Comment

Yeah, I appologise for missing the context and coming with such an adversarial tone… Being a person that can easily pass as typical (ND white guy), I didn’t think of the social aspect of the topic.

Natural science methods cannot be applied on social sciences in an ethical way… I don’t want to push for that.

I also don’t want to hear “Climate change is subjective and doesn’t apply to my subjectivity, because it was cold this winter.”

From a scientific point of view, all type of gender and sexualities exist in nature, and I’m sure it’s a mistake to assume humans are binary. youtu.be/Jxs2yHP6K2E

source

Sort:hotnew top

Grail@multiverse.soulism.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Oh, no offense taken, if My speech was dramatic, it’s because I am a dramatic individual.

Now, science does still apply within an antirealist framework, and there are various ways to demonstrate that particular subjectivities are erroneous. For example, the principle of contradiction. Imagine someone says “I believe in science” and also “climate change is a conspiracy created by lizard people to hide the flat earth”. We can spot a contradiction there, which indicates this person’s worldview is bollocks. They have created a bad subjective world.

Anarcho-antirealists certainly believe in good and bad subjective worlds. “It’s subjective” doesn’t mean “everything is valid”, it means “more than one thing is valid”. I certainly think any subjective world that leads people to believe in fascism is a shit subjective world. In fact, I have subjectively and arbitrarily decided that ethnic cleansing is axiomatically bad, based on no particular evidence that the universe has any objective goods or bads. Nonetheless, I strongly believe it is a moral good to enforce this subjective opinion, by punching people who believe in ethnic cleansing. I want to punch Benny Netanyahu in the jaw, despite the fact that in his subjective world, YHWH promised him Palestine and said he can ethnically cleanse the Palestinians as much as he wants.

From a scientific point of view, all type of gender and sexualities exist in nature

Mmmmmmm… no. Millions of sexes exist in nature, but not all of them. You see, I believe in more than millions of genders. I believe in infinite valid genders. For example, I’m goddessgender. Goddesses are a thing that humans made up. Nonetheless, that is what I am. I have a femininity that is not womanhood; it’s more divine in nature than womanly. My gender is a social construct based on social constructs. It’s as fake as they come. It’s also something I arrived at organically, by chasing My feelings of gender euphoria until I felt comfortable and confident in My identity. It’s as true as they come. True and fake, at the same time. Artificial yet genuine. The answer to the paradox is that I Myself am a product of a particular set of cultures. Identity is a spook. Personhood is made up. The self is an illusion. And My gender is mythical. I have experienced ego death and now occupy the liminal space between life and death. I left reality and ceased to exist; dead. And then I came back. I am a ego-revenant, reanimated by an oath of vengeance against the world itself, as it is subjectively constructed by Capital.

So yeah. There’s none of that in nature. Nothing about My identity is objective.

source
- i_love_FFT@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Haha, I think I’d enjoy a long discussion with You on this topic around a drink or something!
  
  I come from a totally different direction, yet I agree that the self is an illusion. I think that humans and everything we make is part of nature, even if it’s hard to see the similarities.
  
  What exactly is a self? Is it the body of a person including gut biome? Only the collection of all the cells with the same DNA? Or the nerves only, or the brain only? Or is the self an emergent abstract construct resulting from the reactions occurring inside the brain?
  
  Or maybe the self is the bosy and it’s direct environment it shaped (the clothes, the house, etc.)? Are offsprings part of the self? Is the extended family part of the self? Are we the part of Earth’s biosphere used for thinking?Are we the universe being counscious of itself?
  
  I like to understand genocide as a bad thing because it reduces biodiversity, and thus reduces the chances of our species’ survival. Since our species is currently the only one capable of interplanetary travel, we are the biosphere’s best tool to continue growing forever!
  
  source
  - Grail@multiverse.soulism.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Ah, so your axiom is that life is good. A pretty neat axiom, but still an axiom. Still an arbitrary choice you made of what to value, heavily informed by your home culture and your instincts.
    
    I have three ethical axioms:
    
    Feeling good is good
    
    Feeling bad is bad
    
    I do not respect limits imposed upon My perceptions by the laws of physics
    
    When My hand is cut, I feel pain. I feel it because My nerves send the information that damage is happening to My brain. When Hypothetical Harry’s hand is cut, he feels pain, but I do not. I don’t feel pain because there are no nerves connecting his hand to My brain. That’s a limit imposed upon My perceptions by the laws of physics. Since I don’t respect those, I ought to treat his hand being cut the same as My hand being cut. This is the philosophical foundation of My approach to empathy and kindness.
    
    source
    i_love_FFT@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    I’m not sure that life is good, but I feel that I’m part of life and that life is part of me. I suppose it’s a natural instinct somehow… So I feel like something is better than nothing…
    
    I know I’m atypical on that aspect, but I feel it much more deeply than most of my friends when I see somebody else getting bad. I cant claim some philosophical basis to it, it’s just there, for me…
    
    source