I would say overall itself is neutral everything within is just pool of stuff consciousness uses in various ways to collectively manifest itself. Humanity itself feels like an experiment in madness by limitation and fragility. We have the capabilities to interact with our world in a very large amount of ways that go in so many directions but it is also ridiculously harsh and so of course our ability to technologically advance ourselves and dominate turned into quite the modern clusterfuck that exploits our need for comfort and connection. We're all products of it and couldn't see it any other way but we also know collectively that there is a way to be advanced, accepting of our humanity/world yet without such negativity the strict control we're forced under or get modernly exiled from society. The real problem is though, how do you do this without domination? There may be an answer we're psychically barred from concerning our abilities as beings of manifestation producing consciousness we aren't allowed to comprehend because it would ruin the game or something. Bursting clouds or moving small objects with our minds alone is possible the first even being easy, what else can be done that's been erased from common knowledge? There may be something to the world being fundamentally bad and making what we will of it being our authentic selves is all we can do.
The most important things are truly free. Love, for instance.
Life is chaos and death, the law.
Life is like a fire, requiring and producing energy.
Death is like water, no matter the splash, it will inevitably return to stillness.
There's an arms race between the forces of chaos's output and the forces of law's destruction of everything produced.
The moment we produce less by our individual existence than is destroyed, we are dead, both as an individual and the race.
As such, anything living is producting a kind of energy (let's refer to it as vital energy). Just as this energy sustains you, you also sustain it. This might be why being alone in nature is refreshing, and being in a city feels very alienating and generally bad/depressing since plants and wildlife doesn't syphon it like humans do.
There may be a way to consciously take control of the flow of this energy. I suspect some have already.
Nature's nature isn't shrouded in mystery insomuch as it appears whimsical. Just as a bug's life in the moment it's next to your feet depends on whenever you decide to crush it or leavr it be, so does nature's wrath or kindness affect you.
There is therefore, little more to do than to accept what you been dealt and push on further.
There are two layers of "Reality". An external, purely binary information based one, and an internal one.
As an individual, you cannot see the External reality as is, instead you see it through the filters that make it your own reality. You however can still acknowledge it's existence.
There is but a single seat of ascension in reality, and it is yours to seek out or cast aside. You cannot ascend in the reality of others, neither can they ascend in yours.
A mixture of "life is absurd" tier solipsism and antinatalism
-teachings of laozi (early daoism)
>How do you live your life?
I am pre self occupied with selfish misery. I don't really live life I am just killing time until time kills me. I am only looking for any kind of distraction. So escapism it is.
>Is your world a nice place?
No. If I would have the strength to end it I would do it. But I am to weak and too much of a coward.
God is death.
so that bastard is alive and he is DEATH?
That's so scary!
>What does your world look like?
Like shit. Everything is either gray and sluggish or green and annoying. Positive emotions only come from food I eat alone and my computer screen.
>How do you live your life?
Trying to make a living while waiting for a good opportunity to kill myself. Either I get enough money to be a neet or life becomes too unbearable/annoying to live and I lie down on some rails.
> Is your world a nice place?
Surprisingly, yes. I tend not to remember/think about the bad shit in real life and instead focus on nice stuff I experience in the virtual world.
Couldn't care less about philosophy or stuff on global scale lol.
I will copy another anon's format:
-marxism (criticism of value and commodity fetishism)
>What does your world look like?
Pretty grim. I've been looking for abstract and theoretical answers to why my life is so dull, why I'm so desensitized and feel so depersonalized all the time, and though I'm pretty satisfied with the answers I've found, it still feels boring and dull. I'm angry most of the time because of this.
>How do you live your life?
Mostly reading theory and ocassionally playing (each time fewer) videogames.
> Is your world a nice place?
No, life is hell.
Life itself sucks (suffering is the fundamental condition of life), reality as a whole is indifferent (implying that logic, ethics and aesthetics don't exist beyond subjective experience), I try to enjoy existence for no reason other than the fact that I already am alive so this seems to be the most convenient approach (I'm lazy by default and don't care about social expectations especially if those affirm life).
So your specific world as you see it is absurd or only your world is real but nobody's else exists and that fact is absurd?
He doesnt really believe that stuff. If he does he wont be posting in this thread. Hes just brainfsrting and likely coping because people judge him badly probably for good reasons.
Life is beautiful, even if there is suffering. I enjoy the clouds up there, far away…
I know nothing and I suspect I never will.
I'm indifferent I'm a man of inaction.
Prevailing feeling that I've been misplaced or lost but no recollection of belonging.
A thought of world weariness and a faint feeling.
Conflicted, confused, waiting for I don't know what.
Did laziness ever do you good as far as you remember?
Not great, not terrible.
Getting like 500€ neetbux would solve a lot of my issues and worries.
What laziness? I've always only ever been myself and only ever will. i don't desire what you desire. Trying to be something I'm not is tedious and how will it help me?
I don't really have one, anymore. Ever since I realized so much of our experience is constructed internally, I've been dismissive of the real world. Everything from climate change, politics, economics, to metaphysics and religion seem so trivial compared to my own mind. The world is a completely neutral gray place to which we give color and meaning. If you see shit, it's because you're coloring everything brown. Same for the fags coloring everything in rainbow.
The natural feedback loop of life is changing your environment to change your perception, but that seems so ass-backwards to me. Why would I chase external objects in order to trigger emotional mechanisms inside me? You need achievement in order to feel proud, you need to be useful in order to feel worthy, you need to have ecstatic experiences in order to feel you're not wasting your life. It's seem so self-evident but most of life is dealing with abstractions and constructed experiences. It's all make-belief that still feels real.
I've been obsessed with breaking this illusion. Nothing in the world seems worth having except this total freedom which exists only as a concept in my head. But then again, you have people chasing concepts like "success" or "security" or, ugh, "love". Even though the whole thing smells like self-obsessed nihilism, chasing it still feels more meaningful than any of those things.
Let me guess, anime?
My worldview is always changing. Whenever I have some flash of inspiration to adopt a certain ideology and live in a certain way it never last more than a week. My viewpoints have ranged from life hating pessimism to Stoic-Buddhism to Nietzchean amor fati. I think I may have adopted a normie mindset once but I can't remember. I think it only lasted like a day. I am inconsistent and chaotic.
All life is absurd and all life can be proven to be objectively negative, a negative. So we should stop having kids and propagate the cycle of suffering. Solipsism isn't the right word. I'm selfish. I only care about myself>>160938
What crawled up your ass LMFAO
I wasn't very clear in my post. No, I'm not talking about anime or any kind of inner fantasy world. Now that I re-read it, it does seem like I'm implying that.
What I'm trying to do is see through the self-imposed constructed experiences in life. For instance, we feel joy and pride when we achieve something and we feel depressed and disappointed when we fail. Despite there being no physical stimuli causing us pain (i.e. needle on the skin), we still experience suffering and psychological pain. This is presumably because of the 'meaning' of the situation. The meaning of the situation makes our mind construct, at least part of, the experience through memory.
I'm trying to understand how this 'meaning' comes about, why an individual experiences one 'meaning' instead of another and so on. Some of the literature I've been reading seems to suggest that this is all a consequence of language, humans are uniquely able to map experienced stimuli to relational structures i.e. the image, sounds, experience of a cat mapped with the verbal structure of a 'cat'. So now whenever someone thinks of a 'cat', they also might get some of the experiential parts of it, like the image or sound, the way a cat feels as you pet it. This is essentially what gives meaning to the world, what gives seemingly abstract concepts an 'umph'. This is why you actually feel pain when you think of the concept of pain, your mind reminds you that you are embodied in the world and essentially limits you for adaptive purposes.
These structures are the result of learning, new experiences build new structures, assimilate with existing ones, make all sorts of new combinations that don't even require experience of the stimuli to be relevant (you can be afraid of snakes even if you have never encountered one, simply from this combinatorial learning - it's enough to understand 'dangerous', 'animal', 'unpredictable', 'fast' etc.)
My goal is to essentially find a way of deconstructing these relational structures in order to gain better control over my experience. Obviously, I wouldn't be able to deconstruct a needle prick because the experience is the direct result of the stimuli. But, something like the psychological pain you feel as a result of social rejection or the experience of shame are almost completely internally constructed through some kind of series of mappings that roughly equate themselves to 'abandonment' which maps itself to feelings of actual pain, thus the entire series of verbal structures is equated to that pain. This is why something rather abstract (yet meaningful) like an insult can cause psychological pain which itself can only be a constructed experience based on memory. In this way, it's not real. The person might have rejected you but your experience of that rejection as painful is an illusion (a very good one, however). This explains the variance in how people experience stuff like rejection, causing some to react adaptively or not all or with great distress. Despite the variance, humans share a space of these constructed experiences contained in something called 'intersubjectivity' so they can refer to these experience of rejection and believe they're real but are often talking about radically different experiences that depend on the person's internal structure and past.
All of this is obviously adaptive to a certain degree, but this kind of system can cause stuff like painful traumatic memories or weird relational structures that cause mental illness. For instance, something like social phobia is caused when a person relates social rejection with distressing psychological pain for whatever reason, so even if they understand rationally that it's over-blown, their minds can't help but construct it as a painful experience.
Sorry for rambling, here's a soothing anime gif.>>160951
After a quick glance, it seems kinda dry but also related to what I'm interested in. Thanks.
I see what your trying to do and I've been trying to for a very long time. It's extremely difficult to talk about being as not as good at explaining things as you here but I've taken all sorts of approaches to rewiring myself to embrace something more open and free of as much suffering as I can. In fact sometimes life experiences thrust on to me helped, it wasn't always consciously done by me to deprogram or rewire. I have a lot of association problems in fact I love that you posted about this because they were part of at the worst part of my life one of the reasons it all went down so hard. This song, that place, this texture, that smell, it never ended because they all attached themselves to this monster eating my mind alive. I've resolved a good bit of it both by my own hand or by something else but some I still don't know what to do with. I wonder what it would be like to start with a clean slate again but that would also erase who I am completely today including all of this knowledge. It's hard to crack this code.
'Meaning' indeed is a construct which is not necessarily and universally given but created through human capabilities either as part of subjective experience and thinking or as social conventions and norms we adapt unconsciously. However I don't think that meaning is important in itself as it's rather a means to an end namely a cognitive instrument to survive, reproduce and finally if you like me are not content with those aims meaning serves to spend your time on earth in a bearable way where it really does absolutely no difference if you chase success, art, love, hedonism, philosophy, video games, travelling or whatever since it's all the same an attempt to endure your existence in the most convenient way you can come up with while being limited by your essential character and form of Will (Schopenhauer) which you have and must deal with if you want it or not. Meaning thus is not divine and nihilism is not denied objectively but only for the subject. This doesn't matter though as the whole trick is to be fully encompassed in your artificial meaning structures not questioning them and especially not questioning their nature or objective legitimation. This is what people do blinding themselves intentionally to follow their little goals in life exactly because life itself has no meaning or is suffering or is boring or is absurd and so on so you try to forget about that and stick to the plan so to speak.
That's at least for me what has worked in order to concentrate on stuff like video games, books, movies, taking walks and generally relieving existential dread and have a sense of direction and while I know this is not objective it's not a problem in everyday life when you know that reality for us solely is constituted due to how humans care about it and not due to how God or the universe or any sort of metsphysical power made it as all these kind of inhuman entities or objective forces are in fact not directly perceivable for us so they already are part of contingent meaning structures for example made through language.
World's fucked. I just treat people how I would want to be treated. My personal world is okay. I got dealt a shitty hand in life but relative to how humans live in Africa, NK, the Middle East, etc. I figure it could be worse
It's difficult because all of the normal ways of responding to this stuff only make it worse. In something like Schema therapy, you have the concept of 'coping styles' that make it clear that any behavioral approach is dead in the water. You can either accept the schema i.e. feelings of worthlessness are embraced and perhaps magnified, you can fight it and over-compensate i.e. feelings of worthlessness could be mitigated by over-achievement and excessive striving, and finally you have the choice of dissociation from it, either by tailoring your environment so that you seldom experience it or you psychologically dissociate. All of these result in suffering and make things worse, through strengthening the relational structure or building counter-active structures on top basically creating a race-condition in the brain, or you limit your life to such a degree that you might as well be dead.
This makes it clear that only radically unlearning it can possible be a solution. Fortunately, memory reconsolidation research has shown that unlearning is possible as a natural process of the brain. Previously unknown, but it's been shown both on animals and humans that behavioral conditioning can be erased, meaning it's no longer possible to re-activate the learning which is in sharp contrast to something like extinction techniques.
All that is required for MR to occur is for an experiential mismatch to occur that disproves the target learning after the target learning has been re-activated. When a target learning is re-activated, the memory in your brain becomes labile and then an experiential mismatch will either update it or erase it. The thing about humans tho, is that learnings can get quite complex and you're never directly aware of which exact learning is causing a specific symptom or reaction. In a lab, researchers are aware of the target learning and its parameters so that erasing it is essentially trivial. All the complexity of utilizing this approach is in understanding what the target learning is and then creating the right disconfirming experience.
Some researchers like Ecker et al have shown that MR can be effectively used in a clinical setting, creating a therapeutic framework that first begins with the discovery process of identifying the target learning causing the symptoms, then following up with integration and keeping it in awareness which in 50% of cases results in spontaneous MR and finally you have explicit triggering of MR through a series of steps. All of the grunt work goes into the discovery process because neither the therapist nor client are aware of the root target learning and have to use experiential techniques to bring it into awareness.
How does this tie into relational structures? Well, I think they can be considered the smallest unit of learning. Ecker's discovery process while brief compared to traditional therapy still requires time and a certain amount of overhead. I want to accelerate the process of discovery and MR by striping the framework down even more and making it more linear.
My current theory is that the target learning in pretty much all cases is that the constructed experience itself is real. After looking through Ecker's case studies, it seems that if you ignore the arbitrary content of the supposed learning, you're left with the one constant where the disconfirming knowledge is always the realization that the person himself is constructing the experience rather than it coming from external reality. The arbitrary content is only useful as a guide and tool to create this experience, but it's possibly less efficient than just directly aiming for it. I might actually shot an email to this guy directly or post on the mailing list.>>160963
It's pretty obvious that objective meaning does not exist. What we subjectively experience as meaning is really the result of being embodied in the world. If we were just minds without physical form, there would be no meaning because there would be nothing to limit you so everything would truly be arbitrary one way or another. Meaning is essentially created as a means for survival and other arbitrary biological goals. I believe I first heard it from Jordan Peterson, but the first argument against nihilists is: "If there is no meaning, how do you explain pain?" Essentially, as a biological organism, you're forced to see meaning because you're embodied, meaning is just experience of the world which is undeniable. Foundational meaning is undeniable i.e. pain, pleasure, direct stimuli etc. but most of what humans consider by meaning is constructed through clever composition of arbitrary concepts that map unto these foundational meanings. Like the example of social rejection which is only real because you experience pain as part of a learned mechanism and not direct stimuli. An insult is just vibrations of the air so it cannot possibly trigger the pain response it does, it can only be constructed (there's evolutionary reasons for why this happens).
Also, you mention 'existential dread' but this is also just a constructed experience. I'm not denying you feel it but it is not caused directly by the outside world because whatever you refer to as 'the world being meaningless' is just an arbitrary abstract concept. What you're really experiencing is those concepts being mapped unto foundations of experience. When you think of a 'meaningful universe' you're experiencing feelings of security, comfort and so on, and the opposite is fear, disorientation, lack of security and so on. This is what I was referring to when I meant by 'illusion', the belief that you need to change the world in order to change your perceptions, when in fact, it's a round-about way.
Wittgenstein was undeniably right when he said that philosophy was just word games. There really is nothing there and metaphysical and existential questions are really meaningless (beyond their experiential foundation). The existentialists actually made it pretty clear that all these questions were just problems of individual psychology i.e. how the individual deals with the absurdity of life, how he creates meaning for himself and so on. Everything begins and ends with a person's mind which is why I consider psychology to be the only worthwhile branch of philosophy.
>>160967>whatever you refer to as 'the world being meaningless' is just an arbitrary abstract concept. What you're really experiencing is those concepts being mapped unto foundations of experience.
What is experience though? Think about what Kant said: "Concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind." I think he had it right. There is no meaningful perception without concepts and there are no meaningful concepts without perceptions as those two condition each other. Perception without apprehension is so to speak not 'ours' as we don't understand what's going on like a child that crys in pain but has no idea why the pain is there. While blind perception is a base reality (before we know why there is pain first there is the direct percept of pain) this is not yet a real experience. Experience can only be made once we understand what is going on. Everything else is diffuse sensation.
When I say that the world itself is meaningless it means that base reality functions fully without any concepts but however you put it there IS a world before conceptions otherwise there would be nothing instead of something. A child doesn't know that what he perceives is called pain. It's just the present sensation which is bad and makes the child react. This is no experience but meaningless sensation from an indifferent, meaningless but potent world.
>Everything begins and ends with a person's mind
This does not explain where the person's mind comes from and how it receives its ideas. Your mind is not a free choice and you are not able to structure it and your concepts about the world as you wish. Your mind is dependent on many things like your upbringing and parents, language and culture, and so on you know all of this I guess. Psychology helps to understand how the mind works but it lacks the competence of saying what contents are fabricated thourgh the mind. And form without content is empty selfreferencing consciousness that had no chance to become aware of itself. If there is nothing that affects you externally and if you want complete control over your mind then question yourself where this will to gain control over your mind comes from and why you haven't had it in the first place. There must be something else than the mind because if the mind only ever was occupied with itself why would it question itself? I don't see a plausible reason for that.
Also the answer from Hegel that consciousness is divided in itself is only a linguistic trick because a divide in itself implys that unity and universality of the mind is impossible. There is the mind and then there is something that is not the mind (the gap, the division, the differentiation whatever) and there is mind again but still complete unity is disrupted. In the gap of the mind the meaningless world lingers.
MR is Memory Reconsolidation, right?>This makes it clear that only radically unlearning it can possible be a solution.
So then, electroshock therapy's side-effect of memory loss is not a side-effect, it's what's probably actively causing the cure?
>>160969>"Concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind."
I agree with this and most of what you said.
>Your mind is not a free choice and you are not able to structure it and your concepts about the world as you wish. Your mind is dependent on many things like your upbringing and parents, language and culture, and so on you know all of this I guess.
Sure, your mind is the result of previous experience, your genetics and so on. However, much of what makes up your mind is learned, it wasn't hard-wired into you except for certain base processes which end up shaping the experience which you take in. There is no reason why one couldn't transcend his own mental structures by understanding how his mind works and developing psychotechnologies to help him influence that structure. It's physically possible to learn things and also physically possible to unlearn them, therefore it's all a matter of developing proper techniques and applying them. That's like saying you can't create a marble statue because nature did not itself create the statue but rather this unprocessed material. Nonetheless, people developed various techniques and tools and chipped away, shaping the rock into a desired state.
Obviously, there is a hard limit on this because you cannot transcend your own humanity and biological nature (at least not through psychological methods). There is certain base foundation of experience which is unchangeable because it is heavily dependent on certain physical processes and its effectively hard-wired. However, the majority of a person's mind is made up of things that are only somewhat dependent on the physical world. I'm talking about constructed experiences like social rejection that are essentially mental fluff, there is no hard-wired response for being insulted or the complex nature of social games. It's all learned concepts and mechanisms that are extremely malleable.
Your mind is not made up of your upbringing and genetics, it's made up of relational structures. Upbringing and genetics were only factors that influenced your learning but they are not the actual material - it's knowledge. Therefore, they are some of the factors responsible for how you ended up in your current structure but are not necessarily barriers to changing that internal structure.
I'm not really interested in the broader ideas of the metaphysics of the mind and so on. The scope of what I'm talking about is contained in transformative experiences that could occur daily and deliberately with the right tools and knowledge. I'll leave the hard problem of consciousness to others.>>160970>MR is Memory Reconsolidation, right?
>So then, electroshock therapy's side-effect of memory loss is not a side-effect, it's what's probably actively causing the cure?
Sure, maybe. That's obviously a physical procedure that could have any number of effects on the brain, one of which could be change in memory that creates a particular symptom. Still, that's a horrible way of going about it considering it's like nuking an entire country to destroy one house. Also, the kind of memory that creates pathological symptoms isn't limited to episodic memory i.e. traumatic memories, rather it can and often is related to semantic memory, more subtle and abstract memory that is concerned with how the world works and so on.
MR can be applied physically through deliberate disruption of the reconsolidation process with drugs, or it can be much more safely applied through psychological methods. This paper goes over the neuroscience research, the methodology and it also compares the physical vs psychological approach.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325718926_Clinical_Translation_of_Memory_Reconsolidation_Research_Therapeutic_Methodology_for_Transformational_Change_by_Erasing_Implicit_Emotional_Learnings_Driving_Symptom_Production
I also agree with most of what you said.
>There is no reason why one couldn't transcend his own mental structures by understanding how his mind works and developing psychotechnologies to help him influence that structure. It's physically possible to learn things and also physically possible to unlearn them, therefore it's all a matter of developing proper techniques and applying them.
This technically is correct I guess. But I want to question if what you are talking about here are habits or deep routed personal traits. Can you change your character or only your behaviour?
As Schopenhauer formulated the question, can you only do what you want to do which is prescribed by your hard wired character or can you want what you want despite of character?
Btw german is my mother tongue so it feels super awkward formulating this question in english from memory.
>>160973>Can you change your character or only your behaviour?
Well, most of the current mainstream psychology is concerned with the latter. We know that we can learn new things, new ways of coping and suppressing behavior and urges, but this is shallow, inconsistent and slow painful change. I'm talking about changing one's character through the very structure of one's psyche, not the surface-level phenomena like thoughts or overt behavior that are like ripples on the water. The physical level at which this happens is memory, either you learn something and it changes your internal structure, or you radically unlearn it - whichever it is, the shifts in memory are what corresponds to change.
Your character i.e. your personality, temperament, preferences, values and so on, are all learned through experience, you are not born or hard-wired with them. Certain genes, a certain upbringing, certain experiences can make developing certain traits unavoidable, but considering they are still learned, they can be theoretically unlearned and updated. Behind these things is actually just knowledge, relational frames consisting of previously experienced stimuli coupled with concepts. A preference is essentially just remembering, various concepts give you internal feedback, like a warm feeling when you think of friends and relationships or perhaps the opposite depending on your life so far.
Although, a certain level of functionality is required even for this method. If you are so disordered that you are not even aware of it, you can't be helped. The usual cliche in psychology is correct "The patient needs to want to change". Also, physical causes like brain damage or other neurological problems are beyond the reach of psychological methods.
I'm not the poster you replied to, but since you seem to be knowledgeable in neurology, I would like to ask you some off-topic questions that have been nagging me for a while now. I haven't been able to find an answer to these online, perhaps I haven't been thorough, but anyway. Excuse me using incorrect terms or getting some things wrong if I do, I'm a complete layman.
What exactly is talent from a neurological standpoint? What constitutes talent? Could it just be increased and stronger connectivity in and between certain brain areas that are responsible for smaller activities which together make up "talent"? For example, developed areas of the brain responsible for fine motor skills and hearing together create "talent" for music, developed areas of the brain responsible for vision and fine motor skills together create "talent" for drawing etc.
If "talent" is actually based on structural differences and connectivity, does this mean it's potentially possible to lose it through weakening of connections?
Furthermore, what weakens these connections? Prolonged lack of their usage? Is it possible that connections are strengthened at the cost of other connections? Can "talent" be lost this way? Say, we have a genius mathematician and we make him study art even though he has zero aptitude for it: would it make his frontal lobes weaker, since entirely different regions of the brain are activated when you're drawing or exerting yourself to perceive the world in a more concrete way, the way an artist would do?
This is insightful for me as I mostly think about this in philosophical terms and there the same questions are covered (for example it's a matter of determinism vs. indeterminism if you can change your mind or not) but your psychological and technical approach seems much more applicable to me while in philosophy it always goes back to ontological, logical or metaphysical issues which cannot be answered clearly. In the end I follow Wittgenstein who made it clear that philosophy can only make linguistic terms clear and coherent but nothing more.
>The patient needs to want to change
This seems to be the precondition from which on change is possible but how do we reach this state? This seems to be random like a certain life event that makes the ill person become aware that he has a problem and that something can be done against it. I think often it's the case that ill persons don't want to admit to others or to themselves that something is wrong or they feel so hopeless that they give up before even trying. Thus they identify with their condition and then even defend it and change becomes impossible.
Also I might be projecting here a bit from my past. I can very much relate to your ideas not on a professional level but I went through excatly such processes and while I don't think I am fundamentally another person I feel like I fundamentally experience reality differently than in the past. I have effectively delearned anxiety by testing my assumptions about social reality with my factual experiences and objective knowledge which made me realize that almost all my assumptions were wrong.
I'm not actually knowledgeable in neurology and most of my knowledge of MR comes from the paper I posted. I tend to not concern myself with this stuff because its usually too low-level to be useful, the exception being the MR process which has surprising implications for further psychology research and can actively inform psychotherapy to boost effectiveness.
Now, I can tell you from a psychological point of view that "talent" is just a positive feedback loop between an activity and the person's environment. Often times it's accidental, but a mother could encourage a child's scribbles and the child would learn that this activity is valued and to associate positive stimuli with it. The person could theoretically have the "perfect brain" for a specific task, but if the environment doesn't bring it to his attention or if he doesn't spend enough time on it, it will not materialize. So, I think that the environmental factors are much more important than stuff like neuron connectivity and so on. If you look at the history of talented people, the constant is that they spent a hell of a lot of time in some arbitrary activity that was coincidentally valued by society. On the one hand, the spent a lot of time doing supposedly valuable things but they were also often extremely tortured and otherwise neurotic.
I guess one neurological factor might have to do with general intelligence, in the sense that if it's too low, it could be an obstacle and an averse stimuli which would make the behavior/skill less likely to occur. But generally I think that looking at it from the neurological point of view is like asking how likely is it that a bunch of water molecules could become a snowflake or whatever. I mean, theoretically, any neurons could form the specific connections required for 'genius', it's just a matter of bringing all the factors together to actually form it (potentially infinite).
If you suck at drawing or whatever skill you wish to learn, it's pretty much because you haven't spent enough time doing it or just doing it wrongly. The barrier in adulthood is that you often don't have the positive association with the activity and often you give up because you really just end up associating frustration and ineptitude with it or you have extremely negative associations with failure and so on. I guess a good general strategy is to just somehow power through until you reach a level where the activity itself is rewarding and sets up a positive feedback loop which will make it more likely you do spend the required time necessary for a skill level. The other method would require understanding all the barriers that make you less likely to do the activity and then deconstructing them if they're internal or problem solving if they're external.>>160979>This seems to be the precondition from which on change is possible but how do we reach this state?
The external world can influence a person, but it's highly unlikely that he will experience the needed corrective experience by chance. If a person is dissociated from his state, it's because he has learned that it's necessary in order to survive. The solution even for such a state is to unlearn it, but I have no clue how you would cause this experience in others if they do not let you. Some of Ecker's case studies deal with resistance and he simply treats it as just another symptom that has a purpose. Resistance can be overcome, but again it's a matter of degree to which the person allows change to occur.
There’s something so delightfully retarded about someone trying to discuss world views and philosophy, but attaches an anime succubus onto every post.
Solid and reinforced. I have next to no earthly insecurities or internal doubts so all my concerns instead rest on the spiritual, hypothetical planes I could never verify and the potential encroachment of others on my personal space. I've been adaptive so far and I've come to various conclusions based on a multitude of possibilities that could await me as a result of the initiation of either contact or conflict foisted upon me by others, all of which I am entirely comfortable with. It might be a narcissistic viewpoint, but I have demonstrated time and time again that there is no circumstance that awaits me that I will not be fundamentally analytical, precise, in dealing with. I live for my reclusive preferences and can back all of them up to a moral degree with impunity. If someone were to intrude on them then I would simply be a victim of their own abrasive immorality, only they will be held accountable.
>>160912>What does your world look like?
Go with the flow. Less thinking, more observing. I guess this is what you could call a Taoist mindset. After years of thinking in circles, I realized it's best to just think like a child. I can live out my short lifespan without asking too much of the world.
>How do you live your life?
Go with the flow. Maybe I want to eat yellow ice or go out for a run without shoes. Maybe I want to become an engineer on Antarctica, or maybe I want to throw blades of grass at a car window. Maybe I want to become a master painter. I think I'll go and try for any of those. But, sometimes, I don't want to do anything, and I feel empty inside. All I can do is dread. But, I think that's fine too. I relish those feelings, that dread, that nostalgia, that sadness, because I genuinely do not know if I will get the chance to feel like that again. Maybe tomorrow I won't wake up, so at the very least I'll enjoy the hollowness I might have now. I'll just keep floating down the stream.
>Is your world a nice place?
Yes, it is. I hope you wizards can find a nice place too.
Life is the ultimate good and it gets trashed way too much, mostly unjustly. A shame I realized this only after being the prisoner of ascetic/pessimist/antinatalist memes that plague this site for so long. These life-denying ideologies are absolute cancer and stem from bitterness, envy and inferiority complexes. Life is beautiful and fun, given that you know how to live it well and WANT to live it well. This is my second year living as a NEET and I can spend my time on whatever I want, why should I hate life? I stopped hating life and instead started hating other people more. Because people are the causes of our troubles 90% of the time, not life itself. Those who shun life actually hate life because other people, society or bullies made them hate life through mistreatment and abuse. Or because of having too much empathy or forcing themselves to feel that way. But let me tell you this wizards, don't feel pity towards anyone. You need to stick to yourselves only, you aren't responsible for others. Only care about people who are directly responsible for your well-being, in other words your family. Other people can go to hell. Don't let anyone ruin your relationship with life. Life is all we have and it is short, we should enjoy this time as much as we can before we return to Nothingness.
I also started worshiping and adoring myself as a god. Because I'm unique, not another man lived exactly like me or will live like me ever. No man thought exactly the same thoughts that I had nor will there be a man who will think exactly these same thoughts as me! Same goes for feelings and dreams. I don't worry about my future anymore either. Maybe I will be homeless or have to live my life isolated in some facility - prison or some ward - among the worst kind of trash, maybe I will die from cancer and suffer horribly and die a long death…but! Give it to me! I'm not afraid anymore. Life is a game and I will gladly challenge it.
While it is good to see you have vigor for life, be aware that your path is a dangerous one that can very easily lead you astray. When men equate themselves to god is the time they are the most unstable and the most fallible.
If you invest in your "total" uniqueness in mind and thought, you are just asking to be lead astray by your own efforts. You very much still belong in the material realm/meatspace. You are still very fallible. Abandoning the humbleness and your place in this world as is will not end well. Virtueless, you will be lead astray.And to insinuate the self as god, you do truly show your lack of applicable knowledge in theology and the idea of godhood.
Sounds like some higher form of nihilism to me I don't think you are genuine with the bring suffering to me though
don't read this guy, he's a doofus. What a fucking waste of time.
I have my own virtues and my own god, myself. I have no business with false gods and idols. Same goes for false virtues. And I believe both of us know very well that there is nothing outside the material realm. I only believe in my Self and serve mySelf loyally and unconditionally.>>161034
I'm not a nihilist, meaning does exist and it is me. Everything exists to serve my will, otherwise it is useless. I'm the meaning both to myself and to the world too. The world didn't have meaning before I was born. Now that I live the world has a meaning. When I will die the world will lose its meaning again.>I don't think you are genuine with the bring suffering to me though
I'm not a masochist, I just say that even a life full of suffering is preferable when you consider the alternative - death and non-existence.
>>161037>I'm not a masochist, I just say that even a life full of suffering is preferable when you consider the alternative - death and non-existence.
You are enjoying life thanks to escapism, how could it be enjoyable if you were too sick for it? You either disregard suffering existing or think you are too good for it.
Hah, if by your admittance, you've no faith in the immaterial, then you are a fool. Life is an illusion. The harder you struggle against the King, the more your blindness will consume you. And to tell of false faiths and idols while only thinking it ends on the material… And you think yourself as god still?
Far from it actually. You seem conceited and ignorant of the mechanics at play, not a far cry from someone who believes himself as god. Taking a closer inspection and properly internalizing the world, you'd realize that all that you are is but a controller or your own internal reality, which is a far cry from godhood.
God is an existence infinite, unbound by anything and anyone. You however, are still very much bound by the rules set in place. Your existence is very finite, even if the borders of your own perception and intuition place it in infinite distance. It is no better way to prove it than the law of death meted out onto the living, and the restrictions and forces that beseech you, like the forces of physics and biology. Your self, morals and godhood are dissolvable, malleable, and anything that is dissolvable and malleable is corruptable.
It's incredibly easy to see you've yet to see or feel any god, even your own self, for then you would truly recognize the size of the scales that start far beyond where yours end.
Even if you are sick or suffer, it is better than not being at all. At least you can cry, rage, complain. In death there is nothing.>how could it be enjoyable
In the end, it comes down to existence vs non-existence and existence is always preferable, even if it isn't enjoyable any longer. /Though you really have to be unlucky, downright cursed in order to not enjoy anything life has to offer./
May I ask if you take any meds, drugs or alcohol to help you reach such worldview or keep it even when you suffer?
existence is a nigger
Antinatalism is "the" solution to all problems in the sense that it eliminates the problems themselves rather than posing a solution. Most people who attack it are either too far from the worse-off lives of our planet to comprehend or care for the pain (or at least they can put a paper bag over their heads with escapism and mental gymnastics to ignore it), or they are too caught up in their daily lives to look at things from a wide perspective and come to conclusions on important issues(i.e. poor working people, third worlders).
Really the elimination of feeling subjects is what's needed, antinatalism is just the method. But it's the most plausible method since other methods of the whole eliminating consciousness thing are dogshit and not applicable on a wide scale. i.e. Buddhism and other mumbo jumbo religions. Of course antinatalism itself is an unpopular idea contrary to instincts so I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to take hold. I have more hope in accelerationism and eventual self-destruction of our planet by a small group of people taking control of advanced weapons technology. But still not that much hope.
Regarding modern society I could write paragraphs but my view is best described by a mix of Baudrillard's theory of signs, theories on conspicuous consumption and leisure, some of Kaczynski's ideas, and various other postmodern theories that I'm still in the process of learning and attempting to expand upon.
For me personally I believe the best life would be something similar to what Zhuangzi and other Daoists describe, which is about adhering to one's nature rather than struggling for respect from others, knowledge, power, etc. But I think it's hard to follow today and admittedly I'm not in a position to abandon everything and do the whole free and easy wandering thing. So I generally adhere to Epicureanism I guess, or walking the middle path or whatever you want to call it. I'm trying to make the most out of my life by learning but I still have to engage in escapism and relaxation to avoid burning out.
Sure I'll give it a shot, looks interesting and I don't mind if it has a Christian context. Thanks for the recommendation.
Nobody has met a god - at least in your definition of the world - on Earth. Is God afraid of humans, that is why He doesn't contact us? Or is He just mute?>You however, are still very much bound by the rules set in place. Your existence is very finite, even if the borders of your own perception and intuition place it in infinite distance. It is no better way to prove it than the law of death meted out onto the living, and the restrictions and forces that beseech you, like the forces of physics and biology. Your self, morals and godhood are dissolvable, malleable, and anything that is dissolvable and malleable is corruptable.
Permanency doesn't mean perfection too. I may be impermanent, indeed finite, however I'm still the center of the universe. My authority is unquestionable and absolute. My rules are absolute, my morals are absolute, my virtues are absolute. Even if your imaginary god existed that still wouldn't mean that we should respect him or obey him.>>161043
I don't indulge in drugs. I don't drink alcohol either. I'm not even that much into sexuality anymore, I mean I masturbate much less than before when I was in my pessimist phase. So my mind is clear as it can be.
About enduring suffering: suffering is also a kind of special right if you think about it. Many people are killed by doctors and their own mothers before they can even come into this world at all, these aborted ones never experience neither joy or sorrow, no rage or calmness because they didn't even have a chance to taste life fully.>>161046
Antinatalism wants to solve problems that aren't problems at all. Suffering is a necessary part of life that can't be avoided no matter how much you try, only sufferings caused by other people can be prevented and diminished if you get rid of the guys who initiate those troubles. You are also bewitched by the demon called empathy. Chances are if you are posting here, your life isn't so bad. Caring for others is useless and a waste of energy, you should care about yourself only.
*in your definition of the WORD
Your lack of Initiation really shows. You gazed at a sliver of truth and think you've the whole key to the universe. Theorem is Everything, but they are just a tool designed to fill a function.
Your attempts at playing god is misguided to put it lightly, and it is no surprise you think him mute, since you so readily think of yourself as his equal. You spout, but you do not listen.
You are a bufoon if you think you have more than just a sliver of the scale that is the universe. Your authority unquestionable, then how come I'm free to disagree? If you think you've authority over the external, then a very simple test would suffice to show it. Make me agree that you are a god in my mind. Make me worship you as one in body and soul.
Your authority only extends insofar as your tiny self, an almost nonexistent puny part of what is the Whole. Wholeness cannot be found in any one alone. Individual and enviroment, internal and external together form the Wholeness that is desirable to attain.
Ironically enough, the way you treasure the internal self and reality that you think infinite only serves to hinder you in the larger picture. You are only at the center that is your own self, nothing more. You are but an basic function of qualia that interprets according to your filters. You fail to realize that you aren't even yourself. You are playing with fire with your entire body being soaked in gasoline.
I honestly wish I was one of those "unlucky" unborn kids or never existed at all
If you've excuses to say about not being able to change my mind via your authority, then try this.
Sit down and think of these 2 rules.
>I will not move a muscle in my leg>I will, with my will only (not physically speaking) try to kivk with my leg.
Whichever leg is fine.
Two things will happen. 1, you will not perform the physical act of kicking unless you move the muscles in your leg physically, and 2, you will get a sensation similiar to itching where you'll really want to kick.
That is because your body listens to the internal self that you possess and wishes to execute the action, but without your external body to follow, it will remain unfulfilled.
Now try this with someone else abd try to make them kick with your will only. You will inevitably fail, because their bodies are not under the command of your will, but their own.
Yes that Steve buscemi quote from a b grade movie is really something to build a world view on. Good job. Good anime picture too.
I am not omnipotent but I can perform more things your imagined god can. Again, our definitions regarding a god are different: you adhere to superstitious believes and false mysticism too much while I think symbolically of the term god. Strictly speaking, I'm an atheist and militant materialist.>>161063
I wouldn't consider being cut to pieces as preferable. However, if in your sick mind you do so, please do yourself and everyone else a favor and kill yourself already. After all, if life is so unbearable for you then surely you can muster up the courage and willpower necessary to erase your existence.>>161066
I don't know what movie you refer to.
My world view is all about thermodynamics.
The First Law states that energy is always conserved. It can change form, but it can neither be created nor destroyed. However, the Second Law states that entropy tends to increase (where entropy is a measure of chaos, randomness, and disorder). In layman’s terms, this means that energy tends to decay into less and less useful forms.
In practice, therefore, every transformation of energy from
one form to another incurs a loss. There may be just as much total energy after the transformation as before, butthe quality of that energy will be poorer.
One way of restating the Second Law, often called the entropy law, is to say that matter-energy transformations cannot be reversed; time’s arrow flies in only one direction. Thus when Humpty Dumpty takes his great fall, all the
king’s horses and all the king’s men can never put him together again. His material “energy” has been irretrievably lost. Similarly, when ice melts in a glass of lemonade, the cold “energy” stored in the ice cubes dissipates into the environment, never to be recaptured. And, of course, vice
versa for hot objects. For instance, our sun is slowly but
surely radiating away its concentrated energy. Approximately five billion years from now, it will exhaust its fuel and eventually fade into a dim ember.
In short,over time energy moves inexorably downhill from a more
useful or concentrated state to one that is less useful or concentrated. This movement is called entropy.
You can combine this world view with philosophy, theology, esoterics or whatever you want.
For example buddhism states that nothing is fixed. Or take the philosophies of Parmenides and Heraclitus. Parmenides says that everything is constant (1. Law) and Heraclitus says that everything changes (2. Law).
In the end nothing will last. Everything will go down. My life, the earth, the universe, everything and after some very long period of time everything will start to exist again. And the nightmare can restart.
there's a quote from spykids 2 that is something along the lines of "do you think god stays in his heaven because he too fears what he has created?".
Lmao at comparing abortion to suicide
It isn't a comparison, I only advised the person to commit suicide in case he finds life so horrible instead of whining about the evils of life on the net.
I read your previous posts and your entire view can be summed up by "existence is the greatest good, nonexistence is the greatest bad" and "I'm important, fuck everyone else, I'm all that counts". There was no need for you to make multiple posts writing paragraphs trying to elucidate such a simple view because you've done nothing but restate these 2 things over and over rather than providing justifications for these beliefs. Even the guy posting about God is at least providing some arguments, even if I disagree with them.
>Antinatalism wants to solve problems that aren't problems at all. Suffering is a necessary part of life that can't be avoided no matter how much you try, only sufferings caused by other people can be prevented and diminished if you get rid of the guys who initiate those troubles.
This is essentially you agreeing with antinatalism/efilism then (or at least my take on it) because all suffering can be traced indirectly to your parents. Elimination of life theoretically prevents future suffering by other "possible people" who could have been brought into existence. Of course this is about eliminating other "possible" people's sufferings rather than your own so you don't care about that. But all future sufferings can also be avoided by killing yourself, except for the moments of suffering at the instant of death.
And suffering being a necessary part of life is just another reason for antinatalism.
As far as your view on non-existence goes your ascribing the adjective of "unlucky" to people who weren't born is absurd because they are non-existent. There is no deprivation of life occurring for nonexistent beings. >>161040>Even if you are sick or suffer, it is better than not being at all. At least you can cry, rage, complain. In death there is nothing.
This is conflating death with nonexistence. Death is a transition to nonexistence, not a state. Your entire bias for existence over nonexistence is based on wanting "something" rather than "nothing" but you also seem to be presupposing that there is some sort of acknowledgement of the "nothing" by the nonexistent being which therefore makes "nothing" bad when there is not. We can lament non-existent Martians on Mars but any "badness" we attribute to their nonexistence is based on our own sentimental feelings.
That's all I have to say on antinatalism, back to>>161060>You are also bewitched by the demon called empathy. Chances are if you are posting here, your life isn't so bad. Caring for others is useless and a waste of energy, you should care about yourself only.
Irrelevant to any of the arguments I made. However if I was chasing hedonism or the twisted version of it that you advocate, of wanting to experience life like I'm savoring a lollipop or some shit, I would obviously live differently. As I said I believe the best life for me would be something akin to what Daoists like Zhuangzi and his disciples advocated. However I also believe there's more to life than just chasing my personal satisfaction and that there is a massive amount at stake (virtually infinite amount of suffering by future beings), and I'm trying to act in a way that can mitigate some amount of it, even if it's minuscule.
Your worldview will probably change sometime in the future, because it's heavily dependent on your current situation. As a NEET you are closer to a state of being in a vacuum socially, in the sense that you don't have to deal with other people (besides maybe parents) unless you choose to. As a result you can easily hold these God delusions and borderline manic views on life without them being shot down by reality. When your parents/guardians or the state or whatever stops supporting you and you have to deal with life on your own you'll sober up. It's one thing, of course, to be a self-interested asshole who only cares about himself, but still has some degree of skills in navigating through social situations. Most people are like this, they're only self-interested and care about people to the extent that those people can provide them satisfaction. But this type at least requires acting like you give as shit about other people. Whereas your whole view of "fuck everyone but me!" and treating everyone else as an enemy and the sole source of bad is probably not going to work out so well.
Also your whole "bring on the suffering!" routine rings hollow when you seem so disconnected from any real suffering. You're a NEET who can spend his time any way he wants to, indulging in escapism. You post images of anime succubus soldiers that seem to me like gross perversions and trivialization of actual suffering, a hyper-sanitized image of struggle, real struggle that's been happening for so many years, is happening now, and will be happening in the future. Honestly all your posts just seem like a disgusting parody, I tried to avoid blatant insults throughout most of this post but it's pretty hard when you exhibit this degree of self-satisfaction and blatant stupidity.
It's an ontological argument:
"I am cognizance, all else is my perception."
Even if you falsely claim that you can be a god without omnipotence, you are still not able to escape the external-internal mechanic that binds you. To claim that your existence can be limited and still be a god is nothing but denial. You fail even before the basics of godhood.
Even now, you think yourself as above and not below as you pathetically try to slander god as if I'm talking about a singular entity. Just implying so is insulting to your intelligence about the topic. You are as blind as a mole, or as smart as an ant to think that god is tangible. The only way to defend your faulty Theorem is to deny the existence of my god as he was a "someone". Very predicatble and pathetic an attempt to fight back. You feel that even just thinking it through would result in your meager pillar to erode what you currently have, so you cowardly resort to try to find comfort in such tries. As I've said, you spout, but you do not listen.
God is past the external internal conflict. God's existence is past limitation of Law. God isn't a person, or an idea, or a state of being, or a symbol. He is something that need not exist to exist. Hod is above All. The closest you could come in terms to god is a kind of force, but even that fails to uphold to the true nature of god.
The only reason why god was ever thought of as human or tangible was due to religions trying to make god something that is relatable to the common folk, and not something "utterly alien compared to our oen existence" in it's nature, yet you regurgitate the idea of it, thinking it right and just. You cannot even risr above your tribal self and the mental strains of clutching onto your worldview like as it was anything more than a suggestion, used by your psyche to put things in order. You worship yourself, yet you don't even investigate or research the self to take it apart, because if you would, you'd realize very quickly that you do not exist as anything other than a conscious stream, and both internal and external are just a filter through which the stream flows. You've yet to boil down your existence to it's most base element.
I am a finite cognizance spanning the godhead. I have been given a border, & thrown into this mentality for no real reason at all. When I'm looking for reason, ego-death. I would much prefer to live for joy. My highest dream would be to end my drama at the dance of war, in a glorious blaze of life within the perfect moment of struggle.
So you admit you're just a slave to the situation, yet you claim to be "god". You also claim to be an atheist.
I'm just surprised you didn't implode with self denial. Just because you repeatedly say something doesn't make it true.
And "roast me"? Who needs to "roast" you when you shoot yourself in the foot just by talking. Everyone sees it for what it is, and it's just you who doesn't.
religion is primitive superstitious bullshit only believed by low IQ insecure retards who can't handle the fact that there is nothing after death
post all the fedora memes you want, it won't make me wrong
It is really funny how you try to desperately berate my opinion as too simple when your own is something kids would come up with in kindergarten: "Eh, life is hard for me…hmm…I am too bitter and stupid to know how to live it well…I guess I will preach that all life is necessarily bad, that will show these pro-life apes for sure!" Antinatalism and pessimism and its other monster siblings of ideologies are all level 0 as far as philosophy is concerned. Turning away from life so easily indeed is the greatest sin one can commit.>all suffering can be traced indirectly to your parents
And all the good things too. Suffering is a necessary contrast to pleasure. Without suffering and pain there is no joy and satisfaction either.>There is no deprivation of life occurring for nonexistent beings.
Aborted fetuses did exist in the womb but they weren't allowed to be born. They are unlucky because they didn't have the opportunity to experience life fully. They were indeed deprived of life before it could really start for them.>However I also believe there's more to life than just chasing my personal satisfaction and that there is a massive amount at stake (virtually infinite amount of suffering by future beings), and I'm trying to act in a way that can mitigate some amount of it, even if it's minuscule.
Yeah, let me tell you what I think: you and other advocates of non-existence and antinatalism are just using antinatalism as an idea to feel superior to others without needing to accomplish any deeds at all. You can say "I don't reproduce, I am a better person than others" and it takes you zero effort to feel high and mighty. If you guys actually cared about easing the suffering of people then you would be working as doctors or you would share your food with the hungry masses or would provide shelter for homeless people. Shitposting on anonymous image boards isn't going to diminish suffering. You are a liar and a fake moralist.>Your worldview will probably change under X condition
This could be said of anyone, here, let me try it for you: I would be curious whether you would still be a selfless, gentle and "with the flow" person when your local drug-addict will push a knife against your throat just for fun. Or when anything happens that might really concern you in a negative way, would you still just "go with the flow"? I wonder which one of us is the real hypocrite.
And by the way, thanks for "caring" about my future but I am confident in my abilities, no need to project your own insecurities and complexes unto me. I am also actually quite a charismatic person and can force my will onto others around me easily. Besides, didn't you know? Tough times call for tough measures. If literal drug addicts and mentally handicapped people can get things done then I'm not afraid that I with my above average intelligence, wisdom, insight and strength will somehow fail in life.> when you seem so disconnected from any real suffering
The only suffering that is of importance is my own.
>>161126>It is really funny how you try to desperately berate my opinion as too simple
I'm berating you for restating the same thing multiple times and failing to actually defend anything to anybody else. Even with the religiousfag you look like a tard because you have to move goalposts and sidestep arguments to avoid acknowledging how fucking stupid you sound when you call yourself a God, with qualifications of "W-well God doesn't exist so I can do more!" Not going so well for you when even someone who believes in magic looks like less of an idiot and more logically consistent than you.
>"Eh, life is hard for me…hmm…I am too bitter and stupid to know how to live it well
Yeah and this isn't the argument, it's just your moron-filtered version because you're incapable of considering and deconstructing ideas separate from people, and need to attach them to some loser image so that you can attack that instead.
>Turning away from life so easily indeed is the greatest sin one can commit.
Meaningless rhetoric but it's obviously asking too to ask you to defend or explain absolutely anything. Keep repeating the mantra of how great existence is.
>And all the good things too. Suffering is a necessary contrast to pleasure. Without suffering and pain there is no joy and satisfaction either.
No shit. Which is why there is no need to reproduce and there is, in fact, an ethical reason not to. Because pain-pleasure is a package deal and every birth is the creation of a needs machine. And almost all pleasure is just the satisfaction of a need or the removal of a bad.
>Aborted fetuses did exist in the womb but they weren't allowed to be born. They are unlucky because they didn't have the opportunity to experience life fully. They were indeed deprived of life before it could really start for them.
More sidestepping of the issue, going from talking about the crux of the antinatalist argument that I was stating (the asymmetry between nonbeing vs. being for conscious organisms) to abortion issues.
But if you want to discuss abortion - I see no issue with it up until the point where the fetus is conscious. Before that any pro-life argument is just human sentimentality or illogical arguments about potential Steve Jobs or other bullshit, when the average person is just going to be another fat consuming needs machine.
>Yeah, let me tell you what I think: you and other advocates of non-existence and antinatalism are just using antinatalism as an idea to feel superior to others without needing to accomplish any deeds at all…
Just more exhibition of your inability to attack any idea directly and your need to build up an image of people to attack instead. Whether or not people feel morally superior is just fucking irrelevant, it's is as retarded as criticizing people for feeling "morally superior" to murderers or fraudsters. That says absolutely zero about whether slaughter and chicanery are ethically okay.
Rest of what you said is just pointless projecting. Why bother with this when I posted almost nothing about my personal life besides my ideas and a vague notion of my views on life?
>This could be said of anyone, here, let me try it for you: I would be curious whether you would still be a selfless, gentle and "with the flow" person
The difference is that the situation I described is a likely inevitability for anyone, unless you're a trust fund baby or hit the jackpot with some get rich quick scheme, and is also a condition you'll be under for much longer, possibly the majority of your life. Whereas your pathetic attempt to come up with an equivalent example is a specific instance, not lasting long, and much less likely for the average person if you keep your wits about you and avoid bad areas.
Also I don't know where you got this personification of me as some go with the flow person, when I explicitly stated that I don't follow Daoism because it would be difficult today. Apparently that godlike wisdom of yours isn't doing so well because you can't even read and comprehend basic posts correctly.
Anyways the whole point of that example was that your worldview won't be consistent with what you see and experience when you actually have to go out and fend for yourself. Obviously it's retarded to go "well if X happens your worldview will change!" when X is an unlikely or impossible scenario but when X is something you'll almost certainly experience and which will force you to actually look at the world rather than engaging in this solipsistic bullshit it's not an unreasonable thing to bring up.
>I am also actually quite a charismatic person and can force my will onto others around me easily. Besides, didn't you know? Tough times call for tough measures. If literal drug addicts and mentally handicapped people can get things done then I'm not afraid that I with my above average intelligence, wisdom, insight and strength will somehow fail in life.
Yeah well you seem like a delusional brat who thinks everything will magically work out when push comes to shove but who knows. All I'm saying is that if you don't have tangible results from the past or specific examples of your abilities that you can recall then your whole god shtick is probably just runaway Dunning-Kruger effect. Convincing your dad that you're trading stocks when you're actually watching kid's cartoons or making your mom microwave hot pockets and bring them to your room aren't great examples of your ability to will other people or of your charismatic skills.
>The only suffering that is of importance is my own.
There's no point in this entire conversation then, and also no point in any of your posts, because literally every other jackass on the planet can just pipe up and say "No only my suffering matters!" Just complete inconsistency with reality and nothing constructive about it. If you want to continue with your onanistic world view go ahead. Just don't be surprised when I or other people shoot it down and point out how stupid and inconsistent with reality it is.
>>161165>to avoid acknowledging how fucking stupid you sound when you call yourself a God, with qualifications of "W-well God doesn't exist so I can do more!"
I am a god indeed, little ants like you are nothing compared to my amazing Glory and Power. Gods don't exist in the usual sense of the word, I call myself a god because I am superior compared to you little people, you filthy worms crawling around me everywhere.>I'm berating you for restating the same thing multiple times and failing to actually defend anything to anybody else
Hah, this self-delusion! You are the one who parrots the same ideas over and over again instead of providing justifications and proof for why you believe in them.>and need to attach them to some loser image so that you can attack that instead
You do the same you hypocrite pig, below in your post when you try to shame me for my NEET lifestyle.>Keep repeating the mantra of how great existence is.
At least I'm consistent, while you are a hypocrite because you preach of the greatness of non-existence while you yourself are alive and you exist. Why not kill yourself if existence pains you so much, poor boy?>when the average person is just going to be another fat consuming needs machine
Time will prove that, not you. Just because you failed in life marvelously you shouldn't prevent others from having fun and living a beautiful life. Typical sour grapes mentality, like most antinatalists and pessimists.>Whether or not people feel morally superior is just fucking irrelevant
No, it isn't. It is different when you are fighting for an idea because you agree with it or just to stroke your own ego and show moral you are.>Why bother with this when I posted almost nothing about my personal life besides my ideas and a vague notion of my views on life?
Wooh ooh, did I hurt you in some way? Like I thought, you don't want to erase suffering at all, otherwise you would be cleaning the piss and shit of elderly people up or help homeless people. Keep roleplaying that you are the white knight who wants to erase suffering while you don't lift a finger in the real world, I'm sure it will work out!>The difference is that the situation I described is a likely inevitability for anyone
Inevitable to small people like you, maybe. Great people and geniuses suffered through the entire history of humankind because of financial reasons, there is nothing new in that. If life throws that situation at me I won't be surprised and won't run away.
And my example still stands: would you be so concerned about the suffering of others when it is your ass on the line?>unlikely>impossible>certainly
And I guess YOU really know what is the probability for everything, O far-sighted prophet!>Yeah well you seem like a delusional brat who thinks everything will magically work out when push comes to shove
No, but I'm not a life-denying coward like you either. I don't delude myself that pleasure and joy are meaningless, I don't delude myself that effort and willpower are useless. If anything, I have already grown out of your pessimistic, filthy hole and hopefully you will too soon.>Just don't be surprised when I or other people shoot it down and point out how stupid and inconsistent with reality it is.
Parroting the same things you read from Ligotti or some other mentally unhealthy people's works isn't "shooting down" my world view.
You fo realize that you are heavily deflecting right? You cannot back up your case, can you?
It wasn't the effectiveness, neither the nature of religion we have been discussing, but your belief.
You believe that you are god "smybolically" yet you are an azheist and a materialist. You claim that the world will die with you (by your own words) yet you claim that there's nothing after the individual's death (not your but everyone's including those who believe in god) essentially either saying that everyone is god and the world ends when someone dies, or that the world doesn't adhere to the individual after his death, meaning nobody is god and the world continues unabated.
You also claim that not existing is worse than existing despite your claim that there's nothing after death, which would suggest that life is before death, meaning those who haven't been born have no life and thus not exist.
Your belief falls apart as soon as someone looks at your statements together. It would rather be more fitting to call it a "selfview" rather than a worldview. Your views fail because it is incompatible with the external, and as such exist opposed to it rather than in harmony with it. This is why you need to twist the context desperately to satisfy your inner view of godhood and general view, because as soon as doubt seeps in, your view and self esteem would crumble. Claiming you are god is one thing, but because of your rabid belief you "must" prove yourself to be "superior" to justify claiming to be god.
So you double down, and try to deflect and steer the conversation elsewhere, where your "authority" is not questioned. And of course, you cannot contain your animosity towards anyone that disagrees, because you are but a slave to this idea. Otherwise you'd have to face that you are as a grain of sand in a dune upon this world, and that just because the light refracts differently from your crystals that you are no different.
You are a slave to this idea, like an addict, you seek self gratification and justification, thinking yourself succeeding, but anyone can tell at a glance what you are.
The fact that even now you avatarfag for some reason, and the pictures you choose are, albeit 2d, but nevertheless succubi in the first place is very telling.
You claim superiority, control over the self, and godhood. There's a very simple way to prove what you say. Try and shed the mindset and the hostility temporarily. As god, take control of the self and the impulses. No need to be omnipotent for that, is there? So do it. You say that you are materialistic right? Then let's examine your godhood in a materialistic light. Change yourself. No need to deal with the external, just your internal.
That's retarded. both pain and pleasure are simply put hardwired biological functions. Pain is there so you do not do things which are harmful for the body, pleasure is there to give incentive for the body and mind to do things.
You do realize that there's a vast difference logically speaking inbetween fetuses and literally nonexistant "people", right?
>I wonder who the hypocrite is!>you just want to feel superior!>I'm vastly superior to you all!
>I'm actually charismatic and can project my will upon others!>I'm not omnipotent and I'm limited in my existence, and thus I cannot make you do things!
>But you are totally projecting.>>161172>You are a hypocrite to advocate against life if you are still alive and have not killed yozrself>You are a hypocrite to advocate against drug/alcohol addictions if you yourself are still suffering it's effects!>never mind that nobody choses whenever he wishes to live and you said that you wish to live your existence to migitate as much pain for the future as possible.
>You do not want to erase suffering just because you don't literally dedicate your life to doing acts that might migitate some while also expanding your own suffering.
At this point, what are you even trying to achieve? You subsequently argued against yourself multiple times, in the same post none the less.
I think I like to learn things and study in general, but going into the public social space makes me homicidal and angry
Hard to deal with your inferiority, it seems like. All right you dog, I will feed it to you nice and simple: I-AM-A-GOD. I am superior to all of you miserable ones. I am more beautiful, wiser, more intelligent, stronger than all of you in this thread together. True gods in the literal sense of the word never existed and never will. I am a god as in I am above your pathetic existences, I truly know how to live life unlike you cowards. I am a god because I separated my SELF, purified it in the dark flames of my passion and managed to rise above the cattle. You try to drag me down into your pits of misery, you deniers of life! But! You can't reach me. I'm like a bird that flies over you and laughs at your efforts that are bound to end in failure.>Otherwise you'd have to face that you are as a grain of sand in a dune upon this world
Only weak people want to live in the fantasy that is called equality.>>161176
Without pain and suffering we wouldn't know what is pleasure and happiness. Pain and Joy are the daughters of the mistress called Life.>I wonder who the hypocrite is!>you just want to feel superior!>I'm vastly superior to you all!
I confess my feeling of superiority, that is the difference. I don't hide behind the mask of pretentious morals. My own virtues make me superior.>I'm actually charismatic and can project my will upon others!>I'm not omnipotent and I'm limited in my existence, and thus I cannot make you do things!
Reading comprehension? Persuading people about something and mind-control are two different things.>You are a hypocrite to advocate against life if you are still alive and have not killed yozrself>You are a hypocrite to advocate against drug/alcohol addictions if you yourself are still suffering it's effects!
Both cases are true, thanks for bringing up an example to support my case.>never mind that nobody choses whenever he wishes to live and you said that you wish to live your existence to migitate as much pain for the future as possible.
You choose to live every single minute of your life. If you weren't roleplaying only and really wanted to off yourself you would have already done it. This is the inconsistency you are bound to fall into when you are preaching against life and existence. And you can't sidestep your way out of this, little boy. And I talked about living life chasing my pleasures, yes indeed, but if I will be forced into a situation of pain or discomfort I am ready for it. A painful existence over non-existence is always the correct choice.
>What does your world look like?
Like the only opportunity you'll ever get to create something beautiful.
>How do you live your life?
By jumping from project to project believing the next one will be the one I actually finish and make people happy with it.
>Is your world a nice place?
This thread has convinced me this website is one big LARP.
That didn't address anything being said beforehand tho. Just because you repeat saying blue is red it won't be. Your view is like cancer functionally speaking. It infects the host and it sustains itself by co-opting said host. The fact that your "worldview" is a self sustaining infection of the mind is your inability to reconcile your views with the idea that more than 1 truth exists, and what you think is but one possibility.
>I'm more beautiful, wiser, intelligent and stronger than you.
Then prove it. If you possess wisdom grander than others, then surely you see the stupidity of trying to expound your views upon others who do not agree with you. If you are more intelligent, then address what was said properly.
Quite the "wisdom" and "intelligence" to assume what I said has to do with equality, and not of scale of an individual. As much of a "god" you think yourself to be, you are still born, you will still die, you are still to fulfill the needs of your body and biological function to not perish from the world, same as me, same as all the other people. You fall under the rules by which you must abide as everyone else does. Do you disagree that you are born, you will die and that you must find sustainment for your physical body?
You say you are god symbolically, so then enlighten us. What meaning or properties do you assign to mean god? What are the wualities you hold "god" to?
You accuse others of trying to establish superiority, yet you "confess" yours. You engage in the very thing you condemn. Viewed from a third angle, what you say equals to nothing but "It's fine if I
do it". You fail to live up to what you preach, which is a sign very telling for people not you.
>persuasion and mind vontrol are different!
You do realize you've yet to convince either me or the other individual arguing with you, right? Perfect oppottunity to prove your claim, but I must confess, I've much doubt that you intend or are able to prove much of anything.
Again, project your will. Go on and make a convincing case for yourself. You will not be able to, since your belief is opposed to the external, and is based on the idealization of the self at the cost of others.
Your ability to think things through is limited. Do you think, between two persons, one who stays at home or one that is whisked away for war, who would be better able to potray and realize the horrors of war? If you've just an idea of the suffering an addiction might bring, and you stand against someone who them themselves have suffered through it, the one who actively suffered through it would have a higher credibility. Ask a person who was never under the weather about the depth of suffering.
>you could kill yourself at any second and the fact that you haven't is working against you.
You seem too focused on trying to twist and turn things. Too focused on the context through which you are being forced to comprehend. I myself am not an antinatalist. God has means for me yet, and the nature of the task that I seek to complete lies far beyond what you consider. But to address your "arguement" shall we call it, let me give twist it atoubd onto you. You consciously think through every waking minute of your life. If so, it really is up to you to do with that thinking as you wish, right? So far the same logic.
Then how about you do my suggested action that will lead to a change of state, which instead of being suicide is being caring and peaceful towards others? If you are actively living your life at every second, and you could end it at any time, so are you actively consciously thinking and processing information every second, which would mean that you should just be able to change it just as easily as someone could just suicide, right?
Then here's the opportunity to prove yourself right, but we all know you won't, because you cannot help but logically drive yourself into a corner. Theorem is everything, but yours is far from.being a Theorem in the first place.
I'm laughing my ass off about people trying to actually argue with you. Whether you are a God or not is irrelevant because you feel like one, you simply choose to embody one in the here and now without asking permission from the external world. You have taken the first step towards freedom when you stopped looking for meaning outside of yourself.
Having said all that, the problem is that you're current state is still just a reaction instead of an actual attempt at honest creation. The reason you choose such a bombastic transcendental figure to embody is because you're over-compensating and rebelling against your failed social persona (which is admirable since so many on wizzie chan simply give in to it).
Good luck on your journey, don't let the nerds keep you down with their 'ugh, excuse me sir, where's your empirical rational proof urghhhh'. You'll eventually crash down from this but it's because you built a structure without a true foundation, same as a child with his first fort.
cool movie, unrealistic, but surely one of the most entertaining among other revenge films
I respectfully disagree. The man himself claims to be a materialist and have denied anything past existence itself, and as such, I think his ideas should be weighted in a materialistic manner. I couls see partial reason for his beliefs were we to discuss it on a spiritual level, but if the man himself abstains from even the idea of it…
The problem is that he confuses the step of realizing that internal self is shapeable to one's own idea, which can be a very useful step, isn't the end of the process itself. As you've said, he has no principles behind it. The idea that the external doesn't matter is not particularly a wrong one if you can clearly seperate your internal from it, and can clearly see and seperate the true self/the qualia/storehouse consciousness/"the experience of living" from the internal filters of personality, desires, and many other factors. If one was to consciously focus and dwelve into the topics, the external will certainly be of less importance, however, his belief is still faulty due to conflicts which show in his explanations.
>>161187>more than 1 truth exists
Then we should stop this tedious discussion at once. There is no use talking with brain-dead people like you who don't believe in objective truth.>Then prove it.
Only slaves need to prove things to others desperately. That said, I gave you enough proof of my godhood with my wonderful and unique posts.>Do you disagree that you are born, you will die and that you must find sustainment for your physical body?
No, this is correct. I never implied otherwise.>What meaning or properties do you assign to mean god? What are the wualities you hold "god" to?
A god is someone who is superior when compared to cattle like you. I am a god because I am infinitely more important, talented and glorious than all of humanity together.>You accuse others of trying to establish superiority, yet you "confess" yours. You engage in the very thing you condemn. Viewed from a third angle, what you say equals to nothing but "It's fine if I do it". You fail to live up to what you preach, which is a sign very telling for people not you.
You completely misunderstand, you peasant. I dislike people trying to feel superior while hiding behind morality and the facade of how good they are. The antinatalist poster is a little puppy only, who uses ideas to appear greater than he is. Besides, "It's fine if I do it" is the motto of the gods, didn't you know?>you've yet to convince either me or the other individual arguing with you
Convincing people in real life is different from persuasion through anonymous image boards. If we were having a discussion in real life you would be already sucking my toes to show how sorry you are for rebelling against your lord, kid.>your belief is opposed to the external, and is based on the idealization of the self at the cost of others
It is not idealization, it is the ultimate truth. You can pretend to be deaf and blind but my Glory will shine just the same.>Your ability to think things through is limited.
Nice projection!>Then how about you do my suggested action that will lead to a change of state, which instead of being suicide is being caring and peaceful towards others?
This made me laugh, thanks a lot. Why should I be caring and peaceful towards the mob? I could do it, that is right but I have no intention of doing it. The rabble only deserves abuse and torture from me, I will give them - just watch - in the future the cup of pain and humiliation. They will realize that I am a god and they will bow down and worship me, glorify me and praise me but these actions won't do them any good. Because I already determined that I will exterminate them. They will cry an ocean of tears because of their regret but I won't pity them.>>161188>over-compensating and rebelling against your failed social persona
I don't care about either of these. My will is to look at myself, hear myself, taste myself, smell myself and touch myself. I don't care about how others view me.>You'll eventually crash down from this but it's because you built a structure without a true foundation, same as a child with his first fort.
My foundation is myself. And I am perfect, just perfect. I won't fail, I will conquer and burn down everything that stands in my way.
Nice to see that you are still struggling your best to not address anythong in actuality.
Truth being objective and there being more than 1 truth are not mutually exclusive statements.
Using the same logic, I gave reason and proof for others to believe my ideas over yours just as much as you did, and by utilizing this logic is exactly the reason you fail. You either admit that I didn't and by extension that by the same logic yours isn't either or you admit that yours is true but then so is mine. The best you can do is spout yourself as superior to try and avoid answering and that it is somehow different in your case, but then again, doing so you self immolate to try to keep up the semblance of coherence and consistency. You act without thinking, based on your emotions instead of rationality. You are either a fake materialist, or a fake god.
So if you are born and you die and you must sustain yourself then you are under the same laws as other humans and living beings are, which means that in those regards you are the same as everybody else insofar as you are inherently must abide those laws. So then, where is your arguement against being just a speck of sand in the dune? What is your arguement against that just because you have some
differences in your life from others that you are ultimately fall under the same rules?
Not really, no. That is a claim. A fact has to be proven. If you think of objective facts, an objective fact is something that is proven. With stating an objective truth lies the burden of proof. If I state that I am a multi millionare, it is a claim unless I prove it that I do indeed possess that amount of money. Proof in a materialistic sense is external, inherently relying on the physical, which you are currently at odds at.
You say you no "need" to prove anything, but rather, you are unable, and thus deflect trying to take a higher ground. Ultimately this question boils doen to this. If you are indeed superior physically and mentally, then this would be the perfect opportunity to prove it and flaunt your superiority not in words but by action. All you would need to destroy this arguement is to actually do what you claim to be able to. After all, if it is indeed true, what reason would you need to deny and refuse the challenge? Nothing. If you would truly be superior, you'd live fearlessly of the fact, and not just claim that you are.
"Oh but you are totally not worth it to show".
Face it, you are just unable. You are not fooling anybody but yourself, but you are probably grasping too much at straws to do that properly as well.
"It's fine if I do it" is inherently a human idea drenched in selfishness. Again, refer to above. Those who are truly superior are, first, fearless in showing their actual qualities of superiority. You denied doing so multiple times. Second, a status quo, namely what constitutes an average man, and by extension who is above or below that line is a calculation made on a societal level and not on 1 individual, due to the information needed to actually create an average. By default, your idea of a man of status quo is flawed due to not having access to data on a societal level, and as such will be dependent on your subjective rating. If we go by subjective rating, I am free to claim that I am superior to you
in every way, and if I just repeat I'm right and don't acknowledge you disagreeing then I will be. "It's fine if I
do it too right?" So what now? I am far superior than you just because I claimed it.
>convincing people offline is so different than online
So you admit that your godlike powers are actually not even good enough to translate your "real life" ability to the internet then. Again, you are constantly on the defense because you need
to feel justified in your view, otherwise it will crumble to dust, but you lack the foresight to even think through what you are even talking about. You are solely engaging on an emotional level.
>but my glory will shine all the same
In your eyes, sure, but to anyone else, very doubtful. You truly are like an unstable child, stuck between objectivity and your selfview as god, between external and internal.
If you'd embrace subjectivity, you could be a god of your own, unabated, but you'd have to accept that you are but a god for your own self, and others would be a god onto themselves just as yours, as such, you could find balance between your internal feelings and those on the outside that would claim otherwise. If you'd embrace objectivity, you'd see that your godhood is but a farce, no matter how "symbolic", and you could move to become someone who accepts things as they are.
But you are neither. You want both, but get none. Sooner or later your instability will tip the scales in one way ot another, but right now, you are desperately hanging onto the feeling, trying to get the most of it.
All talk, no action. "I could totally do it, but I won't". So by extension, you also agree that "just suicide" isn't an actual arguement against antinatalism, because "they could totally do it, but they won't!". Saying that I'm projecting when you utterly fall for such easy logical traps without thinking is making it bafflingly obvious that you are trying to wriggle any twist and dance in any way you can and do whatever you can to desperately hold onto the pillar that is your belief.
Anybody who makes his belief a pillar is destined to fall. The harder you turn against the tide, the stronger it will hurl you in a new direction. Had you the insight to treat it as a place of rest before the journey to the next one, you wouldn't be in this situation.
Assigning moral character to the world is stupid, it encompass everything you can experience.
The world is just an endlessly complex system of overlapping systems, too large for any one person to understand
< anon, what's your world-view?
not> anon, what's your cosmology?
thus we have so perfectly our age! my world-view is:THIS AIN'T THE GOOD STUFF
here, take this sword and finish that corrupted beast.
GOD bless you!
subjective value can still exist with objective values
I don't think subjective values can exist in any litersl sense that isnt fundamentally religious in nature and justification, they're as much an object of faith as any religious belief.
ok i cant like my favorite colors now
>>160912>I think the world is fundamentally bad (a la Ligotti/Inmendham), but there are ways that we can extract enjoyment from it.
if youre lucky enough to have been granted freedom from the witches curse before you get mentally scarred and trapped in it.
I believe that dogs are good and humans are trash
the way i see it, there are only FOUR things to justify living:
3. art (creating and consuming)
this "coomer" stuff is becoming a very big meme; the no fap stuff, no nut. it's considered shameful to many people to masturbate often, or at all. they are completely delusional, it's one of the most accessible of pleasures and should be made full use of.
i also respect fat people, another misunderstood group of people who have discovered one of the truest, simplest joys in life: the taste and feeling of fullness of food. it's very primal and even lesser animals understand it. food is fantastic.
art is the only escape from hell world. this is self-explanatory.
everything in reality is brown, grey, ugly, fake. fiction can change all of this, or show an interesting perspective on the ugly world we live in, usually by placing nice people (who don't exist) into hell world. the new Joker movie is a good example. it's a very ugly and sad movie, just like real life, but the Joker character is idealized and more sympathetic and interesting than ANYONE IN HELL WORLD EVER COULD BE.
fiction either removes us from hell world completely or alters hell world slightly enough for it to be enjoyable. art has stopped me from killing myself several times.
education is self-explanatory as well i feel.
i can't think of any other reason to exist here besides these four things. i stared at my floor for 10 minutes before writing this and couldn't think of a single fucking thing.
just because you ask someone a question doesn't mean they have to answer it
bump because i like this thread (already posted mine, want to see others)
I never understood why masturbating is now seen as shameful. Doing it in public, or letting it control your life? Sure. If you're just jerking off before bed or something, it's fine.
It always has been.
Talking about it IRL has always been fairly shameful unless you're in really good male company. On the Internet, the meme tide has turned in this direction because the culture is primarily made up of young men attempting to deal with their sexual frustrations by shaming other men and creating a virtue out of holding on to your semen, supposedly freeing you up in both time and energy to pursue real instead of digital sex acts (among other things). It's always been in the spirit of imageboards to make certain groups feel bad and provide a mirror - in this case it's the group with the oldest and most common Internet use case.
yall edgy n shieet
[Last 50 Posts]
I want to become the Lenin of the 21st Century