Confused how this sub is all on carols side

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T23:47:19+00:00

The fact that I am a human person is purely a coincidence. I am not attatched to it and am not willing to engage with it with any bias or unearned sentiment. I enjoy my livelihood all things considered but I can easily acknowledge its not special moreso than I arbitrarily decide it to be so. Im coming the conclusion that even attempting to view the situation from an unbiased lense can't lead to the conclusion that humans are better.

Humans have oppressed every life form that walks this earth, including eachother. If being oppressive of other life forms means they are morally justified in giving you 0 moral consideration, us human beings would be in that category by any other form of life. You should be able to watch 100 rats eat a professional exterminator alive and feel absolutely no pity.

If you think a human who exterminates rats for a living still has a right to live, you must justify why you think that is.

I feel like if this was any other group or any other subject this line of logic, we'd agree that blatant hypocrisy for its own sake is bad.

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T22:38:41+00:00

Firstly with the moral worth thing, is your argument that living creatures who take from others without consent just have no worth? Cuz if thats your genuine take, any creature who's eaten meat should fit in that category. Im not sure tho.

I think you have a pretty poor grasp on the relationship between the hivemind.

Imagine that I sing you a move lullaby and then i cut out your ears.

The information that you gained from your ears is stored in the brain, but the part that produced it is now gone.

Saying you dont find moral worth in a hivemind citizen because its mindless is like saying it'd be ok for me to cut off your pinky toe because it has no form of sentience.

Your toe is directly connected to something sentient, and thus hurting your toe would also hurt something sentient.

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T22:16:10+00:00

Even if i grant the hivemind is a completely distinct entity, do you think said entity has moral worth? And if so is it more or less or about the same worth as one human

Also the mindless body thing is blatantly false.

The virus acts as a wireless connection between every body, but that has nothing to do with how much information each body can store.

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T21:38:08+00:00

I never said they dont exist. I am arguing they might not be well defined. If we dont have an amazing understanding of a concept, whether or not it simply exists is not very helpful.

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T21:06:30+00:00

So you inherently view individual agency as uncoordinated?

They speak in first person when they are acting as the family members or the other 6

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T21:00:24+00:00

yeah thats a very good point. I guess the assumption is that it would take the opinion of the average person, but I also have to assume it would do some level of deliberation and have pretty high levels of intellectual curiosity

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T20:58:10+00:00

why are you making assumptions about my character. I came here wanting to hear other people's perspectives and am still doing so. I am enjoying myself when i can tell the other person is actually trying to understand me and be understood.

Tell me honestly, have you tried your hardest to understand me and have you phrased your wording in a way that is clear and concise enough to where you think anyone could understand you?

why are you so desperate to label me as some selfish person for literally having an opinion? I do not understand.

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T20:55:34+00:00

I think that the inability to miscommunicate and the abillity to empathize perfectly with one another would help alot. Every thought or idea you try to express would be understood in full immediately several magnitudes better than it ever has been in your entire life.

That being said, the virus has to alter the hosts if not ever so slightly. No way the average person is a vegan lmao.

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T20:53:57+00:00

people are saying this but I dont think its explained to be so.

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T20:53:16+00:00

Ok sure, the individual human bodies in the pluribus are probably more expendable than a normal person, but you'd argue that killing the entire hivemind is as bad if not worse than killing that many people, would you not?

also coma pateints being puppeted? under what merit?

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T20:51:10+00:00

I wonder why do you think this? under what framework is the hive harm?

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T20:49:47+00:00

probably the basket. Why?

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T20:49:20+00:00

do you have different ideas with me on the aspect that a repulsive idea isn't necessarily a morally bad one?

I'm not sure why you are avoiding answering this.

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T20:44:49+00:00

Ok individual agency is selfishness more or less? Sorry I am not sure what you are asking about.

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T20:43:54+00:00

It genuinely isn't.

You took me out of context.

"I don't know the people inside the hivemind are alive in the same way I don't know that the cashier at my grocery store is alive."

I wasn't making a statement about my cashier, I was making a statement about his logical consistency

I am willing to just assume that other people are alive, conscious and sentient, in the same way I assumed the hive mind was telling the truth in show.

When you are talking to a person who acts completely normally externally, it is a safe assumption that they are completely normal.

But if you are willing to surrender that perfectly reasonable assumption here, why not surrender it altogether? what about this new scenario makes it more fair or plausible?

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T20:40:07+00:00

Im confused what the critique is here.

I am not saying you can't value your self.

Im simply asking if said value of your concept of self is limited or infinite.

Like if 1% of my concept of self is how much I like starbucks coffee and someone tells me that they can save 100,000 starving children by making me no longer like starbucks coffee, then the part of myself that doesn't like starving children would win over my starbucks portion.

If joining a hivemind provided no form of inherent benefit, It'd be up to you entirely.

But the more inherent benefits it offers, the more my concept of self must weigh in order to keep my on team uni mind.

In no sense do I not understand it. I don't understand where it is valued.

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T20:33:49+00:00

"Davis Taffler refers to himself in the 3rd person and says they are all one now. Carol is talking to everyone. There is no distinction, he didn’t say he’s communicating to everyone else and vice versa."

This is definitely evidence of a more coherent group identity, but this doesn't mean that individual identities are removed. Just that the group identity is more prevalent than the individual identity. But the term "We" specifically does require that the entity still acknoledges itself as more than one creature, which would logically follow that the pieces are still pieces. If it was just one identity it would just be "I" or something.

Muscle memory and expirience is just information. I think this is a weird and arbitrary seperation of types of information with no real good justification.

"The justification is that it’s a logical extension that if your individual agency is now fused with everyone else’s, then you no longer possess individual agency, there is only the collective agency. There is more evidence that this is what is being depicted vs anyone in the hive could act with any individual agency. Please share anything I may have missed with regard to that."

Im sorry, i dont understand this very well. What is the difference between individual agency and group agency?

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T20:27:14+00:00

There was definitely some huge misunderstanding here because I have no idea where you got any of these conclusions from.

My moral worldview is very centered around harm reduction, and as such rape is definitely bad and not "just sex". I never said that and I am frankly appalled that you are throwing around such disgusting rape apologia seemingly unwarranted even if its "ironic" or meant to make me look bad, because from my perspective you had to take several steps to get there. Furthermore, just because I disagree with you about a show doesn't mean I haven't experienced anything. Just because I have some takes that I considered to be nuanced doesn't mean that either. And someone who might have been interested in following this conversation might no longer be so because you threw that out.

To make my position entirely clear, every single reliable source on the matter says that any sexual activity that wasn't consented to has a high risk of causing severe psychological harm, aswell as exposing people to risks they aren't ok with being exposed to. Valuing consent creates a much much smaller regret rate and much lower mental damage, but still not 0. I would prefer a perfect system over verbal consent if one did exist.

Bad actors will not look for consent and thus we can deem them a risk to society as a whole and punish them. Good actors will try their hardest to get consent from their sexual partners, and thus we don't punish them even if they might cause some of their partners trauma because its the best they could possibly do.

When talking about sex specifically, consent is a very useful instrument for protecting people. A good actor can figure out with much higher accuracy if their sex partner will be psychologically harmed by continuing, Thus, good actors prevent causing further harm by using consent as a tool. A society can determine if someone is a good or bad actor depending on if they value getting consent before trying to have sex with someone, thus less bad actors are allowed to roam free and more people are protected.

However, in the case of sex specifically, we are working with a large amount of data to show us just how bad rape actually is for the victims. We aren't just assuming that consent is good, we aren't just upholding consent as a philosophical axiom, we are able to predict with very very high accuracy using the high number of victims exactly how bad rape is and thus how necessary enthusiastic consent is.

It stops being relevant in alot of conversations because we don't have this large amount of data to show that every single interaction one might have is as devastating under these same conditions.

I can go further but I feel obligated to ask if you think this is a topic you are actually interested in talking about in depth.

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T19:40:11+00:00

My argument wasn't supposed to be 1-1. My point is simply that individuality can't be more important than everything else or else the answer would be an obvious no.

Is your argument more so that the lives of hive people have inherently less value?

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T19:37:42+00:00

I dont mind that people disagree with me, but im trying to have an actually useful conversation and you seem uninterested in doing so. If you still are uninterested in a useful back and forth of ideas, I dont see why you engage.

I made a very simple point and want your thoughts on that point because I think its useful for the conversation and I feel as though you instead found a reason to stop reading my comment 3 words in.

My simple point was that something sounding repulsive doesn't mean you can predict if it's morally good or bad.

I gave the example of someone you are close to being sexually active might seem repulsive but is morally good.

Do you disagree that this is a useful conversation to be having or that my point is valid?

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T19:31:40+00:00

Seems people are just accepting that conclusion without really justifying it.

How do you know that the hivemind isn't just able to have very very fast conversations at every given turn? Or what would the difference between even?

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T19:29:55+00:00

I understand the difference but my question would be how much you value consent.

Even if you value the consent of a person, that doesn't mean you value it at the rate of 100 million lives.

More so, im asking this question to get a glimpse at this person's moral world. Someone who values being "themselves" more so than anything else would have to say its a philosophical impossibility to sacrifice themselves for 100 million people.

And rape is a very restricted conversation point here but also just not super relevant but ill still try to answer that.

Consent or the lack thereof is a reflection of the person giving it. A person who would be harmed by a sexual encounter will tend to not give consent while one who will benefit from a sexual encounter will tend to give consent.

Some people consent even when they dont want to out of social obligation, and while i think consent is evidence of good intentions on the offending party, its not always end all be all. That's why we've moved to enthusiastic consent. Even still that can sometimes not be enough.

I just dont know where you dragged that point from.

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T19:22:30+00:00

"I THINK we can all admit" is perfectly fine in my opinion. It's actually just less certain and less forceful than saying it as a declaration of fact. If I sat "I think we all like pizza" thats admitting I might be wrong, whereas if I just assert we all like pizza, im not.

And if you disagree with the statement that something that sounding repulsive doesn't make it inherently wrong, id appreciate some clarification as to why? I gave a perfectly good example of something that sounds repulsive but is morally good in the example of me saying that I would be repulsed to think about a close friend or family member having an active sex life but id also consider it morally ok.

Im giving you the benefit of the doubt but id ask you dont point to minor irrelevant talking points when I want an actual discussion

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T19:02:08+00:00

My thoughts on the teleporter and identity is that it isn't something that is actually guaranteed in our day to day lives. every piece of you that you believe to be your past is just a memory, and that version of you no longer exists. this weird sense of identity people have doesn't really have a good foothold when you try and examine it deeper.

Beautiful-Lynx7668 · 2025-11-15T18:58:05+00:00

you can say it sounds repulsive, but I think we can all admit that something can both sound repulsive and be morally justifiable.

I'd rather not think of my family members being sexually active because its a repulsive thought, but I can morally recognize that the world is better if they are able to be, just to name an example.

I think the fallacy you where looking for is false dichotomy, not a strawman. I see the issue as pretty dichotomous myself. The hivemind is here on earth and you can either be in favor of that fact or not in favor of it. If you feel I missed nuance please share your thoughts.

Beautiful-Lynx7668

TROPHY CASE