bastion

This is just bad advice.

I think people naturally extend their unresolved issues and the concomitant behaviors into the macro scale, and that it is precisely by resolving the personal issues on a smaller scale that you gain greater power over your own life. As you do, your methods and behaviors spread, because people learn well by example, particularly when that example "wins" and comes from a natural place of acceptance.

As people resolve their piece of the pie, they run into others who have, likewise, resolved their piece of the pie. ..and, together, they do greater things, because they are capable of it, not tangled an a huge ball of personal issues, and why not too something or contribute to something you want to see done in the world?

The massive issues we have a a society are precisely because we have too much emotionally charged information, and haven't processed that information - and because the blind spots you have in your own personal life and with your own personal issues become your cultures, your nation's, and the world's problems as you gain power.

Sorting through your issues, and resolving your blind spots means your power increases. And, as you do, then the scope of what you, personally can change grows - in part, because you are also more effective at working with others and rejecting (or similarly handling) problematic authority as you do.

The basic question is: Where does the motivation of your reaction (or action) come from?

If you have an emotional goal to prevent the thing from having existed, you are doomed from the start.

If you have accepted fully that it is the way it is, and that what you need to do is add a valid response to the situation, rather than preventing the existence of the situation, you're probably on the right track.

That is, you can't block a punch, or respond in kind, if you haven't accepted that you're in a fight. Instead, you'll just have your ass handed to you.

When people say "how could this happen?!" they aren't usually asking questions at all, even if it's a situation they would benefit well from asking questions in. They usually mean "this shouldn't have happened." ..and, they are wrong.

It's not that it should happen, or shouldn't happen. Those are irrelevant. It's that it's happening (or happened), and the probability of naturally generating a valid response increases massively once you accept that.

Once you accept the situation fully, you'll be able to look at it clearly, and have a greater chance of recognizing it, and recognizing it before others even realize that it's happening - or, before others realize they are telegraphing their actions before they strike. As such, you have a better capacity to respond appropriately.

The largest problem humans have, in my opinion, is fighting ghosts and impossible battles - which leaves them open to being taken advantage of or repeating painful cycles. Radical acceptance addresses some of that, if treated as a means to think clearly, rather than as a religion to adhere to.

This is the big temptation with Linux. It's open source, and there's a lot of information out there, so maybe technically you can fix XYZ..

..but, realistically, it's often better to just use supported hardware, or use a distro that supports your hardware.

sometimes you can get a "quick fix" from a github repo or some such, and it'll just work. ..but, it's so easy for a quick fix to turn into a rabbit hole of many hours, or even many days.

..and if you're doing that, you've got to be into it for the journey more than the destination.

communism depends on everyone involved choosing communal benefit over individual benefit, and poorly handles individuals who chose individual benefit over communal benefit - particularly if they just talk the talk of the reverse.

The foundation of a solid community is individual rights. Collectivist sovereignty is my preference. I have sovereignty, and recognize the benefit of getting others to recognize their peril sovereignty. ..but I still gain the benefits of sovereignty whether or not others learn how to do the same.

tldr.

Yeah. Steam is fucking solid.

You think that preventing exposure to problematic concept prevents infection. you're right, in the short term. But in the long term, you destroy collective immunity to the concept.

Let it live, fight it when you have to, but don't think you can eradicate it. It's to be learned from, not simply destroyed. Otherwise, the experience is wasted, only to be repeated by the next generation.

No, it won't solve the problems you think it will. You are misidentifying the problem as being religion. ..but the problem is human, and psychological in nature - and, because you can't see that, you're just as susceptible to it as any other sot out there, drunk on the idea that you've got this one weird trick that solves the issue, and doesn't involve you sorting your own shit out.

yep. But nuance isn't visceral enough to grab their attention, so they get owned by those who are nuanced enough to wield the generalized binary concepts.

Literally, a mind virus they can't recognize - likely crafted intentionally by someone at some point. But even if not, the irony is that this kind of wholesale buy-in to binary concepts is exactly what causes the behaviors they despise in religion.

you're just voicing another ideology that wants to exterminate others. Religion is your whipping boy, and you're lying to yourself if you think that getting rid of religion fixes the problem.

no, they in no way implied that bad people shouldn't be stopped.