A Good Person Is A Social Person

[Butters]

Like helping someone in need, even when it doesn't benefit you at all. But the only way to do that is by having social interaction. 

So, a good person is of course a social person. You can't tell me that you sit inside all day and are somehow a good person. Not doing harm? Perhaps. But a good person? No. 

[Leo Gura]

If everyone sat alone in a room all day, half the world's problems would be solved overnight.

Haha

[Cred]

@Butters I agree with Leo here (if I understand this point correctly). You have a very simplistic view of the concept "good person".

What you are saying is discriminating against the autistic mode of existence.

Edited 2 hours ago by Cred

[Butters]

So if an old lady falls in the street you guys are just gonna blog about it. 

[Cred]

@Butters I want you to explain to me why you think a social person is somehow good and a person who is socializing through the internet is somehow "not doing harm but also not good"

Because there are no grandmas to save on the internet? That's a shallow argument.

[vibv]

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If everyone sat alone in a room all day, half the world's problems would be solved overnight.

Haha

I don't think so, because the other half would destroy it. Which is already the case.

So all the the all-alone-in-a-room-all-day people should join together. It's not going to get better by watching the world burn to the ground.

[Cred]

Just now, vibv said:

So all the the all-alone-in-a-room-all-day people should join together

This is what Marxism-Leninism is at its core.

[Butters]

2 minutes ago, Cred said:

@Butters I want you to explain to me why you think a social person is somehow good and a person who is socializing through the internet is somehow "not doing harm but also not good"

Because there are no grandmas to save on the internet? That's a shallow argument.

I never said that. 

[vibv]

Just now, Cred said:

This is what Marxism-Leninism is at its core.

But it's not about fighting against something, but about bringing something new into the world.

It's about redefining what Humanity means.

[Cred]

21 minutes ago, vibv said:

But it's not about fighting against something, but about bringing something new into the world.

It's about redefining what Humanity means.

How are you planning to deal with the ones who profit from polarization in the current system.

They will not just allow you to go along and install your system that promises unity, because that would mean them loosing power and prestige.

Edited 1 hour ago by Cred

[vibv]

8 minutes ago, Cred said:

How are you planning to deal with the ones who profit from polarization in the current system.

They will not just allow you to go along and install your system that promises unity, because that would mean them loosing power and prestige.

By creating something so unbelievable that it just blows their fucking minds.

[ivarmaya]

@Butters @Butters

Consider that the deepest insight may be seeing that everything you consider evil is no less good than what you call good.
You have simply been blinded by your own selfishness.

Constant immersion in the social domain tends to keep that blindness intact.

Your survival is playing tricks on you.

[Joseph Maynor]

I find sometimes ethics is not fully spelled out.  Being a good person is ethics: but there is a personal and interpersonal side. 

The personal side is how ought I to act regarding myself and my own life.  

The interpersonal side is how ought I act toward others.  This can include other humans, other animals, the environment, etc. 

Usually when we think of morality we're thinking interpersonal ethics only.  Thus, morality is only a subset of ethics.

//

And there's a third category of ethics which is group ethics -- how ought we as a group or organization act regarding other individuals or groups.  

Edited 1 hour ago by Joseph Maynor

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

It's actually an interesting thing to ponder about. It seems like we tend to easily differentiate gradiations of how bad a human is, as if there were levels to evil. But someone being good is just a basic baseline quality of a human every functional human should have. I have helped some people in my life and donated to charities, causes I believed in, etc. But I certainly done less good deeds than, let's say, Mother Teresa. By that logic, she should be a better human than me even tho I've done some good shit myself. But we don't think of it that way, it's all just goodness

[theleelajoker]

29 minutes ago, vibv said:

By creating something so unbelievable that it just blows their fucking minds.

Nice

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Butters said:

So if an old lady falls in the street you guys are just gonna blog about it. 

Writing up my blog as we speak

[Yimpa]

1 hour ago, Butters said:

So if an old lady falls in the street you guys are just gonna blog about it. 

https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-426

[Cred]

46 minutes ago, vibv said:

By creating something so unbelievable that it just blows their fucking minds.

I'm actually with you. The more I'm learning about human nature the more I realize that corruption is just a mix of people who are corrupt out of self-hatred and people who are corrupt out of conformity, which makes your scenario actually not that unrealistic if the issue of safe hatred would be solved by some radical idea.

This is why I'm not just pursuing Marxist-Leninist activism but am also trying to build something that might just make ML so powerful that it does not require a lot of violence for a revolution.

My take right now on the revolution is however to try to make it as likely as possible, even if it requires violence. The reason being that I believe it is unreasonable to say that sparing the lives of a hand full of billionaires for the price of upholding the capitalist system with its thousands of victims unnecessarily is justified.

[vibv]

10 minutes ago, Cred said:

My take right now on the revolution is however to try to make it as likely as possible, even if it requires violence. The reason being that I believe it is unreasonable to say that sparing the lives of a hand full of billionaires for the price of upholding the capitalist system with its thousands of victims unnecessarily is justified.

Violence begets violence. Violence is at the core of our planetary problem.

Revolutions never worked for a reason. It would just exchange a system based on abuse and violence with another one. Violence will never solve our issues but create new ones.

Whatever new thing we create, it has to be radically non-violent while being incredibly powerful at the same time. Riddle me that.

There's one thing nobody can ever take away from you: Your freedom. So reclaim that first.

Taking away one's freedom is the definition of violence.

Edited 37 minutes ago by vibv

[Cred]

19 minutes ago, vibv said:

Revolutions never worked

How did you come to that conclusion?

Edited 20 minutes ago by Cred