic will still possess overwhelming empirical evidence that stuff moves. Since following the argument where it leads is following one’s total evidence where it leads, the Average Eleatic is not guilty of dogmatism by continuing to believe in the existence of motion despite not knowing how to refute Zeno’s argument. The Average Eleatic should, however, walk away with a newfound skepticism about Zeno’s premises. Assuming he knows the argument is valid, he knows that at least one of those premises, which before had struck him as obviously true, is false. This is an advancement in his overall understanding of the universe. And that again underlines the epistemic value of engaging with arguments for stupid conclusions.

In other words, following the argument where it leads does not mean following some particular argument where it leads. Rare is the case where one’s total evidence concerning a proposition is captured by a single argument. It is irrational for you to follow some particular argument where it leads when you have better evidence leading in the other direction. ‘The argument’ in the Socratic slogan is synecdoche.

It is clear how Kelly’s point about the Average Eleatic carries over. It is rational for Kripke to believe that astrology and necromancy are bunk despite being unable to refute arguments to the contrary but that is not a counterexample to the claim that it is rational to follow the argument where it leads. Kripke, just like the rest of us, has plenty of good reason to reject those things. (And if he does not, he can—and should—go get himself some.) If the argument of the astrologer or necromancer is clearly valid, that means Kripke has gained a reason to doubt the premises. Likewise, the fact that McIntyre continues to believe Earth is round despite being unable to explain exactly where the most clever and complicated flat Earth arguments fail does not mean he is dogmatically refusing to follow the argument where it leads. His total evidence still justifies rejecting flat Earth theory. Open-mindedly confronting and engaging with arguments for stupid conclusions is not as risky as the ostrich thinks.37 And you can learn from it.

TL;DR: it must be cowardice and fear from the censors that they aren't as knowledgeable as their opponents and their dogma will fall upon simple challenge. (Thus why the staff at ResetERA.com fear it even more than the fanatical members do.)

[Besticus Maximus]

The obvious link between the resetera mentalists and Plato's waffle is sophistry

That and old fashioned greek misogyny

[benji]

For you "horseshoe theory" fans

And today in benji posts academic articles that touch on ResetERA.com related subjects that nobody reads raising questions more about why he posts them at all than anything else:

Was completely unintended but I glanced at the next paper in that journal.

Religion-like aspects of this structure include the formation of a moral tribe, the adoption of a social mythology to explain the world (in which the structure of society is shaped by conflict between groups defined by race, gender and sexual orientation), a focus on an inwards search for recognition of one’s unconscious wrongdoing or unacknowledged privilege, and the importance of publicly demonstrating one’s commitment to the belief system. The religious aspect of leftism most germane to this paper is what Lindsay and Nanya describe as the adoption of sacred or sacrosanct beliefs:
Sacred beliefs are ones that have been for moral reasons removed from the realm of skepticism and doubt because they’re viewed as too important to be subjected to these corrosive influences. Instead, sacred beliefs are effectively set aside from rational inquiry, which results in an expectation for them to be understood mythologically rather than literally, technically, or scientifically.
...
The goal of the reassurances given by Pinker, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis is to encourage Christians and leftists to allow the scientific method to proceed unimpeded even in cases in which it produces results that one finds religiously or socially troubling. However, when a person’s religious or political convictions are sufficiently strong, or their devotion to the scientific method is sufficiently weak, they may be unwilling to accept results that challenge their religion or their politics. The psychology behind this process was examined by Matteo Colombo, Leandra Bucher and Yoel Inbar, who found that people are less likely to accept scientific conclusions if they found those conclusions to be morally offensive.32

Colombo et al.’s study suggests that humans in general are vulnerable to the described effect, but it is a goal of the scientific method to avoid this effect as much as possible because whether or not an idea morally offends cannot tell us whether it is true. This principle of science was described by Hans Eysenck: “We may not like the facts, but they are stubborn; facts are the products of nature, and scientists are merely the messengers who seek and pass on the messages nature has for us”.33 On the other hand, the central idea behind both young-Earth creationism and cognitive creationism, which I refer to as the “creationist theory of knowledge”, is that the psychological process described by Colombo et al. should be embraced instead of avoided. Instead of searching for the set of models that is most consistent with the empirical data, the creationist theory of knowledge is that one should begin with an unalterable set of conclusions, and then search for ways to interpret the data to match those conclusions. In this respect it is the exact reverse of the scientific method, which normally operates by drawing inferences from observation, and then testing whether those hypotheses can be falsified by new results.

...

The literal accuracy of Genesis, and the nonexistence of hereditary differences in average cognitive ability between racial or ethnic groups, are examples of what Lindsay and Nanya refer to as sacred ideas: ideas that, by definition, cannot be challenged by empirical data. The convergence of the far right and the far left on different sets of sacred ideas can be explained by what Jean-Pierre Faye calls “horseshoe theory”, in which the positions of the far left and far right are more similar to one another than either is to the political center.41

[Boredfrom]

Plato burning poetry while loving poetry sounds like Resetera.

[Polident]

“Their people.” Amazing how it’s the same mentality shared with far right types, if not worse. If you’re an American citizen living in America, hate to say it but your people are Americans. The idea of destroying your adopted home over the ethnic landmass across the ocean feeds into the belief that foreigners don’t belong.

Going back to WWII, as often is the case, the reaction of Italian-Americans was pretty interesting. Similar to Japanese-American internment, less publicized, it applied to select Italian-Americans as well. Less integrated, less generational groups. But on a larger scale, Italian-Americans fought in the war and identified “their people” as Americans. And some nerd sociologists could probably point to that type of loyalty to America as a major factor in helping them assimilate into the definition of American. Although if you continue down that path, the normalization of Italian-Americans led to Marty Scorsese’s career and his treasonous dismissal of Marvel movies. Maybe they never truly integrated?

[Boredfrom]

1705481624[/url]']

1705467510[/url]']

Listen, for the people who have family and friends in Gaza, people they care about getting bombs dropped on them hourly, they can say the same about not caring to you. Frankly, Biden has not done a good enough job to reign Israel in and people have every right to be mad. I'm not about to tell a Palestinian-American that they need to suck it up and ignore what's happening to their people.

But did ban the person who had family living in Israel for trying to point out terrorism is bad actually

Most people tried to dogpile on him, so is okay if he gets banned. 

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

I also suspect the Palestine thread is partially a quarantine thread.

[Boredfrom]

1705484185[/url]']
“Their people.” Amazing how it’s the same mentality shared with far right types, if not worse. If you’re an American citizen living in America, hate to say it but your people are Americans. The idea of destroying your adopted home over the ethnic landmass across the ocean feeds into the belief that foreigners don’t belong.

Going back to WWII, as often is the case, the reaction of Italian-Americans was pretty interesting. Similar to Japanese-American internment, less publicized, it applied to select Italian-Americans as well. Less integrated, less generational groups. But on a larger scale, Italian-Americans fought in the war and identified “their people” as Americans. And some nerd sociologists could probably point to that type of loyalty to America as a major factor in helping them assimilate into the definition of American. Although if you continue down that path, the normalization of Italian-Americans led to Marty Scorsese’s career and his treasonous dismissal of Marvel movies. Maybe they never truly integrated?

I mean, most of the people blindly parroting free Palestine and cease fire don’t have any idea of the real complexities of the region, so they are surprised when people point out that Houthis are considered a terrorist organization and that they enslaved people. 

Is othering themselves from the comfort of their houses and mostly peaceful life in a 1st world country.

[benji]

Although if you continue down that path, the normalization of Italian-Americans led to Marty Scorsese’s career and his treasonous dismissal of Marvel movies. Maybe they never truly integrated?

Notice also how the collective nation of Italian people gets a relative pass for colonialism compared to the British and Spanish when Columbus was Italian. Even though the Spanish crown understood that Columbus would lead to Scorsese and so arrested him.

[Uncle]

I thought you were admin of a progressive forum. Why the fuck would you want the U.S. to reign any foreign power? I also think Netanyahu is a scumbag, but how do you plan the U.S. to “reign” Israel?

He doesn't know the word is rein, like you would rein in a horse. It comes from the actual thing that's usually on them called reins.

Even the US reining a foreign country is often a bad idea.

I was thinking that too as I read it, I remember when everyone mocked the US for being "team america, world police" and were like just get the fuck out of everyone else's business, let them worry about themselves, it's not our responsibility

of course they'll argue that we're already fully embroiled in the conflict due to a tradition of giving money to israel, but that doesn't mean that we need to flip the script and suddenly fully support palestine

we SHOULD leave everyone alone

but modern leftism is all about the responsibility the first world has to pay for the sins of its past exploitation of the third world...we're expected to babysit countries that can't get their shit together, because it's supposedly our fault...

[Straight Edge]

Frankly, I believe Jews should be able to do as they please in their subterranean lairs.

[Snoopy]

Attention Jeff Marvel. Some retard is having a go at you.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/dont-care-about-snobs-love-what-you-want.806370/

[Besticus Maximus]

Have you ever read mein kampf? It's basically a giant shitpost by someone with terrible taste arguing that everyone elses' taste is crap and they are just right shut up, the stuff I like is pure and good and better on that basis

[Not an Alt Account]

Attention Jeff Marvel. Some retard is having a go at you.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/dont-care-about-snobs-love-what-you-want.806370/

Wrong, snobbery is actually great. Just like she-hulk.

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/nasas-mission-to-touch-the-sun.806307/?post=117723615#post-117723615

Fun fact: "flying into the sun" is not, in fact easy to do.

The sun's gravity is immense. And it spins. Objects approaching it are curved around it into an orbit. This is why planets around the sun do not fall into the sun eventually. Its gravity is strong enough to continually slingshot them around it forever.

All those science fiction movies where a ship, missile, probe, etc just aims at a star and dunks into it? According to NASA you would need to counteract 53,000 miles per hour of sideways motion to cruise directly into the sun.

[Uncle]

this is why astronauts never have to worry about crashing into the earth, they just lazily slip into a nice easy orbit, like there's a big force field that stops you from falling 

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/is-there-any-better-feeling-than-cutting-off-a-toxic-emotionally-manipulative-person-from-your-life.806319/?post=117732255#post-117732255

We just did this with my wife's brother, who's an insane MAGA shithead chud. I'd been telling her to block him for years, and the final straw came when she made a fairly innocuous post about stricter gun control after yet another school shooting and he decided to chime in on her post by spending the next 2 days making multiple posts calling us and everyone who supported her post cucks, anti-american, libtards, etc all the usual MAGA insults.

THEN, he proceeded to text and message her on Facebook Messenger multiple times for the next TWO MONTHS. Eventually, it started being multiple times a day and she finally had enough. Told him off and blocked him. Then texted her entire family and essentially told them "it's him or me from now on for all family gatherings", and the family has chosen him. They've taken her off the family text chains and are continuing to host gatherings with him and not telling my wife. THAT'S the part that sucks. My wife feels like she's lost her entire family cause of her shitass brother.

 

[JoeBoy101]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/is-there-any-better-feeling-than-cutting-off-a-toxic-emotionally-manipulative-person-from-your-life.806319/?post=117732255#post-117732255

We just did this with my wife's brother, who's an insane MAGA shithead chud. I'd been telling her to block him for years, and the final straw came when she made a fairly innocuous post about stricter gun control after yet another school shooting and he decided to chime in on her post by spending the next 2 days making multiple posts calling us and everyone who supported her post cucks, anti-american, libtards, etc all the usual MAGA insults.

THEN, he proceeded to text and message her on Facebook Messenger multiple times for the next TWO MONTHS. Eventually, it started being multiple times a day and she finally had enough. Told him off and blocked him. Then texted her entire family and essentially told them "it's him or me from now on for all family gatherings", and the family has chosen him. They've taken her off the family text chains and are continuing to host gatherings with him and not telling my wife. THAT'S the part that sucks. My wife feels like she's lost her entire family cause of her shitass brother.

 

When keeping it Twitter goes wrong.

[Besticus Maximus]

Isn't weird how all of these good people are shunned by their blood relatives and friends and I suppose wives, if they have them

[Uncle]

not like it's your fault for issuing an ultimatum which you miscalculated

"yes Jennifer your brother probably likes trump a little too much but he's also fun to be around, entertaining, generous, always ready to drop everything to help out...meanwhile at every family gathering you're chiming in at inappropriate times comparing the mashed potatoes to zionists"

[Venice]

Another Era psychopath creates thread about being unable to get over grudges and wanting revenge:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/how-do-you-get-over-grudge.806403/

So I admit one major flaw I have is holding grudges, especially if I feel I never called out the other person and all. Right now I am holding a grudge against someone who was rude petty and out of line to me and we haven't had contact since last year but I find myself ruminating about it and getting really angry due how petty and asinine they were. I even found them on linkedin and typed up a message venting what I want to say and am fighting the urge to just send it and be petty. I feel I need to get over it as its not healthy and in life there will always be people who piss you off and you can't waste time on them.

Even last year I held a grudge towards someone on discord for trying to make horrible accusations about me and I felt it was unproductive and wasting time and energy

I have a therapy session Feb 9th to talk but until then how can I come to peace with it and all.

Kyuuji, who seems to have completely forgotten about the transgenocide, steps in with some helpful advice:

Learn to not hold them in the first place. More often than not they weigh heavier on your mind than they do for whoever it is you're holding them against.

Two points:

1: Bitch, you've literally made holding a grudge against J K Rowling your life's work, who the hell are you to be telling people 'don't hold them in the first place?' 

2: You are, without a trace of self-awareness, absolutely right. You hate J K Rowling with a passion, but she'll never even know you exist.

[JoeBoy101]

Bet his wife is really happy he encouraged her to drop ultimatums on her family, her brother, and likely others.

Bet he’ll even be less happy when she eventually drops an ultimatum on him.

[JoeBoy101]

I have a therapy session

[Boredfrom]

1705516751[/url]']
https://www.resetera.com/threads/nasas-mission-to-touch-the-sun.806307/?post=117723615#post-117723615

Fun fact: "flying into the sun" is not, in fact easy to do.

The sun's gravity is immense. And it spins. Objects approaching it are curved around it into an orbit. This is why planets around the sun do not fall into the sun eventually. Its gravity is strong enough to continually slingshot them around it forever.

All those science fiction movies where a ship, missile, probe, etc just aims at a star and dunks into it? According to NASA you would need to counteract 53,000 miles per hour of sideways motion to cruise directly into the sun.

So I’m curious, what did that user said wrong? 

(Not an expert, just genuinely curious)

[HaughtyFrank]

1705516751[/url]']
https://www.resetera.com/threads/nasas-mission-to-touch-the-sun.806307/?post=117723615#post-117723615

Fun fact: "flying into the sun" is not, in fact easy to do.

The sun's gravity is immense. And it spins. Objects approaching it are curved around it into an orbit. This is why planets around the sun do not fall into the sun eventually. Its gravity is strong enough to continually slingshot them around it forever.

All those science fiction movies where a ship, missile, probe, etc just aims at a star and dunks into it? According to NASA you would need to counteract 53,000 miles per hour of sideways motion to cruise directly into the sun.

So I’m curious, what did that user said wrong? 

(Not an expert, just genuinely curious)

He pretty much sums up what you can find on Nasas own website. Seems like he's not wrong at all

https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/its-surprisingly-hard-to-go-to-the-sun

He just used some weird expressions. Like I don't think it actually matters for gravity that the sun spins and "sling shot around forever" just means they're in an orbit

[Uncle]

the reason we have to counteract sideways motion is because we're starting from the earth which is spinning around the sun so we already have momentum

"all those science fiction movies" are often about a ship that's already been in space for plenty of time and presumably has full control over its speed and orientation, they may have started from an entirely different star system and would've shed any residual momentum long ago

it's not like you automatically gain the same sideways momentum the earth already has just by approaching it directly

[Eric Cartman]

Do Iran and Pakistan historically have issues with each other. Haven't heard about it before.

They do not. They're actually very cooperative when it comes to dealing with militants in the region.

Honestly this is a nothing burger

Sunni, Shiite, what's the difference? Its all just this one magical anti-capitalist movement powered by love.

I agree both Iran and Pakistan are very cooperative dealing with extremist militants though. eg by providing money and safe harbour while maintaining plausible deniability.

Honestly, one soveriegn nation atacking another in a traditionally volatile area where theres already one armed conflict, who even gives a shit (oh, and some kids got killed, boo-hoo)

[Eric Cartman]

1705516751[/url]']
https://www.resetera.com/threads/nasas-mission-to-touch-the-sun.806307/?post=117723615#post-117723615

So I’m curious, what did that user said wrong? 

(Not an expert, just genuinely curious)

He pretty much sums up what you can find on Nasas own website. Seems like he's not wrong at all

https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/its-surprisingly-hard-to-go-to-the-sun

He just used some weird expressions. Like I don't think it actually matters for gravity that the sun spins and "sling shot around forever" just means they're in an orbit

Orbits just falling in style, your forward momentum (that would otherwise be escape velocity) is matched by your gravitational pull (that would otherwise be your descent into the gravitational pull) is an equilibrium state where they both cancel each other out, but its not like its the default occurence; a change either way and its being shot out, or dragged in.

[Boredfrom]

I would've stood with the military right now if they hadn't been such big stooges of the US. They literally and openly helped 'massive' opposition to out Imran Khan in a no confidence motion that somehow ended up having more than enough votes to kick him out after years of trying. Imran Khan deciding to stay neutral in the War between Russia and Ukraine was the thing that broke the camel's back. The military have completed the status of Pakistan as a banana state by delaying Elections endlessly due to the overwhelming Majority of Pakistan still Supporting Imran Khan's Party. They've been bullied and harrassed, taken away in illegal custody, their Election Symbol taken, etc.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/iran-launches-airstrikes-on-‘sunni-militant-bases’-in-pakistan.806190/?post=117739575#post-117734484

[Nintex]

Siding with Taliban friend and Russian stooge Imran Khan.

That's a bold move if I have ever seen one.

[BIONIC]

Another Era psychopath creates thread about being unable to get over grudges and wanting revenge:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/how-do-you-get-over-grudge.806403/

So I admit one major flaw I have is holding grudges, especially if I feel I never called out the other person and all. Right now I am holding a grudge against someone who was rude petty and out of line to me and we haven't had contact since last year but I find myself ruminating about it and getting really angry due how petty and asinine they were. I even found them on linkedin and typed up a message venting what I want to say and am fighting the urge to just send it and be petty. I feel I need to get over it as its not healthy and in life there will always be people who piss you off and you can't waste time on them.

Even last year I held a grudge towards someone on discord for trying to make horrible accusations about me and I felt it was unproductive and wasting time and energy

I have a therapy session Feb 9th to talk but until then how can I come to peace with it and all.

Kyuuji, who seems to have completely forgotten about the transgenocide, steps in with some helpful advice:

Learn to not hold them in the first place. More often than not they weigh heavier on your mind than they do for whoever it is you're holding them against.

Two points:

1: Bitch, you've literally made holding a grudge against J K Rowling your life's work, who the hell are you to be telling people 'don't hold them in the first place?' 

2: You are, without a trace of self-awareness, absolutely right. You hate J K Rowling with a passion, but she'll never even know you exist.

Best part is that this sack of shit is the one who got that idiot initially permabanned for not thinking a cartoon character is trans before the ban got mysteriously rescinded.