Comment on New PieFed instance: MULTIVERSE

• Lauchmelder@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I skimmed the manifesto because I felt like I was about to waste my time. Since reality is to be rejected, the only thing that matters is your perception, which you should subjugate to your will in order to… well that’s what the manifesto doesn’t really answer. At least not satisfyingly.

  Their objective is to spread kindness, so subjugate your perception to your will, in order to be more kind to others. An example was rejecting your perception of gender in order to be more kind to trans folks. It was a lot of words to basically say "change your views to accommodate other people’s feelings abd make them more comfortable.

  But finally, from my understanding of this ideology, yes, murdering other is okay, you can simplify reject your perception of their rights. Hope that helps!

  source

  • Grail@multiverse.soulism.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Anarcho-antirealism is a political philosophy building upon anarchism, not an ethical philosophy. I deliberately avoided inserting My own views on ethics, because I don’t believe they’re relevant. There are people with very different ethical views from My own, such as deontologists, with whom I believe a political alliance would still be very beneficial to both of us.

    I may one day write a description of My own ethical philosophy on My blog, is that something you’d be interested in reading? I would assume anarcho-antirealism would be applicable to your own personal values if you’re aligned with anarchism.

    source

    • Lauchmelder@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      If it’s a political philosophy, then what political points is it trying to make? Because most of the concrete applications of this ideology the manifesto makes are basically that it treats marginalized groups better. And it even fails at that:

      Soulism can help us win ideological battles with transphobes who would do our trans friends harm, as well. No matter what assertions they make, we can simply choose to recognise them as not real. Whatever truth lies in their claims is subjective, and it is our choice whether to accept it. Gender, like consensus reality, is a social construct. We have the power of choice over our experience of gender, and this example to others is powerful.

      This is honestly delusional. Pretending the transphobes bigotry isn’t real doesn’t help at all, they can still go ahead and harm trans folks in the reality they live in. I don’t think that sticking your head in the sand is the solution to this.

      “Magic is observable phenomena caused by things that aren’t real.”

      It follows that transphobic hate crimes are magic. This entire section just feels pointless, I just skimmed that paragraph about wizards and dungeons and dragons, and when I read that financial transactions are magic I just stopped reading because I felt like I was wasting my time.

      In my understanding, most of the examples given in the manifesto essentially boil down to “I will change my behavior and opinions, because I believe it is the right thing to do”. The whole “reality isn’t real” and “magic exists” stuff around this are just so confusing, because it is not at all clear how it relates to the examples. The beginning feels more like a rant or ramble about history and metaphysics.

      The first conclusion, then, is obvious: Take power over reality for ourselves. Choose kindness, and spread kindness into the values of everyone you meet. Believe in a kind reality, and science will show you that same kindness. This is how you create a better reality.

      This is equivalent to stating “be nice”; a request that clearly does not work. All the other stuff in that text about the realities and perception is just noise that distracts from the already very sparse points it’s trying to make. I get the feeling that solipsism is a huge inspiration for this ideology. The main issue with solipsism is that it draws no useful conclusions from its main argument. If there is nothing I can extract from solipsism to act on, then it is pointless to advocate for it. Obviously it cannot be disproven, but it also cannot be explicitly proven

      source
    • Lauchmelder@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      If it’s a political philosophy, then what points is it trying to make? Because most of the concrete applications of this ideology the manifesto makes are basically that it treats marginalized groups better. And it even fails at that:

      Soulism can help us win ideological battles with transphobes who would do our trans friends harm, as well. No matter what assertions they make, we can simply choose to recognise them as not real. Whatever truth lies in their claims is subjective, and it is our choice whether to accept it. Gender, like consensus reality, is a social construct. We have the power of choice over our experience of gender, and this example to others is powerful.

      source
• TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  all of these anarchist flavors are a form of relativism where all that matters is people’s individual feelings.

  it’s a form of solipsism

  source

  • hector@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    My experience with anarchists, limted though it is, their hearts are in the right place, they know what sides they are not on, but do not neccessarily know a lot outside of their doctrine. But they will fight.

    So better than most all. Knowing what side you are NOT on is becoming rarer.

    source

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      most people don’t care about sides. they just care about money.

      source

      • rako@tarte.nuage-libre.fr ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Caring about money is taking a side though

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • hector@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        That is true. They would care about sides if there was a good side that fought against them being taken advantage of. People try to win rural, red areas being conservative light. They need new dealist. Too late now maybe.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• comfy@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I’m not a soulist like the user you replied to, but for another perspective, mine is that rights are imaginary constructs which mean nothing if unenforceable.

  People have some rights to not be murdered; that’s not an opinion if we have a compatible definition of ‘rights’, it’s written in law, it’s ingrained into mainstream liberalist social norms and ethics. So the right exists as a social idea which sometimes manifests in real consequences. However:

  • I can get murdered by the government or law enforcement who proclaim to enforce my right to not be murdered! It’s a conditional right, not the idealistic universal right it’s often made out to be.
  • And there are some people who I wouldn’t really care if they were murdered. I don’t weep for Wnssolᴉuᴉ’s lynching. I don’t mind that Ken McElroy’s murderers weren’t charged. Sometimes we just don’t have the luxury or power to go through the ideal routes of justice. And to be clear I also don’t advocate for murder for a big long list of reasons, many of them are obvious. For example, I think the assassination of Brian Thompson was morally just and cathartic, it stopped an antisocial social murderer who would not have been held accountable by law, and the fear it created may feasibly have saved some lives of UHC customers in the short term, but ultimately I do not advocate for such adventurism as it’s proven historically to do little to create long-term systemic improvements, and can easily go wrong and cause more damage than benefit, as we saw with the “golden age of Propaganda of the Deed”.

  source