I note that the things which you’re resonating with, which Connor proposes and which you expect would have helped you, or helped protect you...
...protect you from things which were not problems for me.
Which is not to say that those things are bad. Like, saving people from problems they have (that I do not have) sounds good to me.
But it does mean that there is [a good thing] for at least [some people] already, and while it may be right to trade off against that, I would want us to be eyes-open that it might be a tradeoff, rather than assuming that sliding in the Connor-Unreal direction is strictly and costlessly good.
Hmm, I want to point out I did not say anything about what I expected would have helped me or helped ‘protect’ me. I don’t see anything on that in my comment…
I also don’t think it’d be good for me to be saved from my problems...? but maybe I’m misunderstanding what you meant.
I definitely like Connor’s post. My “hear hear” was a kind of friendly encouragement for him speaking to something that felt real. I like the totalization concept. Was a good comment imo.
I do not particularly endorse his proposal… It seems like a non-starter. A better proposal might be to run some workshops or something that try to investigate this ‘totalization’ phenomenon in the community and what’s going on with it. That sounds fun! I’d totally be into doing this. Prob can’t though.
I agree with most of this point. I’ve added an ETA to the original to reflect this. My quibble (that I think is actually important) is that I think it should be less of a tradeoff and more of an {each person does the thing that is right for them}.
Endorsed, but that means when we’re talking about setting group norms and community standards, what we’re really shooting for is stuff that makes all the options available to everyone, and which helps people figure out what would be good for them as individuals.
Where one attractor near what you were proposing (i.e. not what you were proposing but what people might hear in your proposal, or what your proposal might amount to in practice) is “new way good, old way bad.”
Instead of “old way insufficient, new way more all-encompassing and cosmopolitan.”
Yeah, ideally would have lampshaded this more. My bad.
The part that gets extra complex is that I personally think ~2/3+ of people who say totalization is fine for them are in fact wrong and are missing out on tons of subtle things that you don’t notice until longer-term. But obviously the mostly likely thing is that I’m wrong about this. Hard to tell either way. I’d like to point this out more somehow so I can find out, but I’d sort of hoped my original comment would make things click for people without further time. I suppose I’ll have to think about how to broach this further.
I note that the things which you’re resonating with, which Connor proposes and which you expect would have helped you, or helped protect you...
...protect you from things which were not problems for me.
Which is not to say that those things are bad. Like, saving people from problems they have (that I do not have) sounds good to me.
But it does mean that there is [a good thing] for at least [some people] already, and while it may be right to trade off against that, I would want us to be eyes-open that it might be a tradeoff, rather than assuming that sliding in the Connor-Unreal direction is strictly and costlessly good.
Hmm, I want to point out I did not say anything about what I expected would have helped me or helped ‘protect’ me. I don’t see anything on that in my comment…
I also don’t think it’d be good for me to be saved from my problems...? but maybe I’m misunderstanding what you meant.
I definitely like Connor’s post. My “hear hear” was a kind of friendly encouragement for him speaking to something that felt real. I like the totalization concept. Was a good comment imo.
I do not particularly endorse his proposal… It seems like a non-starter. A better proposal might be to run some workshops or something that try to investigate this ‘totalization’ phenomenon in the community and what’s going on with it. That sounds fun! I’d totally be into doing this. Prob can’t though.
I agree with most of this point. I’ve added an ETA to the original to reflect this. My quibble (that I think is actually important) is that I think it should be less of a tradeoff and more of an {each person does the thing that is right for them}.
Endorsed, but that means when we’re talking about setting group norms and community standards, what we’re really shooting for is stuff that makes all the options available to everyone, and which helps people figure out what would be good for them as individuals.
Where one attractor near what you were proposing (i.e. not what you were proposing but what people might hear in your proposal, or what your proposal might amount to in practice) is “new way good, old way bad.”
Instead of “old way insufficient, new way more all-encompassing and cosmopolitan.”
Yeah, ideally would have lampshaded this more. My bad.
The part that gets extra complex is that I personally think ~2/3+ of people who say totalization is fine for them are in fact wrong and are missing out on tons of subtle things that you don’t notice until longer-term. But obviously the mostly likely thing is that I’m wrong about this. Hard to tell either way. I’d like to point this out more somehow so I can find out, but I’d sort of hoped my original comment would make things click for people without further time. I suppose I’ll have to think about how to broach this further.