Yeah, but there is a problem with that, in that the x-men are almost exclusively white dudes, I don't see it being held up by oppressed minorities as totes understanding their plights, and, like I said, the x-men are painted as a superior race, that are oppressed by a fear of their power, by an inferior majority. All of the mutant villains want to suppress, or kill all normal humans, because they're an inferior race. This is never paralleled by human villains, which are just afraid of mutants, and often hide mutant family members, or have personal investments, and often also repent and see the error of their ways just after initiating events that are out of their control.

Apocalypse isn't going to be that way, I promise.

It may be meant to parallel the plights of black people and stuff, but it really doesn't. The efforts and fears of normal people are often warranted, they grow, and accept them, change their ways, and all of that. The villainous mutants are always the actual racists, and they never fucking repent.

No, not really. I pretty much modelled myself after the most perfect fictional character I know of. I heard this idea watching a TED talk, so I thought I'd present it here, and see what people thought.

Some flaws are nice though, especially if they're things to overcome in themselves, which humanizes them -- some heroes are flawless though, and it doesn't really subtract from them, I don't think.

Damn... I didn't see you beat me to it...

You're missing the point, I suggested that heroes should be portrayed as more average people, because being super special awesome isn't, and most other traits that heroes may have to make them look more appealing isn't required. There are still great things to achieve, which one may need to be exceptional at in order to achieve them, but heroism isn't really one of them. Only so many people can be the best mathematician in the world, the most beautiful person, or the greatest musician or something, but everyone can be a hero.

Just look at the politics of the show. The X-men have to fight for equality and acceptance, but pretty much every single villain views themselves as the next "evolution" of the human race, and a superior race to normal humans. Humans never express a similar sentiment about them, they fear them, but not just because they're different, but because they can explode shit with their minds and junk -- they're powerful and dangerous. On Korra, in republic city, benders are clearly the upper class, ruling the government. Aang took over the fucking world -- and the Avatar is like the most super special Buddha type character they can be.

I don't know anything about Harry Potter, except that he's like the chosen one, or some shit, and born with totes awesome elite magic skills.

If you don't think much of your personally identifying with such characters, it's just because they don't know enough about them, or you're a five year old.

If people aren't morally blamable for their actions, because everything is predetermined, then people also cannot be blamed for morally blaming them -- though I suppose that you cannot be blamed for blaming the blamers, but then I can't be blamed for blaming you for blaming the blamers either...

I won't blame you if you blame me for blaming you... unless I can't help to.

I cried on my 30th birthday... so old...

Clearly only all of the money will do. Unless I have infinite money, no amount is good enough.

Yup, lots of character building going on.

I don't think that you'll find many that think that eating meat is very big of a moral issue, and still continue to do it. There's also distance between the supermarket shelves, and slaughter houses. The distance makes it easier to not think about it. Like pressing a button that will kill a thousand people hundreds of miles away is qualitatively different, and easier than beating someone to death with a baseball bat.

I repeatedly told you that the ontological status of moral truths isn't relevant, just the epistemological status is. We can clearly be wrong, and that's all that matters.

We do not intentionally, and consciously chose falsehood, and irrationality. The prospect is all but an oxymoron. You continue to confuse being wrong, with intentionally being wrong, or the complete lack of rightness.

Nothing about a "proper understanding", just that morality, truth, and reason are operative. One does the things they think are good, believes the things they think are true, and thinks in ways they feel to be rational. No one can operative in an opposing fashion to this intentionally, even if they were completely senseless and loony in this way, they couldn't have decided to be without on some level operating in conduction with goodness, truth, and rationality to be able to be clear, and intently behaving as they do. One must see a good, a benefit, and value in it, they must know the difference between truth and falsehood in order to chose falsehood (behaviorally, as actually deciding to believe falsehoods intentionally is oxymoronic), and use reason in order to get there.

I will try to explain. I think that they make people look shitty by comparison, thus the misanthropy. No one is as good as Jesus, as smart as Einstein (neither of which may not be actually literally true, but that's the rumor). Because they use methods unavailable to people, and are not relatable, even if they inspired heroism, one wouldn't know how to actualize it based on how they did. One can't solve many problems by punching someone in the face like superman.

Just go around telling people that you relate a lot with Jesus, Einstein and superman and see how they react. Suggesting that you're like them is to make an extraordinary claim, that I don't think people would react positively to.

When you present exaggerated human characteristics, they make the real things look less exceptional. Look at all of the photoshopped drugged out, magazine images, which make people in peek physical condition feel self-conscious. Setting the bar too high creates unrealistic expectations, and makes even excellence look shabby.

To mix in superhuman levels of other attributes along with their heroics is to sweeten the deal, as it were. They are more readily idolized for reasons other than the good and moral things they did. I also think that it's clearly less impressive for superman to win a boxing match than an average joe, don't you?

Really? I didn't say superman, Goku, captain planet, Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Einstein, Kant, or people like that, but I thought that I was pretty descriptive enough that such examples would easily come to mind. BC seemed to have gotten that quite easily.

In the Meno dialogue, Socrates asks for a definition of righteousness from Meno, whom suggests that a righteous person is someone that always chooses to do the right thing, and never do the wrong thing. Socrates explains to Meno that this is an empty definition, as everyone wants the good and the right. Inherent in the meanings of the words, in the concepts themselves is that they are the things that we should want and do. The problem is never in motivation, or orientation, but in actually discerning what is moral, and immoral in the first place. He then suggests to Meno that even the gods themselves have disagreements on the correct choices of action, does thing imply that some of them knowing suggest evil, false, or innappriopriate actions?

There is nothing written into the stars that makes you have to want to believe true things, or be rational either -- but usually no one needs to convince us, when we actually know what the words mean.

I suggest enacting your moral code in your own life, and to guide yourself, minding your own business, and letting people decide for themselves if your moral code is worthy of enacting in their lives, or ignoring it, allowing it to begin on the micro scale, and flourish into the macro scale, rather than attempt to impose, or not trust others to make the correct decisions, or force a better world on us, clearly because the damage down by being wrong in the first case is far less severe than being wrong in second case.

I didn't dismiss discussion of any kind, for any reason.

My suggestion wasn't something like our limited power forces us to only take minor actions, and make small impacts, but that this is the most desirable approach.

One of the biggest issues in the modern world, and problems for sustainability, and quality of life is population density. Many great philanthropists have suggested that the earth's population needs to be reduced by at least a third, some suggest down into the hundreds of millions. The greatest evils in history have always been committed for the greater good, with people far too focused on humanity as a whole, or at least nationally, and how to protect and secure it's future in the face of threats. The best of intentions can lead to genocide. We don't want to do things bottom up, lead by example, live small and ethically, and have faith, and hope for the future. We want to enact large scale forcible macro changes that most of humanity are too ignorant or wicked to get on board with, so that we can protect them from themselves.

Doesn't matter whether or not morality is objective, since we often disagree about what is and isn't moral, there being an absolute right answer to every moral dilemma doesn't imply that you are the one that knows what it is, and everyone of a different opinion is wrong.

Real change, real improvement is bottom up. Beginning on the individual level, with your character, your generosity, your acts of kindness, your sustainable life, and personal reduction. Live your life in a moral way, have courage to stand for the things you believe and uphold, and have faith in humanity.

Here's a good TED talk that seems relevant:

Don't try to tie your fetish into every single topic, have some range.

I mean more than normal people are the real heroes, and if we want to inspire heroism, and courageous action then we need to change the way we view heroes, and I suppose perhaps villains as well.

Give some examples and I might be more prone to agree

I'm a vegan, but I don't think that we are here to save the world. Either through shepherding the ignorant miserable masses of people, or animals. Most of the time, I think it's best to just mind your own business, stay out of the way, and worry about yourself.

Who knows what people would think watching me in every second, I'm not Buddha, or something, claiming to have a special emotional disposition, or some kind of super power, or that people really should be like me. All that matters is my own evaluation. Everyone's keeps up some level of appearance, everyone lies, paints this better than they are, themselves better than they are, and everything involved with them as more impressive and significant. People often also do the exact opposite of that, depending on how they want to make you feel, and their distrust in your ability to react, and feel the ways they want you to about things.

Lol, but I'm special, and uniquely immune to such influences.

Just think guys, if you made babies you could teach them your bullshit, and they'd probably believe you because they wouldn't know any better! :D

Lol, no... I find your borderline deification of the rich absurd, and precisely the opposite of the truth. Wealth and power is what insulates one from reality, not the other way around.

But aren't you saying that they are in fact immune, and progenitors of the value systems and narratives in which they isolate and proliferate, rather than being just as much subjects and products of them as everyone else? They definitely have more power to influence than most individuals, but this doesn't mean that they are less susceptible to influence themselves. It's also the inverse of how things actually work, the proliferation of values and norms are bottom up. People adopt and embody them on the individual level and infect, and recruit others with them memes, which catch on because they appeal. At best all elite cabals can do is attempt to appeal to people in a similar fashion, concealing best that they can the direction towards their result that they aim for. The most influential powerful means of manipulation at their disposal is the same thing that is at everyone's disposal: lies.

Yes, corporate influence is indeed ubiquitous in art, but it is renowned for being overwhelming deleterious, and degrading of it. Lessening the quality, lessening the appeal.

The greatest downside I think to being too powerful, too attractive, or too famous is that you can say goodbye to ever hearing the truth again. The more people want you to like them, and the more risky they think that it would be to upset you, the less likely they are to ever tell you what they really think about anything. There is nothing more alienating, and shielding from reality than power.

The problem with a mythical elite pulling all of the stings, and having such a wide influence on the unwashed masses is that these supposed elite didn't grow up on mars, they're just as much products of their cultures and environments, and just as easily manipulated by tall tales, and conditioning. We all condition each other everyday in subtle, and unsubtle ways, and no one is immune. I think that the socially powerful more so than the unwashed massive underestimate their own vulnerability, and overestimate their influence. They of course have the power and the means to scream the loudist, and be the most visible, and ever force compliance or complicity with economic, class, and violent incentives, but that isn't the same as genuine persuasion.

They'll never have the influence of good author, artist, or musician -- whom are surely corruptible, and even with the best of interests are writing from their own value sets, and dispositions, though in a far less conscious way than such corporate cabals.

Crazy's watch movies too, identify with movie crazies, and emulate them. If it wasn't for watching one movie, and emulating their actions, they've have just emulated something else, a book, someone else they saw in the media, or get creative.

I don't find it likely that someone could be a non-violent stable person, watch a violent movie and then decide that those are super cool things to do, and then go and do them.

Sure, normalizing certain activities so that everyone's doing it makes their wickedness less visible, especially when regardless of the visceral quality of the acts, they're praised or shamed in order to gradually over time condition people.

I just don't think that I know of any culture that actually upheld cruelty, malicious violence, or unfairness up as ideals. I think that we are all capable of enjoying the misery and harm of people that deserve it, and it requires misinformation, propaganda, and the overshadowing of the visceral force of actions by ideological commitments, and rationalizations.

We're all capable of being mislead, and deceived. Engaging in tribalism, dehumanization, and wickedness -- or just being terribly wrong in ways that leads to evil.

There are of course institutions, organizations, and cultural influences which are wicked, and wrong, but they must not be distanced from ourselves, and seen as something those assholes do, as this is the beginning of their dehumanization by us. Saying that "of course they aren't all like that, but I suspect a statistical significant amount to be complicit" is to legitimize prejudice. It is by no means an unwarranted fear, completely innocent people are the victims of general prejudice every single day, and we must be just as weary of ourselves as we are others.

I can't relate to any of that. My job is roofing, and people often tell me I'm crazy for the recklessness of what I do. Maybe I will fall off someday, that will suck. I usually tell people that I'm an optimist, if I fall off then half way down I'll be all like "well, so far it's been alright, the rest should be fine". I'm only the least bit worried at about three stories up. One story I can land a jump from (I've done it), two stories I may hurt myself, three stories could be fatal. Double the distance of the fall, quadruple the force. I really never think about falling though, and am not really the least big scared, I'm just used to it. That's how I am about death in general, I'll worry about it when it's imminent.

Fairness doesn't apply to life itself, it's an evaluation of judgment, and behavior, not the world. The world is neither fair or unfair, people are. I don't experience such an assault, and the person torturing themselves with negativity, threats that aren't imminent, and unreasonable expectations is less masochistic than the person that takes everything in stride? Yesterday buddy at work told me that he missed working with me, I'm always so upbeat and happy. I said that there's enough bullshit and negativity in the world for me to be adding to it. I like to keep things light and avoid unnecessary stress.

I don't particularly enjoy very much, really, at least not a whole lot more than anything else. I am generally bored, and unengaged, with distractions, or doing absolutely nothing. It's why meditating, waiting places, doing exercises and things don't really bore me more than most things do. I think that music is probably my favorite thing, and always increases my vitality. I really don't think that it would be all that difficult to live without modern distractions though, they aren't all that great to me. I would miss music, but that's about it.

It wasn't a concern for it occurring as much as a justification for ignoring it when it does. I read you as suggesting that when the majority voted for the discrimination law it was all fairsies, but a corruption of the system to have corporate powers get involved for justice! The implication being that we'd be cool with it when we agree with the result, and inconsistently denounce it when we don't.

Point was that it's not fairsies -- and results matter, so I'd have no objection to anything when it works, but don't trust plenty of things to reliably work.

And Canada pwns, and you know it.

[Generalized label: Anarchist
Form of government: Piles of smoldering ash and rubble.
Form of economy: Production, services, barter, trade.
Abortion: If they must.
Gay marriage: Of course, who would want an unhappy marriage?
Death penalty: No.
Euthanasia: If they must.
Campaign finance: Shit shovelling.
Surveillance: Only in the form of evesdropping little people.
Health care: Don't get sick.
Immigration: No borders.
Education: Guilds.
Environmental policy: Reduce, reuse, live small.
Gun policy: Unskilled weapon class.
Drug policy: No restrictions, just shaming.
Foreign policy: Blind eyes on all sides.

Yes, I would tell you that. Some people are assholes, and often about the very same issues, from entirely different foundations. One wishes to simplify the issue, and find the source of superstition and tribalism in a scapegoat, and preferably a scapegoat that they feel no affiliation with, and don't mind slaughtering. It is naive, and distancing. Religion isn't the cause of prejudice, tribalism, violence, and hatred. Pretty sure that religions actually don't come from extra human sources, people made that shit up out of their own pre-existing prejudices, and in contextual response to things and people they deemed disgusting, enemies, or too different.

Carl Sagan makes a good case for why religion has little of anything to do with superstition and tribalism in Demon Haunted World.

In a unless, like metaphysical sense perhaps, but it doesn't talk about the real causes. It is in a strained sense true to say that my parents meeting caused my car accident, but in the normal sense people would say running that red light caused it, or being drunk caused it, or more immediate relevant things, and not the second dinosaur from the left sneezing that one time 70 million years ago.

You're just using "cause" in a strained way. Like saying the big bang is the cause of suffering.

Oh, I see, now that you've asserted it over and over again, it's becoming clearer.

No one says "I wish I was never born" because they just can't get over how horrible birth was, but because of this thing that is now happening that their life led up to.

No, one doesn't suffer because of being born, it isn't possible to suffer without being born, and it may not be possible to be born and not suffer -- but this still doesn't mean that birth itself causes suffering. Other stuff causes suffering, you know that.

People don't get over things because they die, lol. See, you have to just believe that everyone really hates life, and wants to die, regardless of what they say, and how they act. You just have to ignore that, and think they're lying or delusional. You're a True Believer.

Speaking of terrible news no one seems to be talking about, you know that a transgender person is murdered in the world, one every about 27 hours? Almost fifty in the first month of 2016 in brazil alone -- and these are probably low numbers. Complete systematic misgendering of trans people in reported crimes prevents clear accurate numbers. The numbers have been seemingly skyrocketing in the last few years, but it is more likely that misgendering has just been less prevalent by police and in the media over the last couple of years.

People don't suffer by virtue of being born, and there certainly are circumstances and environments which cause excessive, enduring suffering which needs addressing and mitigating -- but just having everyone die, or stop being born to fix the problem is like pulling out all of your teeth to prevent cavities.

Everyone suffers hardships, and feels terrible, maybe like dying, but yet, they then get over it. Nothing wrong with whining, and being at low points in life. I wouldn't attempting to lessen, or dismiss anyone's suffering, I was merely describing the fact that most people do feel those ways at times, but yeah, get over it.

No, as I said, it's merely a matter of probability. If a more significant number of people bemoaned their existence all the time, and not just occasionally and then got over it... then it would be a more pressing concern, but really I doubt most people even consider the possibility, it's so minute.

You know, I'm not even confident that Schop was totally serious about all of that, rather than just using poorly translated Buddhist ideas to be edgy, and controversial.

You're so spoiled... back in the day, bread was already cooked, they didn't need a fancy future second cooking.

Mediocrity is statistic, really. If it's average to own a private jet, an eighty room house and eat the greatest delicacies in the world, then that's a mediocre life. If it's normal to live in a city filled with human waste, eating spoiled food then having a fresh apple is pretty exceptional.

Don't compare your life to others, and want more than most people have. Maybe most people are getting too much as it is.