- The illusion that we are "rational" has done more damage than good, and if we were to just embrace that emotions are not just real, but a stronger influence on people's behaviour (and therefore reality) than any facts, we might start getting somewhere as a species.
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
359 points (94.8% liked)
Ask Lemmy
30697 readers
2061 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
But understanding, predicting, and reacting differently on emotions are all learnable, and very rational.
For example: don't punch the TV when you are angry about loosing a game. Instead realise where the anger is coming from. Probably frustration, but why are you so frustrated when you loose? Some frustration is understandable, but what causes so much frustration that it turned into violent anger? And can you predict what actions or circumsfamces may result in that frustration or and anger (e.g. alcohol consumption)?
The most rational fictional species I know, Vulcans, do not lack emotion. Quite the opposite. But they have learned to control their emotions.
I feel like most people do get this, but aren't very good at defining how exactly rationality breaks down and where.
On the same note we should acknowledge that we have a intellectual limit and that we should all aim to understand where the limit lies.
this is true on the neurons' level in your brain. I also only agree that it's rational because my emotions allow me to accept such rationality
I wish there was a third option to knock down things that aren't actually controversial. In threads like this an upvote and a downvote are both an upvote.
Upvote to agree Downvote to disagree Sort by controversial
The state must be abolished. In fact, all forms of hierarchy must be abolished.
If I had no say in the creation of a system I should not have to participate in said system for the benefit of others.
that sounds selfish and evil unless I got you wrong. can you give an example? like jeff bezos paying $0 in tax because he does not benefit from social security or medical care?
I mean modern society as a whole. The serfdom, the racism, the capitalism, the voting, the suffering etc. I didn't want any of this and I'm expected to participate and if I don't there's something wrong with me and not the systems. Your gut reaction proves it pretty well thinking that's selfish and evil.
Broadly speaking, I'm a Pacifist and believe any kind of military confrontation or military aid is bad public policy. The idea of collateral damage - civilian casualties taken in pursuit of military objectives - is fully immoral and should be broadly rejected. Military resources should be tasked first and foremost as disaster relief and recovery with the primary mission being the preservation of human life, rather than offensive missions to defeat or deter an opposition military.
Military reprisals (starting with the MAD policy and going down to retributive strikes in border disputes) are monstrous and should be ended. Military prisons should be closed and POWs immediately repatriated. Embargos, particularly those aimed at economically vulnerable nations like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea, serve no useful purpose and should be lifted immediately. And the only offensive military action should be reserved for securing evacuation routes for refugees, with the bulk of resources dedicated to extending shelter and both immediate and long term relief to the refugees we accrue through these policies.
So, I'm genuinely curious - what do you think the US should have done during WW2?
I can tell you what we shouldn't have done. We shouldn't have turned away the 937 passengers of the St. Louis. It shouldn't have done the mass arrest and internment of Japanese American civilians. We shouldn't have sent Germany military aid in the form of IBM computers and Standard Oil. Hell, there was a laundry list of American government-backed big industry supporting German and Italian Fascists even after the bombing of Pearl Harbor
What the US should have been doing was enforcing the accords struck after WW1, implementing a Marshall Plan in Europe and North Africa and East Asia 30 years earlier, and providing immediate unconditional refuge to anyone threatened by a fascist government, rather than hot-housing them in fascist states until they either fled to the Middle East, Latin America, or Soviet Russia or got shoved into the ovens and gas chambers.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Circumcision is multilation
I mean, it definitionally is. Even if you use a less charged synonym like "body modification of a major part".
The normative/moral take would be that all genital mutilation is bad.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›