I don't think you understand active nihilism, sidereal.
It's beyond objective/subjective. It's adaptive. Reality is there, and the options are obvious -- but that's an esoteric (Traditionalist) statement.
If you want to live in a hut and eat feces, go ahead, but not near me. That destroys my ability to live in a sane society and so I'll take your fucking life. No objectivity or morality, just plain old fashioned pagan/animist consequentialism.
I guess evolution is "objective" in some sense, but now that we have "choice," we have to choose to adapt and rise. You can play word games all day; Nietzsche didn't, and he wrote plenty of structured philosophy. He just made it artful. Unlike your statements, however, it wasn't sophomoric sophistry. It had a purpose and something it clearly wanted to express.
The entire right-wing is based on consequentialism, adaptation, Darwinism and learning from the past, but put into a reverent context where it's not a function of the individual. It's a function of an ideal (cultural, aesthetic, scientific, logical). We are the people from BEFORE "The Enlightenment," which is where humanity steered off onto Turd Blvd.
People who bitch about ANUS have plenty of things they could attack it for. Disorganization; philosophy essays in need of updating; whatever crap software they're using. Instead, you're attacking phantoms and wasting everyone's time with your drama.
Do you want to lose an argument by your own hand?
Thank you for this obviously in depth and penetrating psychoanalysis over an internet forum, who ever you are. You have absolutely no credible access to my political views, and so your beliefs on the matter are epistemically unjustified. To assert that someone is 'brainwashed' because they don't agree with you is EXACTLY what i'm on about.
So put away your pretensions of being the big bad scary internet bogey monster who, embracing 'the dark side', sends moderates fleeing back to their cappuccinos. If there is any offense it is on an intellectual level: The idea that you can logically derive political oughts from an 'accurate' perception of 'what is' which only you guys have.
You did exactly what you accused me of.
Here's your argument in a nutshell:
"You believe what you're saying is true, therefore you're intolerant of what I'm saying, which is just as legitimate as what you're saying, therefore you're wrong."
That's 100% liberal orthodoxy. And this:
Maybe this site is missing out on what it could become, which is more of a community hub for nihilists, metal heads, and what ever (non-mainstream, coming from nihilism) politics you espouse... by overusing the 'active' nihilism line.
Yeah, let's have more discussion.Internet Badass #1:
You guys never do anything, go out and see the real world, go DO SOMETHING.
Me: Do what? Blow myself up in a mall? Words are weapons.Internet Badass #2:
Instead of being so anti-social, you guys should invite everyone in, schmooze a bit and you know, become a social club.
Me: To what end? So that people can feel IMPORTANT for participation in doing nothing of importance?
...you act as if this site was born yesterday (to a moron) and has no idea what it's doing. I think you're misreading and selling it very short, and your philosophical "argument" is typing/verbiage but not logic. This from someone whose contribution to -- well, anything -- remains unclear. But one thing's for sure: you're on the ball for sewing division, doubt and other typical liberal behaviors. Are you sure you're not an infected zombie?
Your right, what i said could itself sound a little too presumptuous.
And fucking quit this. You're = you are. Your = ownership. Stop worrying about what sounds presumptuous, and try for accuracy.