cf141q5325

I believe the argument goes that you are getting molded into a dysfunctional / unnatural state under the label of sexual liberation which then makes you easier to control and influence. The former enabling the later. I could be off though, sorry if this turns out to be a derogatory summary / simplification, its not intended this way.

I am getting lost earlier so you or the parent might be able to help.

>Which should perhaps tell us something, especially given the disastrous sexual libertinism that characterized the early communist regime of the USSR.

How does that tell us the behavior by those three actors is motivated by him trying to subvert society through weaponized sexuality(to assume for arguments sake)?

Leaving out the US during McCarthy for a moment to reduce the risk of derailing, totalitarian / authoritarian regimes acting against people criticizing them (here in form of his "Mass Psychology of Fascism" in which he also criticized the communist party and later added his orgon stuff) doesnt tell me much about the author other that he isnt a good fit for such systems. Enforcing conformity is what they are all about and at the core of the dysfunctional error correction mechanism that plagues these systems.

And more confusing, how can the second part of that sentence work as a qualifier? Does that mean you would not expect him to get this treatment in the USSR since he showed ideological loyalty on this topic (again for arguments sake)? I would argue looking at the political purges at the time where even complete ideological loyalty and conformity didnt protect you from power considerations its not surprising either.

As some general feedback regarding the rest of the post, reconsidering the certainty about individual statements as well as conclusions might make the post more readable. It otherwise reads as constructing arguments for an already taken conclusion.

Not familiar with his work yet, but there is some room for insight/observations below the threshold of complete explanations. The confidence into these just have to reflect that.

Determining who to trust with this (on what topics) seems to be an incredibly hard problem with no obvious solution. And unfortunately a lot of people either seem to delegate to those that make nice sounding promises or ignore the issues all together. Even the statement you just made could always turn out to be a "noble lie" aimed preserving personal sanity at horrible cost for others. After all, having psychological support, or being able to deal with this, says nothing about what kind of solution they would produce. In all likelihood those people to delegate to will turn out to be in large parts depressed, detached or psychopaths. So i dont see a way around verification.

Having agency in a society ( through democracy, markets, shaping narratives in discussions and many other ways) might just require adults who deal with the horrible aspects society produces in a responsible manner. Which includes not designing solutions for a false peace of mind. After all, you yourself (as in every individual) are the one responsible for the consequences you produce.

Personally i hope this might be a matter of outer alignment, as in a problem of not agreeing on shared goals that you can apply to problem solving in a coordinated manner. Which has to include the ability to verify process and outcome (which unfortunately in itself are highly safety critical) and the unwillingness to accept false but pleasant conclusions with high costs for others.

> Your experience is quite limited. Too limited to have a meaningful opinion on this subject frankly.

I am having quite the big problem with this getting downvoted. The poster is spot on here and this needs to be communicated. Not doing so is irresponsible. Overconfidence in this regard is extremely dangerous and there is no nicer way to say this.

You can not reasonably assume that you are able to judge something works reliably without understanding how the error cases look. Especially if these are capsuled from you and or you dont know what to look out for.

This is at the very core of why something like the post scandal was possible. People repeating the same mistake in this very thread is just really bad. The only thing worse would be not telling them this.

You are describing the exact same experience people who arent programmers have with software. It usually working and being almost always problems with the user.

It also leads to the same horrible misjudgements as in the article mentioned above. If you dont know what to look for you will come to erroneous convictions by ruling out the error cases you do know.

A very common problem is bugs caused by cosmic radiation if you want an example. But bugs in silicon are also not rare and really difficult to catch. You really got to stick your neck out and hope you can actually proof that through stuff like debugging with electron microscopes. Especially if it becomes an issue of responsibility between different departments. The monetary stakes make this all the more difficult.

Hardware bugs are simply capsuled better so people dont recognize them as such. Its the same mechanism at play as for people who assume software normally functions. They are also just unaware of the inner working.

Stuff is just really complicated and people should manage their expectations. I get that going from assuming to have a solid base to no such thing existing is difficult to handle but there is no sensible way around that. Not doing so gets you stuff like the article.

Its a major problem with many of such issues. Some stuff is just really horrible, often even without any clear approach of how to fix it. It then gets even more problematic if people react to this by retreating into easy stories that act as mental fig leaves. Especially once these leads to clearly dysfunctional attempts to solve the issue, making the situation even worse for those effected.

In case anyone is afraid of spiders, confrontation therapy does wonders. Doesnt have to be drastic, letting one set up a net in a visible area already does wonders.

Thats not necessarily the case. Somebody described the situation for GLD a bit down.