I do, however, incorporate the words “retard”, “nigger”, and “faggot” into my vocabulary literally exclusively because it triggers humans and demonstrates the fact that the validity of one’s argument and one’s ability to defend themselves in argument does not matter to the human.
You demonstrate that humans can easily be driven insane. And then you are left with an insane human. In my experience, insane people aren’t very helpful. I recommend trying to drive humans sane instead. It’s vastly more difficult, but very productive if you can manage it.
Are you implying that I should conform to literal objective inferior* behavior simply because the human is irrational and the validity of my argument and ability to defend myself in argument does not matter to them?
I don’t think either of us were addressing the real issue, so I’ll start over.
This reminds me of a story from Change of Heart.
[The environmentalist] then shouted to the crowd, “Are you ready to get out there and fight for the environment?”
To which they answered an enthusiastic, “Yeah!”
“Are you ready to get arrested and go to jail for the environment?”
“Yeah!!”
“Are you ready to give your life for the environment?”
“Yeah!!!”
“Are you willing to cut your hair and put on a suit for the environment?”
The crowd fell silent.
If you’re not familiar with signalling, I suggest reading up on it. A lot of human behavior is explained by it. People are built for politics. If you’re in a group of people who have long hair and wear funny clothes and preach about the environment being great, then by doing the same thing you can show that you’re loyal to them. If you really want to signal loyalty, you can burn your bridges with everyone else and do something crazy like getting arrested. If cut your hair and put on a suit, it signals that you’re loyal to your workplace, and by extension not them. It might help the environment, but you’re not built to save the environment. You’re built to maximize inclusive genetic fitness, and politics is a great way to do it.
I think the same thing is going on here. You’re not swearing because “fucking” is such an amazingly useful word. You’re signalling something. If I had to guess, I’d say that you’re signalling that you don’t need us by burning your bridges with us.
I think the same thing is going on here. You’re not swearing because “fucking” is such an amazingly useful word. You’re signalling something. If I had to guess, I’d say that you’re signalling that you don’t need us by burning your bridges with us.
Who is “us”? Is “us” those who live by LessWrong’s philosophy? This community disagrees with my argument? But yes, I believe your conclusion is what I said outright… I use it because it is a trigger word to humans… It pisses them off, despite the fact that I may have said or written a thousand words of argument prior to dropping a human’s trigger word that explains why ascribing emotion. and the emotion they do to their trigger word is irrational.
But why do you consider it important to piss people off? If you’re just doing it for fun, I’d suggest doing it on YouTube or something so that you’re not getting in the way of anything productive.
I consider it important because I am totally extreme with my opinions. I hate humans so much I correlate every aspect of them to evil. I worship what I consider to be objective good so much that I’m fucking turned on by it, which is ridiculous since a lot of it isn’t even remotely sexual. In my eyes, everything conceivable can be forced to conform to the dichotomy of good verses evil, and if something cannot be good it is evil. I want the opposing party to understand that I find their philosophy utterly disgusting if I disagree with it, and I want them to know that I want them to think like me, and to turn to me to have their questions answered. I once wanted to force the world to tend to the end that I wanted it to, but that seems not realistic. I still have my belligerence and extreme opinions, though. I would also like to affirm again that I have yet to be given a single rational reason to abstain from expressing my indignation towards anything when I feel like expressing it. Also, human morality is exclusively a consequence of emotion… it is only natural I want to affirm that I correlate evil to pain, and anger.
That looks like you’re just attempting to piss me off. It doesn’t seem to actually mean anything.
And what the niggershitting babyfuck does this mean? Do you think you formally quantify what of my post there “doesn’t actually mean anything” and why it is so? Do you think you explain why what I proposed is not a valid argument? Do you think you in any way accomplish anything with this post beyond simply ejaculating your vague, worthless, human bullshit kind of in my direction to make yourself feel better about the fact that you can’t defend yourself in argument and do not even want to try?
And what the niggershitting babyfuck does this mean?
In that sentence, the words “And what does this mean?” were used to convey information. The words “the niggershitting babyfuck” were meant to piss me off, and did not actually add anything to the sentence. It is possible that some of your last post was meant to convey information, but it’s not as simple as removing the swearing. I can see how you could piss someone off with that, but taking it as a list of facts they’re just too silly. You consider everything to be either evil or sexually gratifying? What about the color blue? Is blue evil? And you said that anger is evil, but you admitted to trying to make people angry.
And you said that anger is evil, but you admitted to trying to make people angry.
My goal is to convince all who disagree with me to think like me. My main method is argument. My expressing my indignation is just on the side, and I see no reason to stop. I already proposed my logic behind doing so(I doubt it was an actual legit “argument” that I proposed, if you don’t mind the No True Scotsman) and you did not respond to any of it beyond a vague remark.
You consider everything to be either evil or sexually gratifying? What about the color blue? Is blue evil?
Okay, I would like to affirm again that my opinion are actually literal satanism, and that I have not actually conveyed the fundamentals to my philosophy yet. I believe everything in this universe as we perceive it is evil, but I also have a less radical viewpoint that distinguishes between the human’s understanding of good and evil. Mate, I don’t think you understand how much I love philosophy and giving others knowledge… I live for this shit. My mental faculties and possibly literal lack thereof force me to worship this shit. I know nothing else. If I could I would argue against every human I encountered simply to convince them to think like me. If you really want me to write of my satanic views and why I believe them to be correct and all conceivable dissenting opinions to be incorrect I would love to, but I want to do so to achieve the ultimate goal of convincing you to think like me. Not you specifically necessarily, but just whatever opposing party I am across, the likes of which is you at the moment. But to answer the question, I believe the color blue is evil, yes. It is not in itself good, as I see no reason to view it as good, so it must be evil. Black, or perhaps the lack of color is what I perceive to be the objective best… because satanism, of course. It opposes everything, so obviously I think the absence of perception is the best...
I don’t think that was the implication. What I took from it is that you shouldn’t be a dick.
Stop beating around the bush. I directly implied in the post of mines to which you are responding that I believe censoring myself because the human wants me to do so is irrational. You could have attempted to rebut my argument in my original post where I proposed my argument as for why I believe censorship is irrational. You could have asked me to expound something, such as perhaps why I value conforming to standards that I perceive to be the best so highly. You could have at the very least quantified what it means to “be a dick” for me and explained why I should care even a little bit about what humans perceive to be “dickish”. You did nothing of the sort.
What would insulting/infuriating the person with whom you’re discussing possibly accomplish, besides making them less likely to cooperate?
besides making them less likely to cooperate?
And this is the main issue you have been ignoring. I am trying to approach things from a purely logical standpoint. You however are proposing here that I should consider raw human emotionality, as if that means anything; as if that explains why I should do so, why doing so is good, why doing otherwise is bad etc. Basically you leave almost everything undefined to me here and nothing of this post convinces me to think like you, or even fully quantifies your position. I currently do not care about human cooperation. I care about objective good, objective bad, and being objectively good. But to answer your question, insulting/ infuriating any human with whom I am conversing would serve to convey how evil I find them or their opinions. I have yet to be given a rational reason to abstain from expressing such indignant notions.
You demonstrate that humans can easily be driven insane. And then you are left with an insane human. In my experience, insane people aren’t very helpful. I recommend trying to drive humans sane instead. It’s vastly more difficult, but very productive if you can manage it.
Are you implying that I should conform to literal objective inferior* behavior simply because the human is irrational and the validity of my argument and ability to defend myself in argument does not matter to them?
*forgot this word before this edit
I don’t think either of us were addressing the real issue, so I’ll start over.
This reminds me of a story from Change of Heart.
If you’re not familiar with signalling, I suggest reading up on it. A lot of human behavior is explained by it. People are built for politics. If you’re in a group of people who have long hair and wear funny clothes and preach about the environment being great, then by doing the same thing you can show that you’re loyal to them. If you really want to signal loyalty, you can burn your bridges with everyone else and do something crazy like getting arrested. If cut your hair and put on a suit, it signals that you’re loyal to your workplace, and by extension not them. It might help the environment, but you’re not built to save the environment. You’re built to maximize inclusive genetic fitness, and politics is a great way to do it.
I think the same thing is going on here. You’re not swearing because “fucking” is such an amazingly useful word. You’re signalling something. If I had to guess, I’d say that you’re signalling that you don’t need us by burning your bridges with us.
Who is “us”? Is “us” those who live by LessWrong’s philosophy? This community disagrees with my argument? But yes, I believe your conclusion is what I said outright… I use it because it is a trigger word to humans… It pisses them off, despite the fact that I may have said or written a thousand words of argument prior to dropping a human’s trigger word that explains why ascribing emotion. and the emotion they do to their trigger word is irrational.
But why do you consider it important to piss people off? If you’re just doing it for fun, I’d suggest doing it on YouTube or something so that you’re not getting in the way of anything productive.
I consider it important because I am totally extreme with my opinions. I hate humans so much I correlate every aspect of them to evil. I worship what I consider to be objective good so much that I’m fucking turned on by it, which is ridiculous since a lot of it isn’t even remotely sexual. In my eyes, everything conceivable can be forced to conform to the dichotomy of good verses evil, and if something cannot be good it is evil. I want the opposing party to understand that I find their philosophy utterly disgusting if I disagree with it, and I want them to know that I want them to think like me, and to turn to me to have their questions answered. I once wanted to force the world to tend to the end that I wanted it to, but that seems not realistic. I still have my belligerence and extreme opinions, though. I would also like to affirm again that I have yet to be given a single rational reason to abstain from expressing my indignation towards anything when I feel like expressing it. Also, human morality is exclusively a consequence of emotion… it is only natural I want to affirm that I correlate evil to pain, and anger.
That looks like you’re just attempting to piss me off. It doesn’t seem to actually mean anything.
And what the niggershitting babyfuck does this mean? Do you think you formally quantify what of my post there “doesn’t actually mean anything” and why it is so? Do you think you explain why what I proposed is not a valid argument? Do you think you in any way accomplish anything with this post beyond simply ejaculating your vague, worthless, human bullshit kind of in my direction to make yourself feel better about the fact that you can’t defend yourself in argument and do not even want to try?
In that sentence, the words “And what does this mean?” were used to convey information. The words “the niggershitting babyfuck” were meant to piss me off, and did not actually add anything to the sentence. It is possible that some of your last post was meant to convey information, but it’s not as simple as removing the swearing. I can see how you could piss someone off with that, but taking it as a list of facts they’re just too silly. You consider everything to be either evil or sexually gratifying? What about the color blue? Is blue evil? And you said that anger is evil, but you admitted to trying to make people angry.
My goal is to convince all who disagree with me to think like me. My main method is argument. My expressing my indignation is just on the side, and I see no reason to stop. I already proposed my logic behind doing so(I doubt it was an actual legit “argument” that I proposed, if you don’t mind the No True Scotsman) and you did not respond to any of it beyond a vague remark.
Okay, I would like to affirm again that my opinion are actually literal satanism, and that I have not actually conveyed the fundamentals to my philosophy yet. I believe everything in this universe as we perceive it is evil, but I also have a less radical viewpoint that distinguishes between the human’s understanding of good and evil. Mate, I don’t think you understand how much I love philosophy and giving others knowledge… I live for this shit. My mental faculties and possibly literal lack thereof force me to worship this shit. I know nothing else. If I could I would argue against every human I encountered simply to convince them to think like me. If you really want me to write of my satanic views and why I believe them to be correct and all conceivable dissenting opinions to be incorrect I would love to, but I want to do so to achieve the ultimate goal of convincing you to think like me. Not you specifically necessarily, but just whatever opposing party I am across, the likes of which is you at the moment. But to answer the question, I believe the color blue is evil, yes. It is not in itself good, as I see no reason to view it as good, so it must be evil. Black, or perhaps the lack of color is what I perceive to be the objective best… because satanism, of course. It opposes everything, so obviously I think the absence of perception is the best...
I don’t think that was the implication. What I took from it is that you shouldn’t be a dick.
What would insulting/infuriating the person with whom you’re discussing possibly accomplish, besides making them less likely to cooperate?
Stop beating around the bush. I directly implied in the post of mines to which you are responding that I believe censoring myself because the human wants me to do so is irrational. You could have attempted to rebut my argument in my original post where I proposed my argument as for why I believe censorship is irrational. You could have asked me to expound something, such as perhaps why I value conforming to standards that I perceive to be the best so highly. You could have at the very least quantified what it means to “be a dick” for me and explained why I should care even a little bit about what humans perceive to be “dickish”. You did nothing of the sort.
And this is the main issue you have been ignoring. I am trying to approach things from a purely logical standpoint. You however are proposing here that I should consider raw human emotionality, as if that means anything; as if that explains why I should do so, why doing so is good, why doing otherwise is bad etc. Basically you leave almost everything undefined to me here and nothing of this post convinces me to think like you, or even fully quantifies your position. I currently do not care about human cooperation. I care about objective good, objective bad, and being objectively good. But to answer your question, insulting/ infuriating any human with whom I am conversing would serve to convey how evil I find them or their opinions. I have yet to be given a rational reason to abstain from expressing such indignant notions.