VitriolicViolet t1_jb2cq52 wrote

>True. The last decade or so I've seen an argument emerge around the value and role of emotions as a source of truth with most proponents seemingly more interested in validating emotions as equally valuable, equally capable, as reason. I've always been wary of these argument as they seem like an attempt by emotionally indulgent people to justify being indulgent, especially if they aren't considered particularly intelligent in the normal sense.

i mean separating the two isnt possible.

what one considers rational and logical comes from emotion, so much so that anyone who successfully separates the two would have no opinions on anything other than simple cause an effect.

is it ok to hurt people? is welfare good? is abortion ok? is morality useful? what defines 'good' or 'bad'?

literally all of these start in emotion and use logic to justify it (its how all human cognition works, emotion first and logic to justify it)


VitriolicViolet t1_jayo2fv wrote

>So, you agree this image of "self" is often just a reflection of societal norms and peer pressure? Thus agreeing with the assessment?


i spent 6 months alone in a tent many kms from any other humans, the 'self' i consider myself to be is ever changing and has nothing to do with the rest of society (fitting in is one of the least important goals a person could have).

what does social media have to do with anything? personally i dont use any outside of reddit and i have no social life outside my partner. my life revolves around gardening and epicurean pleasures (as distinct from hedonism) from art to study.

what 'self' am i cultivating for people i spend no time with or care for? (self-employed too so i only deal with those i wish too)

to top it off despite living entirely for myself ive done more to help others and the environment than most have, likely including yourself (planted well-over 10,000 trees, i intentionally own less than 5k in total possessions, ive housed homeless people ive never met, i help do animal rescue with my partner etc).

this entire article is about the risks and dangers of focusing on the self and yet i stand testament to the fact that focusing on the self can be a good thing for all.


VitriolicViolet t1_jaymyfn wrote

>Assumption that mental stability is understood. Who says what is mentally stable? Is it mentally stable to do the same thing everyday, destroying the mind body and soul, to be able to purchase consumer goods, which are only desired due to advanced manipulation by cooperate entities, whose only desire is to gain material wealth on a mass scale. Is that really mental stability?
>Is it mentally stable to pass the homeless man on the street without as much as considering that anyone of us could be that man within mere months upon losing your job? Is it mentally stable to ignore that, when you are able to understand how you would feel if another ignored you in that same situation?

yes, those things are all mentally stable, since mental stability is only measured by differing and changing mental states.

whether or not they are mentally healthy is another thing (i am mentally stable, to an extreme point, but i'm not mentally healthy)


VitriolicViolet t1_jaymc26 wrote

>That's why the 20-years-ago you seem like a stranger - because you have different thoughts and goals.

they are no stranger, why would they be?

the 'self' is merely the sum of all ones experiences, memories, environment, genes, neurons etc.

my actions and who i think i am are one and the same.


VitriolicViolet t1_jaym4pa wrote

and for some bizarre reason you are separating the self from action.

i am my actions as 'i' am the sum of all my memories, experiences culture, genes etc.

therefore your entire position is incoherent, there is no demarcation between the self and ones actions.


VitriolicViolet t1_ja0lbjo wrote

not all jobs are going yet, just the high paying ones that involve computers in any capacity.

im a gardener, im likely to be one of the last jobs automated (its easy to make an AI lawyer, good luck making a machine capable of moving dozens of different ways to perform a dozen different tasks that doesnt also cost millions, not to mention it would need many of the abilities of the AI lawyer to ID plants, chemicals etc).

im 30, i expect ill be nearly retired by the time they bust low paying labor jobs (the lower the pay the longer automation will take due to cost-benefit, i expect some of the first jobs to go will be data entry and lawyers)


VitriolicViolet t1_ja0krdf wrote

this is why im glad im a gardener, im last on the list for automation.

first on the chopping block will be anyone who uses a computer for their job.

this will eat high paying industry far far harder and faster then any low paying job (whats easier to automate, a lawyer or a landscaper? next which one is more profitable to automate?)


VitriolicViolet t1_j93bfr7 wrote

just ignoring times 'left' media has lied for political gain? (what fucking left, whining about minorities and the environment is not 'left' if you also support corporations, private wealth and tax cuts).

all news is unreliable and virtually all of it is owned buy billionaires (media owned by 3 people is about as trustworthy as Chinese state media)


VitriolicViolet t1_j8unwmi wrote

>But for people who value civilisation, high quality traits are things like intelligence, social cohesion, physical health, mental health, co-operativeness, etc.

yeah no, 'values' like co-operativeness and social cohesion are not necessarily good things, too much of either and you get a docile population who will not use violence at all.

society is only as valuable as it treats its least and any given population must have the ability to violently tear down society if need be (it shouldnt be encouraged but to diminish the ability to is to all but guarantee dystopia)


VitriolicViolet t1_j8t3g30 wrote

As someone who has been attacked you do indeed have time to make a reasoned choice in response.

When I was attacked I literally reasoned through my choices, I could have allowed it to happen, I could have fled into traffic or I could defend myself.

Further more I had the option of either ramming my fingers into his eyes or hitting him in the throat, I chose the throat.

Some people do reason through as much as possible, I use my emotions to frame and guide my reasoning.


VitriolicViolet t1_j792izx wrote

no they dont.

what you are claiming is that all societies in the past were immoral and that any future societies will also likely be immoral (our conception of rights was different in the past and will be different again in the future).

if we all decided tomorrow that all current rights were in fact incorrect then they would be incorrect by definition.

rights and morals are literally determined by popularity and force.


VitriolicViolet t1_j7923da wrote

>So all one has to do is imagine a different set of rights (say the right to do wrong) and then you have no rights. All this is is "what if we both happened to imagine the same rights?" But what if we don't? What if we had the conflict of John and Bill as discussed in the piece? Do we then not have rights?


how do you think morals are defined and chosen by societies? through popularity and force.

ie if socialist authoritarism had successfully beaten and replaced capitalist democracy across the globe then it would be considered moral by the majority.


VitriolicViolet t1_j78y6t8 wrote

i would argue that unless you have the option of opting out of all social contracts then it holds no legitimacy (without the option to leave it by definition is using force and coercion to gain 'consent').

there is no where on earth where you can build your own home 'freely' (ie without paying for permission to the state and being extorted annually)


VitriolicViolet t1_j78xn36 wrote

its legitimacy is recursive (its legit because enough people say it is) its consented too by birth (assuming you are not moving somewhere else) and when the state breaks it nothing inherently happens, if the population decide the sate has lost legitimacy then it has lost legitimacy.

personally i dont think 'social contract' theory holds up well in the absence of 'no mans land' ie for social contract theory to be legitimate you need to be able to refuse it and all others.

i would argue it currently holds no legitimacy due to relying purely on force and coercion (i cannot build my own home and farm my own food anywhere on the planets surface ie it is illegal for me to leave the social contract as they apply to every square cm of the globe)


VitriolicViolet t1_j6v9w3z wrote

eh, one day we may know everything, a billion years is a long time.

never seen a convincing reason why we cant learn everything, we just need better tools (all of history supports it)


VitriolicViolet t1_j6v9ii1 wrote

the current modern ones?

the anti-vax movement either focus on A) new shit like the COVID vaccine (its beyond apparent at this stage that its safe) or B) old-ass mercury containing vaccines from the 1930s.

which 'definition' are you using?

i oppose mandatory vaccination on the grounds of inalienable right to bodily autonomy, not some completely inaccurate nonsense about their safety.


VitriolicViolet t1_j5qoxy1 wrote

you know you sound just like them? 'lefties arguing for tolerance of their warped views only increases my intolerance for their existence'

unless you oppose the status quo (ie unless you think the Dems are rightwing, which they inmdeed are. Dressing up status quo market capitalism in LGBTI minority drag is not left).