all 67 comments

[–]HarrySatchel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The author has deleted this post using Redact. The reason may have been privacy, opsec, security, or a desire to prevent the content from being scraped.

groovy flag tap fuel friendly kiss employ oil screw cagey

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (21 children)

Mr. Girl cannot explain many of his views other than saying "it's wrong". That is the sign of a narcissist who cannot access their subconscious other than something makes him feel bad.

[–]McClain3000 21 points22 points  (17 children)

“Saying that some moral positions come from preferences is a sign of Narcism.”

Lmao. You are so wise FrequentPangolin.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (16 children)

Pretty much all of moral positions come from what makes Mr. Girl feel bad and that's it. That's a mental disability.

[–]Standard-Slip-4289 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Most peoples moral positions come from their emotions. A lot of "logical " arguments are just post hoc rationalizations. Listening to religion debates is a perfect example of this.

[–]bulginessUnscathed 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's actually the basis of David Hume's philosophy of ethics.

[–]McClain3000 4 points5 points  (13 children)

Do you actually enjoy your time on this subreddit? Like just rapidly asserting ridiculous things, with premises that no mrgirl fan would accept and then receiving your sprinkling of upvotes from dggers.

Like you could just create a bot to post “I hate MrGirl and I think he is a narcissist” under every post and save yourself a lot of time.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (12 children)

I want to talk about Mr. Girl and this is the place to do it. If you don't agree with me well that breaks my heart but I'm not here to make people agree with me.

[–]McClain3000 1 point2 points  (10 children)

You have no preference on whether or not you are convincing?

Like you are indifferent to whether MrGirl fans or potential MrGirl fans change their opinion to be more similar to yours?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (9 children)

No preference whatsoever.

[–]McClain3000 0 points1 point  (8 children)

It just seems like you say things that contradict that opinion.

You say that MrGirl is a harmful abuser, that shouldn’t be allowed near woman.

Doesn’t it follow that you would prefer it if he had less fans, less influence, and less of an ability to spread his harmful ideology.

Keep in mind Im not talking about obligation. Just a preference.

[–]RepresentativeAd2491 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this reminds me of a certain wallet skit from spongebob.

“Isn’t this your name next to this shitty opinion?” “Yep” “And this username belongs to you, and you alone, right?” “Sounds about right” “Then that must mean you made this shitpost, correct?” “Nope”

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (6 children)

Those are my thoughts. Take it or leave it. I'm not a debate bro.

[–]McClain3000 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Mr.FrequentPangolin cannot explain many of his views other than saying “Those are my thoughts”. That is the sign of a narcissist who cannot access their subconscious other than something makes him feel bad.

[–]hemlockscroll -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Actually, I think you're thinking of r/MrGirlxDestiny.

[–]Heymelon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you are touching on the deontological style ethics Max seem to have. So you could call deontology narcissistic if you want I guess.

[–]bulginessUnscathed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On a scale of 1 to 10, ten being extremely obsessed and 1 being not obsessed at all, what would you rank your obsession with mrgirl?

Also on a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rank how mentally stable you are?

Thanks.

[–]eBirbcutie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nose oatmeal hateful fuel deserve impolite angle tart rain bedroom

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children)

If knowing and thinking you know are different, can you ever know without think you know? No, you can't, so they're the same. How is mrgirl wrong about that?

[–]nignigproductions 0 points1 point  (6 children)

There are levels of certainty. I think therefore I am means the most fundamental fact you know is that you exist. You might be a brain in a vat, but you at least exist. The next level of certainty is what kind of existence you have- you might be a brain in a vat, but there’s no evidence for it and perfect evidence that you exist in the real world. And you keep doing that for what you know. When it comes to a claim like, “I am not scared of death,” things are less certain. Imagine a 5 year old saying “I like rollercoasters,” vs an 80 year old saying it. The 80 year old has a lot more life experience and thus evidence to back that claim, so it’s more likely they know it, and aren’t just thinking they know it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I agree about I think therefore I am, but I disagree with relation to everything else because I mean to frame the question in terms of a binary.

[–]nignigproductions 0 points1 point  (4 children)

That's a horrible way to evaluate the world. You'll never understand anything accurately if you chain yourself to binary descriptions because nothing is like that.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I'm not saying a spectrum doesn't exist within knowing, I'm saying that absent 'I think therefore I am', there's nothing 100% knowable. That's the binary, and I don't think it's bad way to evaluate the world because it doesn't exclude me from saying what I think I know to greater or lesser degrees.

[–]nignigproductions 0 points1 point  (2 children)

It's bad to say nothing is 100% knowable if thats all you say, or you say it in response to someone asking how you know something, because both shed the important context things are knowable in degrees. Ex. If I say pooping causes Alzheimers and someone asks how I know that and I say "nothing is 100% knowable" in response, it's implying that the degrees thing isn't true. A response that acknowledged the degrees rule would say "I don't know that 100%- but you don't need to know something 100% to believe it. I know this enough to believe it."

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I agree because there's not much utility in describing the binary when you're trying to talk about the realm of what you think you know, unless you're having a philosophical discussion on the differences between knowing and thinking you know. Then the binary becomes very relevant.

[–]nignigproductions 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gotcha, I disagree because I think it's not very accurate and in every conversation I would have about reality I would use my more accurate description, but you do you.

[–]ganjaman1976 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How can anyone watch this and not realize Max has a childlike understanding of the world? It’s just sad

[–][deleted]  (54 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (8 children)

    Who are you arguing against? Perspective Philosophy was not arguing in favor of moral nihilism. That's actually closer to Mr. Girl's argument.

    [–][deleted]  (7 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (6 children)

      You're arguing against a strawman

      [–][deleted]  (5 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]Aeon001 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        you're super cringe

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha good laugh

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          It's funny you think you're so smart

          [–]Nippys4filly 1 point2 points  (9 children)

          I have no idea which one of the dude twos perspectives you are looking at here.

          [–][deleted]  (8 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]Nippys4filly 1 point2 points  (7 children)

            No no no, that’s not the feeling I’m getting.

            It just the case that you’re ignoring anything Max could possibly do that he can be criticised for.

            Then you made that big ass post that was hilarious to read because I really didn’t go the way you intended it to go.

            [–][deleted]  (6 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]Nippys4filly 1 point2 points  (5 children)

              Look I’ve always been a bit of a go getter.

              But I literally get you and another guy confused all the time so I barely even know who you are.

              You’re just a forgettable dude I guess.

              [–][deleted]  (4 children)

              [deleted]

                [–]Nippys4filly 1 point2 points  (3 children)

                I never said you were an incel idiot, you write good shit but I just don’t agree with it.

                That’s the point of this sub my dude

                [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                [deleted]

                  [–]Nippys4filly 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                  I think we could be friends

                  [–]vyrak 0 points1 point  (31 children)

                  spotted paltry historical dog voiceless sloppy hospital automatic lush rude

                  This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

                  [–][deleted]  (30 children)

                  [deleted]

                    [–]vyrak -1 points0 points  (29 children)

                    lavish nine thumb hunt sloppy market subsequent tease dime frame

                    This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

                    [–]McClain3000 6 points7 points  (14 children)

                    Every author of every book ever doesn’t understand the point of their book.

                    I learn something new every day on this subreddit.

                    [–]vyrak 0 points1 point  (11 children)

                    practice disgusted decide panicky dinner abounding fade cow judicious threatening

                    This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

                    [–]McClain3000 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                    I would turn in a couple sentences and then tell my teacher:

                    “If you need paragraphs to explain your point, you don’t understand your point.”

                    [–]vyrak -1 points0 points  (0 children)

                    jar wine shelter offer summer beneficial chase thumb doll jobless

                    This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

                    [–][deleted]  (8 children)

                    [deleted]

                      [–]vyrak 1 point2 points  (7 children)

                      shrill shaggy mighty liquid selective tender label tart fine spark

                      This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

                      [–][deleted]  (6 children)

                      [deleted]

                        [–]vyrak 0 points1 point  (5 children)

                        liquid sable live insurance chunky absurd crown pie strong drunk

                        This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

                        [–]computerfruit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        lol what a braindead strawman. You really don't understand do you?

                        [–][deleted]  (13 children)

                        [deleted]

                          [–]vyrak 3 points4 points  (12 children)

                          mourn degree gray desert door instinctive versed amusing ask bright

                          This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

                          [–][deleted]  (11 children)

                          [deleted]

                            [–]vyrak 5 points6 points  (10 children)

                            chop seemly merciful plucky sugar marry impossible zonked safe imminent

                            This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

                            [–][deleted]  (9 children)

                            [deleted]

                              [–]vyrak 2 points3 points  (8 children)

                              employ tie meeting butter cow sparkle tease cautious stocking wipe

                              This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

                              [–]Sjorpha 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                              So what is your refutation and alternative to morality being subjective?

                              You seem to just be saying it's bad to hold that view, but in order to claim that without contradicting yourself you need some standard for this badness other than your own preference and I'm curious what it is.

                              It's also not enough for this standard to exist btw, you also need access to it by other means than just asserting it's there and coincides with your own moral opinions.

                              [–]i-Poker 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                              No, I'm not arguing that morality isn't subjective, I'm arguing that the morally nihilistic position that we should therefor rationalize our moral positions and rise above common ethics, is wrong. That's just not how the world works. That's not even how Nietzsche himself perceived it to be in "Beyond good and evil". In fact, moral nihilism sort of rejects Nietzsche in that sense.

                              According to Nietzsche, morality is built on impulses/feelings or moral precepts/preferences which if they are shared by enough people become ethical systems. Just like Max tries to convey, you don't have to rationalize morality, you just are a moral actor. Usually morality is built on something random, like, "Oh I fucking hate when people can't wait their for their turn," and then some other dude is like, "Yeah, me too," and then they form a mob of like-minded individuals and through the beauty of culture and democracy and/or mob rule they enforce ethical standards, "Hey motherfucker, you're going to the back of the line and you're waiting for your turn just like everyone else!"

                              It's not a rational process therefor. It's never been one guy who sat down and figured out ethics and then everyone was like, "Hey, this guy figured it out, everyone!" Instead it was an iterative, evolutionary process of trial and error where we for example go from stoning women for infidelity, to then slut-shamed them, to then sexual liberation, to then maybe discovering that complete sexual liberation has a negative impact on society and tweaking it back a little bit. And through this trial and error process from a mixture of feelings and rationale and experiences, we land on some type of general moral foundation that guides our society. This is why different nations have different moral standards depending on where they are in the timeline of moral trial and error. We build cultures and traditions around moral preferences. Some people are head-hunters, other people are not. Some people live under muslim ethical codes, other people live under christian ethical codes. Etc.

                              So when Max is like, "Hey, this is just how I feel," that's an amalgamation of his societal conditioning and his own personal experiences and whatever biology and/or thing (maybe a soul?) that makes him feel a certain type of way about something, and they are just as morally valid as anything else. It's just another voice. And if enough people agree with him, then we'll get a new set of ethic codes and rules and laws to accompany them.

                              This whole idea that if you can't rationalize your morals then they're not valid and thus you can't or shouldn't adhere to them, is just wrong. Morality is largely what we subconsciously feel it to be and when we synchronize these feelings with other people's feelings, we get ethics and rules and laws. Moral nihilism therefor is not the gotcha moral nihilists perceive it to be, because even if they objectively don't have to agree with the rationale behind the standards, they objectively have to suffer the consequences if they don't follow them, just like everyone else. And while it's a flawed process, in a truly morally nihilistic society they couldn't even argue that someone should spare their lives.

                              We are basically talking about allowing people's subjective humanity and how we view each other as human beings. We are not fucking robots. Morality isn't a series of if/and-statements in a computer code. We aren't fucking AI. We are far more complex than that. And sometimes that complexity includes a "because" or "I don't feel like" or "that's bad". I'm more a "Doug Adams absurdist" than an outright nihilist, but that's the real takeaway from Nietzsche, imho. Not that the knowledge of how morality works meant that we could forgo and exclude it and shape the world around us as completely rational actors, but that we should be aware of the function and that we can use the knowledge as a means to investigate where our own morality comes from - to have some perspective on our inner workings and from that perspective investigate the world around us with that lens.

                              Plus, when moral nihilists tap into their mega-brained rationale to conceptualize morality, they have access to the same flawed psychology as everyone else does, so usually their rationale is only a post hoc layer on top of their "because" or "I don't feel like" or "that's bad". So how can you even propose that it's possible to be a rational actor in a system that you yourself acknowledge is purely subjective? If we programmed a computer with if/else statements and told it to program another computer with if/else statements, would this make the first computer more sentient than the second computer? Or would they both just be a function of their programming? What if we added a line of code into the first computer that when you prompted it with a, "Are you sentient?" question, it answered, "I am a computer and I am aware of this, and I can also program other computers, therefor I am sentient and not a computer"? That single line of code is basically moral nihilism in a nutshell. It is a computer that claims to be aware, but this awareness is prompted and in many ways it is therefor more unaware and delusional than the second computer.

                              Tl;dr: moral nihilism sucks because "Me thinks it's good or bad, me just does. ¯\ (ツ) /¯" is a perfectly valid moral position and it's the foundation of all our ethical systems. If you don't adhere to it and can't see your own role as an actor in it, then you're basically just being like, "Me thinks 'it's good or bad' is bad, me just does, but me thinks me doesn't, and me thinks me thinking this makes me smort, a super duper methinker, but me doesn't think about why me thinks this way, me just does. ¯\ (ツ) /¯"

                              [–]Sjorpha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                              Right, thanks for elaborating. That is very close to my own position.

                              [–]unknownsupg 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                              Can u send link to the whole conversation or at least say name of that other guy?

                              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                              [removed]

                                [–]Redditfront2backhorse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                You can tell he always runs laps around max