“Well you asked the right guy. I’m a whale biologist. Though personally I hate whales. Especially Mushu.”

“Then why’d you become a whale biologist?”

“I don’t know you well enough to get into that.”

Please make sure it’s more than a year old so that it will (hopefully) be available somewhere.

Yes. We should definitely try to make it accessible without needing to pirate it. Speaking of, check out FMHY if you want to know what sites to avoid so you don’t accidentally pirate anything.

Does someone have that creepy French ad with the spider eating a girl out? The one that’s supposed to be an STD awareness poster? Because this is the perfect place to comment that cursed image.

We also don’t talk enough about the fact he was a pedophile.

Sexual Abuse Allegations

Schrödinger being “infatuated” with a twelve-year-old girl, Barbara MacEntee, while in Ireland. He desisted from attentions after a “serious word” from someone, and later “listed her among the unrequited loves of his life.”

Remember kids: don’t idolize people. Even Nobel Prize winning physicists can be fucked up

I’ve been in the same boat and still am from time to time, or think I am. I’ll share my thoughts and even if they don’t apply to your situation maybe they’ll give you some ideas.

What got me into a better, though not necessarily good, state of mind was thinking about killing myself. If you can’t/won’t kill yourself, then you have to keep on living. Once you realize you have to keep living the question becomes what is the better life? Then you can rationalize that obsessing over morality/purpose is not useful especially when you know it doesn’t reach any conclusions.

If you’re spending hours trying to find the “best” thing to do, you’re wasting time that could have been spent doing good things. So really, at a certain point, obsessing over the most moral or purposeful action is really preventing you from doing good rather than facilitating it.

It’s better for you to live in the moment or even give into some (non-destructive) hedonism rather than cycle around in moral distress wasting time and only making yourself more exhausted and unhappy. Sure maybe spending time playing video games or just chillin isn’t the very best use of your time, but it’s better than being in a constant state of moral confusion and discomfort.

When you recognize that you’re having a crisis that’s not going anywhere, choose to let it go because at least you know that will make you feel more relaxed. Try to do something that makes you happy if you need a distraction because making yourself happy is better than making yourself anxious or depressed even if it’s not the very best thing you could do.

I mean Hell, in some circumstances, choosing to make yourself happy instead of something else might be the best thing to do anyway. Happier people are able to think more clearly and act more charitably. Plus, through empathy, the people around you are affected by your mood. So even from a societal, not-selfish standpoint, choosing to be happy and relaxed or be a beacon of hope and laughter for others is much better than being depressed and adding to the melancholy of the world.

Yeah it sucks having a desire for purpose in a universe where there is no objective morality. But if you can’t bring yourself to end it, just choosing to be happy is a more moral option than choosing to wallow in sadness at that fact.

Even if you lived an otherwise average life, just trying to be hopeful and helpful will be better than stressing and obsessing over purpose.

You can also try to see it as a battle if that helps. The world is trying to make you depressed. Fascism and capitalism win if they can make you feel like there is no hope for change, no way to make the world better. Do you want them to win? Or do you want to rise up and fight to the end? Do you want to give up? No! Fight! Scream at the monsters of this world! When others lose hope you can bring it to them! Fight back against the complacency and melancholy and hopelessness of this life! Laugh! Smile! Find joy in the world and in your fellow men! Be a beacon of hope and happiness for those around you! We might lose in the end, the world may fall to pieces, maybe we’ll all die horribly, but you cannot and should not seek to control the world, but you can control your life and how you react to it. Isn’t it better to live a happy life? To die laughing rather than suffering forever? Rage against life. Mock those who try to take your happiness, who try to take your hope. Don’t give them the satisfaction. If you can do that, if you can be happy despite all the bad that surrounds you, that is a good life, a worthy life to live.

Anyway, before I give a list of reasons to keep living, I’d like to note that personally I’m not against suicide. I can’t do it and feel like living is better than not living but that’s just me. I can imagine lives I’d feel weren’t worth living, so I understand euthanasia. That being said, just in case you or anyone needs/wants reasons to live, here are some reasons not to die that might work for you:

• If you give in to the hopelessness that surrounds you, that’s kind of a defeat and I’m petty so I’d rather die fighting than lose like that.
• If life is as rare in the universe as it seems, you are one of the only beings in the entire universe who is capable of experiencing it and comprehending it. Eventually everything around you will be gone. Even the stars will fade, but you have the chance to see them. You have this one chance to experience things that may never happen again. Isn’t it a waste to cut your life short? To leave so many experiences un-lived?
• If you’re worried about morality, the world probably is better with you in it. Don’t give in to the eco-fascist whatever shit saying “humans are the virus.” Chances are any negative environmental impact your living would require is negligible compared to any major country or company. Maybe you dying would lead to people taking more flights or eating more meat just by the butterfly effect, negating any positive effects your death may have had. But see, your impact as a human being, your impact on the lives of others, even if only as a good friend, is certain to be impactful. You can help many people directly even just by being hopeful or letting them vent to you. In my opinion, even just doing those tiny things outweighs whatever chance that your death would be ever so slightly better for the world.

TL;DR: If you’re committed to not killing yourself, then you’re going to have to keep on living. If you’re going to keep on living and want to help/improve the world, just being happy will do that more than spending a lot of time and energy focusing on purpose or morality or the lack thereof would. If you need more reasons to live, thinking of happiness as a battle is a useful option. Fascism and corruption win when people give up hope. Want them to lose? Then fight. Choose to be happy, choose to be hopeful and inspire others to do the same. That is a fight worth fighting and a life worth living.

“Excerpt from the Kamasaura, an ancient reptilian text on sexuality, eroticism and emotional fulfillment.”

Bro are you actually able to plan and make routines? Because I definitely tried this multiple times only to fail repeatedly until I got meds.

I guess everyone’s ADHD is different, so maybe this works for you and will work for OP, but this kind of advice never worked for me no matter how many times or how hard I tried.

Okay I mean this sincerely, do you guys actually like the DPRK in its current form?

I’m not an expert, but while the original DPRK sounds like it was socialist and democratic, the current state ticks all the boxes for fascism right?

According to Wikipedia Fascism is “characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.”

Firstly, Kim Jong Un is the supreme leader, so that ticks the dictator box, but more importantly it looks like Juche in its currently practiced form has become dynastic, requiring the supreme leader to be in the family of Kim Il Sung. So doesn’t that make the DPRK more of a monarchy than democracy?

There is definitely forcible suppression of opposition, and the point mentioned above is a “belief in natural social hierarchy.” Furthermore, the ideas of Juche are by their very nature of individualism a proponent of nationalism.

I get that “the subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation.” Is not necessarily a bad thing and that is the belief of communism right? Like the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. So we can give that one a pass.

However, apart from that one item on the list, the rest of this seems like pure fascism. Hyper-militarized ethnostates fueled by nationalism and run by dictators are fascist regimes.

So my question is: why do some of you seem to support this?

I do mean that sincerely. I’m not an expert in this, so I really just want to know if I’m missing something or if people in this community are actually fine supporting fascism so long as it has a few socialist/communist ideas thrown in.

Personally it does feel kind of weird to do the latter. Like would you support a serial killer like Jefferey Dahmer just because you want to support gay people?

Perhaps that example is a little extreme but given the emphasis on nuclear weapons I found in my brief look into the ideologies of the DRPK, it could be just as extreme as that analogy.

---

Edit 1: Alright congratulations, you all have made me aware that my current understanding is limited and biased. Also rereading this comment made me realize it really does come off very pointedly and agressive so sorry about that and thank you to everyone who responded without being condescending.

Anyway if I’ve learned anything it’s that definitions are very important when using political terms and it is much more useful to describe specific elements rather than use umbrella terms with differing connotations.

I knew words had differing definitions, but I was not aware of how extreme the discrepancies between terms as they are defined by dictionaries and defined by Marxist-Leninists could be.

While I can’t say you’ve reversed my opinion, you’ve all made me realize I lack enough information to hold any meaningful opinion on this topic at all.

Anyway, the solution to ignorance is learning, so assuming I have time between school and work this week, I’ll be trying to read through the articles and watch the videos you’ve linked.

Also, I’ve downloaded “The State and Revolution” and I’ll try to read it on the train over the next week.

Maybe by the next one of these weekly discussions I’ll have some informed questions to ask lol

---

Edit 2: I am very surprised at how much I’m enjoying State and Revolution. I have ADHD that makes reading kind of daunting. But after getting about a third of the way through this book, I realized I was missing interesting things because I was having difficulty deciphering some complex sentences. So, because of how much I really want to learn everything in this text, I started over and am now highlighting and writing notes about basically every sentence lol

It was only during my first read, after I got to the part in like section 2 I think? I’ll get to it again eventually, but when he was talking about the police and military it finally clicked in my head that like holy shit the state really is just built to protect class and it really is impossible for the state to get rid of class because it is class. That’s when I started asking my own questions and shortly afterwards decided to restart.

Anyway, none of this really has anything to do with my original question, but as mentioned in my previous edit, that question was kind of nonsense.

I also wanted to say that I definitely get the emphasis on definitions here. This morning I realized the term “socialized medicine” kinda has jack shit to do with socialism defined by Marx and Lenin. This made me realize basically nothing I’ve ever heard called socialism was really socialism in any capacity. This discrepancy is exactly what Lenin describes with revolutionary thought being distorted to become innocuous to the state and used to “console” and pacify the working class. Shifts in definition are exactly how that happens.

For what it’s worth, the next time I hear someone refer to higher taxes or welfare programs as socialism, I will start a discussion about what socialism is.

I’m sorry that my inquiry sounds inflammatory. I tend to lack tact with words and much of what I say comes off aggressively because I’m bad at finding a non aggressive way to say it. Thank you for putting up with me lol

Also thank you for providing a source for me to look into for more information.

As for Wikipedia defining fascism, terms hold the definitions we give them. Communication is based on shared definitions of terms. If I refer to an animal as a cat you are likely thinking of the same animal I was referring to.

I use Wikipedia as a source for definitions because its widespread use means that the definitions listed in it are ones held by wide audiences. So using Wikipedia means I’m more likely to use terms in the same way others use them.

However it looks like your definition of fascism differs from my own and that of the majority. Until we share definitions the use of the word fascism will only hinder our communication.

I’ll check the sources you linked when I have time between classes, but would you mind defining fascism in your own words?

Also, while our definitions of fascism may differ, I do still hold the specific items listed in the definition (dictatorship, nationalism, hyper militarism, etc.) as negative qualities for a society/government. Regardless of whether those fall under the definition of fascism, they do not seem like traits found in a good system of government. What do you think about those traits specifically?

---

Edit: Just here to note how my perspective has changed. Yeah those “specific” traits I mentioned are, in fact, not specific. Like in my first comment I’ve realized using terms like “Nationalism” obscures my reasoning even from myself. What did I mean by Nationalism? What do I think counts as hyper-militarism? Even if I were to narrow those down to very specific, concrete traits, do I even know enough about the DPRK to know if I those apply?

Thank you for your response.

Out of curiousity could you provide sources that you count as being backed by the CIA and evidence that the CIA is in fact backing that misinformation?

I have a somewhat macabre interest in all the misinformation and coup stuff the US does. Like the coup over bananas? Fascinating

As for using Wikipedia as a source and the definition of fascism, I used Wikipedia because I assumed that definition was the most widespread. Words have the meaning we give them, so If we don’t have the same definitions in mind then the term fascism isn’t useful in our discussion.

However, I do appreciate that you still adressed each part of the definition I used since those items are still negative traits whether they fall into the definition of fascism or not.

Also, good point, I guess lots of the countries I can think of with extensive militaries kind of fit that definition.

Where would you suggest I go for less CIA-biased information on the governmental structure and history of DPRK?