Parent-based rights arguments are perfectly adequate for the 80%, but degenerate in some horrific ways for the rest of the population. We need community-level input on how to raise kids so that the leftover 20% don’t just get fucked up by parents that “know best for their kid”.

Anecdotally know of a few times where kids were taught that their molestation was their own fault (both sub-10yo), and had friends whose parents actively pushed them to kill themselves

Posts like this break the social contract, and honestly show a lack of both care and consideration for communicating the subject matter AND a flagrant disrespect for anyone who would consume this.

I’m sure there are some good ideas here, but it’s hard to sift through the lack of applied ai and lack of communication skills to get to them

I get it, I got friends and family that have completed suicide and it’s hard to not think about what I could have done differently.

And it's 20 minutes from the CBD!

The literal idea that people can change is one you have to learn on either reflection or outside influence. You do realise that, right? If that idea isn't in your vocabulary, it just isn't an option.

>> hormones are a bitch and genetics predisposing people to addiction and suicide say otherwise

> I never said making choices was easy.

When in that position, the most "logical" choice is usually a hit or a noose. It feels like you ignored the point about reasoning capacity being compromised in the first place due to whatever reason. Alternatively - I met a street preacher who was convinced god wanted him to do things he didn't want to (homelessness, etc..). Did he meaningfully have a choice, or does this fall under the "no excuses" doctrine too?

>> I made the bad choices based on the available information and influences in the first place

> It's always someone else's fault?

I'm not asserting fault here. I'm just talking about state diagrams.

Are you implying that people can make choices without knowing they exist? You only learn about possibilities and consequences from either external influence or experience. The mere idea of "no excuses" expects people to grow from their _previous experience_. You know, taking feedback from previous experience and having it inform future ones. Coming to reasonable conclusions based on that experience. It's a feedback loop.

> You also get to choose what success means for you.

I mean, besides my issue with the whole choose thing yeah, expectations for success moderate what you consider successful.

Yes, however those attitudes aren't derived from the ether are they? They'd be informed by circumstance and background. You can "choose" to take an attitude towards something much like a rock "chooses" to fall when dropped. If your prior beliefs and experiences would have led you down the same rationalisation for that choice every time, is it actually a choice?

> re: defensive driving Defensive driving covers both how to avoid bad situations and how to recover from them IIRC. The implication there being that defensive driving is risk mitigation, not elimination. You're still relying on factors outside of your control to keep yourself safe.

> You can change your thoughts and attitudes. They are under your control.

idk man, hormones are a bitch and genetics predisposing people to addiction and suicide say otherwise. You do the best you can, but looking at every situation and stating that everything is a consequence of choice is assuming that some people's faculties aren't compromised from the start. Things like CBT can help, but not everyone is self aware enough to understand that cognitive distortions exist let alone treat them.

> People aren't doing the best they can if they believe their lives are victims of chance rather than consequences of their choices.

I'm sure you would find dozens of people per successful person with the same mindset as you described, purely due to a knowledge or talent gap. They'd see the same choice, make the wrong one where we'd make the right one and then suffer for it. Feedback loop, little control.

> I bet if I knew the details of your life, I could point out the choices you made that decided things for you.

So could I, but only because I made the bad choices based on the available information and influences in the first place. It's a feedback loop.

I mean, I eat dinner every night now so it's not like I'm not successful.

No, they came across it by being in the right place at the right time, supported by habits and behaviours that were mostly determined by their environment.

> You don't need to be a genius to be successful. Doing drugs and alcohol is also sure to reduce your smarts.

Some people are just not born with the brains to "make it". I know people who will never be able to contribute to a high growth field like ours who are excellent nurses, childcare workers and teachers. This, yet again, isn't decided by agency but by circumstance.

> You can blame your parents for your life up until 18. After that, it's up to you.

I'll remember that the next time a drunk driver tbones me.

> Baloney. Successful people 1) make their own luck 2) make it easy for luck to find them.

Our attitudes, talents and disposition are a sum of the actions we have taken, and experiences that have influenced us. Those actions are informed by our previous attitudes, talents and disposition. The experiences aren't in our control completely either. It's a feedback loop that we have minimal control over.

You can't honestly tell me that you'd come to the exact same conclusion that you are now if you hadn't had gone through what made you you. Just as I couldn't claim to come to my conclusion if I didn't have my experiences.

You're obviously successful mate. Just remember that even if some people can make it to your position, that doesn't mean everyone will. Most people do the best they can given the hand they're dealt, and that's okay. Enjoy your full house.

Success is mostly attributable to luck, and ignoring that is just an exercise in outsized ego & shows a sense of agency that borders on the absurd.

I like Outer Wilds! It's fun, I'm currently playing through it. However, Celeste is the more mechanically interesting game when you combine the intentionally limited movement and the forgiving nature of its levels. My 9yo is currently trying to work her way through it, yet gives up on harder Mario levels. Celeste made hard, 2D platforming accessible.

Anecdotally, a lot of digital addictions come down to ease of access vs dopamine hit. As soon as your access method is "futz with a hosts file" or "ask your wife to unlock the blocker" (I was pretty bad), it becomes easier to break the cycle.

More people need to utilise their tendency toward lazyness, I swear

The usual cycle goes like this:

- "We need to decrease costs in public organisation A because $reason"

- "Hey look, public org has growing wait times and growing infrastructure issues. We should reduce their budget because they're not doing their job!"

Rinse & repeat until you're left with Centrelink's current state. They don't have enough money to make the changes needed to clean up legacy systems AND process the work loads they have now AND maintain the current systems, so a choice is made by people in a sinking ship. Around 2014 the amount spent on "admin" was gutted by half with the election of the Liberal party (small govt party in AU), with funding only recovering to the previous levels during 2017.

edit: formatting (bullet point lists and newlines are hard)

Hell, there are games like Microscope that would be incredibly fun playing solo.

Words are a tool used to convey meaning mate. Cracking the shits because you've gotta make concessions means you're not seeing a hammer as a hammer