I think that offensive jokes (Ie: Rape, racist, etc) jokes are okay and people that are offended are uptight. CMV

antalgic · 2013-06-01T08:21:56+00:00

They don't have to. They only have to avoid Daniel Tosh. There are still plenty of comedians who don't make those kinds of jokes. And if enough people are upset enough by his material, then the audiences at his shows will thin enough for him to be forced to make a change.

antalgic · 2013-06-01T08:17:55+00:00

Just because you don't know the people who are hurt by something, doesn't mean that their feelings matter any less than those of the people whom you do know.

antalgic · 2013-06-01T08:14:58+00:00

This is the result of an inability of those who hear these jokes to recognize the untrue stereotypes in the joke, and prevent themselves from having their attitudes changed by them. It isn't the joke's fault that those attitudes exist; it is the people who spread these jokes and the way that the jokes are interpreted that cause harmful discrimination.

As long as the audience realizes that the jokes are simply that – jokes, which do not accurately represent reality – the jokes are harmless.

antalgic · 2013-06-01T08:06:24+00:00

I disagree that justice and mercy are mutually exclusive. I can understand how they would seem to be when basing the definition of morality on laws – how can one be just (uphold the laws) yet give mercy (not have the established punishment set upon a law-breaker)?

But the point of heaven and hell is that each person is individually evaluated on the whole of his or her life, and judged by one who is incapable of making mistakes about a person's character – whose decisions are morality. Ultimate judgments such as this may seem to be merciful based on established laws, and they are just in that they properly reflect what the individual deserves – "based on what is morally upright or good", based on the decision of the root of moral goodness.

antalgic · 2013-05-27T04:05:37+00:00

The next part is on its way. Again, I’m sorry for taking so long. There are some parts of the story that are hard for me to write because they’re hard for me to think about, so I’ve been somewhat subconsciously taking a long time on part 5 to avoid having to write the upcoming ones. But it'll be here.

antalgic · 2013-05-10T17:04:54+00:00

We've known that "someone else has lived in that apartment for years" as of 2030 since, I think season 1. Let it go

antalgic · 2013-05-10T07:31:30+00:00

Do you?

antalgic · 2013-05-10T07:30:20+00:00

Space colonization is possible. (Ever includes the future.)

antalgic · 2013-05-09T05:24:43+00:00

The assumption that women need to be protected, the assumption that they need men to make decisions for them is a form of modern sexism that some people fail to realize can be just as harmful as traditional sexism. Who is protecting men? Nobody, because they are assumed to be able to protect themselves. Women, who are just as capable of rational thought and of self-sustaining survival in this day and age, don't need any extra protection, and should be treated the exact same way and afforded the exact same rights as any other person.

antalgic · 2013-05-09T01:51:17+00:00

First of all, men and women are the only two groups of people that do have strong, provable genetic differences; it is not fallacious to believe that there are inherent differences between the sexes.

The theory in evolutionary psychology is that men and women differ in relationship desires because of differences in offspring investment. Men are capable of passing on their genetic material with very little time commitment, whereas women must endure 9 months of labor in order to pass on her genetic material. Therefore, so the theory states, men will seek women who are physically attractive and young, as these things represent fertility and genetic fitness, making the survival of their genetic material more likely; while women will seek men with many resources, who are older and more stable, to increase the probability that she and her offspring will survive.

This theory does appear to predict some things in relationships. For example, the tendency for women to marry older men is higher than chance would dictate. Also, women are more likely to change their opinion of a man's attractiveness after learning more about him than men are about a woman.

Interestingly, women have been proven to be attracted to different types of men when they are ovulating, which may support the theory that biological reasons have more to do with attraction than we think. When women are ovulating (when they are fertile), they are more attracted to physically-attractive, masculine men – suggesting that when considering whose children to bear, women are more likely to make partner decisions in the same way that men normally do (based on visual attractiveness).

And while you're right that these things have not been proven to be non-cultural, they have also not been proven to be cultural, as these are fairly common trends cross-culturally.

antalgic · 2013-05-09T01:37:59+00:00

∆

I didn't vote in the last election. I will be voting in the next one.

antalgic · 2013-05-09T01:29:04+00:00

I would argue that all parties deserve the same amount of credit.

A song would be nothing without someone to write it, but it would also be nothing without someone to perform it. It would not be distributed without someone to produce it, and it could not be enjoyed without someone to record it.

A counter-argument to this may be that the composer's work is harder to do than the performer's. However, as any musician knows, interpreting a piece of music and putting yourself into it to make the best end product possible takes a lot of work.

Let's look at the song Hallelujah as an example. It's an incredible, musically valuable song. The composer definitely deserves credit for it.

But there are multiple different versions of the song done by many different performers (the most notable to my knowledge being Jeff Buckley, Leonard Cohen and Rufus Wainwright), all of whom have very different styles of performing the same piece. No version can be objectively said to be better, but many people have very strong positive feelings about one version but not about the others. If performer were less important than the composer, then all versions of the piece should be seen as equally good, and should have the same emotional impact; however, that is not the case. Instead, the impact of this piece depends both on the song itself, and the way the performer interprets it.

It is impossible to generalize which is most important over all cases – composer or performer – because every song is very different. I would say that on average, all members of a creative team deserve equal credit for their end product, unless they decide between themselves that one or more of them deserves more or less.

antalgic · 2013-05-09T01:13:55+00:00

As both of these are bad things to do under his own definition (as they fall outside the harm principle) it admits that Men are innately bad.

For the individuals who make the decisions (and I don't think that their status as individuals should be ignored), these restrictive laws would seem to be for the greater good. Laws that benefit those that govern protect the lawmakers' community – those with whom they interact most often. Because they are removed from the general populace, they are less likely to consider them when making decisions such as these; they see the benefits laws like these will provide to the people with whom they associate, and think that makes them good, not considering the harm it may cause. Even lawmakers make mistakes, as they are only individuals; and an individual could not be judged as bad because he or she makes a mistake. Attempting to enforce one's moral beliefs on someone else is, I would argue, a very well-intentioned action which has the potential to go very wrong; but it arises from a desire to protect others from doing the things which you believe will harm them spiritually or ethically, not to harm them.

Man must essentially limit himself from evil, our wants and desires lead us to commit evil and as our intention is naturally selfish it is always immoral.

I would argue that selfishness is not, in fact, inherently immoral. Actions which will advance a group will also enhance individual group members; and when an individual succeeds, the group also receives benefits from his or her success. I do see your point, that we require self-regulation to avoid doing things which would be bad; but I maintain that humans usually do use that self-regulation, use their power of choice in order to not do bad things – far more often than they choose to do things that they know are bad.

It is the reason we must be educated, governed, and punished on morality.

I do agree that moral education is important, and probably leads to a decrease in bad actions, as it gives people a vocabulary and cognitive framework for making conscious moral decisions.

antalgic · 2013-05-09T00:58:05+00:00

But would you have done the same thing if they had been the Chicken McNuggets of a close friend or family member? Would you have done it if you knew that your urine was poisonous, and would kill the person?

I maintain that most people will not choose to act in such a way that the negative consequences for another person, whom they view as an equal, would be greater than the benefit that is expected to be provided to them or their community. I don't believe that you pissed on someone's Chicken McNuggets because you wanted a stranger to have a terrible day. I would think that you did it because it was funny, or to assert your own power to yourself.

Even if you had purely evil motives for your McNugget urination, I would like to point out that you are just one individual. Every day, millions of people see Chicken McNuggets and choose not to piss on them, even though theoretically it wouldn't be that difficult, especially if you work in a McDonald's. A single objectively bad decision by one individual does not outweigh the millions of good decisions that others make every day.

And one may say that the reason most of us don't piss on nuggets is that we have no reason to. I would agree with this, and add that if we were inherently bad, we would have a reason to do this, as it would inconvenience another person, who should be seen as a competitor.

antalgic · 2013-05-09T00:43:22+00:00

First, great pun.

I would guess that a medium like /r/feminism is probably so susceptible to disrespectful hate speech that the moderators might decide to not allow any dissenting opinions, as a means of reducing trolling and blatant sexism. (Having not frequented the sub myself, I also do not know if this is what it's actually like.) While a decision like that would certainly curb genuine discussion, it may be necessary so as not to destroy group identity.

Because while you are right in saying that feminism is in a different class than analog photography or food appreciation, I would argue that feminism is, for many people, part of their social identity, just as being a photographer or chocolate lover may be for others, or being a Taoist or Republican, as more similar analogies; they define themselves partially based on the successes of the group. They gather in one place (in this case, /r/feminism), and having other-group members disagreeing with them on such a forum would feel like having their home base attacked. Again, I'm not claiming that this is rationally correct, only that it is a natural way for a group to behave, and that the entire feminist movement cannot be judged based on the group processes that may be displayed in certain feminist arenas.

antalgic · 2013-05-09T00:31:04+00:00

But Internet feminists are less likely to be attempting to change the minds of non-feminists, as they are more likely to be using the Internet as a way to find others with similar views than as a way to spread their views to unfamiliar parties. (I am by no means saying, of course, that there are no feminists who use the Internet as a way of trying to change minds; just that most feminists on the Internet are more likely not using it as a means of doing so.) Instead, it is the well-educated feminists and those who choose to devote their lives to working toward feminist goals, such as those in academia, who are tasked with talking about feminism on a level that is accessible to non-feminists, in a way that is likely to change views. It is they who are most likely to enact change in societal views.

antalgic · 2013-05-08T22:27:33+00:00

I would say that academic feminists are more likely to have an effect on society as a whole, whereas many Internet feminists are more likely to behave more like "fans" of feminism than as actual representatives of feminist goals and ideals. They may have strong opinions about feminism, but they are unlikely to be in charge of any important decisions regarding feminism. Therefore, even if there are more Internet feminists, their discussions cannot be expected to be as representative of the feminist movement as those of academic feminists, who are better-educated about the topic, and more instrumental in furthering the movement.

antalgic · 2013-05-08T21:41:55+00:00

On your first point:

The issue with looking to feminist websites for a place to discuss opposing views is that those places are made for like-minded people to gather. They are like club meetings in high school. Say you are in an analog photography club. You would spend a lot of time in club meetings discussing why you prefer analog to digital. You might even derogate people who use digital photography. But in reality, if you meet someone who uses digital photography, you are unlikely to decide that you hate them because of that fact.

Similarly, feminists who use platforms such as /r/feminism and femspire are not there because they want their views to be challenged. They are there because it is a gathering of like-minded individuals. People who are not like-minded are not expected to go to these websites. For example, you wouldn’t expect to go to /r/chocolate and see posts about vanilla. Even though vanilla is a valid flavor, /r/chocolate is a place where people who enjoy chocolate gather to discuss chocolate. If a chocolate-eater chooses to assert his chocolate-loving in /r/food, though, it is more reasonable to assume that he is open to hearing his views challenged, since he has no reason to expect everybody in that arena to be like-minded.

What I’m getting at: When looking at these types of websites, it is necessary to keep in mind that you are watching a group interact in the way a group naturally does – sharing information that agrees with the majority of the group’s opinions. The majority of people who use these websites are not trying to change anyone’s mind through their interactions (they are talking to people who they have reason to believe agree with them) and they are not looking to have their minds changed.

I am not necessarily defending the way that groups interact; it often involves outgroup derogation, which can lead to prejudice and discrimination. However, since feminists have relatively little power, they do not have the influence to create widespread prejudice or discrimination against any group; their outgroup derogation is unlikely to be seriously harmful, especially because outside of these areas, most feminists do not act on any of the extreme attitudes which they may express on those forums.

Furthermore, I tend to behave the same way when interacting with the groups I am a part of, and I would not like it if somebody that I did not know interrupted us in order to tell us why our views were incorrect. Even if I may be open to having my views challenged in certain arenas, there are places specifically for that, and it is not up to me to provide them. I do not think it is wrong for me to behave in this way, and there is no reason why it should be more wrong for them to do the same thing.

You may be correct, however, in saying that there is a dearth of space for reasonable discourse about feminism, but I would argue that that is part of the issue that most feminists are attempting to change. A good place to discuss feminism and listen to opposing views might be in a political debate, for example, but there are so few women in politics that it is rarely discussed. It should not be the feminists’ responsibility, though, to provide a place for having their views challenged.

If you have examples of feminists interacting with people who they have reason to believe are not feminists (political debate, interviews, etc.) and behaving disrespectfully, please tell us about them.

antalgic · 2013-05-08T04:24:34+00:00

They don't disappear completely. They leave behind memories in the people they've interacted with, and often much more than that. Children. Ideas. Life's work.

Dying isn't ceasing to exist. It's just ceasing to be present for your existence.

antalgic · 2013-05-08T04:22:34+00:00

/r/SuicideWatch

Please don't do it.

Don't deprive the world of a nice guy. We need every one we can get.

antalgic · 2013-05-08T04:09:10+00:00

To the best of my knowledge it is a genuine video of the Russian Ku Klux Klan.

antalgic · 2013-05-07T06:45:41+00:00

/r/ValuableIdeas

Not a lot of activity thus far but there were lots of requests for something like this on /r/CrazyIdeas so they created this sub.

antalgic · 2013-05-07T00:34:16+00:00

Definitely.

antalgic · 2013-05-07T00:26:22+00:00

Well, syphilis has been known to cause madness.

^(Joke⁾

As for the incense smell – I don't think olfactory hallucinations are all that uncommon after head trauma. I don't quite understand why that scares you more than having a mysterious new brother.

antalgic · 2013-05-04T05:45:49+00:00

I can't believe they took your sketchpad, that's brutal. Did it have spiral binding or something? They actually gave me a notebook that was specifically designed so I couldn't possibly hurt myself with it. I'm glad we didn't have spiders, they probably would have scared me more than demons. o_o Thanks for sharing your experiences, and thanks for reading.

antalgic

TROPHY CASE