Governments, companies, organizations and identities seem to function as meta organisms on large scales, interested more in their own survival above all else. It’s an emergent phenomenon of many individuals, but so are all multicellular organisms. Even individual genes can work against the interests of the cells they exist in, moving themselves around in the code to avoid deletion. Companies are machines made of living organisms and shaped by evolutionary pressures. Their practices spread into new companies if they help the company continue its existence. That’s what life is, machines that secure the future existence of their mechanical processes.

People do see ads of products and associate that product with its corresponding content. That’s how ads are understood to work. It doesn’t matter what the person consciously thinks, advertising works mostly through unconscious associations. The ADL, an organization funded by genocidal nationalistic Israelis to garner goodwill from anti-hate activists, isn’t applying alien logic to advertisers. They’re applying the very logic advertisers use to design their ads in the first place.

Utilitarianism is an explicitly hedonistic ethical framework, but all other moral frameworks tie back into hedonism in some way. Kant’s categorical imperative, the Socratic inspired virtue theories used by Christian theologians for millenia, social contract theory, even the widespread golden rule. They all tie back into serving one’s own self interest if you follow their logic. It’s so implicit that it’s unavoidable. They all originate in what we think will bring us utility/pleasure/happiness/eudaimonia.

The craziest part is, we don’t even serve our own pleasure. Having kids usually makes people less happy, but we want to do it regardless. Our pleasure evolved to serve our genes, just like everything about us.

You asked about my answers to longstanding questions. I found the form of the good that Plato imagined: the evolutionary imperative. I also discovered that forms come from our neurology and aren’t inherent, so it’s more accurate to say that I found the likely answer to a high degree of certainty.

That’s ok though, I also realized that we cannot ever have certainty about anything based in reality, with all deductive reasoning being based on induction. I don’t need proof, only evidence. It only needs to be the best answer, and I can always end up being wrong. Proof doesn’t matter if one’s assumptions are wrong. Solipsism is unavoidable. Not even “I think, therefore I am” is accurate, as it assumes thinking requires an agent who thinks.

The Trump voters only voted for what they thought were their interests, it’s just that their understanding was inaccurate. It’s ok though, because even the rich and powerful people that support Trump were voting against their long-term interests.

The rich destabilize societies to gain more power by getting free market ideologues elected, pushing the workers to suffer, which leads them to radical ideolgies. The rich then prefer to avoid socialism, so they support radical right wing ideologies in the form of fascists like Trump. Unfortunately, fascists create more worker suffering, harm the economy, and create international conflict with other nations. The global rise in fascism and collapse of neoliberal policies has pushed the entire planet towards World War.

This sounds crazy, but look at what Trump did in the middle east to inflame the current conflict. He withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and killed their general in an unprovoked attack. This has made Iran pursue nukes and take a more hostile stance against US interests, as their economy suffered from sanctions and they got pushed further to the right. His reckless support of Israel led Israel to be more bold in their actions against Palestinians and confident of US support. Israel has nukes, and if the war with Iran continues to escalate, they might be used by a desperate Israel.

His support of Putin and weakening of alliances with Europe probably encouraged Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If Ukraine gets pushed too far west, Poland will likely put boots on the ground to prevent them from being easily invaded by Russia. Trump killing the Israel/Ukraine/border security funding bill makes it harder for Ukraine to remain strong against Russia, increasing the likelihood of EU direct intervention, and increasing the risk of nuclear war in Europe.

Trump’s useless trade war with China empowered hardliners in their government to be more hostile and nationalistic, increasing the probability of them invading Taiwan. If Taiwan gets invaded, the US might interfere militarily and risk escalating to a broader conflict, although nukes are less likely than the other conflicts.

Regardless of what values the rich may have, all this danger is not good from any perspective. Nobody wins in wars they need to fight in. The military industrial complex is fucked if the US gets nuked. The entire global economy has already been harmed by these conflicts, and even if no nuclear bombs are ever used, conventional bombs are already bad enough. Modern nations can’t be conquered by direct warfare, only destroyed.

Fascists are bad for everyone in the long run, and that’s what the GOP is. They aren’t regular conservatives like in the past, they’re against liberal democracy entirely. Bush wanted to use some elements of liberal democracy to enact conservative goals, but Trump broke from it completely. The entire Republican party has been purged of anyone who might stand against fascism, from Romney who will be gone by the end of the year, to Liz Cheney who got the boot in 2022. Even fascists like McCarthy can’t survive if they don’t follow every order Trump gives.

You’re right about me not knowing what you think you advocate for, but saying pro cop people have a point isn’t advocating for reform. I think cops need to exist to some extent, but I’m willing to defund them, prosecute them, and replace the entire system to reign them in. Pro cop people aren’t giving enough criticism to make any positive change, sorry.

I also should have said conservative instead of right wing. Conservative plans will never help the weak. Values and intentions don’t matter when the solution doesn’t work. Progressive plans may not work every time, but they are the only ones capable of working.

No, you’re conservative. I don’t like labeling my beliefs either, but being pro cop and antiprogressive is conservative. In reality, self proclaimed American conservatives want to change society to be more hierarchical and unfair, not keep things as is. If you’re not applying pressure for reformation, selfish interests will cause backsliding. The battle will never end until humanity dies out. Good things require effort to maintain.

Another mistake you make is thinking progressives have more power than we do. The rich aren’t progressive. Companies pandering to diverse customers aren’t progressive, they’re just making money by expanding their customer base. The right screams about companies being woke, but the companies are often act more right wing than they would be if they were only chasing profits.

Social media companies don’t censor conservatives unfairly, instead they protect conservatives from the policies they implement to prevent brands from pulling advertising. The standards are higher for left wing causes in the mainstream media, as the rich people who own them are right wing. Accurate descriptions of reality in science and journalism tend to support progressives more than conservatives, with publications often introducing inaccuracies to prop up conservative positions.

My biggest problem when I thought like you was having an inaccurate view of left wingers as having power in society. Many agents that I thought were left wing actually weren’t, instead only supporting left wing causes for personal gain. Empirical observations are almost always in opposition to right wing plans for improving society. Exclusively right wing plans never make things better for the weak; never.

If you want fundamental truths and answers to our biggest questions, read my comment history. This comment is already long enough.

I went through a phase where I felt the exact same way. My upbringing was left wing and becoming more conservative felt like rebellion. I was never really that right wing, but I was convinced that conservatives must have some valid points. After all, how could half the country be wrong on almost everything?

Unfortunately for conservatives, I never stopped questioning, never stopped pushing ideas to their limits. In doing so, I independently came to many of the same left wing viewpoints I grew up with, only stronger and more resilient. I realized that my parents were actually right, while I was wrong.

More importantly, I realized that conservative ideas did make sense, but not at face value. Conservatives are inconsistent and contradictory because they aren’t expressing their motivations explicitly. They often aren’t aware of their actual reasoning, but there is logic behind their views. The logic is usually very cynical and cruel, dehumanizing people and valuing identity over principles.

I used to think somewhat like you, until I applied a critical lens to conservative ideas in the same way I had investigated familiar progressive ideas. Now I’m a trans woman who’s farther left than every elected representative in congress. I still believe in almost all of the leftist ideas I was raised with, only I’ve pushed them farther than my parents ever did.

Right now you’re critical of progressives, and often you spot valid flaws, but are you willing to continue? Are you willing to peer deeper into reality; to open your eyes to fundamental truths? That was my strategy, and it took me from naive progressive, to rebellious centrist, to the eventual woke queen I am today.

I continue to awaken to new truths, mostly because I like doing it. I like the feeling of discovery and understanding. Thanks to my efforts, I’ve found likely answers to humanity’s biggest questions, raised my base happiness levels from constantly suicidal to never hopeless, and became way smarter than I thought I’d ever be. I think most people can learn what I’ve learned if they apply themselves, but it’s still a tough journey. Are you willing to take it?

Yeah. To a lot of young, vulnerable people who are less minoritized, progressives feel like the authority. You’re told you’re privileged, but you don’t feel it. This is partially because we take our personal experiences for granted, but also because even the relatively privileged struggle. Some people suffer more from the system than others, but a ton of things suck for everyone.

Unfortunately, the promises of the right are a monkey’s paw at best, or a scam at worst. Even if the right succeeds, they usually make things worse for everyone in the process, even themselves.

Honestly, I blame cops. Cops proudly look like thumbs over here, so right wingers have mostly captured the bald aesthetic. Bald and aggressive white men are assumed to be fascists because that’s what off duty cops look like. It’s worse to look like a cop than a civilian Nazi skinhead.

Even bands that aren’t big on politics know to beat up Nazis at their shows. It’s just common sense.

Hating the hateful doesn’t count. Waters may be an asshole, but his politics are fairly based. Even his bad takes come from leftist viewpoints.

You could buy it in GTA Online.

I don’t think it’s just Americans that put the year at the end.

If they did care and tried to improve it, they’d ruin it.

Sorry, but the protection of rights requires that governments limit freedom. All societies and nations on earth do this. If given absolute freedom, some would kill and brutalize to gain power, forcing everyone who wants to avoid this to band together and enforce rules that prevent that behavior. This is the biggest reason to rationally want a government. Even if you believe rights aren’t social constructs themselves, everyone knows they must be fought for.

Some tankies use the fact that governments inherently limit freedom to claim all governments are authoritarian, and therefore states like the PRC and the USSR are no better than liberal democracies. Your definition of authoritarianism supports the bullshit arguments tankies make.

Authoritarianism is a sliding scale, and not every limit on freedom is equivalent in contributing to a country being more authoritarian. Not having the freedom to kill others without consequence doesn’t make a country very authoritarian. Not having the freedom to publicly disagree with the government is a large factor in a state being authoritarian.

Communism and socialism do not necessitate having no freedom of speech or bodily autonomy. Communism, as defined by Marx, was the final stage socialism and anarchistic in nature.

The idea that communism is always authoritarian uses the idea of communism popularized by Marxist-Leninist movements, where dissent is highly controlled and limited. In reality, these regimes were socialist at best, calling themselves communists to claim that only their version of socialism would deliver Marx’s communism. Even to the authoritarian communists themselves, their states never achieved communism at any point.

Palestine nationals did try to work towards a deal. Zionists did kick Arabs out of their homes, 80% of them in what shortly became Israel. Oh, but they’re not genocidal, they just want to kick the Arabs off their land and make them not exist as a collective people there. Why couldn’t I see that? Those pesky Palestinians need only accept being a minority in a Jewish theocracy, then they don’t have to leave their homes.

Jordan was not unilaterally turned into the kingdom of Jordan by the British, a Transjordan independence movement wanted to prevent immigration of Jews to Mandatory Palestine, but barely managed to unite the land in present day Jordan. Jordan wasn’t a fully independent nation at this time and Mandatory Palestine certainly wasn’t. They didn’t have a choice, and the king would have tried to unite Palestine with Jordan if the British didn’t have plans for it.

You seem to think that a common people with a shared culture will automatically unite as a nation, but organizing a state isn’t easy. Independent tribes need to be convinced of the usefulness of a larger collective in order to form a state. They give up autonomy in creating a nation, so the tradeoff must seem worthwhile. If not for the external threat of Europeans trying to carve up and control peoples in the Middle East for selfish interests, they would prefer to be tribal and borderless. This isn’t because they’re uncivilized or savages, but because regional autonomy is a cool vibe. It’s not true anarchy, but it’s a less centralized mode than what Europeans thought was normal and civilized.

This is why European empires carving up the Middle East and demanding they form nations is so fucked up. They made arbitrary borders, often intentionally drawn to perpetuate and create conflict, because they think centralized governments are just the norm. Centralized governments can be useful, but they’re not without drawbacks and aren’t always superior. They need to come about naturally out of shared interests and the desire to accomplish what can’t be done singularly. This is why the UK leaving the EU was so ironic and hypocritical: they wanted to be more than equal partners because they’re so used to dominating imperially. When you’re used privilege, equality feels like oppression.

Anyhow, your understanding is shallow and ignorant. I’m not in the mood to give you a college course in social science and history that you might not even listen to. The best I can do is advise you to ensure your arguments are supported by evidence. Try to use evidence to inform your opinion and not to cherrypick facts that support your preconceived worldview. It’s a struggle to do this and not as easy or convenient, but it is what people should try to do.

The checkpoints and control of roads in the West Bank prevent Palestinians from moving freely. The PLO “controls,” The West Bank, but when an occupying nation controls many of the roads, preventing usage of certain roads by the citizens of your territory and only letting their own citizens travel on them, how can they be considered independent? They lack basic sovereignty, with their citizens not being able to move within their own country due to an occupying force. You claim there is no authority to undermine, but even if correct, the reason for a lack of authority is squarely on Israel.

The idea that Palestine’s population has grown for the entire conflict falls apart when you look at the late 1940s, where over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled from their homes by Zionist militias. It was almost half of the Arab population. In just a few years, zealous Zionists used violence to flip the demographics of the region to favor Jews over non Jews. This wasn’t genocide, but was undeniably ethnic cleansing. It’s an important piece of context that Israeli fascists have tried to keep out of the conversation, focusing on population trends after their ethnic cleansing and assuming people won’t investigate.

I might describe Isreal’s practical intentions as genocidal because that’s the only way their strategy can make Israeli citizens safe like they claim to be working towards. Bombing Gaza does not make Israel safer unless they decimate the population enough to exert authoritarian control over the survivors. If they wanted Palestinians to live alongside Israel peacefully, they would ensure that there is a strong Palestinian state with little motivation to invade. If they got rid of settlements in the West Bank, funded a Palestinians state and reinvigorated their economy, and mutually agreed to harshly police hate crimes in both states, then they could coexist. The only ways to defeat Hamas in Gaza through force would be occupation of Gaza, or the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza.

The reason they don’t go all out on purging Gaza probably has to do with Arabs outside Palestine who might attack if it happens too quickly. Israel has nukes, but they still want to avoid all out war. The long term goal of this subset of Zionists, genocidal Zionists, is to take over all of Palestine eventually, something that would likely be genocidal. Some Zionists want two states, but the Zionists in charge want a single Jewish theocracy.

I want peace and safety for Jewish people and Palestinians, something that will not happen without a true two state solution, or a single secular state. The long term plan of the state of Israel is ethnic cleansing at best, and genocide at worst.

The situation with Egypt requires contextual knowledge of their history with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is a breakaway from the MB, and still ally with them. Egypt’s more secular military overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood’s democratic government, and the current government doesn’t want them to rise again. Letting in Palestinians would let in Hamas members, who might create problems for the government. It’s not the peacefulness of Palestinians, but the politics of Egypt that prevent them from accepting refugees. If Hamas was exactly the same but would oppose MB forces in Egypt, Egypt would probably let in some refugees. However, it’s hard for a nation with Egypt’s problems, to deal with so many refugees by themselves anyways. Israel, the ones creating refugees out of Palestinians, can’t expect their neighbors to happily foot the bill of caring for people who’s property they stole and destroyed.

You seem to misunderstand the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The West Bank is very much governed by the IDF and they treat Jews differently than non Jews. The IDF can legally detain Palestinians for up to 6 months without charges while being required to defend settlers who attack and harass Palestinians. They undermine the Palestinian Authority and override their supposed authority all the time. Gaza is more of an open air prison as people can’t leave. The reason Israel doesn’t occupy Gaza is because they did in the past and it was uneconomical.

There are a ton of people who basically paint all pro Palestinian groups and protests as antisemitic, from the ADL to Israeli lobbyists. These people are totally unreasonable and have a large amount of influence. “Opposing Israel’s actions = anti-Zionism = antisemitism,” isn’t the fringe narrative it should be. At the same time, there are braindead so called, “leftists,” who can’t comprehend that both Netanyahu’s government and Hamas are genocidal theocratic fascists. They’re also frustrating as fuck and cannot be tolerated. Far too many have lost their minds and morals over this conflict.

Men are 12 year old boys, women are adult men, and children are either FBI agents or catfishing pedophiles.

It obviously hasn’t worked.

I think he heard some philosophy stuff out of context or over simplified, and was knee deep in inferences when he tweeted that. Something like:

• The only thing we know with certainty that we exist.

• So we don’t know if anything, including what we perceive, is real.

• If our perception could be fake, we can’t even know that our sensory organs, like eyes, are real.

• However, in my perceived life, I can look at myself in a mirror, and see my own body and my own eyes.

• If my perception isn’t real, and my eyes aren’t real, how can I see them in that mirror?

• If our eyes aren’t real, we wouldn’t be able to see them in a mirror for… some reason.

• But my name is Jaden Smith, and I can’t understand that a fake reality could trick me into thinking I see my own eyes, so I think being able to see my eyes in a mirror means my eyes must be real, the mirror must be real, and the physical world exists with certainty. I disproved solipsism guys!

In all seriousness, I don’t think he believed his eyes weren’t real, he was asking a rhetorical question that he thought proved something deep. However, because he was a dumb teenager, he thought he could figure out something no one in history ever considered, and was thus making some grand contribution to society.