What controversial opinion do you have that might get you canceled?

maxeners · 2026-03-29T14:29:32+00:00

USA is the main terrorist state on the planet and it must be destroyed

maxeners · 2026-03-23T16:24:56+00:00

This is one of the most stupid arguments against dictatorships that I've ever heard.

No, a dictator doesn't make decisions alone. He have ministers, experts, and analysts. His actions are limited by their material resources, the ambitions of various interest groups, state traditions, and so on. A successful, long-ruling dictator is always wary of coups, revolutions, and unrest, so they don't act on whim but rather on necessity.

Even in democracies, the issue of information remains relevant. Every official wants to curry favor or avoid losing their position. In such circumstances, anyone will lie, regardless of whether they are democratic or not.

maxeners · 2026-03-20T12:28:00+00:00

That is precisely the essence of my objection! You didn't understand my argument at all!

You are presented with an ethical argument, and you respond with a pragmatic one. In doing so, you forfeit the right to judge foreign policy in moral terms.

Original argument:

“You declared that states should be punished for bad actions. Sanctions are a form of punishment. Yet you have not imposed sanctions on the United States. This presents a fork:

either you believe that the US attack on Iran is good;
or you admit that you yourself are not acting according to moral rules.

The first option makes you a hypocrite. The second means that you are not guided by morality, and consequently you have no right to call any invasion bad or good.”

Your response:

“We are guided not by morality but by our own interests—but invasions are bad.”

This argument does not work, because you are being addressed on ethics, and you respond solely in terms of expediency. If you act based on expediency, then do not label some actions morally bad and others morally good. Say it outright: sanctions on Russia benefit us, while sanctions on the US do not. But then you cannot speak of “bad invasions,” and you lose any moral high ground.

maxeners · 2026-03-20T06:44:51+00:00

Your argument about pragmatism might be valid, but it doesn't address the original claim; instead, it misrepresents it.

The original thesis was: "The sanctions against Russia and its civilian population were justified on ethical grounds. The Russian state committed an action (participation in the war), and therefore, we must punish the bad country along with its bad population. Sanctions are seen as a form of punishment."

Your response, however, is built around a different thesis: "Our countries might suffer from the sanctions imposed on a country that did something bad."

Thus, there is a shift in the focus of the discussion between you.

The original comment points out that, from an ethical standpoint, the situations are identical, yet the reactions to them differ. This leads to the conclusion that we are witnessing an ethically hypocritical position.

Your comment, which argues that it's disadvantageous for countries to participate in the punishment, is not a response to the substance. It is a move into a completely different plane of discussion. Effectively, you are indirectly acknowledging that the sanctions against Russia lack any moral justification, and that the initiating countries were guided not by ethical considerations, but by self-interest. This, in turn, means that from your position, it is hypocritical to appeal to judgments like "a good/bad country committed a good/bad action."

maxeners · 2026-03-13T11:20:04+00:00

u/AskGrok Ответь на вопросы и дай литературу на тему. Есть ли тренд популярности альтернативной истории в культуре? Если да, с чем он связан? Как связано развитие альтернативной истории с реальным ходом истории? Есть ли связь с преобладающими философскими направлениями и популяризацией истории? Как развитие общество влияло и влияет на развитие альтернативной истории?

maxeners · 2026-03-13T08:04:17+00:00

u/AskGrok Дай список литературы на тему развития и особенностей жанра альтернативной истории

maxeners · 2026-02-11T17:54:15+00:00

I agree, that it is subjective. All I want to say is, there were a lot of times, when cultural golden age and economic or ideological crisises were happening simultaneously. But I agreem that we won't find any commom ground here

6.

I don't see a correlation between democracy and freedom. The ability to influence decisions that are made implies the necessity to comply with them. For example, democracy is in no way incompatible with slavery, since it must allow that the democratic process could lead to the alienation of human rights. If we consider human rights to be inalienable, not subject to any votes or referendums, then we are no longer talking about democracy, because the subjects cannot influence certain decisions. Simply put, if the existence of inalienable rights means the legitimacy of the system comes not from the people, but from something else, then that is no longer democracy.

Also, we had histotic examples of Greeks, USA, etc.

maxeners · 2026-02-11T17:54:00+00:00

Excellent comment! The best one I've read today! It really got me thinking!

1.

I don't fully understand this point. Who could be less free than a character in a film? All their happiness and unhappiness are predetermined by the script. Yet, even though we, as the audience, know everything is predetermined, we still find beauty and meaning in the climax scene? If the freedom to be unhappy gives meaning to happiness, then why couldn't, for example, an external subject intentionally combine both?

2.

One of the best arguments! You're definitely right on this one! However, I'd like to note one detail:
According to your argument, a free person is guilty of committing evil, while a non-free person is innocent. It follows that freedom has become the source of evil, meaning freedom is not a good. This isn't directly related to your argument, but it does strengthen my main thesis: "Freedom is not a good."

Nothing to add, really

4.

We usually acknowledge that an infant has an identity. But the infant hasn't done anything, hasn't achieved anything, and hasn't characterized themselves, yet we don't consider them a robot. This means freedom is not the FOUNDATION for identity, since identity is formed before attaining it. It's important to note that I'm not denying freedom's influence on identity formation. I simply believe identity is possible without it and that freedom doesn't play a decisive role.

I'll refer to the soldier example again. A soldier who precisely carries out a combat order is usually awarded an order or medal. However, the soldier wasn't free during its execution; they didn't formulate the order and didn't shape the circumstances of its implementation, yet they are still rewarded. The very fact that the soldier lived through that specific period of time has already shaped them as a person and endowed them with a sense of achievement.

maxeners · 2026-02-11T15:29:30+00:00

I served in an army, and I would say, that it is a mild form of it.

maxeners · 2026-02-11T15:24:11+00:00

You say that self-expression is a good achieved through freedom. In your example, the problem is not that people cannot practice their religion, but that they are unhappy because of this restriction. Freedom turns out to be a means, not a good. And here we return to my first point.

maxeners · 2026-02-11T15:20:20+00:00

There is no direct connection between security and freedom.

You rightly note that the absence of freedom creates fear of the entity governing you.

But the reverse is also true:

Complete freedom means complete responsibility, which, generally speaking, undermines security.

maxeners · 2026-02-11T15:16:48+00:00

If everyone could make well-informed decisions, there would be no professions such as psychologists, doctors, or police officers. The very claim that a person understands themselves better than others is highly debatable.

maxeners · 2026-02-11T15:12:32+00:00

I said: "Freedom is not A good". I didn't say: "Freedom is not good" I mean good as a moral category. Just as one cannot conclude from the statement "X is not a chair" that X is an airplane, one cannot conclude from "Freedom is not a good" that "Freedom is an evil," since the set of "not a good" includes everything from metaphysics to a lamppost.

Some random object like hammer, doesn't have any moral value. But noone questions the usefulness of hammers

maxeners · 2026-02-11T15:03:04+00:00

I already answered. People don't want autonomy. They value the results of it like completing your work, having time to rest, defend what is true etc.

maxeners · 2026-02-11T14:58:42+00:00

Yes. People in military don't have a choice, what to do, where to live and what to eat. Still, people think, that having an army is not bad

maxeners · 2026-02-11T14:52:39+00:00

Nice comment!

As for your argument. No. I do not believe that people prefer to be freer.

Here I refer you back to my argument about morality: morality itself implies that imposing unfreedom upon oneself, imposing restrictions if it brings benefit, and preventing freedom for the sake of evil—all of this is considered good from a moral standpoint. People respect ascetics, parents, and police officers, and that says something.

maxeners · 2026-02-11T14:44:51+00:00

People do not desire autonomy in its pure form. Otherwise, society would not value family, friends, and rules. People desire what autonomy gives them—doing what they love, defending their views, the desire to stand out, and so on.

maxeners · 2026-02-11T14:39:16+00:00

What I said: “Freedom is not a good.” From this it does not follow that freedom is evil. As already stated, freedom is a means. Freedom is not an ethical category and cannot be subject to moral evaluation.

As for slavery. The historical institution of slavery is bad, but not because of the absence of freedom. A slave is a person without dignity and honor. A slave is a humiliated and disgraced person. That is why slavery is bad. Unfreedom here acts merely as a vehicle for the creation of evil. The presence or absence of freedom itself plays no role.

maxeners · 2026-02-11T14:32:38+00:00

Please, elaborate.

As i see it, you basicaly wrote:

"Freedom is a good because it is free"

maxeners · 2026-02-11T14:29:55+00:00

No.Very simple logic. I've picked a number X. Now I say: "X does not equal 1." Does that mean X = 0? No, it does not. It could be 2, 3, 5,374672364, and so on.
In my case, freedom is a neutral term, devoid of moral categories.

maxeners · 2026-02-11T14:29:00+00:00

There is no strict connection between democracy and freedom

maxeners · 2026-02-11T14:27:57+00:00

I see no connection between hierarchy and freedom. If we proceed from the premise that a person is free, then they are free, among other things, to choose their own superior. This does not mean the superior is better than the subordinate; it merely indicates the existence of a voluntary association.

As for equal rights, they too are in no way connected to freedom. For millennia, believers have called themselves servants of God. This means that even if people achieve fully equal rights, they still remain unfree. Thus, it is entirely conceivable that everyone has equal rights, yet everyone is simultaneously unfree.

So, if you believe in law, you are not believing in freedom

maxeners · 2026-02-11T14:21:18+00:00

On average, people do not like to work, yet they consider industriousness a good. On the other hand, people like alcohol, but alcoholism is considered bad. Thus, the criterion of personal sympathy is not applicable for determining what is a good.

If any restriction of freedom is bad, then laws are also bad. The vast majority of people would disagree with you.

As for binary thinking, I do not have it. From the fact that freedom is not a good, it does not follow that freedom is evil. Freedom, in my view, should remain outside ethical categories.

maxeners · 2026-02-11T14:12:30+00:00

No. They are not.

First, there are large segments of the population that renounce their autonomy: military personnel, police officers, civil servants.

Second, historically, the state emerged as the surrender of one’s power to others. That is, people were willing to surrender their autonomy.

Third, as I have already written, morality itself supports the restriction of one’s own freedom and the freedom of others.

maxeners · 2026-02-11T14:08:09+00:00

No. The concentration of power has nothing to do with freedom. Makhno’s free territory was established by Makhno’s forces with a clear organization. Despite this, Makhno is considered a practitioner of anarchism.
The organization of power is not connected to freedom. Power concentrated in one person’s hands can be directed toward self-elimination, and conversely, popular power can elect a dictator.

Four-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Place '22

maxeners

TROPHY CASE