Gutter Phoenix posted:

2 questions for the poo poo-talkers:

Are you happy?

Do you feel that your life has meaning and purpose?

The Real Amethyst posted:

I have suffered more than you could ever imagine and yet I am still a humourless loner.

Yaldabaoth posted:

I think life having no meaning or purpose would be slightly better than all the religions and ideologies telling people their only purpose is to roll over and die for the sake of the "true" humans.

Gutter Phoenix posted:

ikanreed posted:

Lol, good luck thwarting me. I'm a high level idiot.

Gutter Phoenix posted:

You win the game!

Here is your prize:

ikanreed posted:

You think you can win by losing? I'm gonna get your manager

a few DRUNK BONERS posted:

I think the problem with our society is that we've forgotten how to exist two dimensionally in the future and the past and we're just stuck to the membrane of the present as it drags us along haplessly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acXU9bWNQKg

Pitdragon posted:

finally, someone who GETS IT!

you could learn a lot from this guy, OP.

Gutter Phoenix posted:

I don't like it when lovely cocksuckers piss all over everything just because they're angry and broken. They're a bunch of drama queens and attention whores seeking approval from people who don't give a gently caress about them, and that's just fuckin' pathetic.

Cubone posted:

the way I see it, if you challenge a person's reasoning, somebody arguing disingenuously still has to provide a justification that can be examined and meaningfully challenged (or they can refuse to do that, at which point there's no reason to further engage

fuckingtest posted:

Descartes once said "There is nothing so strange and unbelievable that it has not been said by one philosopher or another."

In summary: Shut the gently caress up we've heard all this bullshit before lol.

Samuel L. Hacksaw posted:

Please rename thread, 'The Tao of Swine' since it seems like a pit of poo poo with a giant hog in it that everyone keeps trying to wrestle, just let 'er be.

That'll do pig.

Gutter Phoenix posted:

Question: What is love?

a few DRUNK BONERS posted:

I think the problem with our society is that we've forgotten how to exist two dimensionally in the future and the past and we're just stuck to the membrane of the present as it drags us along haplessly

Cubone posted:

hm

how do you discern what another poster's motives are?

you seem to be operating in the understanding that anybody with something to say that would be worth engaging with would approach this thread without anything negative to say? it seems odd to me that an open-minded person who's willing to learn would be so cavalier about dismissing people should their approach not conform to your expectation of didacticism when I think you'd agree your own attitude is fairly flippant and dismissive

I don't mean to call you out; this something I struggle with
I said for a long time, I'd prefer to be right than to feel or seem like I'm right, and as such I try to err on the side of giving things thoughtful consideration even when they seem stupid, or crazy, or mean-spirited, or pretentious to me
as a matter of practice, I've long thought it constructive to question a person's reasoning rather than to make any assumptions or judgements about their motive (and especially to be mindful to practice cartesian doubt when what seems to me to be a person's motive would, if true, make it easy for me to dismiss what they have to say out of hand)

the way I see it, if you challenge a person's reasoning, somebody arguing disingenuously still has to provide a justification that can be examined and meaningfully challenged (or they can refuse to do that, at which point there's no reason to further engage), and somebody speaking in good faith will be more likely to respond in kind
whereas if you challenge a person's motive, even if you're completely right it's impossible to know empirically because somebody making a bad faith argument will of course simply not admit that, and what's worse is if you're mistaken and they were speaking sincerely they'll be less inclined to engage thoughtfully with anything you have to say, and additionally you're allowing yourself a cognitive shortcut to dismiss ideas that don't fit your existing worldview but which, if considered seriously, might actually be edifying or expand your perspective, or perhaps even help bring your understanding closer to an unknowable objective truth

and before 5 years ago, that's more or less what I would have posited to you in its entirety

but around that time I started encountering a lot of... seemingly principally insincere people who didn't seem to care if what they said was true, or if they even believed it. they spoke without thesis, levied wild accusations, and, because it's much easier to thoughtlessly say whatever sounds good than it is to thoughtfully consider opposing ideas and try to convey your own thoughts clearly, these people seemingly delighted in simply dragging thoughtful people into long, nonsensical arguments and then, when boxed into a rhetorical corner, simply refusing to address them any further. fortunately, I don't see too much of that specific breed anymore, at least in the spaces I frequent. but their appearance seemed to mark a tidal change in the way people at large talk to each other. there's not much regard for nuance or uncertainty and the assumption of good faith is, essentially, dead. it's become necessary, I think, for decent, rational people to make judgements for themselves about whether somebody is saying something worth taking seriously, just because of the sheer overwhelming amount of confidently asserted nonsense and harmful mistruths, as well as the fact that many if not most people with something of value to share have basically been hounded into... not submission per se, but a general weary unwillingness to engage
when making such judgements, I don't believe that I've always made the right call, which troubles me. I'm of the opinion that a thoughtful person can learn a little from anything, and I would hate to think I closed myself off to an opportunity to enrich myself
you don't seem to be burdened by any such self-doubt. is there any uncertainty in your own mind as to whether the wisdom you're sharing and the manner in which you're sharing it isn't itself worthy of scrutiny or reconsideration?

fuckingtest posted:

Descartes once said "There is nothing so strange and unbelievable that it has not been said by one philosopher or another."

In summary: Shut the gently caress up we've heard all this bullshit before lol.

Yaldabaoth posted:

Oh baby don't hurt me don't hurt me no more

Gutter Phoenix posted:

Question: What is love?

20 Blunts posted:

the proof is in the pudding, that is one of my philosophies

Hasselblad posted:

Truth suffers from too much analysis.
-some groovy dude

Cubone posted:

hm

how do you discern what another poster's motives are?

you seem to be operating in the understanding that anybody with something to say that would be worth engaging with would approach this thread without anything negative to say? it seems odd to me that an open-minded person who's willing to learn would be so cavalier about dismissing people should their approach not conform to your expectation of didacticism when I think you'd agree your own attitude is fairly flippant and dismissive

I don't mean to call you out; this something I struggle with
I said for a long time, I'd prefer to be right than to feel or seem like I'm right, and as such I try to err on the side of giving things thoughtful consideration even when they seem stupid, or crazy, or mean-spirited, or pretentious to me
as a matter of practice, I've long thought it constructive to question a person's reasoning rather than to make any assumptions or judgements about their motive (and especially to be mindful to practice cartesian doubt when what seems to me to be a person's motive would, if true, make it easy for me to dismiss what they have to say out of hand)

the way I see it, if you challenge a person's reasoning, somebody arguing disingenuously still has to provide a justification that can be examined and meaningfully challenged (or they can refuse to do that, at which point there's no reason to further engage), and somebody speaking in good faith will be more likely to respond in kind
whereas if you challenge a person's motive, even if you're completely right it's impossible to know empirically because somebody making a bad faith argument will of course simply not admit that, and what's worse is if you're mistaken and they were speaking sincerely they'll be less inclined to engage thoughtfully with anything you have to say, and additionally you're allowing yourself a cognitive shortcut to dismiss ideas that don't fit your existing worldview but which, if considered seriously, might actually be edifying or expand your perspective, or perhaps even help bring your understanding closer to an unknowable objective truth

and before 5 years ago, that's more or less what I would have posited to you in its entirety

but around that time I started encountering a lot of... seemingly principally insincere people who didn't seem to care if what they said was true, or if they even believed it. they spoke without thesis, levied wild accusations, and, because it's much easier to thoughtlessly say whatever sounds good than it is to thoughtfully consider opposing ideas and try to convey your own thoughts clearly, these people seemingly delighted in simply dragging thoughtful people into long, nonsensical arguments and then, when boxed into a rhetorical corner, simply refusing to address them any further. fortunately, I don't see too much of that specific breed anymore, at least in the spaces I frequent. but their appearance seemed to mark a tidal change in the way people at large talk to each other. there's not much regard for nuance or uncertainty and the assumption of good faith is, essentially, dead. it's become necessary, I think, for decent, rational people to make judgements for themselves about whether somebody is saying something worth taking seriously, just because of the sheer overwhelming amount of confidently asserted nonsense and harmful mistruths, as well as the fact that many if not most people with something of value to share have basically been hounded into... not submission per se, but a general weary unwillingness to engage
when making such judgements, I don't believe that I've always made the right call, which troubles me. I'm of the opinion that a thoughtful person can learn a little from anything, and I would hate to think I closed myself off to an opportunity to enrich myself
you don't seem to be burdened by any such self-doubt. is there any uncertainty in your own mind as to whether the wisdom you're sharing and the manner in which you're sharing it isn't itself worthy of scrutiny or reconsideration?

fuckingtest posted:

Descartes once said "There is nothing so strange and unbelievable that it has not been said by one philosopher or another."

In summary: Shut the gently caress up we've heard all this bullshit before lol.

Samuel L. Hacksaw posted:

Please rename thread, 'The Tao of Swine' since it seems like a pit of poo poo with a giant hog in it that everyone keeps trying to wrestle, just let 'er be.

That'll do pig.

Yaldabaoth posted:

We having forgotten so much as a decent chunk of humanity is men who just want to burn the world down due to their inability to get laid, and they're being goaded on by old rich men who live in constant fear of losing all their wealth and want the angry virgins to protect them by killing everyone.

The Real Amethyst posted:

I have suffered more than you could ever imagine and yet I am still a humourless loner.

Gutter Phoenix posted:

This is a problem.

What is the solution?

How can STREET PHILOSOPHY help us live our lives while all of these right-wing morons are pissing and making GBS threads all over the goddamn sidewalks?

Gutter Phoenix posted:

Question: What is the purpose of of life?

Gutter Phoenix posted:

Question: Does life have meaning and purpose? If so, does yours?

Cornwind Evil posted:

The thing that bugs me about this issue is that there seems to be no solution.

Give them what they want? Beyond being a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE idea, it won't satisfy them.

Reach out a helping hand? In some cases, good. But I remember one analogy about the difficulty of helping others in that "The person might take the blanket you give them and wipe their rear end with it and throw it back at you, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have done that or shouldn't again". That applies sometimes, but that doesn't address stuff like "They not only don't want your help, they want to do YOU harm" or "They'll just use your help to become worse" ala how psychopaths have used therapy to become better at manipulating people.

Ignore them? It just festers and grows and undermines until you wake up one day and you'll being dragged into a metaphorical sinkhole.

Punch them? "Do not argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." I feel the same concept applies there.

Mock them, shame them, isolate them, etc? MAYBE that will work. Or maybe they'll retreat into safe spaces, or echo chambers, or just into masturbatory self delusion (OWN THE LIBS) and basically cut off their ability to feel shame, or put up so many barricades that it becomes a case of that theorum where it requires so much more effort to disprove bullshit then to say it.

I guess it's possibly just a case of 'Assess and pick one, there's no one size fits all solution'.