Posts by William Palmer7

Question
Is it possible to cancel my PBS subscription now if I don't own an ATSC receiver?

Suppose your IP address is 37.187.238.236, and the blocked range is
37.187.238.0/24 (which covers 37.187.238.0 through 37.187.238.255)
In that case, your IP is blocked too.

None of those points actually serve as an indicator.

1. IP location data isn't reliable anyway; at most, you might see if the ISP matches your

2. An IP ending in /xx means the entire subnet is blocked on Wikipedia.

Jose Scott3 said:We just found out our boss can peek into everyone's email inbox (which isn't even legal without prior consent and notice). Is there an app or some workaround to block his access? Or should we just head down to the office IT-experts and try to bribe them with a bottle of bourbon? 😬

p.s. please skip the lectures and moralizing; I just want to know if this is technically possible and how to do it.

Sure. Just smash his computer with a crowbar.

It works, but you really need some kind of whitelist solution.

The logic is basically "the entire internet is toxic except for..."

Then you just add things like Wikipedia or a few hand-picked sites to the list.

Using the hosts file is a decent way to stop someone from accidentally typing in Meta.com by mistake.

Of course, if someone actually intends to bypass it, they'll find a way.

It’s true, but think about it—mainstream Western medicine doesn't even attempt, let alone succeed, at synthesizing a compound that could actually cure addiction. It’s practically unheard of in our medical establishment.

Meanwhile, Ibogaine actually has the potential to resolve addiction. I’m not sure what the exact success rate is, but that isn't really the point.

And yet, Ibogaine was "discovered" by tribal shamans in Africa.

It really makes you wonder if they aren't quite as primitive as we tend to assume.

ironmarlin1 said:How on earth did this thread morph into its own version of The Joe Rogan Experience?

Is this the same guy who took DMT and decided we’re all just bacteria?

As you probably know, hallucinogens have actually been used to treat schizophrenia and various other mental health conditions.
The West just hasn't quite reached that stage of acceptance yet.

Instead, people are expected to rely on antidepressants, antipsychotics, Xanax, and that whole crew.

Then there’s the Ibogaine protocol, which helps treat heroin addiction. Here in the States, we still mostly deal with methadone, which is honestly a terrible medication—arguably worse than the heroin itself.

It’s certainly not useless,

LSD actually traces its roots back to Bolivia, with traditions stretching back over a millennium.
A thousand years ago, Westerners probably would have just dismissed it as something straight out of a horror movie.

LSD holds quite a bit of prestige.
Sure, pure DMT might be technically superior, but good luck manufacturing pure LSD or DMT while you're wandering through the woods.

The chemistry aspect here is actually pretty fascinating,

Even the most primitive tribes typically knew how to isolate various toxins, hallucinogens for rituals, or prepare medicinal herbs.

We honestly have no clue how they mastered that. It’s not just some cliché scene from a Western where someone wraps a wound in a leaf; it was much more sophisticated than that.

And they pulled all of that off without any modern labs or formal science,

bluemason3 said:What exactly don't we know?

Budweiser, everything surrounding us is made of chemical compounds. There’s no such thing as "non-chemical" food or medicine.

And obviously, we eat much better now. We have way more control over food production and storage compared to people who rely solely on whatever they can scavenge in the wild.

Non-standardized medicines where active ingredients haven't been extracted and purified are just worse. You can't dose them precisely, and you end up swallowing a bunch of useless plant matter along with the good stuff.

We actually know quite a bit. I wrote this a few posts ago—people are being silly.
Violent death rates among Stone Age tribal remains sit around 20-50%, while violent death rates in the modern US are about 0.046%.

Granted, not everyone died from violence; many succumbed to disease and malnutrition. But hey, at least they lived their three years to the fullest, dealing with parasites (pretty much everyone in the modern era gets tested for them), rotten teeth, and the constant dread of being speared by a neighboring tribe. Maybe women had it easier and were just picked up for labor, who knows.

Anyway, it's a utopia. 😍

We can't know how they lived without contact if we haven't reached out yet.
Bringing up the Stone Age doesn't really help our case here.

When I mentioned chemistry, I was referring to man-made, patented compounds.

Though, I suppose even some primitive tribes knew how to isolate and extract certain chemical elements.

Sam Martinez9 said:In the past, people succumbed to famine. Today, they succumb to obesity. What's the fundamental difference? It comes down to agency. Your choice is to eat nothing but trash.

Historically, if a couple had twelve children, nine might die, leaving only three survivors.

The notion that parents watching their children perish were somehow more fulfilled than someone living today seems fundamentally flawed, doesn't it?

Furthermore, people weren't on antidepressants back then simply because they didn't exist.

That isn't accurate. It merely appears that way because warfare technology has advanced; however, I suspect our ancestors would have been just as bloodthirsty if they possessed tanks instead of spears.

We don't really know for sure. All we know is that we eat chemicals, drink chemicals, and take chemicals to fix ourselves, while isolated tribes don't. Personally, I'd say the natural way is better.

And we can't even be certain if isolated tribes fight amongst themselves.

bluemason3 said:There isn't some singular, absolute abstract goal, obviously. However, it's relatively in the interest of any social, biological, or organized group to be as successful as possible (whether that's survival, resource management, military strength, economic power, security levels, healthcare quality, and so on). That's why it makes sense for a developing nation to try and catch up to—or even surpass—the success of a superpower like the US.

Generally speaking, things like a higher standard of living, better health, improved nutrition, and less violence represent progress for most individuals within a community, which in turn drives progress for the whole society.

There are plenty of arguments:
1. We aren't living healthier lives.
- We eat more junk food, drink garbage, and move around much less.
2. We aren't happier.
- More and more people are relying on antidepressants.
3. Our diet isn't improving.
- See point number one.
4. Violence is increasing.
- Think wars, homicides, and so on.

Compared to, say, isolated tribal communities.

Sam Martinez9 said:Only God knows that for sure.

In that case, bluemason3 is just guessing, since there's really no way to tell if we're getting closer to the goal or drifting further away.

bluemason3 said:The term "Middle Way" in Buddhism carries very different meanings depending on whether you're looking at it from a practical or a philosophical standpoint.

For instance, philosophically, it represents a path between "extremes"—from their perspective, things like nihilism and essentialism. The whole Madhyamaka school (one of the major Mahayana branches, most famously represented by Nagarjun) actually got its name from this concept (madhya-middle).

That’s actually a much more frequent and central meaning of the phrase in Buddhist thought.

When it comes to discipline, if we look at formal Buddhist hagiographies, the Middle Way refers to the space between extreme asceticism and a "normal" life, rather than a balance between asceticism and hedonism.

The Buddhist monastic lifestyle implies poverty (your only possessions might be an alms bowl and a few basic items, mostly because the early monastic tradition was itinerant and they didn't have permanent monasteries to store things in), celibacy, wearing a few scraps of discarded cloth (which were later replaced by more formal, donated robes), living on alms, and eating just one meal a day... it’s still pretty ascetic, but it’s considered the "middle way" when compared to the previous extremes of starving oneself to the brink of death.

----
But honestly, kill me now, I have no idea how any of this relates to what we're actually talking about here. 😵

There isn't enough substance in any of this to even bother commenting on a mention of Buddhism. Most of these posts seem to just tack on labels without any real reason, maybe because someone thinks it sounds cool or they have some random personal association. Who knows?

And that guy trying to push those micro-farming methods in the developing world basically wasted his life. Fine, if he managed to sell it to someone and make a buck, or if some misguided fan gave him free praise, then whatever. Trying to force ideological backdrops onto everything or hunting for connections in things like Buddhism or papal encyclicals is... well, I’d better just stay quiet.😁

Generally speaking, it's all nonsense. A society can't progress without freeing up resources to shift "energy" into activities beyond mere survival. That requires high-efficiency modern agriculture with minimal human input (you could achieve this through slavery or serfdom, but that only frees up a tiny fraction of society and is ethically questionable) and universal education to retrain the workforce for other sectors.
So, it is absolutely necessary for developing nations to move in that direction if they don't want to stay stuck in the Middle Ages forever, and any sensible government will try to make that happen.
Unless, of course, we're calling for a return to the crven kmer or some other idiotic neo-primitivist garbage that usually just succeeds in pushing society another century backward.
At least the old-school communists had some semblance of an economic logic—even if it was flawed or nonsensical at first glance—and occasionally they actually managed to spark a short-term positive shift. These modern primitives, though? They’re just irrational, pseudo-religious zealots. They cling to this fabricated "golden age" that doesn't exist, fueled by ideological fantasies about returning to a past that never was. I suppose there might be some logic in how they seek out religious backings; their entire approach is such a mess of irrational cognitive loops and transparent rationalizations. It's clearly just a way to project their own fantasies because they can't handle reality, so they go looking for a kindred spirit.

Progress means moving toward a destination.

But what is the ultimate goal of a society?

Melissa Stewart6 said:Primitivism is what exists before slavery, and honestly, even before any kind of symbolic thought. Zerzan leans into that idea of "original purity," essentially calling for a massive step backward.

There are actually people living completely outside of civilization even today.

It’s just a certain type of person who never fell into the trap of modern society.

Honestly, we aren't any better off than they are.

Those folks wouldn't survive in our world, and frankly, we wouldn't last a day out there either.

.

Sam Martinez9 said:I find myself agreeing on one point—technology certainly facilitated the rise of slavery, yet it was also the very tool that ultimately helped abolish it.

While it’s indisputable that a technological civilization might face a total collapse, the severity of that fallout depends entirely on how much of "humanity" goes down with it.

If technology regresses to a level comparable to the era of ancient slave societies, we risk resurrecting a world defined by masters and servants. If the collapse is absolute, then humanity itself may simply cease to exist as we know it.

As we have already established: there is no such thing as a human being outside the framework of civilization.

Actually, we haven't established that. Humans existed before civilization, and they'll exist after it.

Power tends toward more control, not less.
And technological progress gives those in power the exact tools they need to tighten that grip.

Maybe you've been sleeping through the last decade? Cameras are being installed everywhere.
Smartphones basically log every single little thing we do into a permanent database.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Zerzan doesn't. There are other radicals out there who push for direct action and a frontal assault on both the state and civilization itself.

Does it always have to involve violence, or can we just peacefully opt out?

Melissa Stewart6 said:Eco-primitivism isn't just about Zerzan, even if he is the most famous figurehead. Some thinkers within the movement wouldn't advocate for such a massive regression.

Does Zerzan, or anyone else, actually offer an answer to the "how"?

How do we dismantle civilization—basically, how do we undo it?
How do we stop trying to fix problems and instead start unsolving them?