Really? My perception of them has always been that they have a very strong belief in objective reality and are unwilling to entertain ideas of subjectivity. They often define themselves as materialists in a way that is less how Marx used the term and more how Dawkins would use it.
Forcing people to give their picture to Peter Thiel is not regulation. Age verification laws are giving companies more licence to abuse users, not less.
That's right, I'm willing to go to war and kill people over subjective differences of opinion. For example, the Nazis thought genocide is good. The allies thought it was bad. I think the allies were right to kill people over that subjective difference of opinion.
Our current consensus reality is heavily shaped by capitalist propaganda. If we achieve a material revolution but not a magical revolution, if we overthrow Capital but don't destroy Capitalist Reality, then we're going to reproduce the conditions of capitalism. That was one of the failures of the Soviet Union. The people in charge still thought like capitalists. They still believed that human nature was in conflict with the stateless classless utopia that Marx described as the future. The USSR leadership were believers in capitalist realism, as many Stalinists are today.
Humanity is a social construct and I want to spark a revolution that sees us move beyond it. I don't think humanity is the "destiny" of our civilisation, I think we have a much greater potential for growth. I'm a transhumanist, and I think the mental is way bigger than the physical in that journey. I don't think a realist can be a transhumanist in a meaningful way. Elon Musk is not transhumanist in a meaningful way. He's very human, he's very interested in continuing the human tradition of domination and exploitation. He's a monkey that wants a bigger pile of bananas than all the other monkeys. I don't think that's the future. I think if we don't grow beyond that, then we're all going to die.
Why would I read books by authors willing to use ableist slurs? Martha Stout and Paul Babiak sound like terrible people I want to hear nothing from. I'm already sure their opinions on mental disorders are worthless pseudoscientific garbage.
Thank you! And very interesting, from My end it's showing 4 upvotes and 4 downvotes. From your end is it showing a negative score? If so, I bet those votes come from instances we've defederated, because we don't federate with realist instances like lemmy.ml. Those people over there are really big on objective reality, and we aren't interested in arguing with them.
Anyway, sure thing! I wrote an antirealist manifesto which you can read at https://soulism.net/. But here's the elevator pitch: You're not a body, you're a mind. You're made of information, and so are your perceptions. So is the world you inhabit. Your subjective view of the world is a reconstruction, created from raw data by your brain. Babies don't know how to do that, they have no idea what's going on, they just see colours and shapes. You had to learn how to see objects, how to see a world. So what if you learned differently? What if you took the time to examine the way your perceptions are formed, and made conscious choices about how to do it? That is a thing that can be done, and the colloquial term for such is... magic. Rewriting reality through belief and perception. I would argue that we have an ethical duty to use magic to ensure we are perceiving the world in a way that is just. We need to be active agents in our subjective universe so that we can't be manipulated into doing harm.
Alright, well I'm happy to engage with that. I know it's not a realist's cage because I'm actively maintaining My subjective world and making choices about what to believe on a daily and weekly and yearly basis. I'm being an active agent in a way that realists don't. They let society tell them what is objectively true. I don't care about that, I'm asking Myself what is useful to believe.
I don't like the phrase "thank you" because it's manners, but it has a pronoun inside. And so it puts Me in a really socially awkward position. And it's a position most people wouldn't understand. If someone has second person neopronouns, then "thank you" makes a person feel bad, while having really good intentions behind it, so if you complain or correct, it's really rude and it feels bad to do so. I try to avoid manners that have pronouns inside when I'm talking to strangers, but it would be unreasonable of Me to expect the same from most people. I like "thanks". But "thank you" makes Me feel bad, AND conflicted. It's the most annoying manners.
Moral of the story is people don't want to spend time thinking about their actions. They just want to do them. So we have to make kindness easy and thoughtless. We have to make cruelty inconvenient and confusing.
There is no compromising with an ideology that is inherently uncompromising in nature. It's the paradox of tolerance. Realists will never make room for experiences that defy their idea of objective reality. If they did, they wouldn't be realists. That's why in order to create room for everyone's experiences and freedom, we must destroy consensus reality. We need to kill objectivism in order to have a subjective multiverse with free exchange of ideas. Realists violate that social contract.
Soulism is more like absurdism, but instead of applied to meaning, it's applied to everything. Reality is not objective, and that gives us the freedom to interpret our condition in a manner so radical it would make Sartre blush. We can change our beliefs to change our perception to change the world we live in. That's magic.
Okay.