Not sure how you can talk about “the big three” of condiments and leave out mayo. Is it just non-existant outside of North America or something?

I purchased Rayman Legends on a big Steam sale because it is a great game and I wanted to play it again. I installed it. I hit play. It tried to install the Ubisoft launcher. I uninstalled it and refunded.

Fuck off, Ubisoft.

God, I wish I had a mortgage.

deleted by creator

This.

Nothing says “I have fulfilled my social obligation, but I don’t give a shit about you” more than a low value giftcard for somewhere generic.

Alternatively, give him a halfway decent gift and feel better about yourself for not continuing the cycle of neglect, even when he won’t appreciate it. We can make the world better, even for those of us that don’t deserve it, and considering how to make it a better place as opposed to how to get back at the people who make it a worse one is just a better use of our time and energy.

Besides, at the end of the day, truly awful people already live with the worst punishment so could imagine: having to wake up every morning and continue being themselves.

I take “nice” to mean something very different than “good” or “kind”. No, I am not a nice person. I am inclined to be an honest asshole over a nice liar. I try my best to be good, kind, understanding, etc., but “nice” is, in my books, more about manners than good acts or genuine understanding. And I generally feel that time and effort spent on attempting to be “nice” is much better spent on genuinely empathizing with and supporting people, even when that support isn’t kind or well-mannered at a glance.

I think I just take issue with the word “nice”.

Infinite growth is referred to as cancer. Your friend is obviously right that we cannot sustain infinite growth, but it’s misguided to think that the only way out species can possibly survive to any length is by having more children and increasing our population year over year.

With improving technologies and automations, far less labour is required to achieve the same results. There is no reason we need an infinitely increasing population on our decidedly finite earth just to keep our species afloat. This would take a major restructuring of our social and economic systems to do correctly, otherwise we run the risk of centralized wealth mucking it all up, but the point remains that there’s no necessity to continue reproducing at the rate we have been. This supposed “need” for labour is just capitalist propaganda perpetuating the idea that work is inherently good, all designed to fuel an inherently exploitative economy. Line must go up, otherwise how can the privledged few assure that their net worth continues to grow exponentially?

Either “eating meat is fine because animal life is less valuable than people’s dietary needs/preferences,” or “vegetarianism is the only moral option, as all life is equally valuable,” but it seems to me like any answer in the middle is hypocrisy, no?

I dug into this more deeply in another response, but no. Life can be equally valuable and we can accept that evolution and history has led us to a place where we end life without feeling a sense of superiority over that life.

Imagine a poker game. You have been dealt a winning hand. You are incredibly confident of this and are correct to feel so. Are you a better person for winning that hand? Is this a signal that you’re not only expected to take the money of the others at the table, but permitted to do so because you are a better person?

We are the species that was dealt a better hand. This puts us in a position of power. This does not make us “better”, nor does it negate the value of those other lives, despite the position we find ourselves in. Yet we do, ultimately, get to collect as a result of that hand.

Yes and no. For one, many vegetarians and vegans would agree, so on some level, sure, that’s a very defensible opinion. Secondly, North American sensibilities would call it a moral tragedy to sell cat or dog parts, so at some point we have to accept that what is and isn’t okay to kill and consume is a question of cultural bias as opposed to moral truth.

Lastly, you can accept the state of the food chain without holding the belief that those at the top of it are “better” or “worth more”. I don’t eat beef because I am, in some universal truth way, worth more than a cow. I eat beef because I accept that in the chaos of existence, this is where the chips fell. I do not feel a sense of superiority for being able to do so. If you’re going to get really strict about it, I’d define “murder” as the act of killing for the sake of killing, and say that killing for consumption and in some cases survival is different. But even then, I recognize that this is bias. If you want to call murder the act of taking a life, I’ve murdered a lot in my life, and I don’t intend on stopping any time soon. Mosquitos won’t squish themselves.

The question of intellect and understanding and the weight of these qualities in the value of a life is a dangerous road to wander down, so I like to keep in perspective that we’re all meaningless specks in the grand scheme of the universe. Otherwise, the questions get even more challenging: to say a truly reprehensible thing, what happens when we replace the human or the animal in question with an exceptionally low functioning human being? Do we now say their life has little value because they can’t contribute to society, they can’t understand the state of their own existence, and in many cases they’re not even capable of verbal communication? Does it become okay to choose to let them die, as in the original question? Are they suddenly fit for consumption as cattle? Or does the responsibility fall on the more capable to protect them?

Appraising and tiering life is an incredibly dangerous road to go down. You can choose any example of historical racism to see just how dangerous it gets. Life is life, and the strange differences between what’s “okay” and what’s not is luck more than anything else. Even as I consume a steak while my dog begs for the scraps, I believe it’s important to keep an understanding of how we got here, else hubris allows us to justify basically any atrocity.

I dislike the belief that human life is worth more than any other animal.

Even if we’re going to argue that, because of intellect or the ability to grasp out own existence or whatever arbitrary philosophical reason we’fe going to come up it, a human life is in general more valuable than that of a cats life, my “worst enemy” would have to be someone so morally corrupt that removing them from the world would make it a better place. This makes is a very pointless question.

A stranger is more of a real discussion. The stranger is enough of an unknown factor that I think I could assume that allowing them to die is likely to have a worse impact on the world, so it makes sense to save them. I certainly wouldn’t be able to say so with enough certainty to fault anyone for disagreeing with me, though.

I’m in this post and I don’t like it.

Sushi is just made with sushi rice. It has literally nothing to do with the shape of the food.

You can be sexual and engage in pornography without objectifying yourself or others.

The better question is why we continue to allow our society to demonize sexuality. Own your sexuality. Fuck the church.

You could have just stopped at “allowed.”

I’ve been saying for a while now that we’re just beyond the world of grindy, random encounters. The early games weren’t fun because of the dozens of zubats we had to deal with. They weren’t even “harder” for these reasons, despite the absurd opinions you’ll stumble across online. Remembering to stock up on repels isn’t really a skill check. Completing the set challenges that you are aware of and planning around then is fun. Having to smash “A” through random encounters and opening the menu to hit a Fresh Water every once in a while is not.

For me, it was pure philosophy. When I came to terms with how totally insignificant I and my world is in the grand scheme of the universe, something as simple as the dog tracking mud across the floor became less then inconsequential.

As an aside:

Meanwhile I’ll get pissed that I didn’t wipe their feet and be mad the entire time I’m cleaning it up.

This reads like someone who takes everything upon themselves and doesn’t cut themselves enough slack. I don’t know you and this is the tiniest snippet of your life experiences, so take my statement with a massive heaping of salt, but give yourself a break. You aren’t super human, you aren’t responsible for everyone and everything, and you will make mistakes. Holding yourself to an impossible standard is a common source of anger and unhappiness.

Subjectively speaking, every person I’ve met who I would describe as “angry” when discussing their personality (I’m a believer that some things are worth being mad about and choosing to be appropriately angry does not make you an angry person) is deeply unhappy with themselves. This is usually because, thanks to a combination of external influences like narcissistic friends/family, they never measure up to their distorted beliefs of how they “should” be. “Should” is a bad word. Thinking in terms of “should” is self-abusive and rarely helpful. “Will” and “next time” are fine. They’re about learning. “Should” is nothing more than a way to internalize the things you’ve done wrong without focusing on how you’ll learn from them.

Anyway, I could be way off, cause man I don’t know you. But, some food for thought, anyway.

I tried to keep scrolling, but this post made me wanna coomment so hard.

The answer is different for everyone but:

Reach out to others.

Create something.

Set goals you care about and force yourself to start working towards them.

Set a time where you do something for you daiky, weekly, etc., pending the size of it.

If all of those feel too big or impossible for you: seek help. A friend or family member first, ideally, but sometimes the only answer is professional help. If said professional recommends drugs to help you get back to a positive mindset, don’t scoff. Sometimes we need to external correction before we can take care of ourselves properly.

There’s one massive quality that makes positive Nihilism different from Absurdism. Absurdism states that trying to create meaning in a chaotic universe puts you at odds with it. Therefore, doing so creates unhappiness. Optimistic Nihilism, as the common thought I was trying to convey but incorrectly labelled is called, believes that without inherent meaning in our chaotic universe, we are free to create whatever meaning we desire.

Both believe the universe is inherently chaotic and meaingless. Only one believes that you can successfully create meaning.