Governments, companies, organizations and identities seem to function as meta organisms on large scales, interested more in their own survival above all else. It’s an emergent phenomenon of many individuals, but so are all multicellular organisms. Even individual genes can work against the interests of the cells they exist in, moving themselves around in the code to avoid deletion. Companies are machines made of living organisms and shaped by evolutionary pressures. Their practices spread into new companies if they help the company continue its existence. That’s what life is, machines that secure the future existence of their mechanical processes.

People do see ads of products and associate that product with its corresponding content. That’s how ads are understood to work. It doesn’t matter what the person consciously thinks, advertising works mostly through unconscious associations. The ADL, an organization funded by genocidal nationalistic Israelis to garner goodwill from anti-hate activists, isn’t applying alien logic to advertisers. They’re applying the very logic advertisers use to design their ads in the first place.

Utilitarianism is an explicitly hedonistic ethical framework, but all other moral frameworks tie back into hedonism in some way. Kant’s categorical imperative, the Socratic inspired virtue theories used by Christian theologians for millenia, social contract theory, even the widespread golden rule. They all tie back into serving one’s own self interest if you follow their logic. It’s so implicit that it’s unavoidable. They all originate in what we think will bring us utility/pleasure/happiness/eudaimonia.

The craziest part is, we don’t even serve our own pleasure. Having kids usually makes people less happy, but we want to do it regardless. Our pleasure evolved to serve our genes, just like everything about us.

You asked about my answers to longstanding questions. I found the form of the good that Plato imagined: the evolutionary imperative. I also discovered that forms come from our neurology and aren’t inherent, so it’s more accurate to say that I found the likely answer to a high degree of certainty.

That’s ok though, I also realized that we cannot ever have certainty about anything based in reality, with all deductive reasoning being based on induction. I don’t need proof, only evidence. It only needs to be the best answer, and I can always end up being wrong. Proof doesn’t matter if one’s assumptions are wrong. Solipsism is unavoidable. Not even “I think, therefore I am” is accurate, as it assumes thinking requires an agent who thinks.

The Trump voters only voted for what they thought were their interests, it’s just that their understanding was inaccurate. It’s ok though, because even the rich and powerful people that support Trump were voting against their long-term interests.

The rich destabilize societies to gain more power by getting free market ideologues elected, pushing the workers to suffer, which leads them to radical ideolgies. The rich then prefer to avoid socialism, so they support radical right wing ideologies in the form of fascists like Trump. Unfortunately, fascists create more worker suffering, harm the economy, and create international conflict with other nations. The global rise in fascism and collapse of neoliberal policies has pushed the entire planet towards World War.

This sounds crazy, but look at what Trump did in the middle east to inflame the current conflict. He withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and killed their general in an unprovoked attack. This has made Iran pursue nukes and take a more hostile stance against US interests, as their economy suffered from sanctions and they got pushed further to the right. His reckless support of Israel led Israel to be more bold in their actions against Palestinians and confident of US support. Israel has nukes, and if the war with Iran continues to escalate, they might be used by a desperate Israel.

His support of Putin and weakening of alliances with Europe probably encouraged Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If Ukraine gets pushed too far west, Poland will likely put boots on the ground to prevent them from being easily invaded by Russia. Trump killing the Israel/Ukraine/border security funding bill makes it harder for Ukraine to remain strong against Russia, increasing the likelihood of EU direct intervention, and increasing the risk of nuclear war in Europe.

Trump’s useless trade war with China empowered hardliners in their government to be more hostile and nationalistic, increasing the probability of them invading Taiwan. If Taiwan gets invaded, the US might interfere militarily and risk escalating to a broader conflict, although nukes are less likely than the other conflicts.

Regardless of what values the rich may have, all this danger is not good from any perspective. Nobody wins in wars they need to fight in. The military industrial complex is fucked if the US gets nuked. The entire global economy has already been harmed by these conflicts, and even if no nuclear bombs are ever used, conventional bombs are already bad enough. Modern nations can’t be conquered by direct warfare, only destroyed.

Fascists are bad for everyone in the long run, and that’s what the GOP is. They aren’t regular conservatives like in the past, they’re against liberal democracy entirely. Bush wanted to use some elements of liberal democracy to enact conservative goals, but Trump broke from it completely. The entire Republican party has been purged of anyone who might stand against fascism, from Romney who will be gone by the end of the year, to Liz Cheney who got the boot in 2022. Even fascists like McCarthy can’t survive if they don’t follow every order Trump gives.

You’re right about me not knowing what you think you advocate for, but saying pro cop people have a point isn’t advocating for reform. I think cops need to exist to some extent, but I’m willing to defund them, prosecute them, and replace the entire system to reign them in. Pro cop people aren’t giving enough criticism to make any positive change, sorry.

I also should have said conservative instead of right wing. Conservative plans will never help the weak. Values and intentions don’t matter when the solution doesn’t work. Progressive plans may not work every time, but they are the only ones capable of working.

No, you’re conservative. I don’t like labeling my beliefs either, but being pro cop and antiprogressive is conservative. In reality, self proclaimed American conservatives want to change society to be more hierarchical and unfair, not keep things as is. If you’re not applying pressure for reformation, selfish interests will cause backsliding. The battle will never end until humanity dies out. Good things require effort to maintain.

Another mistake you make is thinking progressives have more power than we do. The rich aren’t progressive. Companies pandering to diverse customers aren’t progressive, they’re just making money by expanding their customer base. The right screams about companies being woke, but the companies are often act more right wing than they would be if they were only chasing profits.

Social media companies don’t censor conservatives unfairly, instead they protect conservatives from the policies they implement to prevent brands from pulling advertising. The standards are higher for left wing causes in the mainstream media, as the rich people who own them are right wing. Accurate descriptions of reality in science and journalism tend to support progressives more than conservatives, with publications often introducing inaccuracies to prop up conservative positions.

My biggest problem when I thought like you was having an inaccurate view of left wingers as having power in society. Many agents that I thought were left wing actually weren’t, instead only supporting left wing causes for personal gain. Empirical observations are almost always in opposition to right wing plans for improving society. Exclusively right wing plans never make things better for the weak; never.

If you want fundamental truths and answers to our biggest questions, read my comment history. This comment is already long enough.

I went through a phase where I felt the exact same way. My upbringing was left wing and becoming more conservative felt like rebellion. I was never really that right wing, but I was convinced that conservatives must have some valid points. After all, how could half the country be wrong on almost everything?

Unfortunately for conservatives, I never stopped questioning, never stopped pushing ideas to their limits. In doing so, I independently came to many of the same left wing viewpoints I grew up with, only stronger and more resilient. I realized that my parents were actually right, while I was wrong.

More importantly, I realized that conservative ideas did make sense, but not at face value. Conservatives are inconsistent and contradictory because they aren’t expressing their motivations explicitly. They often aren’t aware of their actual reasoning, but there is logic behind their views. The logic is usually very cynical and cruel, dehumanizing people and valuing identity over principles.

I used to think somewhat like you, until I applied a critical lens to conservative ideas in the same way I had investigated familiar progressive ideas. Now I’m a trans woman who’s farther left than every elected representative in congress. I still believe in almost all of the leftist ideas I was raised with, only I’ve pushed them farther than my parents ever did.

Right now you’re critical of progressives, and often you spot valid flaws, but are you willing to continue? Are you willing to peer deeper into reality; to open your eyes to fundamental truths? That was my strategy, and it took me from naive progressive, to rebellious centrist, to the eventual woke queen I am today.

I continue to awaken to new truths, mostly because I like doing it. I like the feeling of discovery and understanding. Thanks to my efforts, I’ve found likely answers to humanity’s biggest questions, raised my base happiness levels from constantly suicidal to never hopeless, and became way smarter than I thought I’d ever be. I think most people can learn what I’ve learned if they apply themselves, but it’s still a tough journey. Are you willing to take it?

Yeah. To a lot of young, vulnerable people who are less minoritized, progressives feel like the authority. You’re told you’re privileged, but you don’t feel it. This is partially because we take our personal experiences for granted, but also because even the relatively privileged struggle. Some people suffer more from the system than others, but a ton of things suck for everyone.

Unfortunately, the promises of the right are a monkey’s paw at best, or a scam at worst. Even if the right succeeds, they usually make things worse for everyone in the process, even themselves.

Honestly, I blame cops. Cops proudly look like thumbs over here, so right wingers have mostly captured the bald aesthetic. Bald and aggressive white men are assumed to be fascists because that’s what off duty cops look like. It’s worse to look like a cop than a civilian Nazi skinhead.

Even bands that aren’t big on politics know to beat up Nazis at their shows. It’s just common sense.

Hating the hateful doesn’t count. Waters may be an asshole, but his politics are fairly based. Even his bad takes come from leftist viewpoints.

If retirement homes don’t have videogames when I’m old, I’ll lobby for voluntary euthanasia. Aging is a straight negative. Arguments about it making life meaningful are copium. I can have a meaningful life of gratitude without my body falling apart.

Omg, I instantly knew what it meant and assumed the poster said it was loss even though he didn’t. I translate loss references into the word "loss’ like it’s a fucking hieroglyph. I bet it would be the same with amogus drawings.

Omg, I instantly knew what it meant and assumed the poster said it was loss even though he didn’t.

Non gaming streams have their own categories, and they certainly add value. Everyone loved the Bob Ross stream when it started, but now there’s something wrong with cooking or musicians? Some people who come for the sax player might get into games. Twitch has problems, but adding variety to their streaming platform isn’t one of them.

There aren’t less gamers on twitch because of non gamers. I don’t even think game streams have suffered much as a whole.

Maybe growing up in a warm, costal area makes it more common, but young women just wear similar outfits to most feminine streamers where I’m from. They usually aren’t making a statement about it, it’s just hot outside and they don’t mind showing off. It’s normal.

Some streamers do embody the meme. Some focus cameras on their ass. However, feminine streamers aren’t the majority, and most of them aren’t even that sexual. On a whole, men have more viewers, with almost every top streamer being male.

Part of why the discourse around sexual streamers seems so prudish is that they don’t dominate on twitch. There are a few popular ones, but women don’t even dominate the site; there’s just more of them than in the past. Most feminine streamers aren’t sexual. People see what they want to see.

The only male streamer ever suspended for showing his bare chest was crossdresser. Masculinity is normalized, so femininity is othered.

Nah, Party Cannon goes hard.

Edit: OMG they sell booty shorts. I want some!

Edit 2: They don’t sell them right now. :(

Part of what got me started was a bad microphone on my phone, but I realized it had advantages when you’re alone. Honestly, talking on the phone in public at all isn’t great. Everyone can hear your side of the conversation, and while it’s much better than eating pizza, people ought to avoid calls in public whenever possible. Whenever I’m around others, I keep the calls short, and when I’m alone and do take longer calls, I eat that pizza. Judge pizza eaters when you see them, but don’t feel shame for doing it when alone. While you’re at it, don’t let people having loud, vibrant phone conversations off the hook.

If the phone is too far from your face, they can’t hear you as well. You don’t have to talk as loud to be heard when on speaker phone. Besides, I have a hard time hearing when I don’t use it, and I can clearly hear them when it’s on and near my face. They hear me better and I hear them better; definitely an advantage.

You did the right thing, and if the Supreme Court was less corrupt, or if a thousand more young Floridian had voted for Gore, he could have possibly won. In a statewide recount that tried to consistently resolve every ballot dispute, Gore just barely won. He won the popular vote, and would have helped us greatly on the issue of climate change and the environment. He would have done some of the shit things Bush did after 9/11, but probably wouldn’t have been gung-ho about Iraq. If he unified the country similar to Bush, he might have boosted his party’s popularity and gotten better legislation passed.

Bush appointed two conservative justices, did all the shit things Republicans always do. If a Republican won in 2008 following the financial crisis, a Republican might have been blamed for a terrible recovery instead of Obama, and Bernie might have had a better chance at getting elected. Trump might never have gotten such a popularity boost from racists reacting to a Black president. Things could have drastically changed if Florida flipped blue.

The kool-aid man can canonically completely regenerate his cool-aid and has total control over all kool-aid in existence. He wants people to drink it, as it doesn’t hurt him and he can always refill himself. Even more terrifyingly, he can turn entire mountains into kool-aid, or even entire planets into himself. He’s hundreds of times faster than light, can time travel, and even shaped constellations into his face. Don’t fuck with the kool-aid man.

I’m not going to walk you through why your interpretation of what the original poster said was wrong, I already did. I tired my hardest to explain it to you, and then I speculated as to why you hold the incorrect version of the person’s argument in your mind. You still hold that view in your mind. You failed to grasp my explanation, translating it into insults or personal attacks, probably because reading it accurately might lead you to the conclusion that you were wrong. That what the original poster said wasn’t simply that definitions change, but that they are weaponized unfairly to attack valid perspectives.

You have insulted me directly far more than I have you. Accusing me of virtue signalling, bullying, and being part of a borderline fascist movement. That last one is especially egregious considering the history of fascists murdering trans people and erasing their history. I also don’t know what bigotry you’re talking about that’s rife on this site. Every time I see bigotry on here, people call it out. People even call out things that are merely insensitive.

Ok, I’ll show you where you defend bigotry. You defend it by trying to misrepresent a bigoted argument as I stated before. You call into question whether or not the argument is bigoted:

It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech. So, their point is correct. People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.

The phrase, “People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.” States that a person is treated as a bigot, not that they are a bigot. You refocus the person called a “bigot” as the victim.

Worse still, you state that they are called a bigot for simply not using new definitions. The issue isn’t so much that they don’t use new definitions, it’s that they use definitions that justify and reinforce bigotry. They use harmful and hateful definitions, and are thus doing bigoted things. I tried not to essentialize them as a bigot, but I did point out how using that definition is bigoted.

A person said something bigoted, I pointed out why it was bigoted. In that original response I didn’t even call them a bigot. I said they were helping bigots by using that argument.

I have also not called you a bigot, just speculated on what you may think. I didn’t even speculate that you’re a bigot, just that you are wrong. If you think I used “hateful rhetoric” by saying you had brainrot, I’m not sorry. People getting called out for defending harmful arguments in the milquetoast way I did isn’t something to be ashamed of.

You keep positioning people who make or defend harmful arguments as the victim, and I frankly have no more time for it. The victims are the people harmed by these arguments, not the people who get rightly criticized for perpetuating it. I care more about the thousands of trans people who are getting denied lifesaving treatment because of anti trans laws. I care more about the people who get bullied or murdered for being queer. I don’t think you getting downvoted and feeling guilty matters compared to the real harmful ideas you’re protecting.

Do you agree that sometimes things were fine to say in the past and now they are considered hate speech? That was the topic of the discussion.

That wasn’t the topic of discussion. This was my entire point. You’re the one who changed the argument into something it wasn’t. The person claimed things were being labeled as hate speech ONLY because people disagreed with them. They were not arguing that things were simply rendered offensive. They argued that things were WRONGLY rendered hate speech to silence good arguments.

We were not going off on a tangent, you are.

What I don’t know for certain is whether or not you’re trying to defend bigotry, or if you just didn’t understand the discussion. I suspect it’s a bit of both. You saw this person having their bigotry getting revealed, and then due to enlightened centrism brainrot, you changed the argument in your head into something that was reasonable. This was done to maintain your worldview that the larger trans/hate speech debate is fought between two sides that have reasonable concerns.

The fact is, in this debate, one side is just morally wrong. The rejection of trans people will cause material harm to vulnerable people, while accepting trans people will cause almost no real harm to anyone. It can be reasonably argued that hate speech laws could be weaponized against the people they were supposed to protect, but no one here made those arguments effectively. In fact, most of the time this argument isn’t made effectively, because the people using the argument are really just in favor of hate speech.

You tried to misrepresent someone’s bad argument, not shift to what could have been a good argument.