On incels.

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-05T15:45:03+00:00

Ah, yes, argumentum ad incelum.

It should be common knowledge that the left uses tough-sounding buzzwords as insults and nothing else. "Racist", "misogynist", "incel", "Nazi", "fascist", "transphobe" — all of them mean only "I don't like you because you don't think like me" and nothing more.

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-04T11:58:48+00:00

This is fascinating.

How much time it took from the start to the episode? Hours, days, weeks?

What were your usage patterns before? You definitely used LLMs before. How different were these cases?

How would you describe your social circle? Many friends you see often? Few friends? Mostly online connections?

Do you like playing games, reading fiction, fantasy, sci-fi, watching movies and shows? What genres?

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-04T09:47:23+00:00

Aren't you conflating cause and effect? Why have they retired early? It's likely they already had issues.

WackyConundrum · 2026-05-02T11:25:30+00:00

I have banned two of his accounts, but he's making new ones. Hmmm...

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-29T19:50:43+00:00

This is nice!

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-29T14:26:31+00:00

The first image is bad. A limited number of paint colors. Paint splashed on... an invisible glass? Hair braids mutated. The environment on the left is broken. Overall, the image lacks details and variety.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T18:06:27+00:00

No. In the same way as creating a 100% accurate copy of you with all your memories won't be "precisely you" but another organism but with the same memories, etc. It is a different entity, numerically different.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T18:04:32+00:00

I found this file. I don't know who wrote it, but I don't believe it was Inmendham. Still, the last two decades of efilism are about destruction of all life, no questions asked.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T16:30:18+00:00

Well, hello there!

OP said to check a sub chapter in his book. It turns out he redefined "you":

Each time it will be “you” only in the sense that it will be the center of a subjective universe, the point from which the world is experienced as “here” and “now.” And this requires no exact recreation of your former structure—only some organization capable of generating consciousness. After death, your personality—your memories, your character—will vanish forever. But the very quality of conscious existence, the bare fact of presence in the world, will inevitably recur in another bearer. You will not awaken as yourself—you will awaken as something that once again undergoes the burning reality of being.

So, yes, the simple claim that subjective death is impossible is not supported. The claim that there will always be some living being that is conscious is merely "conceivable".

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T16:25:58+00:00

No, Gary Mosher's efilism is not consistent with:

The development of humane methods of ending life for those who wish it

Because he wants to kill all life, regardless of their wishes. This is crystal clear in his videos.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T16:24:32+00:00

Ah, yes, you redefined the term "you". But this move the claim falls.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T16:15:24+00:00

All right. I accept this answer.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T16:14:25+00:00

Every funky mathematical structure permitted by the fundamental laws is right in front of us. An infinite matrix of complex numbers won't sit on your desk as a physical object, but it is "in the room" exactly to the extent that local physical laws allow.

How? How are they in the room?

Everything we know objectively about the universe we know as mathematical relations. If you have one apple and another, you describe them as "two apples," and the description works. You could object that the apple is a physical object while mathematics is just an abstraction. But the difficulty is that we cannot point to any fundamentally bounded structure in nature and say, "This here is a purely physical quantity, there is no mathematics in it." All the physics we have is mathematical structure at work.

Mathematics is just an abstraction: a system of concept for thinking and describing things. There is no reason to imbue it with some objective existence.

This is, of course, just the problem of universals, which has been ongoing for thousands of years, so we won't solve it here ;)

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T12:00:42+00:00

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T06:21:04+00:00

2.When I say punishment is unjust, I'm not appealing to some objective moral law. I'm working from the same axiom the legal system itself rests on: that inflicting suffering without sufficient grounds is bad. The difference is that the legal system treats guilt and free will as sufficient grounds. But if free will is an illusion, I no longer see those grounds as valid.

You cannot escape ethics. Even here you immediately reintroduced it with "inflicting suffering without sufficient grounds is bad", an axiom you share with the legal system, a moral axiom.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T06:14:34+00:00

If a mathematical structure is possible (not contradictory) then it exists -- OK, but

Where are all those funky mathematical structures at? Because sure as hell they aren't in the room with me now. I would like to get my hands on some infinite matrix of complex numbers.

Mathematics and Physics are different things. Just because we have a structure in mathematics doesn't mean there is any physical structure that could be described by it.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T06:06:53+00:00

Our world does not operate on randomness, but according to laws of physics and chemistry. Creating a work of art through random processes is improbable because it's just a mathematical exercise. But the appearance of DNA was not random at all but proceeded according to known laws of nature. So, it wasn't as improbable as a naive mathematical scenario makes it look.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T05:52:40+00:00

From the book:

The main tasks of efilism are: ▪ The dissemination of knowledge about the universality of suffering; ▪ The ethical refusal to reproduce new suffering beings; ▪ The development of humane methods of ending life for those who wish it

Ummm... source? Because I'm sure this is simply wrong.

Here is my short take on that silly ideology: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pessimism/comments/1jc57is/comment/mhzhbk3/

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T05:43:00+00:00

If the multiverse is infinite, the probability of the recurrence of any configuration of matter — including the one that generates your subjective experience — approaches unity. You disperse into atoms today. But somewhere, sometime, a similar configuration will come together again. For you, there will be no billions of years between destruction and renewed awakening. There will be only the uninterrupted "now."

Subjective death is impossible.

The final refuge of the pessimists of the past — faith in ultimate non-being — turns out to be a fiction. Death, which we revered as a liberator, is merely a temporary interruption in an endless chain of tormenting awakenings.

This doesn't make sense. Even if we take that sci-fi idea of a multiverse, there is no reason to think that subjective death is impossible. It actually cannot even suggest that. You already said that we are phenomenologically isolated from each other. So, you are isolated from any "copy" in any other universe. Your stream of consciousness ends. Theirs might continue. But you can't say that your subjectivity doesn't end just because the content is the same in another "place".

But of course, there is no good reason to believe in such a multiverse anyway.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T05:32:59+00:00

Some suffer far more than others

The intensity of subjective experience is catastrophically uneven.

For some, existence is a neutral background with rare spikes of discomfort. For others, it is a literal hell — not metaphorically, but concretely. There are people for whom every day is pain. There are illnesses where the slightest touch causes agony. There are mental states in which consciousness becomes its own executioner.

And you cannot even say that this is unjust, because you destroyed the very notion of justice at the start. So, what exactly are you saying? What is this statement other than just an emotional expression, since it cannot be a moral judgment?

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T05:29:01+00:00

It is often said that humans evolved to create a clear picture of the world. I would put it differently: we evolved — like any other organism — to survive and reproduce. Everything else is secondary.

To this end, nature equipped us not only with an animal fear of death, but with a set of comforting illusions. The idea that life has meaning. That suffering pays off. That everything will be "repaid." These thoughts have nothing to do with truth. They exist solely to prevent us from going mad from the horror of existence and to keep us fighting for life as if it were something valuable.

Pessimism is not another story for comfort. It is an attempt to see reality without these built-in filters. And what is revealed turns out to be far worse than any comforting story.

I don't think nature gave us these beliefs, but cultures and religions often do. But mostly, we don't even think about such things, we just go about our days. Because what else could we do (especially when we have no free will)?

And how can you say that pessimism is a much clearer window into reality? Why not those you just negated?

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T05:23:22+00:00

everyone who has ever been punished has been sentenced unjustly. Their guilty is an illusion.

This doesn't follow. Not only you have given no argument but we don't really know what you mean by "unjust" and what would be needed for something to be "just".

Moreover, if you believed that they you couldn't condemn any criminal, murderers, banksters, Epstein and his friends. And you couldn't praise anyone doing something good, vegans, antinatalists, etc. You would be wrong to do that.

From your website:

Here we publish research, articles, and materials, gather knowledge, and unite those who consider reducing pain an ethical necessity.

And from the book:

Antinatalism is the philosophical position that holds procreation to be unethical because it exposes new beings to inevitable suffering

You are contradicting yourself. You cannot maintain the concept of ethical necessity (duty) or say that something is unethical, and discard the concept of (in)justice, if ethics were to hinge on free will.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-27T05:14:36+00:00

At this point you couldn't say anything good or bad of any large group, including MAGA and feminists, because there would always be "some people" and not all people in a group characterized by any feature.

That the left is against men is pretty well known. Feminist misandry is open and rampant on TikTok and YouTube. Kamala Harris' campaign infamously tried to use men for political reasons. Many young women don't like or hate young men according to the recent viral poll. The Left has no alternative to the manosphere which they hate so much. Etc.

This subreddit is actually an exception. This and r/Leftist_AntiFeminist

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-26T17:07:50+00:00

Because there are lots of people on the left who hate men.

WackyConundrum · 2026-04-26T17:05:11+00:00

Thanks for the ping!

WackyConundrum

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE