That is the best routine.
When I see that happening with others I refer the situation as swan song. The last card losers throw on the table is the victim card.
Oh, yeah! You can get a very good position without showing your teeth! But for a leader position it seems to be mandatory.
Absolutely!
If you can’t get away, because there are consequences… well.
The destroyer(s) wanted to stay anonym. A graffity without signature. And it is a mayor aspect of the act.
(I’d go even further, I’d say it could have provided enough protection to the robot if it was capable to publish the face of the person who destroyed it, without physically defending itself in any other form. One photo might have been enough, and I make this statement as a photographer now.)
The point was peacefulness, and it resulted in failure. (well, questionable result at least)
Because there was nothing backing up peace.
Imagine the fictional story of the strong country invading (helping out) the politically instabil smaller country… Long story short: you start peace with weapons.
Anarchy doesn’t organise itself into hierarchy without power.
I’ll throw in another quote: Fighting for peace is like f*ing for virginity
I don’t think so - the endresult might have been failure, the experiment itself wasn’t. It was a very interesting travel that showed many people were able to peacefully interact with a machine - until it came to the US, which might show a lot as well. And it shows that there already are certain areas of the world where peacefulness doesn’t result in destruction, and that raises my hopes. Maybe one day, all mankind might come to this conclusion.
Nope. Got a leading position at work, without any violence.
Thing is, people sometimes mistake the abscence of violence as weakness, but you can definitely come to a respected position, being strong and all that, without having to resort to (mental or physical) violence.
Yes, I was thinking about it a lot, the quote is funny, but not the most relevant. Peace is a goal, virginity is not a goal, it is a temporary state.
Summary
The example is as logically incoherent as saying: living a live for being a baby.
I know you just quoted it as a joke, also I find it funny, but I needed the urge to clarify it once and a while, as I came across with this unsolid reasoning in other debates a few times before.
I used to mention the example of The Little Prince.
(book by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, that reminds me of Emma Watson )
Summary
There is a story in the book about growing roses. You have to predict which part of the plant has the biggest chance to grow the nicest flower, focus on that and get rid of the other suckers (technical term). This translates to: Decide your goal!
Also you need to be aware that the caterpillar that represents gluttony in the story will go through metamorphosis and will reward you with it’s beauty as butterfly. A metaphor to evil, or destruction that - if you face it and come across your fear- will make you stronger eventually.
The caterpillar changes diet, so then it feasts on nectar. Once you faced your fear and overcome it you look at it from a different (elevated) perspective. It is not something you are afraid of, but rather teaches you. A lesson you learnt. You know the solution, so you are not afraid of the challenge anymore.
Peace is about living in symbiosis with each other in many layers.
The prince looks after the rose, and tolerates the caterpillar. But they fight before
The rose tolerates the prince and looks after the caterpillar. Also it demands care!
The caterpillar, once accepted, transforms into a butterfly that rewards the prince and the rose as well. Selfish it is!
Prince happy, rose happy, butterfly happy after they put their work in the equation and made their sacrifices. But there is a point when they hate each other. And the story is about them tending towards equilibrium. They have to justify their own acts in order to get accepted by the others.
a failure… Agreed!
Never! That is called Utopia. There ALWAYS will be war, and if you believe otherwise you need to study more!
Well done! Congrats for that! And you chose the right way, as you described, by being strong! Violence can have similar effect to playing the victim. I’d go even further with the thought! Violence often indicate weakness.
Being strong and confident and keeping your cool(!!!) was the evidence you might have given. So you were chosen as leader.
Let me clarify, because you pointed out something important:
Internal conflict—> You MUST stay cool!
External threat—> You MUST show your teeth!
Otherwise you loose the trust you earned before in both cases. It is well studied.
Correction:
A few comments back we mentioned evolution… we think of our ancestors who lived xhundred years ago as barbaric.
Not only us, it is true for the ancient greeks, and pretty much every aera of history.
…yadi-yadi-yada… we face less external threat than we think, so stay cool!
ps: I tried to condense it, yet ended up with a mini essay. Now I
I live in Philly and I know why the robot was vandalised here and not somewhere else. It’s not a great city, money is tight, and that leads some people to act savagely. It’s a totally fair reaction to tough circumstances.
I don’t agree with the sentiment that being violent or showing dominance is required to reach your goals. That’s the law with animals in nature. Humans have an opportunity to surpass being animals and become more. We’re not doing a great job of it currently, but the potential is definitely there. Classical definitions of evolution and the survival of the fittest do not necessarily need to apply to us.
Sorry if I missed your point when reading your posts, but there were definitely some social darwinist undertones there.
“you can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence - if you’re not capable of violence you’re not peaceful, you’re harmless. important distinction”
But how you choose to employ violence is very telling, the greater violence you are capable of, the higher standard I hold you to
I actually read that book, and it’s far from what we today would like to live like. But I get what you’re saying
I just think if mankind doesn’t finally come to a point where we live together peacefully, it won’t continue to exist at all. Fighting each other is stupid, and we can even learn that from social animals - I studied wolves a lot, and while there is a hierarchy in a wolves pack, it is rarely set up by fighting. The possibility is there, of course, but usually very subtle signs of threatening are enough to keep things working - simply because fighting would be an incredible waste of resources.
I know that one, too - it is almost a mandatory read here, and it’s a great book. There are points I agree with (in the book), and others, where I don’t. I like your interpretation, though, especially
And I think we all fought enought until now, so we might finally be able to find this symbiosis - at least it should be possible at some point. Like
I wouldn’t skip it without responding, but you need to be more specific.
And me too: Being violent is not a good thing to do! Period!
Yet it does! Evolution studies GENES, and we mostly referring to MEMES.
That is the point, difference between memes and genes.
… let me fix it. Back to cyborg:
I think we are close to that point. People when encounter other people (us vs. them) either they fight or trade.
Summary
Specifically they fight first to establish a dominance hierarchy, then they trade from the position they fought for.
My prediction is that we will trade, but on a next level. By exchangeing ideas and thoughts. I am curious about Neuralink. It has the potential to bring us so close that fight might reduce to zero eventually. @EL0N, what do you think?
Not much other than telling people that I’m now a minority in this world, that I’m the only cyborg to work for Dave and Busters. I just started my apprenticeship as a tattoo artist so whenever the artists yell at Alexa because it won’t listen to them I defend her since she isn’t capable of it right now. Someone has to defend robots.
As someone who carries a deadly weapon every day, I agree with you 100%. I am obligated to be nicer, more understanding, compassionate, and to use every means at my disposal to de-escalate any situation that could potentially turn violent.
)
