Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
What point is he trying to make? I honestly couldn't tell from the video itself.
I think the related videos section gave more clues than anything. Most of them have to do with antinatalism and creation vs. evolution.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
A bit off-topic, but has anyone ever noticed that in "niche" YouTube videos like these, most if not all of the comments seem to wholeheartedly agree with the author? I get the feeling that if more people watched these videos, this would not be the case.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
From the author comments:
No and feelings of friendship are just byproducts of chemical activity in the brain
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
What I never get about these dudes is that if they think everything is just random chemicals creating some sort of pointless existence, wouldn't that include their ramblings and doing stupid shit like taping things to your forehead and posting it on YouTube?
>What I never get about these dudes is that if they think everything is just random chemicals creating some sort of pointless existence, wouldn't that include their ramblings and doing stupid shit like taping things to your forehead and posting it on YouTube?
Oh, I think he believes that, and really hates it. He tends to hate most things.
Derived Energy would be slightly less exasperating if he stopped listening to the echo chamber that is the online antinatalist community and stopped assuming that everyone who disagreed with him was a mindless puppet. This won't happen because Derived Energy is also incredibly dense and convinced of his own correctness, possibly due in part to projecting his own negative experiences onto the whole of humanity.
>Look again! The typos are now fixed. >I've already violated its tenants
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Anyway...
"Derived Energy would be slightly less exasperating if he stopped listening to the echo chamber that is the online antinatalist community and stopped assuming that everyone who disagreed with him was a mindless puppet. This won't happen because Derived Energy is also incredibly dense and convinced of his own correctness, possibly due in part to projecting his own negative experiences onto the whole of humanity."
This is the crux of why I don't like this line of thinking.
The whole of humanity is just mindless automatons spouting nonsense
A human wrote the above.
Ergo, this syllogism is nonsense.
It's a line of thought that defeats itself, and yet these people hold onto the notion that human existence should end with both hands.
I gave up on the antinatalist community when they decided to choose a theme song and chose some Polish Death Metal thing instead of David Bowie's We are Hungry Men or Tom Wait's Misery's the River of the World
But guys Derived Energy says "If not X (sentience) then not Y (deprivation) and not Z (suffering)." and you can't think of a counterargument to that can you? Of course you can't, because Derived Energy's imagination defines the absolute limits of reason.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"But guys Derived Energy says "If not X (sentience) then not Y (deprivation) and not Z (suffering)." and you can't think of a counterargument to that can you? Of course you can't, because Derived Energy's imagination defines the absolute limits of reason."
Of course, this assumes that the positive aspects of life could not outshine the downsides. If one rejects that notion, then we have less of a logical theorem and more of something that could be dismissed by a quote from The Dude.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
^^^ I am disappointed but not surprised in the least that not a single one of those comments raises a word of disagreement.
I mean, I like it when people agree with me, don't get me wrong. But this seems a little excessive. The fact that I do disagree with them doesn't help much, of course.
There was a time when most antinatalists debates happened on blogs and comments sections and the antinatalist side tried very hard to be polite and gracious, because they were fully aware of how ridiculous they sounded. They contended themselves with quietly reading Ligotti and looking for allies among the religious, as the mostly optimistic atheist community had spurned them.
And thus passed the First Age of Internet Antinatalism
http://encyclopediadramatica.se/Inmendham Then came Inmendham and suddenly the opposition were "fucktarded DNA borg" No longer would Antinatalists have to practice the basic human decency. Now they could hole up in their little echo chambers and whine endlessly about how depraved and evil those life lovers were while watching the fourth three hour youtube video Inmendham has made this week. Antinatalism now had new names: "Efilism" and "Atheism 2.0". A new era is upon us.
Though Nihilistic may suffice, I think a better label would be Pessimistic. Let me explain the validity of this point of view: Life does not have any purpose or teleology. Though Camus' philosophy has aspects of truth, he ignores or bypasses the reality of our human condition. In a way, Camus characters in his novels, as well as "The Dude" from The Big Lebowski (which is a representation of the absurd man in Camus' universe, in my opinion) are rare and circumstantial cases. In reality, most modern humans must do the drudgery of working a job in an institution or bueracracy. We have to deal with life's trivialities and boring tasks (daily life) and repeat this over and over again to maintain our social and personal well-being. That being said, I believe its all well and good to imagine ourselves as these free people that have the "choice" to revolt against the absurd (ala Camus), but in reality we are condemned to be limited in very real ways due to our inherent need to survive and keep ourselves entertained and comfortable. In my opinion, that is where Camus and other Existentialists get it wrong.
Our world is much more constructed, or structured than Camus would make you think. We have inherent needs and wants as well as culturally constructed needs and wants that we cannot so readily escape as The Dude or Camus' Absurd Man would make you believe. Not everyone can be the actor, not everyone can be Don Juan (absurd characters that Camus prescribes us to emulate). These are characters of fiction, and rarely apply to our reality. Do not get sucked into this idea that you can "construct your own reality of meaning" and "embrace the absurdity of existence". That is false; our common sense experiential knoweldge of daily life tells us this. This is not a fantasy land, I'm sorry; there are certain realities we MUST face that are not pleasant and not what we would CHOOSE to do. The whimisical "freedom" that Existentialists propose, in reality, is fiction, and not applicable to real life. In other words, it is not a prescription for the inherent "meaninglessness" and "mundaneness" of daily life.
This all leads to one conclusion: We must not procreate. Procreation is what leads to this condition that we are in in the first place. A future generation can be spared this purposeless, mundane, daily life. Yes, SOME happiness abounds, and SOME coping techniques are available to deal with unpleasanteness of life. In general, however, we can avoid this whole purposeless, harmful, mundane life by not being born in the first place. For us, it is too late. However, you can contribute to easing future suffering by simply choosing to not have children. That is my solution to Nihilism. I guess this is Pessimism at its finest and most right.
Oh man, I remember when Myr linked to that one antinatalist who compared procreation to the Holocaust. :P This isn't quite as bad, but God damn do these people piss me off. Just because some people abuse the system by having 10 kids with no way to support them, doesn't mean that no one should ever have children.
If you're relatively sure you can provide for a child and give them love and comfort, if you're okay with being a caretaker and a companion and a shoulder to cry on (and if you've been a good friend and romantic partner in general, all of those things should be pretty familiar), then having one or two children (or even adopting a few, if you're so inclined) is no big deal. Just one more good friend to look after, that's all. :)
But to hear these people talk about it, they sound like the childfree people back on LJ in the 2000s. UGH I HATE BABIES KILL THEM ALL AND CASTRATE THEIR PIG MOMS RAR, that sort of awful shit. It's puerile nonsense from people who never got past the morbid phase of adolescence.
If they want to do something helpful, they could support Zero Population Growth or Planned Parenthood or possibly even one of the many environmental and charitable organizations that help impoverished children. But no, complaining is more fun! :P
Comments
It's like An Epistemologists Nightmare as written by a 12-year old
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
TEKKEN
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Oh, I think he believes that, and really hates it. He tends to hate most things.
Derived Energy would be slightly less exasperating if he stopped listening to the echo chamber that is the online antinatalist community and stopped assuming that everyone who disagreed with him was a mindless puppet. This won't happen because Derived Energy is also incredibly dense and convinced of his own correctness, possibly due in part to projecting his own negative experiences onto the whole of humanity.
>Look again! The typos are now fixed.
>I've already violated its tenants
Well no wonder they're so upset, then!
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Which ironically, is how antinatalists view the human condition!
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
WHY CAN'T YOU ASSHOLES BE AS MISERABLE AS I AM
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
And thus passed the First Age of Internet Antinatalism
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Our world is much more constructed, or structured than Camus would make you think. We have inherent needs and wants as well as culturally constructed needs and wants that we cannot so readily escape as The Dude or Camus' Absurd Man would make you believe. Not everyone can be the actor, not everyone can be Don Juan (absurd characters that Camus prescribes us to emulate). These are characters of fiction, and rarely apply to our reality. Do not get sucked into this idea that you can "construct your own reality of meaning" and "embrace the absurdity of existence". That is false; our common sense experiential knoweldge of daily life tells us this. This is not a fantasy land, I'm sorry; there are certain realities we MUST face that are not pleasant and not what we would CHOOSE to do. The whimisical "freedom" that Existentialists propose, in reality, is fiction, and not applicable to real life. In other words, it is not a prescription for the inherent "meaninglessness" and "mundaneness" of daily life.
This all leads to one conclusion: We must not procreate. Procreation is what leads to this condition that we are in in the first place. A future generation can be spared this purposeless, mundane, daily life. Yes, SOME happiness abounds, and SOME coping techniques are available to deal with unpleasanteness of life. In general, however, we can avoid this whole purposeless, harmful, mundane life by not being born in the first place. For us, it is too late. However, you can contribute to easing future suffering by simply choosing to not have children. That is my solution to Nihilism. I guess this is Pessimism at its finest and most right.
I quoted that just for the bit about The Dude.
Um,
no. Let's not do that today.