PortableHotpocket

Dude, Tony Todd as Venom sounds epic. I can't wait to see how well he does with the role.

They probably would have just called you names instead of openly engaging with your ideas. That's the norm in my experience. I sometimes wonder why I bother posting at all.

Then again, I do get some traction, and some representation of ideas outside the common narratives is better than none. But it does seem like if you aren't in lockstep with the popular narratives, you get a cascade of downvotes just for entertaining unpopular ideas.

People don't want you to think for yourself. They just want you to parrot their beliefs back to them and give them affirmation.

Thanks for all you've done, I hope this place just keeps growing!

Shit, if all conservatives had that nice an ass I wouldn't mind listening to their opinions.

Ah yes, I knew Demolition Man was an accurate prediction of the future. Thanks for confirming the direction we are headed in!

I'm so glad I have a career where I'll never have to worry about crap like this. I'd love to see how the higher ups would like it if they had to be on camera the whole day with AI watching them for mistakes/phone usage.

Playing devil's advocate only makes you look like an asshole if the person you're talking to has a closed mind. The entire purpose is to bridge the gap between two sides in an argument by acknowledging the positives of something they disagree with.

In essence, if someone has to play devil's advocate with you, you're probably the asshole. Otherwise you would be able to relate to and understand people who disagree with you without treating them like a monster.

A good example of where this can help is in politics. Political discussion is full of people talking past each other instead of trying to understand each other. If you could understand each other, it would be much easier to find compromise, which would make everyone feel heard and lead to the most reasonable outcomes when you consider the voice of all parties. But it's much easier to label your opponent an idiot or a devil than to grapple with their actual problems.

This is a bit of a misconception. Wealthy people don't get that way by not working, and they tend not to stay that way if they don't continue to do so. The difference is that the work they do isn't the physically laborious kind.

Wealthy people often work 60+ hours a week. They are constantly traveling, making deals, finding new investments, researching, etc. That's how they get wealthy in the first place, and that attitude doesn't go away just because they hit a certain level of income. They are self-motivated to keep pushing.

The issue is not so much that wealthy people don't do any work as it is that the value of hard labor has been devalued, while the benefits of labor have been siphoned to the top 1% for too long. Those benefits have to be redistributed throughout the system in a way that continues to encourage necessary production, without discouraging high performance individuals from creating value through high level trade and investment. Finding a better balance while taking that all into consideration is not an easy task.

I think one of the main reasons your theory isn't commonplace is the variance in tolerance people have for vigilance. Some people have a lot less tolerance, and appear lazy. Other people have an extremely strong tolerance, and to them, everyone else appears lazy.

I have adhd. My ability to motivate myself to do necessary tasks is very limited. But external pressures can improve my productivity by giving me less choice in the matter. By comparison, too much freedom can reduce my productivity by normalizing a reduced workload, making me intolerant of a workload I was previously capable of.

Laziness does exist. It can be fostered. But that doesn't mean you can't get improved productivity from a healthier balance in your workplace. Just as pressure has a range where it goes from motivating people to crippling them with stress, so too do healthy adjustments to workflow go from rejuvenating to lethargic.