So… This is stalkerish, but I was curious about your dark/gothic interests and I read some of your comments and you seem like an interesting person. I’d be grateful if you could share your poetry (a link to your accounts or whatever medium). 😳 Sorry; thank you.

I disagree. Violence is not the answer, and especially not against people that are living in a way that doesn’t hurt others. If a couple (or polycule) wants to be sexually exclusive, they have the right to do so, and they do not hurt others because it’s not a social imposition for everyone.

Edit: I mean, I understand questioning why we choose it, “deconstructing”, as we now call it, but after that, I think it’s an intimate matter.

It depends. Some relationships are open to pornography, others aren’t. Some are open to sexual intercourse outside their people, but others aren’t. It’s about consent and agreeing to live in a way that all needs are met.

That’s why I said it’s hard to know who is betraying their partner and who isn’t, because maybe a man or woman or whoever following an erotic/pornographic content creator is not outside what their partner(s) expect, or maybe they are.

Anyway, I do not like people breaking their “contracts” instead of talking them out.

If I were to do that, I’d probably do it for the money. I would get unfaithful followers (hard to pinpoint who because open relationships and other types of relationships exist, but statistically, there would be), and that wouldn’t make it any less uncomfortable. I personally hate unfaithful/dishonest partners.

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…

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…

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.

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.

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.

Don’t worry. Good physicists know it as they study epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of physics, among other things.

Nothing is objective to our knowledge and nothing is a given, that’s the point. I was not trying to declare those things as truths but trying to explain that there is room to consider them (e.g., to consider that little pain weighs more than enormous pleasure). I cited a philosopher who does, but there are many others. Those are the topics relevant to this discussion.

Antinatalism is not a negative attitude towards sex nor children.

People are free, free enough to create life. The antinatalist wonders if the people creating it have the right to do so, if it hurts in some way (and who), and if we should continue to do so. The answers are very different even among antinatalists. The only thing they have in common is that they do not approve ethically of creating new [human] lives. You can take out the square brackets for some.

And… that’s it. I understand if many here believe that procreating is morally neutral or good, but I think there is validity in questioning it or in believing that it is morally incorrect. We all have our reasons and nobody ultimately knows.

Oh! That’s a complicated consequence, yes. I cannot lie and say that studying sad things won’t ever make one sad. It’s… hard.

I don’t think it is a rule that it is going to warp one’s vision, but I’ve seen people getting depressed and definitely biased when studying philosophical pessimism. It seems like something that only happens in jokes or memes, but no, reading Arthur Schopenhauer or whoever can be dangerous if one is already vulnerable to depression, isolation, etc.

I definitely advise discretion. And it’s not because they’re dark monsters, monks of death dressed in black robes. There’s nothing too morbid about the books; that’s probably just the myth time has created around them. In reality, their danger is just pondering on dark aspects of life that can be disheartening if one is not prepared. Even when the reading is for high school or university, or for curiosity, I think these authors should be picked with an open mind and a serene “heart”.

Thank you for reading and answering.

There’s also antinatalism from a deontological perspective.

But, from the negative utilitarianists I’ve known and seen, I’ve found an intense debate about the animal reproduction question. Some say antinatalism should include non-human animals and any other sentient being; some say it’s a human-only matter. I do not have an opinion.

Yes, common objections are that the economy could crash or that humanity could go extinct. I don’t think these are good objections, and I have different reasons. It seems like a bad “an end justifies the means” way of thinking sometimes.

Honestly, the economic crash one is weird. The logic is that we must sacrifice our present and immediate future (that happens to be millions of lives) so that other lives are better (supposedly). Huh? It reminds me of the argument I heard against prohibiting animals in circuses. They argue that the animals that were in the circuses at the time would be slaughtered or abandoned, so their logic was allowing more and more years of animals suffering inside the circuses. What? Yes, the change definitely hurt, but it was possible both to fight against their slaughter and abandonment, and to get rid of that abuse forever. If we decrease in population, of course it will be difficult, but we can find ways to face the difficulties while we get into a better system. We cannot preserve capitalism just because we are afraid of hard times, when capitalism itself is hurting us.

The extinction one is different. We won’t get to that point, but even if we did, it would be a free decision of humanity that is hurting no one else. That’s the intuition they probably have: that those humans would be hurting the ones that do not exist yet, but I already commented about that reasoning. I don’t think there’s harm against the non-existant. Our end is possibly inevitable because the habitable Universe seems to have an end. If we decide to fight it, that’s okay as long as we do it ethically. But if we collectively decide to end it all, I respect it as long as it’s done ethically too. Anyway, as I said, this is mere imagination as I do not see humanity (in the big numbers we now are) never ever choosing this path together. We will be here for some time.

Unless you’re both an antinatalist and a philosophical pessimist and believe that the world will always be that soup. But yeah, that’s not the case for all antinatalists. A friend of mine calls himself a “temporary antinatalist”.

It is discussed with those words because it has been transformed into an ethical question. It is a personal freedom, but it can be asked how ethically correct or incorrect that action is aside from our current laws or [cultural/social] morality.

It’s about wonder, ponder. I think that’s always important, even for things that seem taboo at first.

If we are to assume that every non-existent person desires to exist, and that we have the obligation to not block this, then we should be having children whenever possible as to not block anyone.

Let’s visualize this. If I decide to wait for another partner and a certain age, the humans that I could create with my current sexual partner in these years are screaming to be born and I’m ignoring them. I’m not letting Laura or Ignacio be born, and over them I’m preferring Óscar who will be born in 2028 of a different father. Am I doing something morally incorrect at negating Laura’s and Ignacio’s right to be? If so, as I said, you agree we have the obligation of having children whenever possible and we better start now you and me and everyone else reading. If not, if we don’t have this obligation, then there’s no problem if I skip Laura this year, Ignacio the next and Óscar and others later. Unless you want to save this by saying some people deserve to come into existence more than others, but I already say I won’t agree with that.

Other people would argue in a different way. There are people who would say that even if we create good by bringing people that do consent retrospectively, we also harm forcing life into people that wouldn’t and don’t want life. And even if the proportion is absurd, not harming is always the priority over giving pleasure. This is the idea behind negative utilitarianism and other ethical paradigms. This also has been studied by philosopher David Benatar who reframed it, and now that’s called “Benatar asymmetry” (but the question is older than him).

I hope my English does not betray my explanation…