I literally have no idea what normies want. I'm starting to suspect they literally don't understand any language and just spout out random strings of words in a manner that's grammatically correct, similarly to how an AI bot would do it, without any understanding.
The concept of "consent" isn't bad as a rule of thumb, but like all simple deontological rules falls apart if you actually want to apply it to every case. Years ago I was fascinated with ancap (anarchocapitalism) which is like an extreme version of libertarianism. There are probably different formulations of "ancap" but the groups, where I talked about it, would basically define it as "do whatever you want as long as you don't affect others without their permission". This "golden rule" (you can surely find preciser formulations online) is called NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) and it's pretty much the same as normie "consent".
This seems like a reasonable rule, but once you start digging, you'll find endless holes. It's simply because the real life isn't reducible to consciously interacting with others. It's not some MMORPG where other people may be unaffected by the blows of your sword if you don't agree to a fight. The groups I were in talked about endless issues like "if my neighbor is having a bbq and the smoke from his grill blows to my home and disturbs me, can I shoot him as he violated the NAP?", "how do we handle children? are they their own humans? then we literally can't stop them from leaving our home as infants and killing themselves in the streets as stopping them would be imprisonment and a violation of NAP, but if they're property, then no laws apply to them" etc. etc.
Anyone who interacts with the real world has to know that asking for a permission for every single interaction is impossible. If someone's unconscious, you should perform first aid and call an ambulance, even if you technically violate his/her unconscious body. When you're in a crammed bus, you will need to touch others and you will have to look somewhere which means you'll look at someone without their permission. When you take a photo in a city, there will be people in the background and it's impossible to ask everyone for a permission.
The entire concept of a society or a civilization is based on the concept of humans giving up some of their natural "freedoms" for the betterment of everyone's well being. Even the "consent" principle is entirely made-up, in nature you can kill and rape as you wish, but the idea is that you give up the right to do these things and others around you do too, so that you can coexist peacefully.
Perhaps the entire idea is wrong and uncle Ted Kaczynski was right, but that's not my point, as not many normies or anti-incels would admit to being anarchoprimitivist or anti-civ. The issue is… they essentially are. Maybe not full-on anarchoprimitivist, more like anarchocapitalist or something, because they want to uphold the holy "consent" as the only law.
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/q36j7z/comment/hfpymlq/
I'm not sure if extending the society/civilization project to include the right to procreate is the right way. I wouldn't hesitate if we had artificial wombs, but right now I'm not sure. I surely see it as a possible extension of the existing well-being laws. I don't see how forcing people to procreate (for an equal breeding status) breaks the holy law of consent if forcing people to give away money (taxation) for others (for an equal economic status) doesn't.
Overall I'd consider enforced monogamy a solution and possibly punishing lookist hate crimes, including bullying or open discrimination, in a manner similar to how we punish racism. We should strive for equal conditions to breed for individuals. I see that as an extension of anti-genocide laws which seek to create equal opportunities to breed for groups of people (UN's definition of genocide includes "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part").
Portraying the entire concept of people having innate laws as "entitlement" and wanting every interaction to require "consent" is simply going against the entire concept of civilization and humans grouping together. I don't understand why normies seek further atomization and want some sort of a hyper-individualistic dystopia when they can see right before their eyes that it leads to misery.
Folks from IT think I shouldn't even be allowed to smile in public or strike a conversation with a stranger (and of course, stopping if they don't want to, someone needs to start to talk if we're ever supposed to talk).
Effectively they want to make all communication impossible, maybe except social media where you need to send some sort of a request or invitation to start talking (but I guess sending a request is also "creepy", "violates consent", "literal rape" and permits them to call for genociding incels on their forums).
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/q36j7z/comment/hfspoei/
@Atavistic Autist, it may interest you as it's about atomization of the society
The concept of "consent" isn't bad as a rule of thumb, but like all simple deontological rules falls apart if you actually want to apply it to every case. Years ago I was fascinated with ancap (anarchocapitalism) which is like an extreme version of libertarianism. There are probably different formulations of "ancap" but the groups, where I talked about it, would basically define it as "do whatever you want as long as you don't affect others without their permission". This "golden rule" (you can surely find preciser formulations online) is called NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) and it's pretty much the same as normie "consent".
This seems like a reasonable rule, but once you start digging, you'll find endless holes. It's simply because the real life isn't reducible to consciously interacting with others. It's not some MMORPG where other people may be unaffected by the blows of your sword if you don't agree to a fight. The groups I were in talked about endless issues like "if my neighbor is having a bbq and the smoke from his grill blows to my home and disturbs me, can I shoot him as he violated the NAP?", "how do we handle children? are they their own humans? then we literally can't stop them from leaving our home as infants and killing themselves in the streets as stopping them would be imprisonment and a violation of NAP, but if they're property, then no laws apply to them" etc. etc.
Anyone who interacts with the real world has to know that asking for a permission for every single interaction is impossible. If someone's unconscious, you should perform first aid and call an ambulance, even if you technically violate his/her unconscious body. When you're in a crammed bus, you will need to touch others and you will have to look somewhere which means you'll look at someone without their permission. When you take a photo in a city, there will be people in the background and it's impossible to ask everyone for a permission.
The entire concept of a society or a civilization is based on the concept of humans giving up some of their natural "freedoms" for the betterment of everyone's well being. Even the "consent" principle is entirely made-up, in nature you can kill and rape as you wish, but the idea is that you give up the right to do these things and others around you do too, so that you can coexist peacefully.
Perhaps the entire idea is wrong and uncle Ted Kaczynski was right, but that's not my point, as not many normies or anti-incels would admit to being anarchoprimitivist or anti-civ. The issue is… they essentially are. Maybe not full-on anarchoprimitivist, more like anarchocapitalist or something, because they want to uphold the holy "consent" as the only law.
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/q36j7z/comment/hfpymlq/
I'm not sure if extending the society/civilization project to include the right to procreate is the right way. I wouldn't hesitate if we had artificial wombs, but right now I'm not sure. I surely see it as a possible extension of the existing well-being laws. I don't see how forcing people to procreate (for an equal breeding status) breaks the holy law of consent if forcing people to give away money (taxation) for others (for an equal economic status) doesn't.
Overall I'd consider enforced monogamy a solution and possibly punishing lookist hate crimes, including bullying or open discrimination, in a manner similar to how we punish racism. We should strive for equal conditions to breed for individuals. I see that as an extension of anti-genocide laws which seek to create equal opportunities to breed for groups of people (UN's definition of genocide includes "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part").
Portraying the entire concept of people having innate laws as "entitlement" and wanting every interaction to require "consent" is simply going against the entire concept of civilization and humans grouping together. I don't understand why normies seek further atomization and want some sort of a hyper-individualistic dystopia when they can see right before their eyes that it leads to misery.
Folks from IT think I shouldn't even be allowed to smile in public or strike a conversation with a stranger (and of course, stopping if they don't want to, someone needs to start to talk if we're ever supposed to talk).
Effectively they want to make all communication impossible, maybe except social media where you need to send some sort of a request or invitation to start talking (but I guess sending a request is also "creepy", "violates consent", "literal rape" and permits them to call for genociding incels on their forums).View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/q36j7z/comment/hfspoei/
@Atavistic Autist, it may interest you as it's about atomization of the society
