We need something that isn’t THE internet, and is only accessible if you have the patience and knowledge to connect to it.

That kinda does exist it’s just that you and I lack either the knowledge or patience to connect to it.

I expect you need to look in the Lemmy.World moderation log to see to what degree lemmy.ml users were or were not problematic (I’ve no idea either way.)

deleted by creator

You could try Brandon Sanderson’s free YouTube videos of the long running university course he teaches on writing: https://youtu.be/-6HOdHEeosc

Firefox has settings to automatically hit accept or to automatically hit deny or to first try to hit deny then hit accept if it didn’t work. You could end up agreeing to things you might not want to either way though (as sometimes opt out and deny are seperate things you need to do both for.)

Honestly.

You’re making the mistake of thinking the human brain has an infinite capacity to expand its intuitive empathy. It just doesn’t. No more than your bixepf has an infinite capacity to increase it’s strength. You can fulfil that potential more or less but you’ll still never win an arm wrestling match with a gorilla or a robot. Humans have finite limits to their potential. Our current society and most of the proposed alternatives is structured in such a way as to only really work if humans generally have a far higher capacity for intuitive empathy than humans have.

That is fundamentally a flaw that must be overcome by a more thoughtful and purposeful design process than either “well this is just kinda how things ended up really” or “let’s imagine if things were different, but not too different because that’s hard!” (because our brains are also kinda bad at imagining things being seriously different to how they are.) Or if we decide for actual specific reasons that it isn’t viable to even attempt to approach a human society that is shaped to humans rather than one which humans have to clumsily try to shape themselves to, we have to find ways to overcome the limitations of our biology. Often we do a good job of that externally, but for this it might only be possible through trans-humanist approaches. Which to be seems like it should be something we consider because we must, not because we think it is somehow more convenient than thinking purposefully about how we should share our lives together (though for the purposes of that, we may also be currently limited by how well our languages allow for those discussions to meaningfully occur. That’s a fairly solvable issue as we are constantly evolving new ways for our languages to help us express ideas they previously didn’t easily cover.)

As for the difference between the mind and the brain I’m not convinced by your argument at all. The mind is an emergent property of the brain but that does not make them one and the same any more than it makes Windows 98 an x86 PC.

What can help is the knowledge that by doing so it is impossible not to on some level inspire others to do the same to some degree by example.

If you’re a selfish jerk that will cause people around you to be .001% (or something) more selfish and jerky. If you are kind and good that will push the needle the other way similarly.

Except the amount more those people are better or worse for knowing you then also influences how much better or worse the people they know are etc and so while it is a small effect per person, the diffused effect is meaningful, cumulative and self-reinforcing. It doesn’t take a lot of people within a community either giving up and being the worst or finding enough of a spine to try to be good to start to tip the balance of the whole community in either direction. It also means that as you are better and kinder, your immediate external world gradually becomes a little better and kinder which makes it easier and more rewarding to be that way in an endless virtuous cycle.

Nah. Some people have the capacity to have a wider net than others. Some people have the capacity to intellectually overcome the limitations of how we naturally are. Some people put sufficient effort into fulfilling that potential. We all should each do our best to do so.

Doesn’t change that even those of us who are especially good at it are still only good at it for a human. We are all terrible at it and it is fundamentally cruel to try to force everyone to live in a society that requires a level of empathic ability that is profoundly beyond what humans are evolved to be able to handle. It’s like expecting everyone on Earth to be able to lift 5 tonnes or outcalculate a supercomputer in their head. It’s a foolish and unreasonable thing to hang the success of society off people’s ability to do.

"Bettet to kill the girl than rape her?’

Talk me through exactly how you got that message from this billboard?

The biggest issue with our environment that drives these problems is that human brains can only reliably grok a few hundred other humans as being people. Beyond that, to a greater or lesser degree, anyone else just feels like an object (which is why we feel upset when people we know die but the statistics of how many people die each day globally don’t have a similar effect.)

Some of us cope better than others but fundamentally any environment that requires humans to be reliant on interacting with over a few hundred other people will lead to people treating each other as objects.

It’s why conservative people often feel it would be inconceivable to mistreat someone they personally know but will casually do profoundly cruel things to people they don’t. If you view their actions towards people outside of their sphere of personhood through the lense of what is and isn’t an appropriate way to treat an object rather than a person they often seem perfectly naturally.

I’m so tired of people turning everything into an awful prisoner’s dilemma. Everyone should just aim to be the best person you can be and stop fretting about whether everyone else is trying quite as hard as you. It doesn’t need to be complicated.

Ergonomics matter too. At this point going thinner is purely a marketing exercise rather than a practical improvement of any kind. If they were able to businesses would be making them so thin you can’t hold them without risking a paper-cut so long as that allowed them to convince people that meant it was better than their current, designed for human hands, smartphone. Same thing with size. Personally I prefer a larger display and am willing to accept slightly worse ergonomics for it but even with more or less average sized hands I definitely find phones with 6 inch or under screens much more comfortable in the hand than the more typical sizes today and I know plenty of people with smaller than average hands (ie, half of the population) who really hate holding modern gigantic phones (and so often have held off on upgrading to a new model until I’ve steered them to something the same size as their old one.)