I can think of two scenarios. The first one is you do that and everyone, including you, feels it and perceives it in a good way. Which I guess could end up in weird situations. Geeky example, but do you know Magic the Gathering? There’s a faction there called “The Rakdos Cult” with a demon and a lot of deranged characters that simply enjoy the bad things. The Rakdos cards often portray a little gorey scenes with people enjoying it, so I guess we could become kind of that but without victims, only enjoyers.

But the other scenario is that we wouldn’t have a need to prove or try such things because we often do it out of negative feelings such as emptiness, pride, competitiveness, etc. We wouldn’t feel those things so we wouldn’t behave as erratically as we do now.

That if we exist at all, though… Maybe existence as we know it is incompatible with my first comment.

No suffering, no dis-pleasurable state, no undesirable reality exists. Everything that is, is deemed good by all beings that can judge it (if any). This has, as a consequence, no moral dilemmas, no conflict of wills and interests, no tragedies, etc.

I think that’s the ambiguity. An AFAB only space is different to a women’ (and maybe other feminine identities I’m not aware of) space. The first, AFAB, is about the sex you were born into. The second is about your gender (and here we can even create different groups, but that’s beyond the point). The ambiguity comes because each of us uses “female” differently, sometimes to mean this or that. That’s the importance of specifying what we mean, especially when creating a club or something similar.

I personally do not care that much about the survival of entire species (including ours); I care more about the lives of the individuals. To illustrate this, it saddens me when we cause extinctions, but a little more because of the animals that suffered in the process and a little less about the whole “loss” of a form of life. Yet, it all is sad.

How do I deal with this climate change sadness? I guess I don’t see it separately from other sad things from humanity (and existence, but let’s focus on humanity). I have accepted the fact that most human beings are morally questionable in my book, this causes the world to be worse for everyone in it, and no amount of reasoning with most of them (about the benefit for them and others of being more conscious about their lives) will change it for now.

At some point, some have felt that a better society is just a step ahead of us because it’s relatively easy in material terms, but now I feel it much farther as the social factors are not as easy. I guess I have surrendered to a certain idea of psychological determinism. If we imagine a person has an object we want at their reach, while it’s out of our reach, and we could get it if they only cooperate, we can feel frustrated when they don’t. “Why do they make it so difficult? It’s as simple as reaching for the object and grabbing it for us. Just do it! Why are they waiting for? Ugh!”. But if we start from the idea that there’s a chance they won’t help us because they simply can’t be bothered (different reasons as to why), and that’s probably not fixable, we won’t feel that level of frustration for their inaction and we will strategize differently how to get that object.

By the way, I don’t think selfishness or self-centeredness or whatever is individualism, nor that altruism is communitarianism. I’m inclined to individualism, but that’s what makes me think that just as my life and freedom are valuable, so are others’. I do not like societies that are communitarian because they drown the individual (in false responsibilities, in fear of ostracism, etc.), and I hate that. We have one life and only one and we should be as free as possible, even if that means being unattached, different, whatever. The only rule for that freedom and for everything is ethics. And that’s the difference for me, that’s how I see it. Not individualistic people versus communitarian people, but people that live without an interest in being ethical (whatever that ends up meaning) and people who do.

So… I think I see a lot of these people and I don’t get as frustrated as before. I sigh and continue my day. Reading this last part, it reads a little stoic (learning that I cannot change these parts of society and focusing on the ones we can change). Stoicism is like the ibuprofen of life; paracetamol is pyrrhic skepticism. I’m bad at analogies, lol, but you get the point (I hope).

Prioritizing my health (including my mental health) has helped a lot. Good levels of everything in my body do wonders for my energy, but also my resilience, my mood, etc. Emotional regulation skills, combating stress… I know these are just common recommendations, but I don’t have more.

I’m sorry that you’re feeling down. It’s been a hard time…

Isn’t FlyingSquid a she?

I suggest arrows to navigate main comments (I think they also call them “parent comments” or something). As an example, Sync for Lemmy and Now for Reddit have them.

As many have already told you, people need more than just physical companionship.

I’d add that some people cannot be happy even with a healthful environment because of internal or personal issues. For example, certain cluster B personality disorders or traits cause that people feel empty deep down. They will enjoy things for a while, but often return to feeling incomplete, disconnected, etc.

I mean, it’s our fault as leftists that it is an echo chamber. We have forgotten how to talk about polemic issues among ourselves. I bet we lemmings have big differences (in the details) but we are afraid of bans or talking to walls, so…

Yes. It worries me that you haven’t found them. Either you have but you thought they were stupid anyway because of them being leftists, or you haven’t because you do not believe in any way in equality, solidarity, search for knowledge, and many other values the left stands for. This I find difficult to believe.

I think it’s like saying that Marxism isn’t… let’s say, Nietzschean. Those are two ways of looking into problems. In some points, they’ll coincide; in others, they won’t. I’m bad at analogies. Anyway, if you’re a Nietzschean (in this case, if you believe intersectionality is the proper way of looking at social phenomena), of course Marxism (probably in all its different branches) will look incomplete and like they’re building from the wrong premises to you. But if you were Marxist, you’d think the same of Nietzschean philosophy (or intersectionality).

I’m sure both have excellent reasons to believe in a framework or another, but we should not forget they are just that, not truth™. I say this not to fall into an absolute relativism but to prevent any side from falling into a conviction of moral superiority. We cannot be so sure about it.

Have you watched the movie Network (1976)? I feel like Russia is in the position of “the Arabs” right now (and I don’t say more in case you haven’t watched it).

I mean, the people still exist and the need for honest opinions is still there. We just need to find a new place where money isn’t such a big problem (although it will always be a problem to some degree). I really think a more stable and easy to use Lemmy could attract a large crowd.

Nayib Bukele, current president of El Salvador, describes himself as a philosopher king on his Twitter/X account.

I don’t remember the scene, but the caption and something about it makes it feel like decisiveness, maybe frustration finally made into a plan.

Less. I think movements against pornography have great points, so I rarely consume erotic or pornographic content now.

I’m not from the U.S.

Creatine instead of collagen, if you ask me. Creatine helps build muscle. Muscles keep everything in place (which is especially important in case of hypermobility) and they relieve work from other parts.

No, they’re not fully developed, but they distinguish actions morally speaking (even older children do) and they can choose to do better.

Contemporary philosophy and sciences are different from religion in some aspects. One important aspect is that these academic fields rely on rational arguments, while religion today mostly relies on traditional beliefs and faith.

Let’s say a philosopher is pondering the idea that direct experience is not necessary for knowledge. The only way to go and declare this publicly is to elaborate why, how, in a rational and rigorous manner. Most scientists work with objects that admit replicated experimentation, so they must do that, let’s say in their case, to demonstrate that a rain frog only comes out with heavy rain, but not with light rain. In contrast to these two, a religious or spiritual person might give “arguments”, but this argumentation is never to see if their belief resists examination, it is only to convince others of this belief that has been established as truth before everything else. In other words, philosophy and sciences examine their thesis (hypothesis, theory, etc.) and never assume they have the ultimate truth; on the contrary, they keep searching and exploring possibilities. Talking here about the disciplines and not the individuals who can be different from this from time to time (e.g., a dogmatic professor). Meanwhile, religion and spirituality do not have thesis or any beliefs that are susceptible to drastic change. They establish core beliefs or dogmas, and only later might try to prove them or not, depending if they find this exercise important.

Are they all ultimately unprovable statements? I guess so, but we should care how these statements come to be and how we justify them. To me, it makes an enormous difference.
I rather believe in climate change in which human action is definitely affecting the Earth (source: sciences) and the importance of stopping it as we seem to have a responsibility to others and to ourselves (source: ethics, a branch of philosophy), than to believe that there is a conspiracy to make us believe about climate change (source: perhaps imagination) and that we shouldn’t do anything anyway because there is no reason to (source: ignorance or dogmatism, honestly).

I try to remain critical of rational disciplines too, but that’s ironically done with more rationality. And here I do not mean “cold” and rigid pseudo logical analysis, but something that admits different approaches as long as they are solidly justified.

I guess it comes down to who we are. I simply cannot be convinced without this I explained. I cannot believe in religion or spiritual beliefs. I sometimes get short videos about people telling many different stories, about ghosts, ayahuasca trips where they talked to superior entities, gods and the way they know they’re real, etc. How can I believe what they perceive is real? Mere “leap of faith”? And why choose one over the other? Just because I like a particular system or because it benefits me in some way? Sorry, too arbitrary even for me that I sometimes act impulsively and capriciously. As I said, I guess the way we are allows us to accept or to deny different ways to approach existence. This is me.

Thank you for reading my stupidly long comment.

I hate these generational divides. Are we really supposed to think that a person from 1982 and a person from 1994 (both millennials) have more in common than a person from 1994 and one from 1997 (one millennial and one zoomer)? It makes no sense.

If I had to answer, I guess the closest would be Zillenial: born around the mid 90s.