> You’re too focused on labels. Humans don’t work that neatly.
No I am using the terms correctly. You (from later on in your reply) aren't.
> Political labels can work if you and the other person are educated on politics (95%+ of HN isn’t) but otherwise focusing on labels mislead the convo and vibe.
These are specific political positions that are held by prominent members. Calling Ben Shapiro a white nationalist is simply idiotic. If you aren't informed about it, maybe you should not make strong claims about it.
> A lot of white nationalists love Israel. Saying they don’t is like saying a lot of fascists don’t love fascism (aka Israel). A lot don’t and a lot do.
No they don't. No white nationalist would support the Jews or Israel. I am sorry you are simply showing your ignorance.
As an aside, Fascism is a wildly misunderstood and misused term. I actually loathe ever talking about it today because like the term "Nazi" it has been totally misused by idiots. You do not understand the term fascist.
> Similarly there are plenty of people who are progressive except for Palestine/Israel (it’s a known saying). And plenty of conservative or right wing people who are not progressive except about Palestine.
Obviously there are splinter groups in any organisation that believe different things. Those people btw are referred to differently.
> Projection
No at all. I am just calling it as I see it. I also lost any good will I would have had with you in the conversation as a result of this jab.
> We all get showed the alt right rage bait on youtube. t's full of "shapiro destroys libtards", "peterson annihilates the woke left", and "Rogan talks to <alt right conspiracy theorist> and wakes up to the real truth".
Firstly. None of that is alt-right. It is America Republican slop rage-bait. Alt-right specifically means White Nationalist.
> The alt-right (abbreviated from alternative right), or dissident right, is a far-right, white nationalist movement. A largely online phenomenon, the alt-right originated in the United States during the late 2000s before increasing in popularity and establishing a presence in other countries during the mid-2010s.
White Nationalists literally hate the Jews, Israel and anyone that support them.
- Jordan Peterson supports Israel and last time I checked worked for the Daily Wire. The Daily Wire was co-founded by Ben Shapiro.
- Joe Rogan is 90s style liberal who is into UFOs, Big Foot and other kooky shit. He literally named his comedy bar "The Mothership". Nothing about that is White Nationalist/Alt-right.
None of them are White Nationalists, nor would they be accepted by White Nationalists. So you are 100% incorrect on that.
Secondly, The Ben Shapiro Ownage stuff was popular circa 2015-2018. Guess what was popular before that? "Hitch Slap", which was Christopher Hitchens basically berating people are various religions.
I've not seen any of that content described in years and it fell out of favour back in 2018-2019.
> You can't deny what is right in front of everyone to see.
It isn't though.
None of the ownage videos have been popular for years and quite honestly I don't believe you have seen them unless you've specifically gone looking for them.
I have tested whether this does come up on a fresh browser profile using a VPN set to the US (as I am in the UK). I used several different locations in the US. I didn't see one of these videos.
I believe you and others are lying because they have a political axe to grind.
There is a huge amount of UK infra now that is dependant on US companies either directly or indirectly (AWS, Microsoft/Azure). Code, data and infra is locked into US platforms. When US-EAST-1 when down last week, it halted our whole operations at our workplace. Looking at freelancer groups I am part of (whatsapp, slack etc), they had the same experience.
The UK being blocked from the outside won't happen anyway. The large tech giants will just either cut a deal (this already happen with Apple/iCloud), or they will comply with the new acts. The sites that don't comply won't be big enough for anyone to care in normie land and thus there will be no real pressure on the UK gov.
I don't think that would happen. Most of the large tech platforms will essentially just comply or come to a deal e.g. The IPA Demand for the UK gov to have a global backdoor iCloud was only rescinded when some deal was made between the current US administration and the UK gov.
The smaller companies like 4chan are going to court to have the matter settled. If that is settled in 4chan's favour, legally the UK won't be able to do anything.
They do not. The alt-right hate Jews or people who support Israel. Ben Shapiro is a Jew, Jordan Peterson supports Israel and used to work for Daily Wire that had a Jewish host. No white nationalist would ever support that.
You are either lying, or have no idea what you are on about.
He fixes up a lot of different type of vehicles and actually explains in detail what he is doing. A lot of car stuff is just people like do a dyno test of like suped up car, I don't find it very interesting. I end up just blocking those channels.
I really think that people are nitpicking a system that works reasonably well for the most part.
> You know what your lived experience was, that doesn't make you an expert on how addiction works on a physiological level.
I actually edited out that from my reply because I knew that this would be used this way. Also "lived experience" is such a stupid phrase. Obviously I was alive when this happened.
I am not claiming to be an expert. I am claiming you are over-intellectualising something. This is something that people constantly try to do, with almost everything now. Everything is a condition, every failing someone has can be scientifically explained. I find it nauseating tbh.
> You mean the thing that didn't even cross my mind until you brought it up, unprompted, after repeating the exact ideas I would expect from the group you claimed that you weren't apart of? And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?
1) You brought this up by talking moral judgements of others. So it did cross your mind. So that is a lie. Also I feel extremely guilty about what I did. I should do.
2) I am not part of that group. I specifically said so. What I was trying to explain is that "While I am not one of these and do dogmatically believe it, there some rationale and value behind it".
> And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?
I said you didn't know what you was talking with regards to moral judgements. I specifically quoted the piece of text I was responding to. What you wrote was kinda tripe tbh.
> That was slightly amusing, yes. I'm sorry you found that offensive.
What you did was make a jab at me because you assumed I was dogmatically believed in a set of ideas. You seem to be attempting to retcon this now. I don't find it offensive. I find it tiresome. I am not an American, and I am not a conservative.
> I don't know why you accept that you were in full control of your addiction, nor do I care because I'm not trying to take away from your own personal experience.
I am not saying I was in full control of addiction.
I did make a choice to drink. Every-time I bought the alcohol (often while sober) I made a choice, full cognisant of the consequences. It was my own hubris to stopped me from taking the correct course of action sooner. There doesn't need to be a more complex explanation because it is the truth. I don't need to intellectualise it further.
I have seen other people do exactly the same thing as I did.
> but you don't get to use it to lift yourself up and put others down the way you've been doing.
I am not doing either. I have throughout this thread said "this was my mistake, I take full responsibility". I am specifically telling you that I am not better than anyone else and in fact people were correct in judging me poorly due to my own behaviour at the time.
You know what is the funniest thing. I used to drink all these different Ales and artisan beers.
After I quit drinking alcohol. I used to have a 4 pack of these 0% Ales/Larger that was supposed to taste similar. The packaging differs from the regular beer in that it has a silver top instead of dark blue on this particular. I picked up the alcoholic ones inadvertently as they were in the wrong place on the shelf.
When I took a sip, I thought it had gone off. It tasted terrible, like poison! Obviously once I checked the can, I realised my mistake. I gave them to my rest of the pack to one of my neighbours I think.
> No, this is well-established scientific understanding of how our body and brain work. Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds.
Yes you are. Ultimately you have to want to quit. That is a decision made by me. That requires my own agency.
From your jab earlier about my apparent "conservationism" (like that would matter at all), you've lost any good will I may of had with you in this discussion.
> Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds.
Brain / Mind are synonyms for the most. I don't even think you know what you are saying.
> If they didn't, the entire field of psychiatry couldn't exist to treat them.
I think psychiatry can help some people. However it isn't the be all and end all of how deal with addiction or the human condition in general.
> This applies to many behaviors that have nothing to do with substance abuse, physical dependence or withdrawals, e.g. those resulting from depression and ADHD.
Obviously. That doesn't mean that addicts don't have agency.
> Recommendations are mostly tailored to your history, except with a couple hardcoded slots populated with some general-purpose "engaging" trash from your locale/geographical location, pretty much always political content.
I don't see that at all. I use YouTube most evenings (I watch YouTube instead of TV).
I do have like traditional news media sometimes on the third or fourth row and you can dismiss that quickly.
> And if you click on one, by mistake or curiosity, now you've sent a signal that you like it and will get much more of it in the next batch of recommendations.
You fix that by simply pressing "Not Interested" a few times. It can be annoying. It isn't the end of the world.
> I've found the opposite to be true. If I engage with a video in any way shape or form, even to say I don't want it, they consider that engagement
I don't think that is the case. If I click Not Interested. Similar video don't show.
> Now you get baited with Member Only videos too. I'm already paying you $30 a month..
To members? Or to YouTube to remove ads? If it is the former, you have shown YouTube that you are willing to pay for memberships, so they going to recommend them.
> I also get Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and other alt-right pipeline dorks in my recommendations solely because of my gender and age. I never engage with political content on YouTube and I’ve cleared my watch history multiple times, these still show up.
That doesn't happen. Firstly you literally click on the video and say "don't recommend channel" and you will never see a JRE episode again.
Also, just by how you phrased that whole paragraph. I don't believe you are telling the truth.
None of those characters are "alt-right". "alt-right" essentially means White Nationalist.
You cannot tell me that Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are White Nationalists because of their support for Israel and one of them is Jewish. White nationalists really don't like Israel and Jewish people. They however were labelled as "alt right" to smear them, by other political commentators and publications who are typically on the left and American.
You would only use that framing if you were listening to those commentators and/or publications that used similar phrasing.
Also Jordan Peterson actually talked about addiction on a Joe Rogan podcast and it was one of the things that put me on the road to dealing with my drinking issues. I stopped listening to Joe Rogan about episode 1000 after they stopped being live and were prerecorded.
I have plenty of criticisms of them now. But I Jordan Peterson did help me at least indirectly. I don't watch either of them anymore and haven't watched them for quite a number of years at this point.
> If you choose to believe in mind-body dualism you're free to do so, but this belief that you have agency which is completely independent of your physiology goes against everything we know about our brains and addiction.
This is classic over-intellectualising that often done by people, often to "win" an argument.
I never denied that the body itself can become dependant on substances and affect choices. That is obvious. The point is that people have their own agency. I had to accept I had an issue and decided to face up reality, everything after that was relatively straight forward IME.
This process took a year, so it wasn't like I woke up one morning and my mind was changed.
> Yeah, sure, whatever you say.
You are trying to latch onto anything to invalidate my point of view on the matter, based on an incorrect preconceptions of my beliefs. Which is unfortunate.
The fact is that moral judgements made by people are often for very good reasons. Even if they can't verbalise them effectively. Rather than dismissing them because you politically disagree with them, it is often worth finding out why they exist.
> Of course, but that doesn't mean that you had a real choice.
Yes I did. I actually find it very insulting that you would deny me my own agency.
I cured my addiction by simply not buying alcohol and abstaining. That was a choice I could have made at any point in the past.
There are people that can drink responsibly. I am not one of those people. I made the responsible choice as an adult, to abstain from it. I don't miss it either BTW. I feel actually free.
> What would've happened if you didn't go - physically, psychologically, emotionally? I'm not looking for an answer, it's just worth thinking about.
I would have a lot more money, I wouldn't have got into stupid situations, some which I almost got myself killed, I wouldn't have had to spend 5 years rebuilding my career.
> Are you being forced to eat, drink, breathe? Can you choose not to, and for how long before you can't take it anymore and relent?
The comparison you are making here is asinine.
> It's so easy for people to cast swift moral judgement over other people's "choices", simply because they happen to enjoy a mixture of brain chemicals that is more conducive to behavior that they see as morally righteous, and they assume that everyone else has it as easy as they do - physiologically speaking. You should be careful not to internalize that.
The moral judgement is often painted by some as subjective. A lot of the times it can be, but very often it simply isn't. There are good reasons it is correct for people to judge someone poorly because they abuse drugs or alcohol.
It isn't just the fact that they are making different choice that they disapprove of, it is the behaviour and consequences of that behaviour. This behaviour is frequently at best makes the person difficult to deal with, and at worst anti-social and dangerous and can often have dire consequences. That is simply a fact. Those people are correct to judge those people poorly.
I am certainty not dyed in the wool conservative either.
You just don't know what you are talking about tbh.
They actually do show a several notices that says "Fancy something different, click here". They already have a mechanism in place that does something similar to what you describe.
What YouTube recommends to you is more of what you already watch. Removing stuff the you describe is as easy as clicking "Not interested" or "Do not recommend channel".
Also YouTube algorithm is rewarding watch time these days. So click bait isn't rewarded on platform as much. I actually watch a comedy show where they ridicule many of the click-baiters and they are all complaining about the ad-revenue and reach decreasing.
Also a lot of the political rage-bait is kinda going away. People are growing out of it. YouTube kinda has "metas" where a particular type of content will be super popular for a while and then go away.
No I am using the terms correctly. You (from later on in your reply) aren't.
> Political labels can work if you and the other person are educated on politics (95%+ of HN isn’t) but otherwise focusing on labels mislead the convo and vibe.
These are specific political positions that are held by prominent members. Calling Ben Shapiro a white nationalist is simply idiotic. If you aren't informed about it, maybe you should not make strong claims about it.
> A lot of white nationalists love Israel. Saying they don’t is like saying a lot of fascists don’t love fascism (aka Israel). A lot don’t and a lot do.
No they don't. No white nationalist would support the Jews or Israel. I am sorry you are simply showing your ignorance.
As an aside, Fascism is a wildly misunderstood and misused term. I actually loathe ever talking about it today because like the term "Nazi" it has been totally misused by idiots. You do not understand the term fascist.
> Similarly there are plenty of people who are progressive except for Palestine/Israel (it’s a known saying). And plenty of conservative or right wing people who are not progressive except about Palestine.
Obviously there are splinter groups in any organisation that believe different things. Those people btw are referred to differently.
> Projection
No at all. I am just calling it as I see it. I also lost any good will I would have had with you in the conversation as a result of this jab.