I posted this meme to the Lemmy Shitpost community. I reckoned that it might generate a bit of debate, and would probably end up locked, but the entire post got deleted, and moreover, I’m now forbidden from sharing political posts to the community. Political posts are not against the rules of the community.
I have reason to believe that the post was deleted not because it was controversial, but because the moderator (Decoy321) disagreed with the political slant of the meme. The reason I find this suspicious is because other controversial posts, such as one about veganism remains up, and Decoy321 seemed to enjoy the fact it was controversial:
If you wanted to goad a response from me, you’ve succeeded. That statement is false.
If we’re going to throw around experts purely as justification for a belief, Robert Sapolsky and Tapio Lappi-Seppälä would like to have a word.
Determinism also isn’t precisely the issue itself either, but I suppose its fair to bring that up given I brought up compatibilism and libertarianism. The ultimate point though is that even if the world isn’t determined, that simply means its indeterminate. That doesn’t justify a belief in free will either.
The very question of whether we have free will itself has a profound impact on ethics. Coming to the conclusion that there is no such thing as free will changes ethics, but it doesn’t cause it to cease to exist. Ethics do not rely on free will to exist. All you need for ethics to be meaningful is the existence of conscious experience(s) of a negative or positive quality.
It essentially means that, when you know that “choice” is an illusion for everyone, it means punishment and reward for their own sake makes no sense and our desire for both is just emotional catharsis with a bunch of mental gymnastics to justify it all. It however doesn’t mean suddenly that your behavior or the behavior of a body that governs reward and punishment is not influenced by the new information, or that ethical thought itself suddenly shut down.
Humans, and some other biological life forms, are just a bunch consciousness’s riding a path of physical entropy. A process with previously set rules, that none of us had any control over. No one chooses to be born. No one chooses their own mind.
"Humans, and some other biological life forms, are just a bunch consciousness’s riding a path of physical entropy.”
if this were true, fascism isn’t an evil ideology, it’s just a thing that happens and is neither good nor bad.
Its bad because Fascism causes pain and suffering. It causes death. As a policy, it makes existence worse. Fascism itself is largely its own system driven entirely by irrational and emotional thinking and catharsis of demographics with power. Its a threat response that justifies itself with a mystic ideology of a chosen or special group, one that “deserves” to be in charge over others and to dominate.
Further, “Will” is a big thing with fascists.
I don’t oppose fascism because the fascists lack virtuousness or are bad people. Why would I give a shit about that? I oppose fascism because of the consequences of fascism. I oppose fascists being tolerated because it can lead to fascism, not because I want them to suffer for their bad fascist thoughts.
I do also want to say: catharsis and the perception of having will power for one’s self are not in of them selves bad things. “Making choices” feels good, and I want people to feel good. And another thing fascism does is deprive people of their agency (which is not the same as free will btw). It deprives them of their perception of freedom.
Like I’ve said, I only care about consequences, because that’s the only rational thing to care about.
>I oppose fascists being tolerated because it can lead to fascism
but you can’t choose whether you oppose it. your opposition, according to you, is just an emotion you feel as you ride your meat suit to the grave. and fascists can’t choose whether to be fascist. and the very act of toleration can have no will behind it, so it can also not be good or evil.
It can be bad because I think its bad.
I’ll admit, when I discuss morality in other context’s (especially lately as I’ve lost my patience) I’ll use the word “evil”. In reality though, the word I mean is “bad” but with an extreme emotionally charged intensity.
I don’t believe in “good” in the sense of divinity, the word “evil” is opposite of divinity. Divine vs Evil is mysticism.
I do however believe in good things and bad things. Technically subjective, but objectively they are things contained with in human minds. Positive and negative experiences and consequences. Good things are things we want and need. Bad things are things we avoid and hurt. This applies to us individually and collectively.
So sure, I don’t believe in divine vs evil. I only believe in good vs bad.
it can’t be bad if it’s just a natural phenomenon like gravity. it just is.
As said in another response, “bad” is subjective. But its also objectively a commonality conceptually in the human mind, as it has evolved. “Bad” just is.
"even if the world isn’t determined, that simply means its indeterminate. "
this is such an interesting nuance that I hadn’t considered. of course it’s not relevant. if the world is somehow non-deterministic but we still don’t have free will, this whole conversation is absurd.
Existence is absurd.
you really don’t believe you had any choice but to write that response and send it?
I think the information in my mind has been processed and resulted in me typing up that (and this) response. “Choice” is a red herring. Or at the very least, “choice” is just the result of my brain processing input or more concisely, choice is just another word for output.
“If you wanted to goad a response from me”
without free will I can have no intention.
Intention exists, its just a form of information processing in your mind. Like all thoughts and motivations.
it’s meaningless since I couldn’t choose to act on my intention
Its not meaningless, at least not in a material sense. Trying to identify intent is useful information, it can guide interactions to being more empathetic/sympathetic, productive, or interesting.
Is it meaningless in the sense of like, spirituality? Or existentialism? Absolutely. Like, we aren’t here for any reason and no one choose to be here. It never mattered in any mystical, magical, spiritual reason. There is nothing beyond what is here. We just exist and we like what we like and want what we want.
if it’s meaningless, why are you so focused on trying to define it and defend your position? you must recognize this is only rational if you have agency.
Because I love discourse. I love discussing these ideas. (Though sometimes I also hate it)
Agency is one’s ability to influence your environment. Agency feels good. So does solving puzzles and helping people.
if you’re not choosing how to change your environment, you have no agency. rock slides change their environment but they have no agency.
Rocks have no agency because they aren’t conscious or contain intelligence.
Characters in books are fictional autonomous beings and are often described as having agency or having no agency on the basis of their level of influence on the story. That’s what I’m describing in a sense when I use the word, but applied to real conscious beings.
if no one chooses their own mind, why are you trying to convince me of anything. it’s completely absurd.
Information changes us, whether it be dictated by deterministic or indeterministic forces.
That said, my motivation in my response’s here isn’t to change your mind. A past version of me would have been motivated by that, but I know full well that the real honest reason I’m doing this is to kill down time at work and to essentially intellectually challenge myself. (Again, because in a certain way it feels good… sometimes)
Changing people’s mind via argument is a fool’s errand. The past few US elections essentially have proven this to me. You might change 1 in 20 people’s minds via debate, and only slightly.