Sociopath Community

Turncoat said:

So you do want it but it's not practical, or does the conflict in goals circumvent the want entirely?

 I would rather debate and spread my views, and then when the opportune time arrives, to overthrow the system. 

Turncoat said:

I largely find the human condition to be largely recursive. The only thing really breaking the model right now is The Internet.



What's the basis for your finding? I think selflessness is the unnatural state, hence why we literally have television programs and teaching aids about "sharing" for young children. Even in a non-possessive culture children reflect more selfish behaviors until they're humbled with age and perspective-building (assuming that happens for them).

We see the world through projection, like sonar upon reality we ping as far as we can perceive, it bounces back, and our minds interpret a hallucination that gives us guidance for how to handle that stimulus. All we can see and feel is a reflection of what we're capable of, as demonstrated in people's blindspots for the lessons they could never hope to learn. If understanding life is inherently self-driven for it's foundation, and even elements of our own survival are based around it, how couldn't people be greedy?
People worship those who are willing to give away their wealth because it is so unusual, not because it's so natural

 The way I view human nature is one based as social creatures in the very first existence of ourselves, worked together for the betterment of the tribe. The basis of my view on Human Nature, comes from Marxism. 

Here's some notes I took a while back when I was preparing for a debate that never came into fruition. 

"The idea of Human Nature appears to have the dominant narrative that competition, systems of domination, and hierachy of human nature, and that capitalism provides the optimal set up for bunch of self-interested individuals. This isn't the case, considering the lense of dialectics,

Looking at primitive societies, we can see that they very much did value empathy, cooperation, and solidarity. Equality and community were essential to their worldview. Private land and ownership was unheard of. Land and resources were collectively shared and respected.

In Greek Society, the dualism of slave, master, man, woman, and thus they saw nature as the divide of the cultivated and the wild. The orderly and the chaotic.

In feudal societies, they saw nature as hierarchical much like their society was hierarchical. They viewed the Lion as the king of the beasts.

Capitalism only exists in society, not in nature, hunter-gathering exists in nature.

If you put a person in a hunter-gatherer society, he's going to think like said society, that it's natural that land is not own privately, that we work together as a community. If you put someone in a capitalist society, then you are taught that profit is the most important thing, that you must defeat your opponents and rise to the top, that greed is inherent.

Every society has always said "this is how it's supposed to be, this is natural" and yet here we are, different from feudalism, different from the slave societies before feudalism. The point is, humans are highly adaptive to their environment, and heavily influenced by their social relations and experiences, they are not inherently greedy."

The source for these notes, comes from this video. 


Also, this video. 

Turncoat said:

If you're seeing the invasion of another's space as a gigantic crime, it sort of explains a lot of your views. You even have it extend towards Capitalism itself.

 I don't know where I ever said invading one's space is a gigantic crime? I'm confused? 

What I'm saying is, that the socio-economic conditions from the system of Capitalism, breeds crime. It breeds mental illness. To which I would extend this to a this video, if you want me to explain that in my own words, I guess I could, but I consider this video to be better at explaining this than I could. 
This thumbnail accurately describes my state right now, I feel pain in my brain. 

Turncoat said:

I agree with The Death Penalty as well, however our reasons for it likely strongly differ.

We can't just take our political beliefs as blanket statements for our identity.

 I'm saying if you commit a crime like murder depending on the motives behind it, or rape, or molest, then you should be killed, or sentenced to a labor camp. Actually, for most crimes, I support the idea of forced labor, but generally, I don't believe in working people to death, actually I think forced labor can be a force of good, it's better than doing nothing in a cell, it gives you purpose, and maybe could help you find a job once you're back on your feet. 

Turncoat said:

What sorts of triggers and urges start it up? Do you feel a physical need to do anything after it starts?

I ask as there may be relative outlets that can serve similar gestures.

 When there's an opportunity for it, or if I get extremely annoyed, it brings that back, feeling nostalgia feels good, but brings back the want. The way I dealt with this, was by playing video games, working out, listening to music, or going for drives or in general, talking to friends. However, even during those events, it didn't completely block it out, it just reduced the intensity. I get a lot of headaches, I think that's a side effect from it, but I don't know, and it doesn't make sense to me why that'd be the case. 

Turncoat said:

Have you ever had to argue from a perspective you don't agree with, The Devil's Advocate?

 Yes, especially trying to show people the reasons why someone would believe in such, and also to correct someone when they misrepresent another ideology. 

Turncoat said:

I get that feeling, but it's also an exercise in reinforcing personal comforts through milling away at existing discomforts. If you can post it here and be unbudged about it, then your feelings behind it must be strong too.

Whatever it is that grants this discomfort could be related to the problem, and having a crowd of people who could potentially mock you over it is how to have your beliefs and convictions tested, ridding of the weak parts while reinforcing what survived.

 In general, I grew up not fitting well in school, even though I had friends, even then I had trouble really fitting in nor did I do outside activities much with them. In my past, had crushes but failed due to being socially awkward. I had a lack of a father figure, I rarely saw him, the closest was my grandpa who died when I was 9. 

I would help others online while bottling up the pain I felt, at one point I found a girl whom I liked, and I vented to her, and she lied about her whole life to me to get close to me, and then her friends told me she was going to try to make me commit suicide, which she admitted to. 

Along with this, yes the state of the world did play a part in it, in fact, it's the state of the world, which made me do the research which made me stumble upon Marxism, which made logical sense to me. 

Turncoat said:

With some people, when they hit a point of excess feeling they can actually shut down emotionally, numbing out. This can have some people try to seek out that tipping point to burn themselves out of it, figuring it as some form of tenacity exercise that's showing results through their shellshock.

Could your conflicts with your sadistic tendencies be from a conflict between your believed sense of self and what's objecting from underneath it?

It's also possible that you had been sadistic all of this time, and from a lack of outlet for it you directed it inwards for the time being instead. A sadist I dated started out that way largely and ended up life-changingly elated once she had a safe and consensual outlet for harming another person.

I know you said you "were not looking for a lover" or whatever in chat, but have you experimented at all with Sadomasochism?

 I don't believe I've been sadistic this whole time, and no. I've never experienced Sadomasochism. 

Turncoat said:

What makes it no longer meaningless for you now?

I figured accepting meaninglessness was the path towards enlightenment.

 While I agree there's no objective meaning to reality, what I'm saying is, I have a view of a brighter humanity. 

Turncoat said:

What has you think that your views on people, especially considering that they were there during your breakdowns and your sadistic ideations, are not otherwise a factor towards what primally motivates you towards wanting to see them suffer in the first place?

The views you're talking about are usually carried by depressed rebels, but it's not their views that made them that way, but rather their traits that drew them towards a perspective that reads as of a like mind. What makes you of a like mind with the material compared to lets say... how much it doesn't read to me or some other shmuck?

 The views predate the area of breakdowns, I've had them while having depression, yes, but the breakdowns came in about a year and a half later. 

As for primally, as my notes and the videos I sourced above. 

Turncoat said:

What drives you to support a cause? A lot of people have the drive to believe in one, but it's so rare to find someone who actually goes out and does something about it.

It makes you unusual.

 It's a cause I actually care for, and one I believe is essential. The idea of sitting by and letting what I deem corruption and parasitism slowly kill us is sickening. 

TurnCoat said:

Hurting people for your own amusement is okay as long as you feel a justifiable reason to hate them?

 I don't even know how to respond to this. I just don't. You're breaking me. I have my own temptations, that I don't see as part of my inherent nature to when I was born. I find myself conflicted on the issue, practically the same way I did in the two parts of me, it's happening right now, as we discuss this. 

Turncoat said:

See this is how things like "Life Imprisonment" can be argued to be the more bitter punishment. Killing someone's doing both them and the world around them a favor, not just the "civilized folk".

 Yes, I know, to an extent life imprisonment as a bitter punishment, look, it's just a matter of how much resources we truly want to waste on a person to make them suffer, in my case, I don't consider it a waste of time, because I would enjoy it. 

Turncoat said:

As a curious question, where would you draw the line between innocence and it's lacking?

When is it truly "gone"?

 Whenever they commit a crime not out of survival, but out of their own twisted pleasure. Like me. 

Turncoat said:

No matter which you pick, it's more about which choice makes it easier to live with yourself. You are still inherently only caring for yourself, but then again who isn't?

 I don't consider my views for a better society, which sure are just that my views, but the idea is to debate and change the opinion of others and create a better society. 

Once again, back to Human Nature info I posted, above. 

Sintetika said: 

 I would rather debate and spread my views, and then when the opportune time arrives, to overthrow the system. 

I feel pretty certain that any design by it's essence of being a design will be made to fail when given enough time. 

There's too many different human interests, and even more ways of twisting the meaning of one's doctrine. Mutation within towards something that no longer resembles itself is inevitable. 

The way I view human nature is one based as social creatures in the very first existence of ourselves, worked together for the betterment of the tribe. 

Looking at primitive societies, we can see that they very much did value empathy, cooperation, and solidarity. Equality and community were essential to their worldview. Private land and ownership was unheard of. Land and resources were collectively shared and respected.

What of scale? 

I think more tribal models are meant for smaller groups by my rough understanding of it. As we expand beyond the borders of that scale, newer almost dystopian systems have to be implemented to accommodate for it (like factory farming to feed a nation). 

If we wanted to go back to smaller scale groups and not larger spanning interests, we're going to need to do something about all this pesky population flooding the place. Much of our continued existence is the dystopian result of having to make hard choices at points of our history, and I'd argue all choices made during these points are going to have jarring causality down the line that reflect it's flaws more glaringly than it's advantages. 

"The idea of Human Nature appears to have the dominant narrative that competition, systems of domination, and hierachy of human nature, and that capitalism provides the optimal set up for bunch of self-interested individuals. This isn't the case

How does this explain our naturally selfish behaviors as children? 

There is nothing truly more cruel than a child when it comes to self serving behaviors, as things like kindness and caring for someone are learned lessons through experience. Twilight Zone writers really enjoyed playing with this idea in their episode "It's a Good Life", giving the controls over reality to a child and seeing how the the world (or rather what's left of it) is stuck playing to his tune. 

In Greek Society, the dualism of slave, master, man, woman, and thus they saw nature as the divide of the cultivated and the wild. The orderly and the chaotic. 

In feudal societies, they saw nature as hierarchical much like their society was hierarchical. They viewed the Lion as the king of the beasts.

Capitalism only exists in society, not in nature, hunter-gathering exists in nature. 

Wrong, there are apes that partake in mild bartering practices, and there are other mammals that understand the notion of exchange. Symbiotic relationships between other species (and their own) can also reflect many aspects of trade. 

What they lack compared to us is a means of building a complex webbed system out of it. Human nature is one of achieving exaggeration upon the pillars of reality, and a pyramid scheme setup was what added complexity to an otherwise natural system. 

By becoming the top of our own food chain, once we overpopulated we became parasitic upon ourselves to survive. It's cannibalism that is inevitable through the fact that we are "succeeding" this hard. 

If you put a person in a hunter-gatherer society, he's going to think like said society, that it's natural that land is not own privately, that we work together as a community. If you put someone in a capitalist society, then you are taught that profit is the most important thing, that you must defeat your opponents and rise to the top, that greed is inherent.

How is hunter gather society not greedy? It's just smaller scale ownership and control. 

Why not go for something a little more Libertarian? 

It breeds mental illness.

Which ones, in particular? 

I'd argue that modern medicine breeds more mental illness than that does, and that if anything the wealth system serves as a limit on it. If medicine were made more readily available we'd have even more mental illness present through the sudden increased sustainability of it. It effectively counters Survival of the Fittest by letting anything propagate. 

As for acquired mental illnesses, I'd argue that the very same ones would easily be made through different confines. It's unavoidable as long as there's peer modeling and genetic faults, and to say that it's just the conditions of society that pave the way for it is misguided.

Mental Illness is mostly stigma of differences that strongly oppose the template norms. Even the word "Disorder" is more implicit of it's lack of order within "Society" than referencing it as something broken (unlike the stigma that follows it). 

I'm saying if you commit a crime like murder depending on the motives behind it

What motives make it just, other than stuff like the court shooting story you mentioned earlier? 

or rape, or molest, then you should be killed, or sentenced to a labor camp.

You seem to look at humanity as if sociology were a single host body, and that specific practices and politics are like a disease upon it. 

Actually, for most crimes, I support the idea of forced labor, but generally, I don't believe in working people to death, actually I think forced labor can be a force of good, it's better than doing nothing in a cell, it gives you purpose, and maybe could help you find a job once you're back on your feet. 

What gives 'purpose' purpose? 

You answer should be interesting, considering you recognized meaninglessness at one point before fleeing it for dear life. 

When there's an opportunity for it, or if I get extremely annoyed, it brings that back, feeling nostalgia feels good, but brings back the want.

You recognize Nostalgia for the rose tinted glasses they are though, yeah? 

The way I dealt with this, was by playing video games, working out, listening to music, or going for drives or in general, talking to friends. However, even during those events, it didn't completely block it out, it just reduced the intensity. I get a lot of headaches, I think that's a side effect from it, but I don't know, and it doesn't make sense to me why that'd be the case. 

Is this closer to what you want to get control over? This sounds worse than some mere sadistic daydreaming. 

I know it sounds frivolous but have you ever had a massage or a spa day for the benefits of physical therapy? The increased functionality it gives down the line is worth the time and investment. 

In general, I grew up not fitting well in school, even though I had friends, even then I had trouble really fitting in nor did I do outside activities much with them. In my past, had crushes but failed due to being socially awkward. I had a lack of a father figure, I rarely saw him, the closest was my grandpa who died when I was 9. 

Lacking a direct model figure usually leads to more of a sense of confusion for how to handle one's needs. As a result it sounds like you struggle with open expression. 

Sintetika said:

I would help others online while bottling up the pain I felt, at one point I found a girl whom I liked, and I vented to her, and she lied about her whole life to me to get close to me, and then her friends told me she was going to try to make me commit suicide, which she admitted to. 

This is a fine example of human nature. You don't need wealth to create this sort of behavior. 

Childishness when allowed to thrive uncorrected is what can lead to behavior like that, but I'd argue that "childishness" is closer to humanity's natural behavior, hence there being so much rhetoric about trying to surpass it and so much more rhetoric about learning to accept your quote unquote "inner child" (such repressive speech hype, we never really stop being children beyond our chemical tolerance to reality). 

Along with this, yes the state of the world did play a part in it, in fact, it's the state of the world, which made me do the research which made me stumble upon Marxism, which made logical sense to me. 

Why does "The state of the world" even matter? What makes you forced to notice it when it's otherwise something beyond our sense of personally observable scale? It'd be as easy as ignoring this information to not have to think about it, so what keeps you on board? 

Note: I'll check your videos when I'm less tired. I am actually interested, considering that philosophy itself is a symptom of one's inherent natures, which is why I want to give it the time when I have better focus instead of just skimming it for general arguments. 

Sintetika said: 

Turncoat said:

With some people, when they hit a point of excess feeling they can actually shut down emotionally, numbing out. This can have some people try to seek out that tipping point to burn themselves out of it, figuring it as some form of tenacity exercise that's showing results through their shellshock.

Could your conflicts with your sadistic tendencies be from a conflict between your believed sense of self and what's objecting from underneath it?

It's also possible that you had been sadistic all of this time, and from a lack of outlet for it you directed it inwards for the time being instead. A sadist I dated started out that way largely and ended up life-changingly elated once she had a safe and consensual outlet for harming another person.

I know you said you "were not looking for a lover" or whatever in chat, but have you experimented at all with Sadomasochism?

 I don't believe I've been sadistic this whole time, and no. I've never experienced Sadomasochism. 

I'd recommend trying it at least once. With consent on a person who actually desires that sort of thing it becomes a mutual outlet for both people. 

I've seen a surprising number of repressed people open up and blossom into something stronger after punching and slapping me around for long enough. 

Turncoat said:

What makes it no longer meaningless for you now?

I figured accepting meaninglessness was the path towards enlightenment.

While I agree there's no objective meaning to reality, what I'm saying is, I have a view of a brighter humanity. 

A subjectively brighter view for humanity that'd only suit those of a like mind to you. 

Who's to say once you've broken Capitalism that it wouldn't just pick itself back up? It's an oddly resilient thing. 

Turncoat said:

What has you think that your views on people, especially considering that they were there during your breakdowns and your sadistic ideations, are not otherwise a factor towards what primally motivates you towards wanting to see them suffer in the first place?

The views you're talking about are usually carried by depressed rebels, but it's not their views that made them that way, but rather their traits that drew them towards a perspective that reads as of a like mind. What makes you of a like mind with the material compared to lets say... how much it doesn't read to me or some other shmuck?

 The views predate the area of breakdowns, I've had them while having depression, yes, but the breakdowns came in about a year and a half later. 

I'm meaning who you are in spite of breakdowns and compensation, the you that read that material and identified with it instead of something else. 

My book/film that's gripped me is Fight Club of all things, and it's from something inherent within myself that makes it resonate as opposed to it being a universal doctrine that I'd expect to "brighten humanity". 

Turncoat said:

What drives you to support a cause? A lot of people have the drive to believe in one, but it's so rare to find someone who actually goes out and does something about it.

It makes you unusual.

It's a cause I actually care for, and one I believe is essential. The idea of sitting by and letting what I deem corruption and parasitism slowly kill us is sickening. 

What makes it sickening? It's not your responsibility nor your obligation to fix it, no one's holding a gun to your head over it other than yourself. 

Sickening though? 

TurnCoat said:

Hurting people for your own amusement is okay as long as you feel a justifiable reason to hate them?

I don't even know how to respond to this. I just don't. You're breaking me. I have my own temptations, that I don't see as part of my inherent nature to when I was born. I find myself conflicted on the issue, practically the same way I did in the two parts of me, it's happening right now, as we discuss this. 

This "breakdown" is how Introspection works, and it's the backbone towards Existential questions. 

Once any once singular perspective lets in and weighs out enough differing ones, existential crisis is inevitable, and only from there can our sense of "self" be dropped in such a way, if even for but a moment, to instead notice something about reality itself without as much of our own input getting in the way. 

I recommend I ❤ Huckabees, it's a good crash course: 



It's less "Indie" () than it appears. The trailer music as it's set up is clearly trying to sell towards a specific demographic. 

Turncoat said:

See this is how things like "Life Imprisonment" can be argued to be the more bitter punishment. Killing someone's doing both them and the world around them a favor, not just the "civilized folk".

Yes, I know, to an extent life imprisonment as a bitter punishment, look, it's just a matter of how much resources we truly want to waste on a person to make them suffer, in my case, I don't consider it a waste of time, because I would enjoy it. 

It's kind of nuts what the proposed costs are both to keep a prisoner alive and to kill one. 

Such a weird system. 

Turncoat said:

As a curious question, where would you draw the line between innocence and it's lacking?

When is it truly "gone"?

Whenever they commit a crime not out of survival, but out of their own twisted pleasure.

So pirating a box office success is the death of one's innocence?

Smoking some ganja is to destroy your naivete simply because one's government had corporate interests lobbying to keep it illegal, and with it's increased legality it's gradually restoring the innocence lost? 

Is loitering and disturbing the peace the leading cause of crimes in our modern world now? Is Jaywalking a gateway drug towards criminal activity? 

A lot of things are crimes, but there are some that have been deemed "Crimes Against Humanity", like your original blanket stance made about pedos, rapists, and murderers initially, which then escalated to other less common areas with time. 

So where is that line actually? Laws span across a very wide spectrum, like how it used to be mandatory in Brainerd, Minnesota to have a beard if you were a man. It's not just "The Law" like Judge Dredd makes it out to be unless you're an Extremist about "Laws" conceptually with no gray area. 

Like me. 

How much self-loathing would you say is the norm? 

Would you say you're trying to outrun the feeling? 

Turncoat said:

I feel pretty certain that any design by it's essence of being a design will be made to fail when given enough time.

There's too many different human interests, and even more ways of twisting the meaning of one's doctrine. Mutation within towards something that no longer resembles itself is inevitable.

 I'm not entirely sure on what you're saying, I'm speaking of agitating, organizing, and over-throwing. 

Turncoat said:

What of scale?

I think more tribal models are meant for smaller groups by my rough understanding of it. As we expand beyond the borders of that scale, newer almost dystopian systems have to be implemented to accommodate for it (like factory farming to feed a nation).

If we wanted to go back to smaller scale groups and not larger spanning interests, we're going to need to do something about all this pesky population flooding the place. Much of our continued existence is the dystopian result of having to make hard choices at points of our history, and I'd argue all choices made during these points are going to have jarring causality down the line that reflect it's flaws more glaringly than it's advantages.

 We would disagree, that overpopulation is even an issue, when you look at production, there is more than enough food to feed the entire world, but over half of it is wasted, because people can't buy it. Here's a simple article that goes over this. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-hunger_b_1463429 

Turncoat said:

How does this explain our naturally selfish behaviors as children?

There is nothing truly more cruel than a child when it comes to self serving behaviors, as things like kindness and caring for someone are learned lessons through experience. Twilight Zone writers really enjoyed playing with this idea in their episode "It's a Good Life", giving the controls over reality to a child and seeing how the the world (or rather what's left of it) is stuck playing to his tune.

 An undeveloped pre-adolescent brain. I don't deny that selfishness can be a factor, but it barely holds any weight on the society I want to carry out, there's a reason why laws exist. I'm not saying people can't be selfish, what I'm saying is, that doesn't mind-control humans where they aren't aware and they cannot work with other people because there is a mental barrier preventing them from doing so. 

Turncoat said:

Wrong, there are apes that partake in mild bartering practices, and there are other mammals that understand the notion of exchange. Symbiotic relationships between other species (and their own) can also reflect many aspects of trade.

What they lack compared to us is a means of building a complex webbed system out of it. Human nature is one of achieving exaggeration upon the pillars of reality, and a pyramid scheme setup was what added complexity to an otherwise natural system.

By becoming the top of our own food chain, once we overpopulated we became parasitic upon ourselves to survive. It's cannibalism that is inevitable through the fact that we are "succeeding" this hard.

 Barting isn't Capitalism. Bartering predates Capitalism. The way I define Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, and that the drives for said society is the profit motive, which is to seek profit through any means possible. 

Our complex system of Capitalism, hasn't existed for that long, in fact it's only been here a few centuries. Predating that was Feudalism, and predating that was Slave Societies. I bet if you were to ask someone from either of those systems what Human Nature was, they'd give you a pretty different answer. I don't even consider it a matter of over-population, as I said before, we have the productive forces to provide for everyone. The problem is the system of distribution we chose requires people to be paid enough to even afford said food, and that isn't to say to give everyone the exactly the same amount, but of course, actually distribute it so that people can eat, because businesses won't give it out if they're not making money on it. 

Turncoat said:

How is hunter gather society not greedy? It's just smaller scale ownership and control.

Why not go for something a little more Libertarian?

 It's small scale collective ownership. I don't see where greed fits into this. I'm pretty sure my end goal is pretty libertarian. The goal of Communism is to overthrow the bourgeoisie, create a Marxist-Socialist state (This can vary between Marxists and Anarcho-Communists) and use that state to defend yourself from other capitalist states, and once the threat of that is over and the conditions are right, wither away the state. The ideal conditions for said society is one of mostly automation, and post-scarcity. I'd say we are getting closer to both as science progresses. 

Turncoat said:

Crime is just people who don't conform to the laws and toils otherwise accepted by that society. Rebellion is inevitable through sheer variation.

Crime is a perspective, and depending on who's looking at it the local gangs or the local mob are more liable to be their protectors than corrupt cops on the take are liable to be. It's a matter of fence posts and differing interests, and what, you wouldn't break some laws if you didn't agree with them yourself?

 I'm aware of the fact that Crime is what goes against Laws. Yes, and in regards to mobs or corrupt cops, both are doing it for what now? Greed? Yes, of course. Almost as if the profit motive, promotes this. I'm not saying crime would not exist in another society, but I'm saying it would be reduced, once you give people the basic necessities of food, water, home, an education, a job, and healthcare, perhaps even a car. Does that mean they get it for free? No. If they are lazy bums who are parasites, they get punished. 

Turncoat said:

Which ones, in particular?

I'd argue that modern medicine breeds more mental illness than that does, and that if anything the wealth system serves as a limit on it. If medicine were made more readily available we'd have even more mental illness present through the sudden increased sustainability of it. It effectively counters Survival of the Fittest by letting anything propagate.

As for acquired mental illnesses, I'd argue that the very same ones would easily be made through different confines. It's unavoidable as long as there's peer modeling and genetic faults, and to say that it's just the conditions of society that pave the way for it is misguided.

Mental Illness is mostly stigma of differences that strongly oppose the template norms. Even the word "Disorder" is more implicit of it's lack of order within "Society" than referencing it as something broken (unlike the stigma that follows it).

 I'm speaking that mental illness is generated by the environment, not entirely based on biological factors or a failed chemistry in the brain. I highly suggest you watch the Capitalism Realism video I posted, I can go more in depth on this if you truly want me to do, but that video is there. 

Turncoat said:

What motives make it just, other than stuff like the court shooting story you mentioned earlier?

 I'm saying it depends on the mental health of said murderer, and it depends on the scenario, was it in self-defense or not? Was it someone drunk and accidentally shot? I'm saying it depends on the case. I'm saying there should still be punishment but maybe not as severe. 

Turncoat said:

You seem to look at humanity as if sociology were a single host body, and that specific practices and politics are like a disease upon it.

 I view humanity as being strongly impacted based on the conditions and how the society it is in works, instead of looking at humans as if they were in a vacuum. 

Sintetika said: 

Turncoat said:

I feel pretty certain that any design by it's essence of being a design will be made to fail when given enough time.

There's too many different human interests, and even more ways of twisting the meaning of one's doctrine. Mutation within towards something that no longer resembles itself is inevitable.

 I'm not entirely sure on what you're saying, I'm speaking of agitating, organizing, and over-throwing. 

I'm talking about the aftermath. You're aiming to over-throw so that something else may take it's place, yes? 

It's always easier to be the critic than it is to be the artisan. 

Turncoat said:

What of scale?

I think more tribal models are meant for smaller groups by my rough understanding of it. As we expand beyond the borders of that scale, newer almost dystopian systems have to be implemented to accommodate for it (like factory farming to feed a nation).

If we wanted to go back to smaller scale groups and not larger spanning interests, we're going to need to do something about all this pesky population flooding the place. Much of our continued existence is the dystopian result of having to make hard choices at points of our history, and I'd argue all choices made during these points are going to have jarring causality down the line that reflect it's flaws more glaringly than it's advantages.

We would disagree, that overpopulation is even an issue, when you look at production, there is more than enough food to feed the entire world, but over half of it is wasted, because people can't buy it. Here's a simple article that goes over this. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-hunger_b_1463429

Yeah... I've eavesdropped on enough eat-for-free dumpster diver types to know it's a thing. 🤢

When Factory Farming was first introduced there was a food shortage (before 20 years ago), and now we're in said dystopian aftermath that in itself reflects the flaws more than the once-needed advantages. 

Still, interesting article: 

This is why the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food released a report advocating for structural reforms and a shift to agroecology. It is why the 400 experts commissioned for the four-year International Assessment on Agriculture, Science and Knowledge for Development (IAASTD 2008) also concluded that agroecology and locally-based food economies (rather than the global market) where the best strategies for combating poverty and hunger.

The above makes it sound like they're working on it. There seems to be an expressed urgency towards more efficient models that shouldn't need a radically themed deconstruction to accomplish, but rather time and persistence within the system. 

Turncoat said:

How does this explain our naturally selfish behaviors as children?

There is nothing truly more cruel than a child when it comes to self serving behaviors, as things like kindness and caring for someone are learned lessons through experience. Twilight Zone writers really enjoyed playing with this idea in their episode "It's a Good Life", giving the controls over reality to a child and seeing how the the world (or rather what's left of it) is stuck playing to his tune.

An undeveloped pre-adolescent brain.

I'd argue unadapted when it comes to peer-to-peer. A selfish child with nothing around to correct the behavior will have no reason to drop said behaviors when heading into teenagehood and adulthood. With the presence of inherent blindspots or an environment that doesn't allow for those developments they will be more liable to reflect their more core being instead of conditioned responses. 

I'd say the "mature adult" is actually less natural than a man-child, especially in light of how often people seem confused by the whole "adulthood" template as if it were more of an ideal instead of something inherent within us as a result of aging. "Maturity" is conditioned hype, and a lot of people as they get older seem to shake the conditioning off. 

I don't deny that selfishness can be a factor

I'd argue it's the core to everything everyone does. Selflessness is an illusion even from those who are unreasonably detached. 

It is unavoidable, for it is the lens through which we see the world. 

that doesn't mind-control humans where they aren't aware and they cannot work with other people because there is a mental barrier preventing them from doing so. 

What sort of barrier? I don't doubt it but it's broad enough that I can think of multiple answers to what you mean. 

Turncoat said:

Wrong, there are apes that partake in mild bartering practices, and there are other mammals that understand the notion of exchange. Symbiotic relationships between other species (and their own) can also reflect many aspects of trade.

What they lack compared to us is a means of building a complex webbed system out of it. Human nature is one of achieving exaggeration upon the pillars of reality, and a pyramid scheme setup was what added complexity to an otherwise natural system.

By becoming the top of our own food chain, once we overpopulated we became parasitic upon ourselves to survive. It's cannibalism that is inevitable through the fact that we are "succeeding" this hard.

 Barting isn't Capitalism. Bartering predates Capitalism.

Exactly, Capitalism is just what came of exaggerating an otherwise natural process. 

If you are to combat exaggeration, you'll need to combat the human condition itself. It's always the inevitable conclusion of anything we start collectively as a species, and often the exaggerating process also means exaggerating the once easy-to-miss flaws. 

The way I define Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, and that the drives for said society is the profit motive, which is to seek profit through any means possible. 

So you'd argue more in favor of small business practices, a Libertarian leaning? 

For the sake of argument, what good things would you say have come from Capitalism in our history? Having tons of resources in the hands of a few people must have led to some good ideas if any of said few people had higher aspirations than continued self-growth. 

Our complex system of Capitalism, hasn't existed for that long, in fact it's only been here a few centuries. Predating that was Feudalism, and predating that was Slave Societies. I bet if you were to ask someone from either of those systems what Human Nature was, they'd give you a pretty different answer.

I'd argue that'd be mostly the case from a lack of known information. We can observe much what constitutes the human condition now through the social sciences and data collection that can be handled much faster than any point in history. 

The Internet is really changing things. 

The problem is the system of distribution we chose requires people to be paid enough to even afford said food, and that isn't to say to give everyone the exactly the same amount, but of course, actually distribute it so that people can eat, because businesses won't give it out if they're not making money on it. 

What would you have take it's place? Distribution is actually a really complicated issue once you go beyond a localized scale (although self driving cars might be one of the first steps towards making this a lot more efficient). 

I'm personally waiting for the era where robots have replaced the majority of human work and The Unions can no longer stop progress. Reshaping society when we don't even know what technology is liable to make it become seems premature. 

Turncoat said:

What gives 'purpose' purpose?

You answer should be interesting, considering you recognized meaninglessness at one point before fleeing it for dear life.

 I'm speaking that perhaps people would rather be working then sitting in a damn cell rotting away. 

If we're speaking on what gives purpose, I don't know how to dictate another's purpose, perhaps doing what one loves? 

Turncoat said:

You recognize Nostalgia for the rose tinted glasses they are though, yeah?

 Sure it's sentimental, in some case. 

Turncoat said:

Is this closer to what you want to get control over? This sounds worse than some mere sadistic daydreaming.

I know it sounds frivolous but have you ever had a massage or a spa day for the benefits of physical therapy? The increased functionality it gives down the line is worth the time and investment.

 No, I've never considered doing such. 

Turncoat said:

Lacking a direct model figure usually leads to more of a sense of confusion for how to handle one's needs. As a result it sounds like you struggle with open expression.

 Open expression of my thoughts and feelings? I don't entirely understand this statement. 

Turncoat said:

This is a fine example of human nature. You don't need wealth to create this sort of behavior.

Childishness when allowed to thrive uncorrected is what can lead to behavior like that, but I'd argue that "childishness" is closer to humanity's natural behavior, hence there being so much rhetoric about trying to surpass it and so much more rhetoric about learning to accept your quote unquote "inner child" (such repressive speech hype, we never really stop being children beyond our chemical tolerance to reality).

 I don't know the conditions of her life, but she did apologize to me later on and said she suffered from depression too and felt extreme regret for her actions. I'm already numb to it, so I didn't care much I just told her okay. 

Turncoat said:

Why does "The state of the world" even matter? What makes you forced to notice it when it's otherwise something beyond our sense of personally observable scale? It'd be as easy as ignoring this information to not have to think about it, so what keeps you on board?

 The thought of an unjust system screwing over the lives of fellow humans and it's pain it's brought upon them is something I consider an injustice, does that mean what I seek is going to a be a perfect utopia no? But I believe there's a better means of handling things. 

Turncoat said:

I'd recommend trying it at least once. With consent on a person who actually desires that sort of thing it becomes a mutual outlet for both people.

I've seen a surprising number of repressed people open up and blossom into something stronger after punching and slapping me around for long enough. Posted Image

 I'm not denying I have sexual fantasies or such inside me, they just aren't my main drive. Even if I wanted to, I am too focused on other things than a relationship, and I don't care to actively seek out someone to fuck. 

Turncoat said:

A subjectively brighter view for humanity that'd only suit those of a like mind to you.

Who's to say once you've broken Capitalism that it wouldn't just pick itself back up? It's an oddly resilient thing.

 I'm aware that my slight vision is subjective, because Capitalism is a system, it's not in our blood. I don't believe that by just changing the system that will root out all the problems, sure capitalism can come back, that's why you need to look at the material conditions of a society and plan accordingly, Capitalism took on the marks of the older society, Socialism will take on the marks of Capitalism. Think of it like this, my philosophy is Dialectical Materialism, and I'm not claiming to be 100% expert on it, but we look at the world as though it's contradictions built upon one another. The Thesis, and the Anti-Thesis combine to from the Synthesis. Fire and Water combine and make Steam. 

I'm trying to explain this in comprehensible words, if need be there's another video, but as a simplistic view, think of it like a materialist lenses on societal development. We view economic and political variables as a way to impact a society and therefore impact said people inside said society. 

Turncoat said:

I'm meaning who you are in spite of breakdowns and compensation, the you that read that material and identified with it instead of something else.

My book/film that's gripped me is Fight Club of all things, and it's from something inherent within myself that makes it resonate as opposed to it being a universal doctrine that I'd expect to "brighten humanity".

 Marxism resonates with me, because it gives a better goal for a collaborative more progressive humanity, rather than a system driven on profit. 

Turncoat said:

What makes it sickening? It's not your responsibility nor your obligation to fix it, no one's holding a gun to your head over it other than yourself.

Sickening though?

 I believe that by not contributing to fight against it, that by then I'm just sitting here letting it happen. I'm aware no one holds a gun to my head over it, but I believe that it is my own duty. 

Turncoat said:

This "breakdown" is how Introspection works, and it's the backbone towards Existential questions.

Once any once singular perspective lets in and weighs out enough differing ones, existential crisis is inevitable, and only from there can our sense of "self" be dropped in such a way, if even for but a moment, to instead notice something about reality itself without as much of our own input getting in the way.

 You are hurting my brain. Yes, I want to harm people, yes that doesn't make it justified for me, I don't think it will be cured, I think I'll always HAVE IT, I want to CONTROL IT, so that I can use it on the people like me, so that I get the pleasure from doing it. Am I a perfect human being? NO. I don't know how else to explain this. 

Turncoat said:

It's kind of nuts what the proposed costs are both to keep a prisoner alive and to kill one.

Such a weird system.

 I consider the reason why its so expensive to kill is because we use lethal injection, instead of bullets. The benefits of a labor camp is so that you don't waste tax dollars on them to keep them alive. 

I'm trying to respond to every question you have, and now we're looping on one another, my brain is exhausted. You are frying my brain, because it's hard for me to answer psychological questions along side my political views. 

I'll continue with this. 

Sintetika said: 

Turncoat said:

How is hunter gather society not greedy? It's just smaller scale ownership and control.

Why not go for something a little more Libertarian?

It's small scale collective ownership. I don't see where greed fits into this.

They're being entirely self serving, and if one person is doing abnormally well in a hunter-gatherer society there's still nothing to stop them. It'd be as easy as one person having a superior weapon or enough charisma to grift supporters out of their earnings to clean them out of their livelihood, and then still nothing is balancing out distribution. 

Greed's just wanting more than you need, and that is a sensation that roots in itself similarly to that of hoarding urges: Safety. It's inverse, those who aim to give all they own away, are aiming for that goal not to be counter-culture, but to be counter-tether, to surpass the human condition itself. 

Greed's very natural. While it's not helpful in a sociological sense, it roots from survival fears mixing with satiation, making it a pretty primal sensation. 

I'm pretty sure my end goal is pretty libertarian. The goal of Communism is to overthrow the bourgeoisie, create a Marxist-Socialist state (This can vary between Marxists and Anarcho-Communists) and use that state to defend yourself from other capitalist states, and once the threat of that is over and the conditions are right, wither away the state. The ideal conditions for said society is one of mostly automation, and post-scarcity. I'd say we are getting closer to both as science progresses. 

Do you think people could really be trusted to upkeep a system like this without someone overlording it until it's natural end otherwise? 

I don't. 

Turncoat said:

Crime is just people who don't conform to the laws and toils otherwise accepted by that society. Rebellion is inevitable through sheer variation.

Crime is a perspective, and depending on who's looking at it the local gangs or the local mob are more liable to be their protectors than corrupt cops on the take are liable to be. It's a matter of fence posts and differing interests, and what, you wouldn't break some laws if you didn't agree with them yourself?

I'm aware of the fact that Crime is what goes against Laws. Yes, and in regards to mobs or corrupt cops, both are doing it for what now? Greed?

Not quite, and I'll use The Black Panther Movement as an example. 

In many cases, whether from greed, racism, fear, cultural modeling etc, cops were not going into poorer neighborhoods to do their damn jobs (even now in Ohio we see this with cops avoiding the areas with higher densities of Meth Heads for their own safety). Without any cop presence, once that is noticed crime in that area tends to skyrocket during the perceived power vaccum. 

In comes The Black Panthers, a local militia formed to protect their people in place of the cops who won't. They were technically a gang, but they were there to serve as protectors to their people. This is not a motivation of "greed", this is people stepping up to do what needs to be done, but they are not on the side of the fence of the local cops, they are their own faction on their own side of the fence. 

The Mob in many cases can be argued to simply be protecting their own interests, and cops being on the take themselves could be doing it out of greed, fear, racism, cultural modeling, or even grooming from within the mob itself. "Protecting their own interests" though isn't really too different from cop behaviors, so often just by the merit of who you are or where you live you may find that one's idea of "Crime" is what keeps you safe, while one's idea of "Law" is what serves to work against you. 

It's all individual perspective, and underneath it is still people cut of the same cloth as you and I. Many even carry moral codes of their own that just happen to go against the grain. 

I'm not saying crime would not exist in another society, but I'm saying it would be reduced, once you give people the basic necessities of food, water, home, an education, a job, and healthcare, perhaps even a car. 

I'd argue the next step towards progress is closer to Wil.I.Am's take on it: Introducing better schooling to impoverished areas through modern progressive programs, in his case introducing Robotics courses to otherwise poor people. 

Crime reduction I'd say is largely impossible. You'd have to find some way to stop the human tendency towards being contrarian or otherwise spiteful if something about that system went wrong for them. 

No. If they are lazy bums who are parasites, they get punished. 

How do you feel about people rendered unable to work by circumstances outside of their control? Do they get pity or punishment? 

"Lazy bums" are the way of the future though, much like the movie Wall-E. We aren't going to need to be labor-driven once machines take it over for us, so we ought to be planning for that time instead. 

 I'm speaking that mental illness is generated by the environment, not entirely based on biological factors or a failed chemistry in the brain.

Which ones in particular? 

Turncoat said:

What motives make it just, other than stuff like the court shooting story you mentioned earlier?

I'm saying it depends on the mental health of said murderer, and it depends on the scenario, was it in self-defense or not? Was it someone drunk and accidentally shot? I'm saying it depends on the case. I'm saying there should still be punishment but maybe not as severe. 

All of these things can be circumstantially argued instead of objectively. Ever hear of the anime Psychopass? 

In your system, if I were to commit a murder I'd be held more accountable than other people by my birthright. Is that really fair towards people like me? Shouldn't we be pitying the mentally ill who found themselves confused enough to commit a murder? 

Turncoat said:

You seem to look at humanity as if sociology were a single host body, and that specific practices and politics are like a disease upon it.

I view humanity as being strongly impacted based on the conditions and how the society it is in works, instead of looking at humans as if they were in a vacuum. 

How strongly though? 

I'd figure that the condition of a culture is mostly ingrained through it's history, but as we're seeing with Globalization and The Internet that's either less true than ever or was never true to begin with. 

Why does humanity matter to you? What makes it's fate important enough to throw your one life at it's changes? I see the human race as largely doomed towards being itself, and as a result I see any aim towards great change as pointless unless it's the destruction of history itself.