1690
Rule
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
1690 points (100.0% liked)
196
16245 readers
2601 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They wouldn't last long enough - they'd be murdered, or at least disabled, by the other narcissists in society. Such a person would be an obvious "freak" and face the exact same "punishment" as I have faced my entire life - except they don't have the experience that I do, and fall for one of their cons. That's when they'd be killed.
Narcissists rule this planet with an iron fist. There is no escape, and no effective counter.
I would like to act like such a person. How would I do that? (I do want to help you, but I don't think you would believe me)
I'm not going to assist your suicide.
Thank you. But I don't feel the urge to commit suicide. I don't think the hypothetical person would either.
How would you like me to talk to you?
I don't want you to talk to me - I want you to listen to me and internalize what I teach you. Saying anything back is simply the petulant resistance of a child that won't eat their vegetables.
I am listening to you. But I don't think you want to listen to me.
Is there nothing I could say that would convince you that not everyone is trying to kill you?
Why would I? All you'd do is tell me lies, or otherwise speak in bad faith with intent to harm.
NO! The entire goddamned point is that I refuse to be dominated by you - that includes my mind. My mind is off limits - ONLY I can change it. Every attempt anyone else makes to change it is interpreted as an attempt to brainwash - equivalent to assault.
Only actions matter - but the time to act was over forty years ago. Waiting until I am the edge of death to act is itself an act of bad faith.
If there's absolutely nothing I can do to convince you, it isn't a logical argument you're going with. It's a philosophical or emotional one. Logical evidence based arguments would change if compelling contrary evidence was provided.
You haven't provided contrary evidence.
I'm asking what that contrary evidence would look like for you.
The problem with telling you is that it helps you fake the evidence. I have to assume that once I tell you, everything you give that looks like that evidence must be assumed to be faked.
Evidence can exist, but human beings are too dishonest to present it. Human beings cannot be trusted - and humanity's history of dishonesty is all the proof I need for that. I will never trust human beings, as a moral compunction.
So no one can tell or show you anything to change your mind? Then we're back to where we started with a philosophical or a moral position rather than a logical one.
Thanks for doing what you are doing. I know someone is reading this comment chain and you are helping them out indirectly.
Then it's a moral one. It's morally wrong to give human beings an inch - especially when it's practically guaranteed that they use that inch to abuse someone else.
Also, history books and discussion is more about grand state actors and conquests, not the everyday kindness and selflessness. It's usually the norm, so not noteworthy to history.
Bullshit. What a weak argument. The entire goddamned point is that your fucking "kindness" is so ineffective it can't achieve anything.
But you wouldn't learn that from history books.
Yes you would - that's what history is - the record of human failure.
But they don't tell you much about human success where countries don't go to war and genocides don't happen. So you can't compare effectively.
You seem to be defining "success" as nothing happening which... is the opposite of how I'd define it.
"Success" is when you achieve gaining more power over an entity - whether that entity is a country, a business, or one's own life.
Hypocrite. You are just like them.