Look, I get your rage but people do not owe their lives to the cause of good to merely not be seen as a “problem”. They just don’t.

What exactly would they have to do to no longer been seen as your enemy? And why exactly do you think they would decide to change their ways when you decide that is what they are for merely existing and not throwing themselves against the fascists to be gutted? They’re just going to double down and say ‘fuck you’. And they would be right to if I am completely honest.

I wasn’t able to edit my post but I wanted to post an addendum so I deleted it and now I’m reposting it with the addendum and a bunch of more angry ranting:

I promise you that guy probably doesn’t actually care if we’re in fascism as long as he’s safe, well fed, and mildly entertained. He will not put his balls on the table to fight fascism. He might be annoyed that his late night cable slop has been disrupted, but that’s it.

To be clear, he doesn’t owe us anything either. He doesn’t owe us suicidal devotion to a socialist revolution against the fascists. And you would be unhinged and legitimately an immoral sociopath to think otherwise. Liberal normies do not owe us devotion to political awareness. No one chooses to be born. No one owes their lives to a cause. Rage and froth at the mouth about it all you want.

They voted for democrats, and they did not even really owe anyone even that. We could have avoided this. We could have been fighting against a liberal president. We could have built off that. Instead now we’re stuck in defense yet again and we are simply out of time. Congratulations.

And no, I wont get over it, suck the shit out of my asshole. I want good things world make no mistake, and I still feel tinges of hope when I see the Trump presidency stumble and fuck up. With hope that maybe the world can heal eventually to something that’s not intolerable, perhaps merely just mildly bad. But there is this meta-awareness of resentment overlaid on top of even that because we should not be here and we did not need to be here. And even after when the world has healed.

Even if it heal to a miraculous degree. Maybe we live in a fucking utopia at the end of this: still fuck you. I’ll be an elderly man or dead. The prime of my life wasted existing in a toxic miserable slog of a period of time because of a stupid political larpers and weak liberals couldn’t stop fucking bickering with each other and I have to stare into the abyss of people’s suffering and pain caused by this administration. And let be clear: Its not even my own pain or death. I’m living a materially better life than like 90% of you probably, but my sense of pride in my humanity is fucking dead. Everything I indulge in covered in a grey smog of “Hey I bet a bunch of Africans are going to unnecessarily starve to death because we did not like Harris enough to prevent Trump from cutting USAID haha ok enjoy your sci-fi book buddy”

Its fucking inescapable now. AGHAGHGA

They will never stop being this way.

deleted by creator

What exactly are you afraid of them doing?

Nintendo’s been comparatively more evil than most other companies for a long while now.

Most other major game publishing companies are lumbering goliaths that destroy good things because they’re out of touch and apathetic about the customer as long as they get their money. They waste huge swaths of money on live service garbage because they’re like obese stupid short sighted gambling addicts.

Nintendo is like a vindictive sociopathic crime syndicate that punishes its enemies for little actual gain because its already sitting on a throne of money and a steady stream of fanatics that will always buy their shit. Nintendo wants you to understand who is boss and to know your place. Nintendo will cut you.

I don’t mind rambunctious children, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone, doing ear piercing screaming, or doing something that spreads disease. (Like putting their hands directly into ice cream topping trays instead of using the fucking scoop)

Frequently I see parents be way overly harsh with their kids where I’m at like the parent is terrified of being seen as a bad/lazy parent so they take it out on their kid by way over reacting to a kid doing something disruptive but ultimately pretty harmless.

There are occasional situations where the parent just dumbly stands there doing nothing to stop their kid doing something they really shouldn’t (like that Ice Cream Topping example… which is a thing I recently witnessed). But that’s less common than the former. Might be because I live in a rural conservative hellhole where kids are seen as their parent’s property.

Could be something negotiated between servers to continue being federated with them. I don’t think it’d be a huge ask.

Worst case though, only people within the replier’s server would see their replies. That’s better than nothing.

That should be a separate function: Muting, Ignoring, or maybe “Shadow Blocking”.

Regular Blocking should prevent direct replies completely.

EDIT: There also should be an option to make all or specific comments “Viewable by logged in & unblocked users only”. For maximum separation.

I arguably hate Maoism the most of all popular authoritarian left ideologies. So it makes sense to me that irredeemably evil and stupid conservatives and fascists would unconsciously like it’s policies.

I would need more specifics. Being excited about some things that are legitimately morally or ethically condemnable and in that case I wont pull punches in calling them stupid for their excitement.

If its just something I am cynical about, I earnestly think is stupid, or something I just don’t care about. I’ll usually not comment unless prodded or asked. In which case hey you asked for my opinion I’m not going to lie to you.

This… is an actual good idea from Youtube?

I’m honestly extremely shocked. This might legitimately help in finding interesting content on Youtube. Shit’s been so plain and dull because everyone is chasing broad appeal and the lowest common denominator. This would reward niche content more, which Youtube badly needs. Shits gotten boring.

I used to think I was an idiot, that everyone around me knew what they were doing and I didn’t.

Later I joined the work force and I now I kind of wish I was an idiot because no one seems to know what they’re doing and that is existentially dreadful.

No one is making an art piece every meal.

Lol, I think you are massively conflating influence with literal programming. I don’t think you would find anyone credible to agree that robots have “will”

Also, “theoretical conscious” is doing a lot of lifting in this argument.

You mean a “theoretically conscious” robot would theoretically have free will, since this has not happened, and some would argue it cannot happen, we have no idea how we would treat them.

That’s just it though, there is no reason to assume that there is something intrinsically special about the human brain that allows it to exclusively be conscious. The brain is just a computer made of flesh, one that merely at the moment can’t be programmed directly. If we replicated it artificially and it was able to be fully programmed the obvious implications is that there also is nothing special about our own brains in terms of “will” because we’d have a replica that we’d be able to directly control and program. It’d just mean our programming came about from evolutionary forces.

What? I mean there are theological libertarian takes, but a libertarian take on free will is not innately religious. They just believe that predeterminism is logically incompatible with freewill.

“Predeterminism” is a red herring. I don’t believe in predeterminism either. I don’t think the future is already written.

You can decide you don’t want to engage with the body of work, but you can’t then critique it.

Again… I really don’t know how you are interpreting this [libertarianism]?

“You can decide not to read the bible and hundreds of years of theological theory, but you can’t then critique it.”

If 500 years ago, someone wrote a complicated theory that stated that everything was made of bananas and then over the course of the past 500 years people debated the specifics filling up tomes of books on the nonsense I wouldn’t be required to read it all to not be fully in the right to completely dismiss it as gibberish and to openly insist that others also not waste their mental energy on it.

I find libertarian ideas around free will to be nonsense at a fundamental level. Reading the specifics would go no where. I’d need to be convinced that the core idea had some merit to begin with. As far as I can see, they have zero.

Axioms are self evident, if your beliefs were actual axioms we’d all believe in them… I mean, definitely a step forward…but I’d still challenge you to practice some skepticism about these “axioms” of yours.

There are multiple definitions of axiom. I’m referring to personal ideological axioms. "A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate. "

So what are your core beliefs based on if not empiricism?

Empiricism itself is not a factual statement, its a system of thinking. Empiricism is indeed a core belief of mine.

So how do we handle subjectivity?

You’ll need to be more specific. What do you mean “handle”? Do you mean the issue that you can’t truly “know” anything?

Occam’s razor is only meant to adjudicate between two competing theories that are equally supported by evidence that have already passed theoretically scrutiny.

I guess? I not sure how this contradicts my usage of it? Also why arbitrarily two? If you are discussing something where every theory has zero evidence for it then you’d be able to select the most simple out of a list of theories of any size. They’d all have zero evidence. Its not like you’d be forced to only consider two of them.

I fail to see how you can make a claim against the existence of free will with that thought process. [That I can’t fabricate a fairy tale]

Because free will itself is a fairy tale. But it got stopped one step further. There being free will is more complicated than there simply being no free will.

So your rationality isn’t influenced by observation and your observation never influences your rationality?

The rational abstraction is systematized. Its not so much that it’s not a potential that observation could never influence my rational thinking, but that if an observation does then that has potential impacts on all of my rational thinking systems. This is pretty unlikely, we’re talking a major and profound table flip. It would need to be demonstrated that the very way my rational system of thinking is inferior at obtaining truth compared to another new way.

That said, as they are, the only abstract thinking that would follow is more like a procedural set of steps that I’ve already come to follow to process new evidence.

So rationality “applies” to evidence, but like a pre-written function.

Could that not be influenced by the sexist expectations set upon women by a patriarchal society?

Oh it definitely is. It however isn’t the only influence, patriarchy is only one component of cultural conservativism. There is also religion and capitalism.

Plus, lets be honest here women just are less horny because of the nature of hormones. Just ask someone on any kind of HRT. We probably evolved that way to create a competitive pressure on men. Natural is brutal and amoral, and men are thrown into a metaphorical gladiatorial arena by it. The one that comes out on top gets to have kids (and have a fulfilling sex life), and from my perspective this is pretty awful. I’m not a fan of nature. I want every individual, men and women (and otherwise), to have fulfilling sex lives.

For the compatibilists

The problem is, maybe you are right that Sapolsky hasn’t looked into them but I’ve looked into them and their definition of free will is not meaningfully different from a theoretical conscious yet programmed robot’s “will”.

It also shouldn’t disagree arguably with the more important issues of justice and meritocracy. Its just shifting the definition of ‘free will’ to just be ‘autonomy’.

If those are the same thing, sure whatever that definition of “free will” is true but then robots also have free will, and we treat a programmed autonomous robot very differently compared to a human.

For the libertarians

They’re religious and I don’t engage in religion, spirituality, supernaturalism, or theology. Absolute waste of time.

The problem with Sapolsky is that he doesn’t engage with the mountains of literature that have already been written about this exact subject

Read what some of the most famous minds throughout history have to say about it before enacting upon your theory with practice that may be harmful to yourself or the people around you.

Maybe Sapolsky knew they were wastes of time and skipped them. You don’t have to read the bible to know christianity is a waste of time. I don’t need to read libertarian ideology to know the same about their ideas.

instead supplements his own definition of free will that no one is utilizing, so ultimately he is engaging with a strawman.

Free will hasn’t been meaningfully defined to differentiate itself from “Autonomy” by compatibilists. Their definition as a result is worthless. Libertarians basically believe in magic.

If anything, he’s offering a steelman.

Whatever your core beliefs are, having them be inflexible when challenged with new information or perspective is not rational.

My “core beliefs” are basically my axioms. And axioms are more like ideological goals or ways of thinking. Changing those certainly can happen, it used to be the case for me that my moral axioms placed “truth” above basically everything but now its below harm reduction for instance.

If someone’s core belief is more of a specific “factual statement”, then sure. One should be willing to change one’s beliefs with new evidence. And really it shouldn’t even be a core belief in the first place.

yes but [Empiricism’s] obviously limited by the subjectivity of the observer. Have you ever read any Hegel? If we utilized empirical thought alone then we wouldn’t be able to process any abstract thought. Empiricism is what I was talking about with the phenomenon that is observable and repeatable. If your claim is that “shared truth” is theory that can be put forward through the scientific method… Okay, but that invalidates a vast sum of what it means to be human, including most rational and abstract thought. Arguments against empiricism are famously as old as Socrates.

What I believe is true: 1) I engage with empiricism or scientific consensus. 2) If something is outside of empiricism or scientific consensus I fall to Occam’s Razor. 3) If something can’t be engaged with either of those things, I simply assume I cannot know right now and have to wait for empiricism or scientific consensus and that it isn’t worth fabricating a comforting fairy tale to explain it.

The “abstract thinking” all happens essentially at 0) My way of figuring out what is true stems from rationality and rational thinking structures. Abstract thinking never follows the other steps.

Healthy for you my dude… Learning how to manage scenarios like we discussed in a healthy way is all about self improvement. I don’t imagine you like feeling depressed or feeling like you are in pain when you see a particular person who didn’t wrong you.

Given that its earnest, I appreciate the concern. That said, if I hadn’t avoided them I’m pretty sure I would have unironically risked suicidal ideation. There wasn’t a safe way for me to engage at the time but to minimize. The only reason I’m able to talk about it now is that it was a long time ago and I’m kind of dead inside anyway at this point.

There have been people I’ve seen that I also felt similar to, but they’ve not been people I had to regularly see.

From the sounds of it then this isn’t a male problem, but a class problem… My point is that painting it as a male problem as most like to do, can lead to a misdirection this anger towards parties whom do not deserve it, namely women and leftist in general. We’ve seen a massive rise in mysoginy and young men being attracted to the alt right because of this misdirection of blame.

It can be both. Its in fact many things, religious and cultural norms play a major role as well.

Again, women also like sex and are restricted from it for the same reasons.

Absolutely, but they simply aren’t at the same rates and getting consent for sex from a heterosexual/bisexual man is rarely a problem for the average heterosexual/bisexual woman.

I would say actively avoiding someone is doing something.

Its doing something, but its not “Doing something to her.” Its more like doing something to myself.

Which we are doing. Adding in personal perspective is important to determine how a person feels and acts within a society, which is why you added your anecdotal experience in the first place. I think it’s a bit of a double standard to then expect not to address your anecdotes.

OK, let me break this down because there needs to be fewer people who do this.

I added my anecdote for context as supporting contribution to my argument to demonstrate an idea or probable reality. I wasn’t interested in actively changing the subject to me personally as the focus. Especially since that can often just result in discussing my character instead of engaging with the main argument, which is basically what you did.

If you wanted to attack the relevance/factuality/meaningfulness of the anecdote itself that is fair game. However, you then took your chance to decide largely to attack my character. This was ultimately me being good faith and willing to open up for the sake of a more meaningful discussion and you turned it into a dunk and a personal criticism.

This did not hurt my feelings but it annoyed me because its escaping from my actual points and meant suddenly I needed to defend my character, something I really don’t even care that much about on here as this is specifically the account I use to misanthropically complain about the state of the world during slow times at work. In order to maintain the legitimacy of my argument I ended up having to waste time defending myself. It just bogged down the conversation.

I do think you have some pretty flawed beliefs when it comes to your philosophical perspective and would be interested what exactly influenced them.

The first time I came to the conclusion that there is no free will was when I was neutrally discussing it on the internet and someone asked “What is your will free from?” I was already leaning against it at that point but wasn’t sure. That framing immediately cemented my belief.

There is also Robert Sapolsky. Who has recently been promoting what is essentially the exact same belief I’ve had for about 5-6 years now. He’s a much smarter person than I and maybe could explain my perspective better.

Mental health professionals aren’t supposed to help you lie to yourself, they are supposed to help you understand your own perspective and help you come up with ways to navigate the world in a healthy way.

Healthy for me? Or healthy for society? Healthy by the metrics of me enjoying my best possible life or healthy by the metric of expected normal human behavior?

What one person defines as healthy is not always the same as another.

The generalization he was speaking about were about claiming the male loneliness epidemic was just about trying to get laid.

Well, its not only about that. That’s a major component but there are other issues.

That said the framing of it as “only” sex seems to belittle the importance of having sex as a form of existential fulfillment. I’m someone who thinks we all should have more of it with more people. Which the reason I engage in one night stands.

A bit of a tangent but I also identify as polyamorous. Though still looking for a polycule with some deeper relationships, I don’t live in a particularly progressive area though so I don’t expect to get one unless I can escape this conservative rural hell hole I currently live in. I almost got a girlfriend here a little while back but she insisted on monogamy so we ended up just as friends. Though admittedly possibly a strained friendship, since she seems annoyed that I insisted on polyamory years ago.

there is no such thing as “truth of reality”.

This is a fundamental disagreement I think. Do you not believe in empiricism?

If men are being fucked over to more significant degree than who is doing it? Pretty much every social structure is dominated by men. So are we claiming that men are responsible for fucking over men?

Anyone with power to effect the way society is structured. So yes this would include men. But generally the men complaining aren’t powerful men with the needed influence over society and culture to fix the problem on their own.

By specifying it as male loneliness, you are alluding to a problem needing to be solved. When people look for the source of the problem and suggest it may be men, people yell victim blaming. So who does that leave?

Then why dictate it [lack of sex] as a “male loneliness” problem?

Because generally if you ask men if they’d like some sex with someone that they’re even only slightly attracted to, they are pretty likely say yes. I know because I’m bi. Guys are extremely easy (at least bi and gay ones), even the hot ones.

Most average individual men are very willing to “solve” the problem but whether they can solve it is largely dictated by gatekeepers. And those gatekeepers aren’t always women deciding to forego sex with them on a broad scale. Sometimes its just societal rules and expectations. Sometimes its law restricting sex work. Sometimes its cultural influence (religion, fictional media, social media) and capitalist enterprise: Like dating apps which are specifically engineered to keep paying customers romantically and sexually unsatisfied so they’ll keep using the app. Its also the dynamics of the economy but that’s a whole other can of worms.

Sounds like you could use that excuse anytime an action you do hurts someone?

Maybe if you interpret it in a very specific way. If I did or said something to her that was specifically rude or harmful that isn’t really “excusable” obviously.

But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about me taking active steps to minimize our interaction. I do not owe other people my time or energy outside of previous agreements.

You can’t exactly talk to society…

But we can talk about society.

Lol, that’s a bit of a pedantic tool to evaluate of determinism. However in simple terms free of the concept of predetermination.

“predeterminism” is as you acknowledge a concept and that’s not what the question is asking. What is your will free from that has a real effect on what your decisions actually end up being? Are your decisions somehow made outside of the dictation of physics?

I don’t have the ability to choose between different courses of actions, or have the agency to control my own actions to fulfill a personal sense of morality?

Your brain is dictated by physical reality. Your sense of control is an illusion. This doesn’t mean we should curl up in a ball and wait to die. The future is unknown to us, trying to make it a better future is a natural goal to seek.

However, “no free will” also means that “punishment” and “reward” are both fundamentally amoral tools to achieve ends and not intrinsically justified. Meritocracy has no intrinsic moral value.

An example of what I mean here: If there was a method of rendering a serial killer harmless without causing them any pain or death that would be the more moral decision than punishing them for killing people.

Your point has shifted goal post so hard that it has nothing to do with the original prompt. We are now in the territory of you not believing in people being held responsible for their own actions… You already dropped the entire original argument. Which was based on the post claiming it’s not about sex. You’ve already admitted nits mostly about sex.

The comment you were responding to was talking about how they thought Lemmy hated them because of the generalities contained within OP’s screenshot post and I responded to that. I have never established that whether the loneliness epidemic among men was “about getting laid”. I would say its not exclusively about that, but that sex is a major component, as well as any physical intimacy in general.

We’ve branched out our conversation and in ways that largely was more dependent on what you and I have and have not refuted/argued with each other. This is a meandering conversation at this point but at the very least we are moving close to core philosophical disagreements. That’s fine by me because its at least meaningfully possible for some kind of ideological reconciliation as far as I can tell. But maybe not, maybe our perspectives are fundamentally at odds and we may run into a brick wall.

I mean… Maybe your fundamental beliefs are not condusive to maintaining your mental health. I would highly suggest you choose to talk to a mental health professional about it, which is statistically proven to help.

Lying to myself for the sake of my own mental health is both something I pragmatically and ideologically reject. Truth of reality is maybe not a core axiom of mine but its pretty damn close and might as well be one. But also I just think “changing my beliefs” (lying to myself) is unsustainable anyway and wouldn’t work or if it did would result in potentially more catastrophic results long term.

Your beliefs seem to have painted your mental health into a corner with no room for improvement. At some point everyone needs to take some level of personal responsibility in their lives, and sometimes that personal responsibility comes in the form of accepting you have negative attributes that you need to address in a healthy way.

I need to clarify something: My life is not good but I do try to make it better. Again, I don’t think a lack of free will means I shouldn’t try to make things better. I just don’t ascribe my “trying” as some sort of magical will essence outside of physical reality. The end resulting actions I take are the result of neurons in my brain firing a certain way.

Furthering my point: Human beings do have some level of autonomy, but so do robots (literally “automatons”). Human’s have agency (the ability for their actions to effect the world outside of them) but again, so do robots. But robots do not have free will either right?

You don’t have to delete emotions, you process them. Evaluate why you are actually feeling that way, and if that is a reasonable way to to feel in the given circumstances. Why were you upset? Does it make sense to feel upset just because someone is attractive, does that happen to you every time you see someone attractive? Once you figure out the reason you are feeling those emotions they are easier to manage and control. Emotions don’t just happen to you, they are how you respond to stimuli, meaning you have control over them.

I did understand them. Like I said, I ruminated. I thought about them probably more than necessary.

Both my wife and I are autistic, it’s not a valid reason to shirk personal responsibility.

I never said that it was. My perspective on responsibility stems more from a core belief that free will doesn’t exist.

In fact, unfortunately it means you have more responsibility to evaluate your own emotions and behavior to make sure you don’t hurt people’s feelings. It’s a lot of work, but it is completely manageable. As an older autistic person I can basically guarantee your coworker noticed your behavior.

I already try to do that. If she knew and that upset her, then that’s unfortunate but I did not owe her anything beyond professionalism and politeness. And you know what, she never made it clear that I had bothered her by my avoidance. I’m pretty sure she just figured I was busy.

I’m guessing it’s a reflexive avoidance behaviour you utilize to most criticism you experience.

If I was avoiding critique, we’d be not having this conversation. TBH, I find talking about me, maybe not boring, but besides the point.

Fucked by who? It seems the major impediment isn’t something society can really change for you. Pulling yourself up by the boot straps is an analogy meant to represent something impossible, no one is asking you to do that. I just recommend learning to get back on your feet after being knocked down for whatever reason.

I was talking about “men” in general. Not myself. Men are fucked by the current state of things when it comes to loneliness and intimacy, I don’t assign meaningful blame to any one individual or group and blame isn’t needed, solutions are. Hell, I think women aren’t really benefiting either.

Your focus on me is misguided. My love life atm is possibly worse than average, but its definitely better than the men complaining for their own sake given that I have sex here and there. At least one night stands. Not gotten a more stable relationship in a very long time though.

My arguments have to do with the overall amount of sex that’s being had. And its significantly less across the board at a society wide level (well in many countries). I think that’s bad and should be fixed. Sex is fun, we should all have more of it.

So is it okay to hurt people if the damage is not permanent?

If she was hurt, she was hurt by her own emotions. I can’t control how other people react to my decisions.

I work in healthcare, specifically with a lot of patients who have physical and mental disabilities.

That explains your focus on me as an individual I suppose. You are used to thinking that way.

Just letting you know I’m leaving work from home now meaning I wont have access to this account. If you respond I’ll respond Monday morning.

Despite the seeming hostility and intense disagreement here I don’t hold anything against you. I look forward to reading what you have to say. I genuinely enjoy the discourse.

Man I got a lot of them.

1. Free will isn’t real.
2. I’m kind of OK with AI replacing our jobs under capitalism, even if things get bumpy because I think because its unsustainable for various reasons and it’ll eventually cause economic collapse and we might live in a better society afterward.
3. Nuanced “soft” Anti-natalism
4. Currency is fine. The left was wrong about Crypto.
5. He might not always be right but Vaush is funny and its OK to watch his streams.
6. We should all fuck each other more and monogamy is retarded.
7. Oh also its OK to call things and people “retarded”
8. Virtue doesn’t matter only consequences.
9. Bisexuality is secretly more common than hetero & homosexuality.
10. Religion and spirituality should be illegal.
11. Autistic people should rule the world.
12. That Trump won a second time reflects a fundamentally disgusting moral weakness in most of humanity that I will never emotionally recover from.
13. Linux is good but most of Linux users ideology about GUI is awful.