can i be fem mario

and what mistakes did we learn from? did we consider why it failed, or what they could have done differently? or did we just dismiss the entire concept because it was internet politics?

even if you think we can’t learn from mistakes here, we can definitely agitate

mods please delete this post. this will either devolve into furry bashing or hornyposting

it is a terrible idea but a much better alternative, according to a CEO than their unpaid volunteers unionizing.

it’s kind of sad to see hogs on this site regard this whole situation with such disdain. this is a prototype for mass internet action. this is extremely important. at worst, we can learn from their mistakes. the nihilism of internet politics was a mistake.

feels defeatist, i agree with the anti-secular sentiment

I want to open by saying that I misspoke in my earlier comments, quite significantly. Stoicism is, like all works of philosophy, an idea with a lot of things worth considering in it.

I don’t know if I’m really :galaxy-brain: to give much more to this conversation, other than that this reminds me a lot of how, supposedly, an outside observer seeing Stoic and Epicurean philosophers argue would be confused, as they would be advocating for quite similar lifestyles. I don’t know if this is actually true, but it’s something I’ve seen mentioned in a few, admittedly shitty, philosophy books. Of course, I do think that Stoicism did a lot better of a job advocating for this lifestyle, because lots of people seem to have interpreted Epicureanism drastically incorrectly during the time period.

They’re talking about making the “blackout” indefinite, like a real strike. I think there’s a lot of agitated moderators who could be convinced to further organize there.

I feel like a lot of this stuff is either common sense, interesting but flawed, or correct but arrived to again through Marxism or a similar position

It’s like mathematics from the same time period. They had a lot of correct ideas but anyone who calls themselves a Pythagoreanist and insists that everything Pythagoras wrote was correct and without flaw is going to be missing a couple hundred years of critique and philosophical development

And the fundamental assumption of Stoicism that all issues come from internal judgements about external things is false. It sounds true, because our perceptions of things are the reason why we care about these things at all, but there is a lot of stuff we can’t change that’s apparently internal, like our need for food or water. The greatest sage cannot ignore the feeling of thirst, it will still suck.

It’s worth raising the concern that trying to subvert or ignore irrational emotions only makes sense when you have a different irrational goal that it serves. This is because all goals are inherently irrational, there is no inherent meaning to life. There is no god from on high who decides that collecting rocks is less important than engineering.

So, then, the Stoic “No” in response to the passivity problem just doesn’t work? Or it does work, but relegates Stoicism to a kind of vibe rather than a lifestyle?