As a matter of strategy, I do not care about edge cases. Irrelevant.
Secondly, phones differ from glasses because they’re often kept in one’s pockets. Allegedly, they can’t see through clothes. And while you can pull one out any time, it can be socially impolite to.
Thirdly, the presence of phone cameras (and microphones) everywhere is not something I’m taking for granted anyway. Is it really a good thing that we have that?
Fourthly, we already have rules about public conduct. You can’t just brandish a gun at people, for instance, no matter how ‘harmless’ this act might be.
Fifthly, if ruthlessly banning all cameras period was the only way forward, and it was better than the alternative, then I would accept that. You wouldn’t (I imagine) because you’re thinking about personal freedom over community health.
Sixthly, if we’re talking not about you and me, but me and Amazon, then my country is my home, and Amazon needs to get the fuck out of it. Surveillance by authorities is obviously what I care about the most.
Anyway, I tend to speak pretty tersely when I’m soapboxing, so don’t take it personally. I hope you have a good day, mate.
Anyway, I tend to speak pretty tersely when I’m soapboxing, so don’t take it personally.
I try not to ever take it personally. I only get annoyed if insults or character attacks are the only thing a person has to post as its intellectually boring. I don’t find discussing my flawed character interesting other than maybe for context for further good faith discussion. You can be as mean to me as much as you want as long as your responses have substance otherwise, and I appreciate the substance of yours. Its rare.
You wouldn’t (I imagine) because you’re thinking about personal freedom over community health.
This gets at the core of the issue yes. That would be correct. No one chooses to be here and we are all individually expected to serve the whole or suffer. I feel a deep chasm between me and people who think that’s perfectly fine or good, which is most people.
I don’t think individuals owe the collective anything. I in fact think the collective owes the individuals.
I know there are people like myself as well and I similarly sympathize with them. So this isn’t a selfish “woe is me”. Its a sense of injustice that anyone must bow to social sources of power of any kind on any “moral” ground. Individuals don’t owe the world anything, the world has more responsibility for the individual’s existence than vice versa, the world should take responsibility for the individuals it fosters the birth of.
I’m probably not be misanthrope, but I might be a “misallist”.
How does the world take responsibility for its individuals if its individuals refuse to take part in anything?
That isn’t what I said, in fact that seems like a pretty bad faith interpretation, though I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s some kind of psychological defense mechanism or really poor reading comprehension, rather than deliberate manipulation of the conversation.
What I was getting at is more of a guiding principle for how society ought to operate, rather than a strict mandate of how things must be. And in reality, if we did operate in this way things would likely function better than they do now, where the individual is expected to sacrifice to the collective. Having to kowtow to the cultural, social, & moral norm demands of the mob for your survival or comfort is a curse born of collective conservative thinking.
A sufficient portion of people naturally want to contribute. I would even count myself largely among them. Helping people feels good, solving problems feels good. However, I deeply resent that it is expected of me. That I owe anyone anything. Further, if you have a lazy slob that wants to stay home and get drunk/high all day and not work: society should let them, and support them. Forcing that sort of person to work for a living does nothing actually beneficial for society anyway and they never choose to exist. We collectively don’t have the right to demand anything from them.
if you have a lazy slob that wants to stay home and get drunk/high all day and not work: society should let them, and support them.
I feel like you don’t understand what I’m asking.
Imagine that everyone was doing that. Everyone wants to get drunk and high. Who is supporting them, then?
I imagine you think I’m doing some reductio ad absurdum thing, but I just don’t understand how this is tenable.
Like, you’re suggesting that society shouldn’t expect anything of anyone, but it must, otherwise there is no one to support the drunk guy.
How can the collective support anyone if the collective is not expected to exist?
I’ll raise the stakes on this: what you’re describing is fundamentally anti-taxes. I don’t care if you pay your taxes or not, this world view of yours is not accomodating of compelled financial contributions. Billionaires who have stolen our money and are hiding it in little safety deposit boxes would be unobligated to return it to us. This is, obviously, a profoundly conservative stance to maintain.
Imagine that everyone was doing that. Everyone wants to get drunk and high. Who is supporting them, then?
Its an irrelevant question because this isn’t what would happen. I would go so far to say that we’d even still have centralized services, its human nature and its efficient. And if it did somehow happen it still wouldn’t matter: a system of enforcement would barely hold things together anyway in a society of people who insist on being lazily drunk/high all day. People who authentically want to be that way are rare.
That said, if it really magically came to be: So be it. It’d functionally be the end of humanity and I’m more or less ok with that. I’m a soft anti-natalist. I wouldn’t be happy, but I wouldn’t be that sad if the alternative is a continuation of what currently is (capitalism) or some kind of collectivist authoritarianism.
I’ll raise the stakes on this: what you’re describing is fundamentally anti-taxes. I don’t care if you pay your taxes or not, this world view of yours is not accomodating of compelled financial contributions. Billionaires who have stolen our money and are hiding it in little safety deposit boxes would be unobligated to return it to us. This is, obviously, a profoundly conservative stance to maintain.
Taxes are largely meaningless to an individual without an earned income or land. Taxes can still be a function of a society that operate with the ethical north star I’ve described. Accepting taxes would just be the contract one signs when they decide they want to work for additional money on top of a UBI/welfare/whatever. At least ideally.
As for billionaires, they’ve effectively stolen the power and responsibility from the collective in the current system. I was describing of the collective with their leveraged wealth, exploitation, negative extenalities of their business, excessive political manipulation power, etc. While they are themselves individuals, the collective owes them only the lack of an expectation to work while staying comfortable, not their outsized wealth based influence over the collective. And since they now wield the actual power they are morally culpable for the state of mass individual suffering. In fact, they’re essentially often responsible for depriving other individuals through their political activism of “economic bootstraps” and the like. They’re almost always literally ideological enemies to my perspective, with perhaps only a handful of exceptions.
Okay, real question, think about this from my perspective for a second:
Why would I give a shit about anything you have to say after hearing something like this?
As a matter of strategy, a very good phrase, I don’t take opinions from people who are societally suicidal.
When I talk about bolstering and reinforcing a strong community, perspectives like yours are exactly the kind I’m talking about pruning. Society cannot suffer your intellectual poison. If you want to die, do it on your own terms.
My only expectation of you is that you will live, and that living means something to you. The only thing you can do is disappoint me.
And also, don’t film people who don’t want to be filmed unless they’re cops.
I’m about to clock out from work and I wont have access to this account until Monday morning. I may or may not respond to you after this, but I am curious enough that if you have something notable to say I probably will.
Why would I give a shit about anything you have to say after hearing something like this?
I don’t know you so I couldn’t say. It sounds like you shouldn’t if you are an incurious person or intellectually fearful person.
I don’t care about your virtue though. Why should I? We will never meet in person. We don’t need to respect each other here, that isn’t why we’re talking still. We’re here for the discourse, no?
As a matter of strategy, a very good phrase, I don’t take opinions from people who are societally suicidal.
Strategy to achieve what? I’m advocating to make things better for individuals. Conscious beings. However, the collective, society, human civilization, none of these things are themselves conscious. Why do you care about these concepts over the conscious individuals materially contained within them?
When I talk about bolstering and reinforcing a strong community, perspectives like yours are exactly the kind I’m talking about pruning. Society cannot suffer your intellectual poison. If you want to die, do it on your own terms.
I never said I wished to die. At least not in the sense that you probably think. I already exist, me dying does not close Pandora’s Box, it cements the the fact that to live at all is a horror and a tragedy. Conscious mortality is fundamentally disturbing.
I’m sad that I have ever existed because I’m doomed to face death and suffering, but mostly the former haunts me. It haunts me that my loved ones will one day die, some already have a long time ago and it still disturbs me on a fundamental level. I’m also horrified at the prospect of bringing more conscious beings to suffer the same nightmarish fate of being brought into existence strapped to a metaphorical conveyor belt ending in death and oblivion.
My only expectation of you is that you will live, and that living means something to you. The only thing you can do is disappoint me.
Because I will continue to live or commit suicide? Or are you saying either or? I’m not entirely clear one what this means. As paradoxical as it sounds I don’t legitimately know if I’m capable of suicide. Its strange to even think about given my sheer terror of death itself, but also yeah… death will happen eventually, why not rip off the bandaid? I really don’t know what is the rational choice. Perhaps I am a hypocrite in this way.
If our axioms are really fundamentally different from mine, then perhaps there is no reason for us to continue. But if any of the questions in this response to you has you reconsider anything there might be something interesting here to talk about.
As a matter of strategy, I do not care about edge cases. Irrelevant.
Secondly, phones differ from glasses because they’re often kept in one’s pockets. Allegedly, they can’t see through clothes. And while you can pull one out any time, it can be socially impolite to.
Thirdly, the presence of phone cameras (and microphones) everywhere is not something I’m taking for granted anyway. Is it really a good thing that we have that?
Fourthly, we already have rules about public conduct. You can’t just brandish a gun at people, for instance, no matter how ‘harmless’ this act might be.
Fifthly, if ruthlessly banning all cameras period was the only way forward, and it was better than the alternative, then I would accept that. You wouldn’t (I imagine) because you’re thinking about personal freedom over community health.
Sixthly, if we’re talking not about you and me, but me and Amazon, then my country is my home, and Amazon needs to get the fuck out of it. Surveillance by authorities is obviously what I care about the most.
Anyway, I tend to speak pretty tersely when I’m soapboxing, so don’t take it personally. I hope you have a good day, mate.
I try not to ever take it personally. I only get annoyed if insults or character attacks are the only thing a person has to post as its intellectually boring. I don’t find discussing my flawed character interesting other than maybe for context for further good faith discussion. You can be as mean to me as much as you want as long as your responses have substance otherwise, and I appreciate the substance of yours. Its rare.
This gets at the core of the issue yes. That would be correct. No one chooses to be here and we are all individually expected to serve the whole or suffer. I feel a deep chasm between me and people who think that’s perfectly fine or good, which is most people.
I don’t think individuals owe the collective anything. I in fact think the collective owes the individuals.
I know there are people like myself as well and I similarly sympathize with them. So this isn’t a selfish “woe is me”. Its a sense of injustice that anyone must bow to social sources of power of any kind on any “moral” ground. Individuals don’t owe the world anything, the world has more responsibility for the individual’s existence than vice versa, the world should take responsibility for the individuals it fosters the birth of.
I’m probably not be misanthrope, but I might be a “misallist”.
I… cannot parse any meaning from this.
How does the world take responsibility for its individuals if its individuals refuse to take part in anything?
That isn’t what I said, in fact that seems like a pretty bad faith interpretation, though I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s some kind of psychological defense mechanism or really poor reading comprehension, rather than deliberate manipulation of the conversation.
What I was getting at is more of a guiding principle for how society ought to operate, rather than a strict mandate of how things must be. And in reality, if we did operate in this way things would likely function better than they do now, where the individual is expected to sacrifice to the collective. Having to kowtow to the cultural, social, & moral norm demands of the mob for your survival or comfort is a curse born of collective conservative thinking.
A sufficient portion of people naturally want to contribute. I would even count myself largely among them. Helping people feels good, solving problems feels good. However, I deeply resent that it is expected of me. That I owe anyone anything. Further, if you have a lazy slob that wants to stay home and get drunk/high all day and not work: society should let them, and support them. Forcing that sort of person to work for a living does nothing actually beneficial for society anyway and they never choose to exist. We collectively don’t have the right to demand anything from them.
Mate, I was just asking for clarification.
I feel like you don’t understand what I’m asking.
Imagine that everyone was doing that. Everyone wants to get drunk and high. Who is supporting them, then?
I imagine you think I’m doing some reductio ad absurdum thing, but I just don’t understand how this is tenable.
Like, you’re suggesting that society shouldn’t expect anything of anyone, but it must, otherwise there is no one to support the drunk guy.
How can the collective support anyone if the collective is not expected to exist?
I’ll raise the stakes on this: what you’re describing is fundamentally anti-taxes. I don’t care if you pay your taxes or not, this world view of yours is not accomodating of compelled financial contributions. Billionaires who have stolen our money and are hiding it in little safety deposit boxes would be unobligated to return it to us. This is, obviously, a profoundly conservative stance to maintain.
Its an irrelevant question because this isn’t what would happen. I would go so far to say that we’d even still have centralized services, its human nature and its efficient. And if it did somehow happen it still wouldn’t matter: a system of enforcement would barely hold things together anyway in a society of people who insist on being lazily drunk/high all day. People who authentically want to be that way are rare.
That said, if it really magically came to be: So be it. It’d functionally be the end of humanity and I’m more or less ok with that. I’m a soft anti-natalist. I wouldn’t be happy, but I wouldn’t be that sad if the alternative is a continuation of what currently is (capitalism) or some kind of collectivist authoritarianism.
Taxes are largely meaningless to an individual without an earned income or land. Taxes can still be a function of a society that operate with the ethical north star I’ve described. Accepting taxes would just be the contract one signs when they decide they want to work for additional money on top of a UBI/welfare/whatever. At least ideally.
As for billionaires, they’ve effectively stolen the power and responsibility from the collective in the current system. I was describing of the collective with their leveraged wealth, exploitation, negative extenalities of their business, excessive political manipulation power, etc. While they are themselves individuals, the collective owes them only the lack of an expectation to work while staying comfortable, not their outsized wealth based influence over the collective. And since they now wield the actual power they are morally culpable for the state of mass individual suffering. In fact, they’re essentially often responsible for depriving other individuals through their political activism of “economic bootstraps” and the like. They’re almost always literally ideological enemies to my perspective, with perhaps only a handful of exceptions.
Okay, real question, think about this from my perspective for a second:
Why would I give a shit about anything you have to say after hearing something like this?
As a matter of strategy, a very good phrase, I don’t take opinions from people who are societally suicidal.
When I talk about bolstering and reinforcing a strong community, perspectives like yours are exactly the kind I’m talking about pruning. Society cannot suffer your intellectual poison. If you want to die, do it on your own terms.
My only expectation of you is that you will live, and that living means something to you. The only thing you can do is disappoint me.
And also, don’t film people who don’t want to be filmed unless they’re cops.
I’m about to clock out from work and I wont have access to this account until Monday morning. I may or may not respond to you after this, but I am curious enough that if you have something notable to say I probably will.
I don’t know you so I couldn’t say. It sounds like you shouldn’t if you are an incurious person or intellectually fearful person.
I don’t care about your virtue though. Why should I? We will never meet in person. We don’t need to respect each other here, that isn’t why we’re talking still. We’re here for the discourse, no?
Strategy to achieve what? I’m advocating to make things better for individuals. Conscious beings. However, the collective, society, human civilization, none of these things are themselves conscious. Why do you care about these concepts over the conscious individuals materially contained within them?
I never said I wished to die. At least not in the sense that you probably think. I already exist, me dying does not close Pandora’s Box, it cements the the fact that to live at all is a horror and a tragedy. Conscious mortality is fundamentally disturbing.
I’m sad that I have ever existed because I’m doomed to face death and suffering, but mostly the former haunts me. It haunts me that my loved ones will one day die, some already have a long time ago and it still disturbs me on a fundamental level. I’m also horrified at the prospect of bringing more conscious beings to suffer the same nightmarish fate of being brought into existence strapped to a metaphorical conveyor belt ending in death and oblivion.
Because I will continue to live or commit suicide? Or are you saying either or? I’m not entirely clear one what this means. As paradoxical as it sounds I don’t legitimately know if I’m capable of suicide. Its strange to even think about given my sheer terror of death itself, but also yeah… death will happen eventually, why not rip off the bandaid? I really don’t know what is the rational choice. Perhaps I am a hypocrite in this way.
If our axioms are really fundamentally different from mine, then perhaps there is no reason for us to continue. But if any of the questions in this response to you has you reconsider anything there might be something interesting here to talk about.