miak

It sounds like we’re largely in agreement. Absolutely, you want to tackle the issue at the source. I don’t see how one hopes to accomplish that without empathy. Understanding those racist ‘losers’ is how you begin to understand how to tackle this at the source.

deleted by creator

Fear is often a motivating factor in a person’s choice. This was equally true of the left and right in this past US presidential election.
I haven’t seen any evidence that fear is a value that most people hold though. The source of their fear is concern over the things they do value.

There’s those broad strokes I was talking about. I appreciate you providing an example.

Refusing to empathize and understand how people arrive at their views in favor of this kind of prejudice will never contribute to positive changes.
Yes, the best cure to bigotry is love and compassion. Love and compassion start with empathy. It’s easy to empathize with those that think and act like you do - it can be difficult, but all the more important, to empathize with those that don’t. Refusing to do so only ensures polarization of society and a perpetuation of the cycles of violence that permeate society. This is something that has become all the more clear with the rise of social media and the info bubbles they trap people in.

Often when I see someone accusing people of voting against their own interests, it’s pretty clear that the person making the accusation has not taken the time to understand the values others are basing their choice on.
If I could rob a person and be confident that I would never be caught and punished for doing so, am I acting against my own self interest if I chose not to rob them because it goes against my moral code? No, of course not. But based on the way some people talk about voting against ones self interest, you might think I just cheated myself out of free money. Is it possible that a person might “vote against their own interests” because of a misinformed view? of course, but you’ll never understand a person’s motivations by chosing to paint them with broad strokes based on your prejudices instead of getting to know them individually and trying to understand what it is they truly value.

If I really cared about making a statement, I’d put more effort into regularly heading into polls to write-in my choice. I still would not be voting for either of the major parties.

When all of the candidates on a ballot are going to actively work against my values, why would I vote for any of them? That said, I have written in choices before, but it’s a lot of work to do when literally no one will be taking notice of that vote.

Doesn’t this kind of assume humans are a central focus of the simulation? What if the universe is a simulation, but the rise of humans was an unintended result in the simulation. Maybe there is actually other civilizations elsewhere that are the actual focus, or just to get a look at the diversity of life that would form throughout the universe. Or, maybe life in the universe isn’t the focus at all and they just wanted to look at the evolution of galaxies and the like.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding your point. I kind of like the idea of being an unintended result of a simulation meant for other things though.

This is really interesting. Without knowing there was a word for it, I’ve often found myself wishing people (including myslef at times) did a better job of the Connected Knowing approach.

The Unix Epoch is obviously the correct base for any calendar.