Go to any of the Canadian Reddit forums for example that allow discussion and man, it's fuck the government, fuck immigrants, who do you think controls everything, etc... it's not what it was like 5 years ago.
Meanwhile on here it's like hello KIA2, I'd like to have a discussion on... Banned. DOM didn't like your haircut.
From this glimpse past the facade (which I appreciate), I see a man ground down to spiritual nihilism, leading to a kind of economic materialist world view which includes ideas within that economic materialism. Do you outright reject the “spiritual” nature/aspect of existence? It sounds like you do, and I would suggest that is perhaps neutering the wholistic potential of your perspective.
Just to use our current interaction as an example of my point about truth being the only path to defeating deception, look at how fragile your power actually is. Once the truth about multiple accounts comes out (which again, I appreciate, for the truth of admitting it at the start, and I suppose here for its illustrative purposes), your power erodes. Logically, when ultimate truth is revealed, it is the only thing capable of eroding the power of ultimate evil, and thus logically since it happens at both sides of the spectrum (our tiny and insignificant evil here, of using multiple accounts and, presumably astroturfing them to appear “more popular” - given your mercenary approach to ideas themselves - and the hypothetical though logically existant “ultimate evil”), it also applies throughout the spectrum as well.
Just like you can’t cure a wound by causing more harm, I don’t see how more lies could ever beat older and stronger lies.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on this short piece, I think it actually gets to the crux of this discussion quite nicely:
https://communities.win/c/ConsumeProduct/p/16ZqrZF5AW/existence-is-a-game-that-everyth/c
I don't reject spiritualism at all, I just reject ideas that use the spiritual to justify manipulation of the material. I think the spiritual and material are linked. One affects the other so to speak so if you act a slave in the material, you've enslaved yourself spiritually also.
I reject notions where people use a spiritual framework that none of us truly understand to justify taking actions that are not beneficial to one in the material but beneficial to others and justify it because the spiritual will be better in a manner you can't perceive.
I will give you an example. A man with a gun comes to your house and points it at you. He says give me all your stuff or I'll kill you. You have 1 hour to comply. You ask the internet for advice. Someone on the internet says you should give him what he asks for because material possessions don't matter, all that matters is the spiritual and if you try to defend yourself you could cause harm to the person but you should love your enemies because if you harm the guy, you could harm your spirit. Another guy says take your gun and defend your property by killing the guy. Assuming there's no other risks involved and you will kill the guy and successfully defend your property that to me is the correct choice. Your spirit will be better off for you taking this route also. The first choice is manipulation. It's something the guy who pointed the gun at you would tell you so he faces no challenge in the material world himself. Any ideas that are similar to the first choice are bad ideas that I reject. All good ideas for your spirit will benefit you in the material as well.
I agree, glad we can build from this common foundation. I assume that your acknowledgement of the spiritual side of life includes an acknowledgement of an “ultimate” spirit or entity which we can label God for the sake of convenience?
Of course with no attempt to overly specify as “this God” or “that God” - we can fairly regard God as the ultimate Creator (in addition to the other things which he represents the existential pinnacle of), right?
Now does it make sense that the ultimate creator would ever favor wanton destruction? Is there any means of logically understanding the God that we agree exists favoring the dropping of atomic bombs in Nagasaki or firebombing Dresden? Both of which are examples of decisions made, supposedly difficultly for those who made them, for the “greater good”.
If one is willing to use the “greater good” to justify despicable means, where does it end? By what means can you assure your success? Surely not through and appeal to the God of what is good?
Regarding your example, I just note both the absurdity of it:
And how both guys are suggesting things where none of the risk or harm can apply to them.
I feel like this neglects the entire realm of “sacrifice” - surely there is some validity to the realities of patience, humbleness, delayed gratification, achieving a better future through a sacrifice of some kind in the present
Regarding the short bit, I would say I interpret it (not my writing) as more of a metaphor and less of a “story”, though it is obviously written in “story” form. It’s comparing the two paths available to a being of free will: merciless, godless competition or merciful, future-thinking altruism (and the requisite accompanying need to defend that merciful civilization from outside attack, something we presumably has been lacking for quite some time) - a gentle place, ringed in spears. I thought it also spoke directly to the notion of ideas and words as weapons (and offspring).
Lastly, I would ask your thoughts on the thrust of my previous comment, the microcosmic example of our discussion and its macrocosmic applicability
I'm not against sacrifice but I reject false sacrifices. Many wars are in fact examples of false sacrifices. Some men convince other men of a duty toward their civilization so these men throw their lives away in sacrifice while the men who took no significant risk benefit from it. A sacrifice to risk your life away should be rooted in some sort of gain. For example, say you join the military but raping and pillaging the enemy is allowed as well as taking on slaves and war brides. You may risk your life and sacrifice for your community but you're also doing so for your own benefit as well as the benefit of others. This is fair. To ask for pure altruistic sacrifice is often a game of manipulation. Those who take no risk manipulate others using the value of altruism for their own benefit. It's not a good thing. If it is truly good then the risk will have appropriate potential payouts in the end.
When it's not your life you're risking, you may sacrifice your time and effort to help a friend move. You expect nothing in return directly but you still expect to enhance your friendship such that perhaps another time you need a favor your friend will be there even if it's not expected. It's still not purely altruistic. I am all for paying things forward and expecting nothing in return to build good karma for example but that ultimately is a choice up to the individual and there's no wrong or right choice. If someone doesn't want to act in that regard then so be it. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong choice here but when people try to manipulate others for their own gain by asking others to sacrifice while they themselves sacrifice nothing then that's a negative, always and people should be cognizant of falling into other people's games. What did the American soldier who fought against the Germans in WWII gain? They were misled and risked everything to benefit their enemies. Don't fall for "duty" or altruism to the benefit of others rather than to your own benefit.
Lastly, I believe in God but I don't think God is inherently good or evil. I think God is True Neutral and our perceptions of what is good or bad don't pertain to God. People dying is not something God cares about at all.
How can these both be true?
Isn’t the perpetuation of your civilization, where people aren’t forcibly raped, enough of a “gain” for a civilized man? I just don’t see the implicit necessity of linking these two things. I think back to the gentle place, ringed in spears.
Hmm…not sure I’ve ever really come across an ideology of God like that which didn’t ultimately boil down to “do as thou wilt shall be the whole of law”… what separates your view from Crowlyism or more generically satanism?
As for your short piece. It's a story. In the end believing it or not is irrelevant.