That’s all well and good however, the people who say they are speaking their truth are really stating their opinion and only call it truth to avoid criticism.
3 Likes
Thank you
I could have written what you wrote here not long ago. I still could and probably will in some circumstances.
But this time I need to argue that it is much more difficult and much more rare to not have one’s own reality. I think people do accomplish it occasionally but they wind up picking it back up or rebuilding a new one
Of course technically one could counter argue that’s not separate realities - that’s billions of peoples’ distortions of reality. Fine. Fair enough.
What I mean by “fair enough” is that it is close enough to fair to not need to be bickered about at the moment - it’s not actually completely fair. It would mean that I would set my pettiness aside for a while even though I know I am so petty, hopefully for some benefit and only for a while.
If someone said to me that X or Y is “their truth”, I would like to think that I’d either flow with it, keep a distance, or show them how there’s is at odds with a “bigger truth” that they would agree is bigger.
Picking at it too much means you get overrun by rampant emotionalism. Picking at it not enough means you get overrun by rampant emotionalism. Picking at it the perfect amount isn’t an option cuz I’m not perfect enough. So then being overrun by petty rampant emotionalism is inevitable. It’s either your pettiness, mine, or theirs. Let it be theirs mostly - it won’t last.
I agree in the sense of exaggerating the importance of some particular thing. I agree also in the sense that the taste of the illusion of being right is often tasty enough to not bother for working towards tasting actually being right. That introduces energy saving, laziness, physical vs spiritual in a sense. It doesn’t have to be pride, power grabby or any dark sided spiritual aspect
No disrespect intended. Not angry. Just trying to see if I can shed yet another layer of sanity
1 Like
I used to do it, I’m not annoyed. But it’s not as helpful as I thought it would be
To access such a thing has been a powerful drive throughout human history which has produced miracles. Many leaps of faith have been taken and landed. It doesn’t take much faith at this point to believe that such a thing exists. What it is, would be a different matter.
This part is great. I really love it. Excellent. Only problem is it’s just too true and doesn’t leave any room for disagreement.
Doesn’t stop me from trying tho.
Is it not possible that a reference frame be false?
Is it not possible that a reference frame be true?
Well come on, we’ve gotta try, you can’t just give up NOW
But the real issue is when people are forced or prevented unfairly. If you want to give up, jskrabac, of course you can. I’m sorry 
1 Like
Definitely didn’t take it this way at all. I appreciate the difference in views and think the world lacks discussions like this in general (that’s a whole other thread)
@jskrabac I appreciate your take on this topic. One of the reasons I brought it up is because I tend to see things like this as black and white and I realize that thinking may be flawed. I understand where you are coming from with the math and science perspective. One can throw a ball up in the air and there is very very close to zero chance it will do something other than fall straight back down (“law” of gravity vs quantum mechanics). So in that regard, there is no absolute truth that we (collectively) can observe.
Again I don’t necessarily equate being “right” to the truth (though many do).
Like @zecarlo said the issue is mainly when people are equating truth to opinions. That’s trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.
2 Likes
Someone will say something that someone else says is racist. Is it racist or is it how the person interprets it? And is an interpretation, the truth? So what happens is the person who claims it’s racist just has to say it’s their truth, which means everyone has to accept it as the truth, and no debate can happen. There is no room for nuance, context or intent. It’s a way to shut down any speech or ideas that hurt someone’s feelings or challenge their view, their narrative, of the world. You have a bunch of fragile narcissists, raised by weak parents, who don’t believe they need to answer the question “why?” when they state their truth. Ironically, if privilege is a thing, that’s the height of it.
1 Like
You’re just racist and don’t know it yet! 
This = like 90% of the general population when we refer to societal constructs/normalities. When I ask people about say… Gun laws in Australia, I am universally panned/criticised for my disdain/disagreement towards just how strict gun laws are here. There is no sensible debate, no asking why. Rather “that’s the status quo, so it’s bad because it just is.”
These dogmatic beliefs are harboured within the Aussie population despite the fact a good 90% of kids my age have never shot a gun… or even seen one up close. Though when you go VERY rural it’s a very different story/demographic.
Not advocating for America’s gun laws… I think NZ, Canada, Nordic countries etc have a sensible model for gun ownership. In Australia being a law abiding citizen yet owning a firearm attracts a LOT of scrutiny/undue bureaucratic nonsense for no good reason
1 Like
I don’t subscribe to the notion of guaranteeing the same material outcome, but I think the conversation gets difficult when discussing whether guaranteeing the same treatment / opportunity looks identical for every person. Setting aside the third rail examples for a moment, how does equal treatment / opportunity look for someone bound to a wheelchair? If there’s a ramp at the grocery store that allows wheelchair-bound individuals to shop for their own food, have we guaranteed them an outcome of which they’re not deserving or have we simply ensured that they have a level playing field?
I don’t ask the question rhetorically - it’s tough and nuanced and it’s easy to see both sides of the coin. My personal opinion is that the right answer is equal treatment / opportunity not equal outcome, but that equal treatment / opportunity doesn’t necessarily imply a one-size-fits-all solution and that we exist in this weird scenario where we’ve recognized that reality for parts of the population and not others.
3 Likes
The equity argument states that given the proper resources, everyone will have an equal outcome. Thus, a kid in the inner city will have a similar outcome as a wealthy kid in a wealthy town provided he gets the same resources as the wealthy kid.
This is silly for two reasons:
-
What are resources? In this case it will be mainly money but is money the problem? What about the violence and culture of the inner city? Money is not a substitute for teaching values. This is why poor immigrants will outperform poor Americans. They can live in poor communities and end up successful. Being wealthy means you can live in a community and send your kids to school where the values that make one successful are the norm.
-
Equal spending or equal resources do not guarantee equal outcomes. Not every wealthy kid will be a successful adult just as not every poor kid will end up in jail, pregnant, on welfare, or dead.
It’s a money grab and a very insidious way of pushing wealth redistribution and a perverted sense of equality. What they don’t explicitly say is that those who need more resources will get them at the expense of those who have them already. In other words, they will bring those at the top down while lifting those at the bottom up. The problem is that those at the bottom can only go so far which means those at the top will go even further down. The reason being that money alone won’t address the deeper social/cultural issues among the poor. Most of the programs in place to help the poor kids are about coping with their problems rather than overcoming them (hence, the perpetual state of victimhood). Then you’ll have equal outcomes, as in everyone will be equally poor, uneducated, and incapable of overachieving (and in need of the government to subsidize and regulate their lives). You’ll have a ruling class of woke, elite SJWs living in gated communities telling themselves how great the world is now that genius and ambition have been eradicated.
4 Likes
If you all believe in equity…then as a short white man, I want to be in the NBA and get paid the same as LeBron James
1 Like
Can’t really add anything else to your opening statement so I’ll just say that I agree 100%. It is frustrating to see this nonsense.
1 Like
By woke standards, the net should be lower and when necessary, players would be handicapped so they couldn’t use their physical advantages. Of course, neither team could win since that would be an unequal outcome.
1 Like
I think basketball has a design flaw to it, that it is almost required to be tall. Most other sports can be played by different heights / builds, but that is very difficult with basketball. NFL teams have giants, skinny fast dudes, shorter built guys, a few normal dudes (punter, kicker).
My opinion doesn’t matter much though. Just always thought basketball was a silly game.
Vonnegut’s an interesting choice in this context
Harlem globetrotters had a short guy, 
The average NFL players is 6’2", 245lbs. The average MLB player is 6’2", 207lbs. Being bigger and taller is pretty much better in all sports. Basketball players are even taller, but it’s not like 5’6" is good in many sports without weight classes.
What is the average height in the NBA, 6’6"?
I don’t know. NFL and MLB quick google searches gave a single answer, but my NBA search only yielded results broken out by position ranging from point guards that average 6’1" (without shoes on, which is apparently something you have to specify in the NBA), to centers that average 6’9". I suppose I could do some math and assume that there are the same number of players in each position and get a good average, but 6’6" is probably not far off.
1 Like
Go look up countries in the S.E Asian region and see the history of their economic development. Much was due to Chinese immigrants from way back. And I don’t believe it’s a racial issue. Chinese immigrants uprooted themselves and travelled for over 3 months on shitty boats to get there in the past long before the commies even existed. They didn’t do that for shits and giggles. Dying of dysentery and typhoid fever isn’t quite fun.
What you’ve written here and several times before about culture is the root of the problem since I grew up in a shithole in the region where the Chinese in that part of the country somehow developed a shitty mentality, which led to shitty outcomes. Fuck, even the fucking local gangs got their territories taken by Vietnamese immigrants and more recently, the ones from China LMAO.
Malaysia still has fucking affirmative action for the majority race today after 50 years. One can argue that the locals were more content with sticking to traditional values and more family oriented lifestyles, which would be a fallacy if you look at it’s history. And see what has happened to them when a crisis like COVID hits. They starve. This isn’t new though it’s severity is much greater than previous economic dumps. Soros vigorously shorting the ringgit was pretty comical in hindsight if you have a shitty sense of humor like me tbh. But, hey, at least they do it together. So they’re happy. Greenboy’s a fucking genius.
Look up the Prime Minister’s corruption scandal. The bastards enriched themselves with such unmitigated audacity(yeah that’s a Zappa reference) while keeping the poor down by taking wealth from rich Chinese to pay them off for votes and indoctrinating them with their own version of “religious and social values”. Half of them would eat that fucking yellow snow if the government told them it was halal if it snowed in the region.
All while kowtowing to China for investment and infrastructure building.
Why are local Chinese being shat on while Chinese from China are being treated like Kings despite them being a “Muslim” country and China has been fucking with the Uyghurs for the past decade?
Don’t ask if you aren’t willing to accept that every fucking single thing - from ideology to values - a government and even leaders of major movements seemingly represents is done for money and power.
Every. Fucking. Thing.
I do agree the in general sports are biased to bigger, faster people. I do think because of the game design, it is more heavily biased. I still watch the championship games, and enjoy some college games.
1 Like