Accept that you are killing people. Don't forget them.

09 July 2014 @ 07:37 pm

035. [ANON TEXT]

[Well, good evening, network - it seems Seth's device is active again, though at the very least he's not inviting everyone to war like he's throwing the world's most unasked-for party this time around.]

You know, one of the things I've always found most fascinating about human morality is the idea that we're higher beings due to our natural inclination to put others before ourselves. It's generally accepted in society that we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves before harming another; I've always found adhering to that sort of notion to both vaguely admirable and sickeningly saccharine. If you must kill one to save another, that's still a life that's lost; why shouldn't the reward go to the one who's willing to fight for it, rather than the one who did nothing to earn it but sit there in pious devotion to doing nothing wrong?

We claim superiority for suppressing our instincts to survive; if anything, I think that would put us lower than dogs, not above them. All this intelligence and no will to live; it's pitiful.

But then, I suppose my lack of understanding of these things is why I can't be considered one of you.

For the time being, however, say I were to humor you in discussion for a while. Do you think your will to fight to ensure your survival actually needs to be tested? Since I suspect the answer will overwhelmingly be "No," I have another pre-emptive question for the heroic types.

Is there anything outside of arrogance and so-called moral superiority that makes you say so?

[...O...kay that's really not any better but apparently, it's just that kind of night.

You know, full of misanthropy.

Because some nights are like that.]

Tags: !ic, **anonymous, *text, @carmen sandiego (here she is), @flynn, @greed's poor life choices, @hiccup haddock, @royce, @walter, admittedly kind of asking for it, being you guys is suffering, but is everyone mad about genocide, come at me bro, engaging in heresy, good ideas are clearly relative concepts, hell are you even, how edgy of you, i used to be hardcore, just thought he'd ask, kimblee is overstimulated, like a brick to the face, my logic is flawless, my social skills are flawless, no sense of self-preservation, professor of fauxlosophy, raid on the city knock out evil tusks, sanity is so passé, slacking off like hell, so fucking flawless, surprisingly not plotting anyone's death, texting into the void, that may have been a bit insensitive, that wasn't morbid at all, the greater internet fuckwad theory, this is really stupid, tonight we're going hard, well that's needlessly sinister, why we can't have nice things, with apologies to carmen sandiego

310 comments | Leave a comment

13 May 2014 @ 09:23 am

033. [Text]

The standard example of existential anguish is said to be standing on the edge of a cliff or other high place; there inevitably comes a moment in most self-aware individuals where they experience the realization that not only do they fear falling to their death, but there's nothing stopping them from throwing themselves off. I've always found it strange that a moment of experiencing true freedom like that would be considered distressing rather than a relief; knowing that there's nothing holding me back - that I am in full control of my own choices, whether it's to stand perfectly still or throw myself off - and there is nothing pre-written into whatever it is that I am that will dictate what I do either way is something I've always found calming.

It begs the question, however - do we choose our fears, and more importantly, do we choose how we respond to them?

If nothing is predetermined and everything about our lives comes down to choice, it makes sense to me that our fears also have to come down to choice, whether consciously or not. The part I'm not entirely sure of is the response.

For example, if one is attacked by some sort of animal, it makes sense that one would fear that animal. However, the response to animal attacks tend to vary - some will try to minimize their contact with that sort of animal as much as they can, while others will immerse themselves in it and attempt to desensitize themselves. Is there a particular thing that predetermines what choice a person is going to make?

I'm curious about your thoughts on it; you don't have to detail what fears you have and how you handle them, though if you would like to that might be helpful. I'm more interested in whether you think this sort of thing comes down to ingrained personality - something more inherent, I suppose - or personal choice, and whether such a thing can be changed.

Answer me anonymously if you wish; as always, your response is of more interest to me than your identity, and quite frankly I'm not in the mood to judge either way.

(As for the existential anguish, I've found over the years that I get the greatest satisfaction from neither the thought of staying put, nor the thought of throwing myself off - I've always enjoyed the notion that if I stand on the edge long enough, perhaps someone will act on their compulsion to put their hands against my back and shove.)

242 comments | Leave a comment

08 April 2014 @ 08:35 pm

032. [Text]

[...and it seems it's time for another round of Horribly Inappropriate Questions, with your host: This Asshole.]

You know, a while ago I posited to the network that this world is based around battle culture – admittedly a softer, watered-down version of it, but battle culture nonetheless. One's power is assumed based on the strength of their personal army; one's social status is determined by how many gym leaders they've managed to defeat, or how easily they can crush those who stand in the way of what they want. It's interesting to me that such a society should likewise be based around a message of love, peace and tolerance; one would think that for the sheer amount of destruction that everyone's carrying around within arm's distance, this place would have dissolved into anarchy long ago.

Equally interesting is the stance on war that most seem to have taken here; even the locals seem opposed to it, overall. I have to wonder why – what it is about this place in particular that makes the idea of war and conflict so abhorrent to all within it.

Ah, but it's entirely likely that it's a matter of points of view, isn't it? I'm from a militaristic society, personally, so war and conflict seem to be the natural state of things – are most nations generally pacifistic like this? Or is this abnormal even by your standards as one of the..."foreigners", I believe they like to call us?

I'm interested in answers, though I can take or leave identities; answer anonymously if you wish, but even if you don't, you know what they say about glass houses.

[...You know, there are some things that never change. Yes, Kimblee, everyone here probably does get mad about genocide; either way, happy birthday, you crazy son of a bitch. If this is how you're going to spend this evening, you are more than welcome to do so.]

Tags: !ic, *text, @bertholdt fubar: sweet summer child, @carmen sandiego (here she is), @greed's poor life choices, @walter, admittedly kind of asking for it, being you guys is suffering, but is everyone mad about genocide, engaging in heresy, god is dead and my tl;dr has killed him, hell are you even, how edgy of you, i used to be hardcore, just thought he'd ask, kimblee please stop helping, like a brick to the face, look at your life; look at your choices, my social skills are flawless, professor of fauxlosophy, slacking off like hell, surprisingly not plotting anyone's death, texting into the void, that may have been a bit insensitive, that wasn't morbid at all, this is gonna suck, this is really stupid, today we are tranquil for once, well that's needlessly sinister, why we can't have nice things, with apologies to carmen sandiego

164 comments | Leave a comment

03 March 2014 @ 03:21 pm

031. [Text]

You know, I've realized that whenever I address the network nowadays, I always include some sort of apology for the morbidity of the subject matter; the subject matter is never any better the next time around, which I think just draws the validity of the apology into question by now. Ah, but that's neither here nor there - the subject today is still, however, not any better, so consider the apology this afternoon as genuine as it always is.

[In other words, sorry-not-sorry. Kimblee...]

I would like to discuss morality today, actually - perhaps befittingly, since there are so many morally dubious individuals around as of late.

Assume for a moment that you come across someone in peril; you're in a secluded area, and no one else is around to help this individual but you. The specific sort of peril they're in doesn't matter, but for the sake of argument, assume that it's something that you can handle easily - assume that assisting them won't kill you, and even if the situation you envision is dangerous you can call the authorities for help and that would be considered "assisting" for the sake of this experiment. For whatever reason, the person in peril cannot save themselves; if you don't do anything, the situation will prove fatal for the person you've come across.

No one will know if you help the person or not. You won't be punished or penalized in any way for not helping them - in other words, you have no legal obligation to do so - but if you don't, the person in peril is going to die. You've never met the person before this moment; there's nothing about their appearance or situation that implies that you should consider them an enemy, but they aren't explicitly a friend or an ally either. Just a random stranger that you are given the option of rescuing.

Most would probably agree that rescuing a person in peril like that is the "right" thing to do; I'm sure some would disagree, either because their beliefs are a bit unorthodox or because they want to feel edgy. So my question isn't necessarily what you believe - my question is why. Can you justify it, or are you just operating under "what feels right"?

Answer me anonymously if you'd like; as usual, your identity doesn't necessarily interest me, but your answer does.

355 comments | Leave a comment

				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31