HalfSalesman
@HalfSalesman@lemmy.world
I don’t have access to this account during weekends.
- Comment on All of a sudden he thinks that it's a spectacular plan. 5 days ago:
American Christian Evangelicals want the end of the world prophecy to happen.
Israel fucking hates Muslims and Islam and want to reclaim their holy land. They’re Jewish supremacists.
Iran fucking hates Jews and Judiasm and really fucking hate Israel, and not because of the Gaza genocide. Out of these three, Iran would merely prefer to stick to proxy conflicts and not direct conflict, but they still fucking despise Jews.
They’re all religious nutcases. This is basically 40k level mindless hatred, every group is evil.
- Comment on All of a sudden he thinks that it's a spectacular plan. 5 days ago:
Its both. Its religious cope to suggest that religious belief is not a motivating factor for a significant portion of this war and its participants. Both among the owner class and working class.
Religion is fucking stupid and harmful.
- Comment on Dumb glasses 1 week ago:
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.
- Comment on Dumb glasses 1 week ago:
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.
- Comment on Dumb glasses 1 week ago:
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 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.
- Comment on Dumb glasses 1 week ago:
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”.
- Comment on Dumb glasses 1 week ago:
The first two seem like reasonable concerns, but like, people have eyeballs. When you go out in public… people are seeing you. If someone has a photographic memory and the savant ability to perfectly replicate what they’ve seen by drawing it, would you take issue with them? Obviously an edge case, but those people technically also exist. Their cooperation with authorities to me to share what they’ve recorded is the issue you would take.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe privacy in one’s own home ought to be a legal right, but I don’t understand extending it into a place where that’s functionally impossible on a number of levels. I’ve been recorded plenty where I live by people pulling out their phones. While I do feel some level of tension from that due to the current state of our government, I don’t think that public recording on a fundamental level shouldn’t be a allowed. Hell, even in secret, sometimes people have security camera systems around their living space and the camera’s “reach” into public spaces. Also I’ve secretly recorded conversations I’ve had as well for legal and employment security reasons.
- Comment on send thoughts and peer review 2 weeks ago:
Why not foster hope through science? Religion is unneeded for that.
Plus, if the situation was hopeless scientifically, the kid would be better off accepting reality than to endlessly hope for something that will never come. Just build with what he can instead of daydreaming about what can’t be.
- Comment on This Fall, Florida Students Will Be Forced to Take “Anti-Communist” Classes 2 weeks ago:
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
Would you prefer I simply consider you an intellectual coward? I’m not sure which would be worse.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
There are a number of ways, I’m not inclined toward authoritarian measures. An incentive structure could be built to encourage genetic interventions (at least once that technology matures). Just kind of like some natalists want to encourage births in general. It would have a pretty gentle effect at most but again, I’m aiming for overall harm reduction. The reduction of male births isn’t the goal, its a tool to reach a goal.
In addition, a cultural movement could apply soft social pressure and normalize the practice of aborting boys and trying until a couple gets a girl. This would be difficult though not impossible. Cultural movements that started as a minority opinion pop up pretty frequently these days.
If we were to get authoritarian with it though, of course things get both easier and harder. Easier in that you could just mandate things, in reality this would probably just create black market situations and cause more harm than good. It might be possible to put something in drinking water to significantly decrease the chances of male births as well if you want to validate the conspiracy theorist types, though you could just be open with it and get people to accept it.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
You mean you’re here to propagandize.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
Do you know anything? What’s your alternative?
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
Men are not born inherently more violent than women. That’s a sexist assumption from the get and invalidates your entire reply to be honest.
I never said they’re more inherently violent on some biological level. I don’t think it matters if they’re “inherently” more violent. If men are statistically more violent and that is just a cultural effect, my solution would still be more humane than ideas like a prejudicial ride share filter.
And if your rebuttal is “We need to fix men’s culture” my immediately question is how? Because that’s not a proposed solution: My idea and the ride share filter are explicit and specific policy. They can be compared, their effects can be studied or if not studied, their assumed effects can at least be rationally predicted.
Acknowledging the real outcome of the patriarchy that men are encouraged and allowed to use violence to further their own wants is not the same as agreeing that men should be killed or boys shouldn’t be born.
Fewer boys being born is absolutely not the moral equivalent of killing men. And I know the whole “Kill all men” line itself is a (usually) a troll. Engaging with that is boring.
That said, how do we systematically discourage men from committing violence exactly? Obviously with the goal of reducing harm. That is, in a way that is more humane, time efficient, viable, than either other solution we’ve already discussed here? I don’t think this is a serious avenue to be explored to be honest, because I never hear any concrete solutions being offered. I’m open to being wrong. I want to be wrong because the idea that we can get men to just chill out with the violence and make everyone happy sounds legitimately like the best option, I just don’t think that we can do that.
I just recognize a violent and sexist idea when I see one and yours is extreme enough that it makes me think you’re doing it to further provoke gender wars on this site.
Provoke an discussion. Like I said I’m bored at work. I don’t care about gender wars. I’m more of an equal opportunity hater. And lover.
If you must know, I avoided the “bear vs man” discussion. Now that was just a means to provoke gender wars bullshit.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
Population control and eugenics tend to be bad ideas.
I mean to be honest I’m not in favor of “population control” but I am basically a soft anti-natalist. I think we should stop reproducing entirely.
As for eugenics, I never said things would be manipulated along racial/ethnic lines, and that’s typically the area of moral outrage when it comes to eugenics. And what with a few people in this very comment section pointing out that it’d be unacceptable to let white people say they’re “uncomfortable” or “feel unsafe” around black people… well…
Like, you are being inconsistent at that point. Is viewing men as intrinsically less safe and validating that with prejudicial filters on ride sharing against them acceptable or not? If its acceptable, then just… simply not having more men is just a win/win. No one gets hurt, they’re just not born. And its justified because you can point out that its literally acceptable to apply what amounts to an economic sanction of already living men, some of which rely on their income to live a life worth living or to even live at all, on the basis that they are just more dangerous. This idea is more harmful than what I am proposing. It will result in more suffering.
What you don’t like is the emotions you feel when I suggest an idea that seems alien to you and have to mentally compare it to a worse idea that sates bitter catharsis or validates your desire to insulate and segregate for the aim of emotional comfort.
My idea is not me framing “birthing fewer boys” from some emotional perspective of “We should do it because we hate boys.” I’m suggesting it because I legitimately believe it would be more humane than what we’re doing now with everything, let alone considering this ride share filter.
I’m still convinced you’re here to make feminists and women who support safety measures for other women look sexist with your “provocative” views on men.
I’m here because I have no self control. I keep telling myself I’ll stop arguing on social media because it just makes me miserable but boredom at work just completely over takes my restraint. Why are you here?
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
I’m not trolling, though perhaps I am being provocative.
That said, I would be unironically in favor of the policy I am proposing.
I’m also open to better systemic policy propositions.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
I’m a dude.
I’m just saying it straight. Both men and women would be happier if we had fewer men added to the population.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
It’d make everyone happier.
A significant portion of women don’t seem to even like men very much so they’d not miss them. Men and women would get murdered less by other men. Fewer wars. Less violence. Less rape. Incels wouldn’t exist I can tell you that much. Rightwing politics would significantly lose influence.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, we need fewer men in general.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
I think the issue people are taking is with collective punishment and validating prejudice.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, lets reduce the number of incels systematically. We can start by reducing the number of male births.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
It’d be a win for everyone if we had fewer male babies.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, we should just have fewer men in society in general. Reduce the number of male births.
- Comment on Uber is letting women avoid male drivers and riders in the US 2 weeks ago:
We should have fewer male babies.
- Comment on The wildest part about this poll is that it was only shared to Star Wars sites 4 weeks ago:
Yeah, it’d have to be a specific piece of Star Wars media the shirt referenced to compete for me. Like KOTOR or Andor.
- Comment on [deleted] 4 weeks ago:
I need to find someone like you in my area, I’m trying to lose myself and sex is generally a good way to do so but I need to get my hetero on. Plenty of dude ready to get down but not enough good horny straight lady’s.
- Comment on 4 weeks ago:
I mean, eventually there are going to be people with camera’s stealthily integrated directly into their eyeballs recording non-stop.
Like that black mirror episode letting people relive any moment from their past.
- Comment on 4 weeks ago:
Couldn’t people who specifically want to stealthily record people just turn off the bluetooth?
- Comment on I'm in! 5 weeks ago:
This is just a regular political meme. A good one but still wrong by category.
Your post is not unhinged enough to belong here.
- Comment on I'm in! 5 weeks ago:
Wrong community.
Also they like it when they do it because it means they’ll prevent minorities from becoming armed.