If you're going to keep confusing "hurt" and "harm" (in the context of what I said) even after I explain the difference, there's no point answering this.

You can kill an animal painlessly and therefore not "hurt" it as in "cause it pain" which is what you asked me.

Yes.

Well, where I stand is that we have an increasing duty of care with increasing sentience/ability to suffer, but it certainly wouldn't start with insects in which those characteristics are negligible at best. Pigs and cows though are certainly developed enough so that current treatment with regard to living conditions is probably often unethical. I don't believe killing and eating them is though as they are not agents and cannot ever become agents with similar responsibilities to us and so aren't entitled to similar rights to us. We owe them a comfortable life right up to and including the moment of death in my view but nothing more.

Having said that, looking at historical trends, I think it is reasonably likely that we are heading in the direction of veganism, or at least vegetarianism, in the long term, and should it develop into a highly practical alternative in terms of cost, nutrition, and taste, I would welcome that eventuality.

Oh, no worries, mate, I'm just in the process of informing myself about this stuff now anyhow.

here has been an observable shift in the priority of Rap, from the gold-chain, gun-toting, rich, gangster-trope, to that of an astute and profound social commentary (the former living space of intellectuals and Philosophers).Artists like Kendrick, Anderson Paak, Brock Hampton, Death Grips and many more, elucidate the point. — Marcus de Brun

This makes us not as balanced as we think. — schopenhauer1

I've noticed. ;)

OK, well, we are just repeating our positions, aren't we? There's a chasm across which our shouts will never form a bridge.

Social media creates the echo chamber that amplifies the cry that might otherwise fall on deaf ears. It doesn't create the basic type, but it creates opportunities for its propagation and distillation, I guess.

Do some research on it if you're confused and stop wasting space here as you're dragging the discussion off-topic.

You can start with this if you like:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0075424211414807

"The present research employs quantitative and qualitative analysis of data from narratives by African American comedians to show that a variant of nigger that developed in the early African American community persists in the lexicon of African American English because it conveys a social meaning that is foundational in the identity of many African Americans. Use of this form allows a speaker to construct an identity representing awareness of the history of African Americans and practical knowledge of the nature and implications of the diaspora experience. The form has been productive in its capacity to convey a range of attitudinal stances related to its basic meaning, including solidarity, censure, and a proactive stance that seeks to bring about positive change."

This is the type of perverse interpretation (from my point of view) that constantly undermines your position. Dealing with life is a way to express our freedom, and to address what you said earlier, it's not just the fact that the consequence of antinatalism is no new people who suffer. The ultimate consequence of antinatalism is no new people at all. Therefore no love, no joy, no freedom, no imagination, no insight, no wonder, no poetry, no art, no philosophy...no pessimist philosophy (hang on, maybe it's not all bad... ;) ) So, anti-natalism is just giving up. That's all. Folding. Dying. Losing. With a romantic semi-theological edge dressed up in philosophical garb.

Having said all that, I am not against (as I think I stated before) examining systemic structural negatives in life (in so far as they can be considered so) as a philosophical endeavor. And I see nothing wrong with someone deciding not to have children because of their anti-natalist beliefs. But again, it's based on a particular interpretation. And there's no common ground to leverage with the other side once both are aware of the potential negatives but disagree on their interpretation.

the misanthropy of these emerging groups is in part a symptom of the ideological isolation and emotional reinforcement that social media can facilitate — VagabondSpectre

:up: I went on one of their sites (https://incels.me/) and took a quick look.

Typical threads

Main theme:
Self-indulgent self-pity/despair concerning finding a sexual partner (often backed up by scientific research to make it harder to dismiss).

"Study on the sexual market of Tinder"

"According to this analysis a man of average attractiveness can only expect to be liked by slightly less than 1% of females (0.87%). This equates to 1 “like” for every 115 females"

"There's no any discuss required. Anything is clear. It's over. What else can be added?"

"I never thought about it that way. It's like a new sort of feudalism. Ethnics and sub4 whites must toil 40 hrs a week while Chad fucks all the girls."

Even 1 YEAR OLDS AVOID unattractive people

"ugly person, ugly life."

"What's new in it? It's a damn proven point known to uglycels since Cretaceous era."

"What do you expect from them? They are the reason why suicide is deemed immoral and isn't already a fundamental right. They want us to suffer more. Younger generation of uglycels will come over listening to their bluepilled ideology only to be bullied so bad that they hate their existence. This is a propaganda to make our lives worse and our deaths painful."

"Someone please kill me"

"Time to rope"

Sub-themes: (Including) racism

[Serious] Mix breeding should be illegal

"Solid thread. Mixed breeders deserve the death penalty"

"No, it really depends. You either end up as a subhuman incel or as a giga Chad/Stacey supermodel. You can't be a normie while mixed race, you're condemned to live at one of the extreme. There's famous example of that fact here and there :"

"Venting about the disfortune of being ethnic, incel etc shouldn't be enough to get a ban or warning in my opinion. Being a nigger or ethnic a legit disadvantage. I would have nothing but sympathy if a whitecel with facial deformity kept venting about his deformity... We wouldn't call that 'deformitybaiting', so why the double-standard when its about race?.. And isn't this what this forum is for? :feelsbadman:"

Some usernames from the discussions

mylifeistrash
acnescarcel
Junkyard Roach
Gremlincel
PleaseKillMeLoseSkin
UnfortunatelyINCEL98
Sadist
fukmylyf
Dispair

Typical banner ad (a computer sex game, no surprise there):



In line with what you said, ideological group isolation with emotional reinforcement that couldn't be delivered in so intense, immediate or pure a fashion from anything but social media culminating in a smorgasbord of self-indulgent masochistic emotion that's probably as addictive as it is (self-)destructive.

Reminds me of the perverse attachment to philosophical pessimism. Probably cathartic in a similar if dramatically less sophisticated way.

— Baden

Who is a black rapper. Maybe you didn't get my point. — Harry Hindu

Snoop Dogg is a black rapper therefore what?

Neither is racism, which is what every rapper (most rappers) who uses the N-Word in their lyrics is. — Harry Hindu

No, they're not. They've appropriated the word and are using it in a different way than it was originally used by white people. You didn't notice that?

Then why the focus on rap, when there are many other music genres that could be considered philosophical more than rap? — Harry Hindu

Why not? It's a discussion forum. The OP can focus on any type of music he wants.

@T Clark

From the article:

"The community is generally resentful, misogynistic, and misanthropic, calling for violence against women and sexually successful men. They post on websites like 4chan and Reddit. They have a strange, intricate language they use to talk about their world. And they often express admiration for Elliot Rodger, the self-identified incel who went on a killing spree near the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2014 and had uploaded a series of threatening YouTube videos and a 140-page manifesto, My Twisted World, to the internet beforehand."

That's what's being discussed specifically, not just sexually unsuccessful reclusive males.

"You talk about nuclear capabilities, but ours are so massive and powerful that I pray to God they will never have to be used."

Translation: My 'hands' are bigger than your 'hands'.

"If you change your mind having to do with this most important summit, please do not hesitate to call me or write."

Translation: Nothing bad that just happened was something that I did, so therefore you must have done it.

Overall Translation: Against all sensible advice, I am going to write this dumb letter myself.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Pffft. :lol:

No, I don't know that, which is why I asked chatterbears the question. He mentioned a central nervous system, which insects have. So, I'd like to know specifically where he'd draw the line. Maybe you can just let him speak for himself.

If this discussion weren't about food you'd never suggest that stepping on a halm of grass was the same as kicking a dog-which is the logical conclusion of saying they are equivalent. — NKBJ

I didn't say they were exactly equivalent, but strictly speaking, it's true—if counter intuitive and maybe somewhat pedantic— that they're generally equivalent because such a tiny percentage of animals (far less than 1% as I said) are of any real interest in terms of suffering.

That's not inconsistent with recognizing that animals like dogs obviously do suffer in a way that insects, plants and so on don't. But the division isn't between animals and plants, it's between what is a tiny proportion of animals (those who are capable of suffering like dogs, pigs, cows etc.) and everything else.

I'll wait for chatterbears's answer about insects before I say more.

So, for a tiny proportion of animals, far less than 1%, there's a moral issue or some significant difference between them and plants with regard to suffering.

And puh-lease don't start saying that plants and animals are somehow morally equivalent — NKBJ

So, generally speaking, they are actually.

Beings that have no centralized nervous systems are not sentient. This includes bacteria, archaea, protists, fungi, plants and certain animals. — chatterbears

Insects have a central nervous system and are, for example, a popular dish in Northern Thailand and elsewhere. Where exactly do you draw the line on sentience/suffering? (I haven't read all your posts so I don't know if you've done this already).

And puh-lease don't start saying that plants and animals are somehow morally equivalent...like anyone could seriously believe that dicing a potato was the moral equivalent to beheading a kitten — NKBJ

I'm not really taking a side, but this is an obvious strawman. Mosquitoes are animals, grubs are animals, the corals that make up coral reefs are animals. Slicing part of a coral reef off is hardly more immoral than dicing up a potato. In fact, the vast vast majority of animals are insects who probably are no more worthy of our moral attention than potatoes.

In passing and because I was curious:

Article:

https://m.phys.org/news/2016-12-new-study-shows-plants-can.html

"To respond to light, fans and temperature in this way suggests that plants have far more sophisticated abilities than previously thought. The philosophical and ethical implications of this information are confounding.

It provokes further questions about the plant world that we have historically seen as inert and lacking in agency. With no brain, how can plants have cognition? Yet they exhibit functions we typically only associate with a brain."

Paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep38427.epdf?author_access_token=ndXv7HCRrrXgnqZkGRINU9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PFvNbZvaVrCKW4Rb8ZW14eVyb7xNIHahQoZ-WZXB-uth8RSOQA0pfaOyF6to9zHCjhchoo9tGdx9p0lbntPMnN

Oh...

(That puts a different perspective on it. I remember next to nothing about the movie.)

See twins separated at birth. — frank

Don't get "environment" confused with "society" as it's used philosophically. Think social forces inclusive of cultural forces, i.e. the sociocultural as used also in social science, because you can't really separate out the two. Society is the bricks, culture is the mortar.

I'll say more later. But it's futile to talk about "society" unless we're referring to the same thing. It's not just a bunch of "individuals" who happen to live in proximity, that's for sure.

No society>>>No culture. We're socioculturally situated and there's no getting away from that. The human is biologically constructed, the person is socially constructed. That doesn't make society an absolute limit on thought though. Is that the idea?

One would have to be extremely careful about bringing a new life into the world. Probably a lot of the time it is done without taking into account the structural negativity and the possibility that the child will have an overall negative experience. I'll go that far. On the other hand, an overall judgment of life as a positive or negative thing in itself (an intrinsic evaluation) is always going to necessarily be based (at least in part) on our own orientation towards it (as I keep emphasizing). And it's quite easy to envision a negative orientation resulting in the reverse engineering of a negative philosophy. Philosophers have been writing their psychology into their philosophy since philosophy began. So, while I'm somewhat sympathetic to mitigating pollyannaish notions among prospective parents, the sweeping judgment of life not being worth living seems to sweep too much under its own philosophical carpet to stand stably on.



Perpetual peace, eh? Bring on the graveyards. I feel a song coming... :)

In any case, I get the basic idea. I think at least a little more humility in the presentation would help though.

It's not a straightforward picture, I agree, but I think someone posted a comparison graph earlier in the discussion that showed a strong correlation if not between gun ownership and reduced gun homicides at least between stricter gun laws and reduced homicides in the US state by state. I'll try to dig it up.

It would be a good start to enact compulsory training. You need a license to drive a car, and so should you to carry a gun. Disarming the police wouldn't be practical at all as things stand admittedly but in a perfect world you could get there. Which means you won't. So, let's forget that one for now.

But again, gun murder rates over the past few decades have overall been declining, so I see no problem that should be fixed as of now. — ep3265

If they could be declining faster then that's still a problem as in more people getting unnecessarily killed is always a problem regardless of the base comparison.

To make it even clearer:

What we agree on: There are structural negatives to life.

What we disagree on: The evaluative import of the stuctural negatives.

Why we disagree: Different psychological orientations towards the structural negatives. (One cannot evaluate something in terms of its psychological impact (life being worth it or not) without taking a psychological orientation towards it.)

To answer the question of whether life is worth living we balance our philosophical analyses with our evaluative orientations. I come up with a different answer to you. You have no rational way of invalidating my answer because you cannot invalidate my orientation.

I didn't say you "said" it, I said you "affirmed" it.

Life sucks and then you die. Do you like this summary of one's existence? — Caldwell

Sure, it can be a summary, but then this has to be explained. — schopenhauer1

There is where you affirmed it with the word "sure", so don't accuse me of strawmanning you while strawmanning me about strawmanning you, it all gets too meta. The fact that you want to explain it is fine, but your explanation only consisted of repeating that pessimists focus on the structural elements. As if we didn't know that. And as you continue to ignore the substance of my posts, which include questions asking for clarification on your position, I'm left to interpret you as best I can in the light of the OP and your subsequent posts.

So, yes or no, is life worth living? (All things taken into consideration would we be better off dead?)

And please no more structural etc etc. I get that part. I agree there are structural negatives.

No-one's arguing the toss that sometimes we're happy and sometimes we're sad. That's neither here nor there. We agree on that. But yes, pessimism posits an overall negative evaluation that relies on a negative psychological orientation that is indeed based on the structural elements of life. The reason the negative psychological orientation part is necessary in the equation is that it's possible to understand the structural negatives of life and not care all that much about them in relative terms (as I don't). So the argument that "Life is not worth living" is really an argument that "Life is not worth it (if you take a particular attitude to the structural negatives) You seem to claim that not sharing that attitude is irrational, which leaves you in the position of claiming that a negative outlook on life as a whole is more rational than a positive one. But if you accept that it is more rational to feel good if given a choice in terms of orientation towards a specific state of affairs than to feel bad (issues of prudence aside) then that argument falls apart.

so you might as well enjoy it as much as you can, while you can. — darthbarracuda

...and then it becomes worth living. So, why insist that an overall enjoyable life is not worth living (or do you really see that as impossible?) Why cling to the mantra. Problematize the negatives, sure, but drop the evaluation.

If the pessimist mantra is that "life is not worth living" or as schope affirmed earlier "life sucks and then you die" then that's a value judgment that can only be based on specific mental states (a negative psychological orientation towards life as well as a negative philosophical assessment of life). If you are saying it's possible or even desirable to uncover the structural negativity of life (the latter) without coming to the evaluative conclusion (the former) then we're not really in disagreement. You might be in disagreement with schope though.

The way you put it there it looks like Iceland has way less homicides than Denmark or especially the UK. So do Monaco and the Vatican I bet.

But here are actual rates per 100,000 population (rates offering the only meaningful comparison) for more recent years:

Iceland: 0.91 (2015)
United Kingdom: 0.92 (2014)
Denmark: 0.99 (2015)

And the difference disappears. (All in the top 50 lowest for homicide rates).

And the US?

United States: 4.88 (2015)

Down there at no.126 just behind that glorious bastion of freedom, Kazakhstan.

+In Iceland (from your bbc source):

"...acquiring a gun is not an easy process -steps to gun ownership include a medical examination and a written test.
Police are unarmed, too. The only officers permitted to carry firearms are on a special force called the Viking Squad, and they are seldom called out."

By all means, implement all that in the US and you might make some progress.

Oh, yes. :point:

Hammer has better raps than you too. :)

Unless you're some kind of dualist, he's both.

What is the difference between Cavacava and a hammer? — frank

Hammer has better raps.

I don't think it's that as he spoke of extreme cases. Did you read the Van Dongen story, for instance?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/17/kill-me-now-acid-attack-led-euthanasia-mark-van-dongen

It's not demeaning of Van Dongen that he chose death as a release. Helplessness in the face of suffering can be a frightening and horrific situation (if the suffering is severe and permanent enough) that can make death absolutely preferable to life (even if for most of us periods of absolute helplessness are transient enough that a sense of meaning can see us through). So, I don't think the director is projecting fatalism on helpless people in general in a way that denigrates their suffering but just pointing out that in extreme cases it can lead to a flipping of the normal instinct to survive and that that's one theme of his horror movies.

I think you would disagree with this. I think you would say that your position is not only yours but also more or less "objective". I recognize that personal bias and all that can influence evaluations like these. I'm not willing to submit that this makes these evaluations entirely subjective. That's what "attitude" here means, the evaluation of a state of affairs as good or bad and subsequently adopting an appropriate orientation to the world. — darthbarracuda

It's a matter of probability and you can measure that empirically by interviewing people about their quality of life. Extrapolate for your child's circumstances with regard to the average conditions of similar contexts and so on. The majority of people in developed countries at least report being happy. Here's some data:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/these-are-the-happiest-countries-in-the-world/

What doesn't make sense to the pessimist is why someone would have a positive attitude to the world and life in general. It doesn't make sense for life to be filled with suffering, boredom, decay, etc etc and yet think life is good. Separating the two just seems to me to be an ad hoc violation of common sense. — darthbarracuda

If you agree with what seems a truism that it's better to feel good than to feel bad then it's better to have a positive attitude towards something (all other things being equal) than a negative one. The only case where a negative attitude trumps a positive one is in the case of prudence where it's necessary to prepare oneself for a likely negative event. I don't see philosophical pessimism as having that practical value for the most part. I'd only concede that it may be cathartic for certain personality types. Do you think it does have a practical value and/or do you deny it's better to feel good (about things) than to feel bad (about things) all else being equal?

How about this? I don't think it's a strawman with regard to the OP at least. If you do, tell me why:

Put it another way, it's valid to generalize outwards from your own experience with regard to structural/systemic elements of life that are obviously shared, such as pain, boredom etc. But it's not valid to generalize outwards with regard to your attitude to these structural elements, and your attitude is an intrinsic part of the equation with regard to what effect these elements have on you, and therefore your overall quality of life. And that is actually what makes life worth living or not. So, there's a huge lacuna in your reasoning that presumes a frame that's actually a choice or orientation rather than anything intrinsic. — Baden

@frank

If you prick Cavacava, does he not bleed?

I'd take being King Solomon over Job in this instance. The real/dreamworld division doesn't seem to matter unless an awareness of it somehow reduces the quality of your existence in the dreamworld or elevates it in the real world, but that circumstance is mitigated against in the phrasing of at least half the dilemma. The choice is between being miserable (not being pretend-miserable but really happy because you are fulfilled and authentic) vs being wealthy and powerful (and maybe still miserable because it's just a dream? But at least you've got a shot at not being so, and even if you do end up being miserable because of your realization of the fake-dreaminess of your existence, it'll still just be fake dreamy-misery with the cherry of some hard cash on top to ease the nerves.)

That's taking the dilemma at literal face value though. If the real (serious) message regards the choice of giving up what is authentically important to you for money and power then no, because that would lead to emptiness, and it's better to be just miserable than to be miserable and empty.

The OP is about the evolution of rap into something more interesting than it had previously been, and mentions specific artists in that regard. Sure, it's not philosophy but as art there's no reason it can't be unmitigated genius just as there's no reason it can't be irresponsible crap. Depends on the artist and depends on the work.

It may be that there's a certain element of catharsis involved in exploring nihilistic/pessimistic philosophies, a sophisticated version of watching horror movies, but no less entertainment in its own way. In this sense, these philosophies may ironically do more good than harm in terms of distracting from/relieving ennui and depression for those who embrace them. And so again end up being coping mechanisms.

From an interview with David Cronenberg:

"Interviewer: Evil is more interesting, cinematically, than good.

Cronenberg: ...Yeah, it’s more interesting. Because it illuminates things, partly, and partly because it’s cathartic. A villain in a bizarre, twisted way is always a Christlike figure: You know he’s going to die, and he’s dying for your sins, for your rage, for your craziness; he’s doing it for you so you don’t have to do it."

http://davidbreskin.com/magazines/1-interviews/david-cronenberg-2/

In a sense the pessimist philosophy similarly concentrates on the more interesting evil/negative aspects of existence and kills the world for the pessimist so he doesn't have to do it himself. It's a kind of romanticism in the end, a romantic wallowing maybe.