Is there anything at all to gain from online discussion? Especially in matters that directly attack other's worldviews? I feel that monologues or talk among like minded folk is more productive to convincing people of your side, whatever that may be, than interacting with any challenge from the opposition.The goal seems to be entertainment rather than an earnest dialogue. Other than the rare good faith exchange to get someone to trust or listen to you first must befriend them, and I don't need to tell you how time consuming and draining that is.Presumably the vast majority of people have given up entirely on being cordial to others.
I disagree
>>18240515Shut up
>>18240515>The goal seems to be entertainment rather than an earnest dialogueYeah, and people want to feel like they're right and thereby bolster their ego and support their "team". Only a handful of autists are able to examine information without heed to social repercussions. Most people are not even really capable of looking at issues like philosophy or religion rigorously without just succumbing to confirmation bias.
>>18240571I should add that said social repercussions may be actual e.g. the disapproval of a church congregation or an internalized copy of what your "team" would/should do or think. For most, God is little more than a reflection of one's real or imagined social environment.
>>18240571>>18240586If humans had the ability to objectively consider philosophical issues without relying on their preconceived notions, societal consensus, confirmation biases, and personal ego, life might be very different
>>18240594I believe that a small portion of people have some capacity and desire to not only gather a wide range of information, but also to examine it with less bias than most. However, these people are a tiny minority and most only care to "win" an argument rather than find actual truth. If you want to know if your one of these people ask yourself the following:>Am I willing to admit that I'm wrong?>Am I willing to look honestly at opposing arguments, and earnestly try to understand them from within?>Do I actively seek out flaws with my way of thinking?>How certain am I of my rightness?>Do my beliefs just happen to coincide strongly with my upbringing and what is socially advantageous for me?
>>18240603And most importantly, if you answered yes to the last question:>What about people who believe different from me, and have a different background, but are equally convinced of their own rightness?For example an evangelical, a catholic, and a sunni are all equally sure of their own rightness, and equally unwilling to examine earnestly the viewpoints of the others.
>>18240603>>18240605Being intellectually and ethically honest, truly curious, open minded, and willing to admit what is really right and wrong and where and why your own personal convictions fall on the spectrum of right and wrong; these are all hard to do for everybody in the best of situations, and all the more harder when the truths gained from such rigorous inspection may not align with societal expectations or even personal convictions. it may force you to fundamentally change how you act and view the world. it may close opportunities. of course, if you are doing it right and the truths you are finding align with the universal truths of compassion, peacefulness, and calm, then opportunities are opened too, and the new ways you act and view the world may be healthy in comparison, and may align with societal expectations in surprising and mutually beneficial ways.but the facts remain that matter and energy by default will follow patterns, and evolution selects for patterns that best keep the organism and species alive and reproducing, with as much regard to the values of truth, nonviolence, peacefulness, compassion, as it takes to fulfill the real goals or survival and reproduction. In such a situation as the one we find ourselves in, it is not hard to understand why most people do not forsake their programming, their legacy, their biological and societal defined destiny, even if they have to ignore deep subconscious feelings to do so.
>>18240515No. You do for fun. Words arent good for proving anything, after all we have scammers, swindlers and social engineers...
>>18240515It's just like arguing in real life with a few exceptions, like in a chatroom. An informal setting because there are often no strong identities involved and the stakes are low. The lack of identity lets you hear about things you usually don't in real life, which has all kinds of social norms and responsibilities. The more anonymity on the Internet gets eroded the less free thought and genuine opinions you will get exposed to, which can be worth a lot.
>>18240515Fuck you, just FUCK YOU.
retard, you just got humiliated
>>18240515>Presumably the vast majority of people have given up entirely on being cordial to others.Notice this cordiality decline as whites are dying out? Curious.
This is now a smuggies thread
>>18240515I will never change my worldview unless it directly benefits me(money or pussy) to do so. I don't give a FUCK about truth.
>>18241593>867goodness gracious anon
>>18240515nobody is civil anymore
>>18241692Thanks I haven't seen these in a while.
>>18241596Whether intentional or not, this smuggie isn't presenting argument against projection, but against a fallacious understanding of projection.Repressed homosexuality isn't morally equivalent to open homosexuality, and merely disparaging it doesn't make you a projector. The "whoever smelt it dealt it" or "i'm rubber you're glue" understanding of projection is a purely online phenomenon.Meanwhile, it IS a presentation a fallacious understanding of etymology. Words are more than the sum of their constituent parts, and while homo+phobic literally means dirtfearing. (homo from humus, or earth), we don't use it like that.>>18241620>zach hadel cadence>zach hadel pointing at the screen gagthis guy watches smiling friends
>>18241753Yep, i personally find smuggies to be extremely retarded and demonic but they're also funny not least of which because it baits blogposters like you
>>18241761what's the point of this post
>>18241763What's the point of anything
>Why isn't everyone a 300 IQ neutral observer that has no connections to any groups or beliefs and can change their entire worldview on a whim
>>18241656You're literally an incel.
>>18240603>>Do I actively seek out flaws with my way of thinking?See, I've tried to do this and I feel like I am slowly turning into a nihilist that thinks nothing can be truly known. As far as physicals reality goes, you can I think make a pretty safe assumption that basic rules of logic and our observations are trustable, which can lead you relatively far, but for something like ethics, meaning of life, how things "ought" to be , it seems like a total crapshoot.Shit man, I've recently started questioning even the notion of the "sefl". Waht does it mean to be Me. Am I the same person as the me of the past, or the me of the future? Why do I care about the future me, or what happened to the past me, beyond a built in tendency to want to, because it is mechanically useful to evolution and/or god?I've always had a desire to understand Truth and saw my relationship to it analogous to one who revears their god, but I wonder.. does Truth want to be known? Can Truth be known?
>>18242170Yes of course it can be known
>>18240603I'm fully capable doing all of this and have done all of this at one point or another but I also just enjoy not doing any of that and debating people to make them feel retarded. It satisfies my ego.
>>18242170Morality isn't real. This isn't even that insane or retarded if you accept that God isn't real. It's a natural conclusion. There is no physical moral substance, it's entirely a social construct.
>>18242373>money is just a social construct bro, its literally just paper
>>18242396Unironically it is, lmao.
>>18242396the gold standard ended five decades ago, give it another five and i wager uno cards will be worth more
>>18242415>money is just a social construct bro, its just rocks
>>18242373true but that doesn't mean being a social construct means it doesn't exist. it may not be "natural" (which is a fallacy and wrong because even chimps have primitive ones but i digress), but obviously it exists at a societial level to help society and help individuals into it. some are even more ingrained after centuries of evolution. now you might say "well to hell with the tribe, i'm doing my own thing" and that's respectable these days because the modern world is a parasite on the human mind, but by the same token we're lucky to live in an era where that's no big deal instead of grounds for exile or execution.
>>18242415The gold standard ended the moment fractional reserve entered the picture, but honestly that's an unimportant detail in light of what fiat has become.
>>18242396Currency rather than money, but yes.
>>18242418Yes, I don't think you understand this but you are literally accepting the moral relativist framing and are too stupid to realize it. Currency only has value not because it is intrinsically valuable, but because society deigned that it had value. If money and morality are analogous, you are arguing for moral relativism.
>>18242464>You are stupid because muh intrinsic value o algo
>>18242465Yes
>>18242166I will not watch Adolescence.
>>18242468as >>18242433 mentioned, something being a social construct doesn't preclude it from realness or physical substance. Okay, so then what is intrinsic value anyway? It is only the utility of anything in relation to you, or any other sentient being. and how is it measured? by how good or bad it makes you or them feel. Now that there are irrefutable goalposts that define value, it might be expected you would concede the natural conclusion that despite its status as a social construct or its relativity, morality has indisputable intrinsic value by using it to help regulate the good or bad feelings that you or any other sentient organism experience or should be expected to experience; to put it in elementary terms, treat others how you want to be treated.
>>18242493>something being a social construct doesn't preclude it from realness or physical substanceThings being real is when I can touch them. It's the same as someone being unable to engage with hypotheticals.What if x? but that didn't happenWhat if x did happen? it didn't happenWhat if x is right in front of you? it isn't in front of meYet they CAN engage with hypotheticals unwittingly, you just have to use real world examples.What if your phone was dead? it isn'tWhat if you forgot your charger on a trip, so your phone died? that would suck since I'd have to buy a charger somewhereThe first is entirely in your head while the second "exists" in the future and is more tangible. One contradicts the present while the other occupies the future, so does not contradict the present.Sadly past a certain point (or below a certain point) some people are almost entirely unable to abstract, and live primarily in the present like base animals.
>>18242487This one was better without the red face.
>>18242530Not the smuggie poster but I managed to dig this up from my unorganized downloads folder. I need to sort this shit.
>>18242536That's the one thanks
>>18241596>implying
>>18240515did you guys ever notice the word "demonic" has been taking abuse in the same way "wholesome" has been by the same generation?Would one of you kids make a smuggle cartoon about this to share on facebook so as to get them to stop being retarded?
>>18242522schizobabble
>>18240515> Is there anything at all to gain from online discussion?In terms of having fun intellectual exercise, stress-testing your ideas, and learning about obscure things, there is plenty to gain.Just don't be triggered by people having their own views. I've seen people jump into a discussion and then have a meltdown when you make a counter-argument. That's not good for your mental health.In terms of convincing people, however, not so much. You're better off just broadcasting your position.
