I get tired of making a new reddit account every month because i spoke the truth in a thread. reddit censors too much to be of any use any more. i am supporting free speech by being here.

I don’t want to have a discussion. I want to unify a disgruntled public so we can make change for the better. Get friends if you just want to have a discussion. All I’m here to do is to get you to say it with me:

EAT. THE. RICH.

but tech news ad nauseum is ‘meaningful’. lol okay.

and this is why lemmy is a limp-wristed do-nothing. too many people here want to stick their head in the sand. but by all means, pls share some more star trek memes.

the meat of it is concerned with property and ownership, which has little to do with the general welfare of sentient beings, so i think it was alright for the time, and totally outdated now.

I can’t wait to get back to Oregon

There’s something endearing about a young person trying to look cool by being edgy, completely oblivious to the fact that everyone sees through their facade.

not really

Removed by mod

people are so desperate for an identity these days.

thank you OP. ffs, open source. we get it. next.

why does a trolley dilemma not represent real life? why is the problem not a simple thought exercise? genuinely, GFY.

of course they do. that’s my entire point. debate is useless. if you don’t start fighting for the society you want to live in, somebody else is, and you’re gonna be living in their ‘perfect world’. you need to decide which side you’re on.

what i’m bent out of shape over:

corporate overreach environmental destruction income inequality R&D focused towards maximum profits instead of altruistic solutions rise of fascism religious dogma restricting secular thinking focus on individual liberty over public welfare etc.

I fantasize about: eliminating enough voters to make democracy works towards humanitarian goals removing corporate influence over society making the sociopaths scared of the people

no. i’m not going to seek help. this is a simple trolley dilemma, and if you don’t understand that soon, you’re dooming billions.

stay on topic. i understand that you’re probably of the shorter attention span variety, but you asked a question and i answered it with an in-depth response. don’t disrespect me with petty remarks.

what a cop-out response to well thought out statement. you come off as vapid and shallow. i’m old enough to be over getting laid. i’m married, son and we’re both as happy as we can be. would you like to address my points now, junior?

not really. want to elaborate on your thinking here? i promise i can have a nuanced talk about it.

lol. who is morally justified? please explain.

this is so hard to explain to someone who’s just concretizing their world view. there’s a lot of philosophy and practical application involved with my line of thought, so please bear with me.

first of all, i’m pragmatic. this is not about retribution or revenge. this is about plain and simple problem solving. what’s the problem? too many things are suffering and we have the power to reduce that suffering. why can’t we do it? because there are too many people who disregard the suffering of others. it’s about altruistic vs narcissistic beliefs. i don’t believe that everyone in the world is altruistic by nature. there are certainly sociopaths who will never learn to consider anyone but themselves. modern society has enabled those people to rise to the top and influence many others.

what’s the solution? to build an altruistic society based on rational thought and logic. some people say that those concepts are incompatible, and that logic favors an individualistic society. i think that most of the people that believe this more or less see the world through an economist’s lens. but if you really look at the whole of society and its history, there have always been people advocating for an altruistic society. this is why we have the humanities as a branch of academia.

but none of that really matters because, in the end, society has been molded by the victors, and made in the image of whatever the conquerors held as their values. i propose that we, the altruists, use that same model of might-makes-right to form the society that we want to see. really, there is no objective morality, so ultimately, we’re all just beating each other over the head to get what we want. why don’t we beat each other over the head to make a lasting world that favors compassion?

you might say that those concepts are incompatible, but i ask you to take a look at the long-term, big-picture view. yes, the steps to achieve what we want look messy, but we’re talking about securing a future for untold generations to come. if you think about the lifespans of countless future generations, it more than justifies the bloody steps we would have to take now to achieve it.

in the past, i might have said “we’ll get there. the history of society has always been 2 steps forward, one step back”, but we’re now running out of time. we could see serious extinction events in this century if we don’t act YESTERDAY to get a hold of the situation. there are so many innocent creatures that don’t deserve what we’re unleashing on the world right now. furthermore, i see us only having a small window of time before the sociopaths that run the world develop the tools to keep us under their thumb for a very long time, if not forever.

so with that in mind, an ‘ends justify the means’ approach is more than justified.

i don’t think that really answered your question. you want a list of grievances? just take a look at most of the threads here on Lemmy - everything that everyone is sick and tired of. that is my list of grievances.

of course not. please follow through with your point so i can offer a further explanation.