The internet was a mistake

[Bertrand]

yeah I get it, but the significance of what can be reproduced as a body of knowledge on which to base your life is impoverished way past anything Giacometti could have envisioned, not to mention the significance to what it is that can be reproduced is still totally empty without more. its an incredibly limited and shallow existence, not only is it relatively narrow its not deep either. maybe in 20,000 years the purely scientific approach will be able to approximate something to what a full human existence entails today, but then there will be entirely new humans who will likewise run ahead. in essence science is always playing catch up, and you're acting like its the future here now. science will one day realize what religion already knows (the real benefits of pro social behavior, and cognitive "unconscious" among other things) and people act like thats some kind of triumph, when it was literally known for millennia, just not in the preferred "objective" language.. and by then new subjectivisms will run ahead. you continually make assumptions about timeline and what is meant (with words like objective/subjective) without realizing that all your "running ahead" is just you being lapped, yet you look back on the runner nearly a full lap ahead as somehow deficient on the basis on nothing but assumption about what is valid. its like if you could find God with science you would be almost a cave man (with some fancy toys and no idea how to use them responsibly), and that's what science will have netted you, except you will die long before science gets there, and you somehow think this is the proper way to live. to simply reject the wisdom of the past in favor of the formalisms of today. no one denies that technology has "progressed" but does anyone expect that technological progress can at all do for us what is really needed? no, if anything quite the opposite, people long more than ever for meaning in a world where one can buy a product that will meet any physical desire. the idea that this is progress is nothing but a bias in favor of solving problems that very few people are struggling with anymore. the real problems plaguing humanity today are the ones we left off on with the enlightenment, and technology is no substitute nor will it ever be for that. your philosophy is essentially just materialistic and empty, because lets assume science does everything that is possible right here right now, what is left? people still need meaning. technological perfection is just as much hell as it is heaven because every bit of character a person develops comes at a cost. you can give them everything and it simply deprives them of the experience of actually living life, which is to want something, to strive, to be defeated, to triumph, to love, to suffer, to hate, to mourn, etc. the idea that human experience starts and stops with technological thinking is nothing but the statement of a person who doesn't aspire to be fully human and does things for God knows what reason. its isn't the solution and it doesn't even understand the problem. its empty chatter on the topic of what is right without understanding the first thing of which it speaks. it simply hopes that maybe one day what can be had today will one day be handed over by science, without realizing that that day never actually comes. its mere prolegomena to sisyphus, not an answer, and definitely no solution

[Desert Financial]

Again, I repeat: it is those that swear only by science that seem the most influenced by religion and philosophy

I should preface this by mentioning that I'm an atheist, but I agree with you here.

As an example, the new atheist movement and religious fundamentalists seem like two sides of the same coin, which makes each movement susceptible to the other. Both use evangelical tactics of persuasion to convince people that their narratives are the "gospel truth." The new atheists in particular emphasized a scientific worldview, while fundamentalists obviously cited religious texts as concretely true. Both possess very literal ways of interpreting information. Consequently, we can see how they've bled over in to each other in some regards, since they rely on similar philosophical and persuasive avenues. Fundamentalist apologists have attempted to refer to "scientific" proofs for what they find in the Bible. On the other side of the coin, we find atheistic, logical positivists being drawn to discussion boards that promote abstract ideas like socionics, where people discuss concepts that practically involve the "soul", if you will.

Tbh, I think the way out of loops likes these is through emotional detachment, if nothing more than to gain some perspective.

[idontgiveaf]

It's not a mistake. It can be used properly and improperly.

[The Reality Denialist]

Nah. Humanity was a mistake.

[Ave]

Nah. Humanity was a mistake.

Humanity? A mistake? Of whom?

^-^

[The Reality Denialist]

Humanity? A mistake? Of whom?

^-^

By simulation makers who coded the universe as we know it and yo's momma.

[Ave]

By simulation makers who coded the universe as we know it and yo's momma.

Hell no don't talk about my momma, boy.

I was hoping for something that would make for a better scifi novel, like aliens with an agenda or something. Kinda like in 2001 by Clarke.

Maybe the coders had a purpose in mind?

[Adam Strange]

Hell no don't talk about my momma, boy.

I was hoping for something that would make for a better scifi novel, like aliens with an agenda or something. Kinda like in 2001 by Clarke.

For aliens with an agenda, try "The Screwfly Solution" by Raccoona Sheldon.

[Grendel]

Nah. Humanity was a mistake.

You don't know how right you are.

[Metamorph]

The Internet can bestow divine omniscience, but first you have to get drunk as Hafez and switch your discord to light mode. If you can't do that, it'll curse you like a demon. Holy Holy Holy is the Lord Google Almighty.

...Though that's just what they want you to think. Psst, but it's always been for porn and cats, though never porn with cats.

[timber]

because every bit of character a person develops comes at a cost.

yes

[timber]

You don't know how right you are.

Who are you to say this?

[Grendel]

Who are you to say this?

Another product of the mistake that passes itself off as destiny.

[timber]

Another product of the mistake that passes itself off as destiny.

You think so lowly of yourself. What a miserable self-concept.

[Dauphin]

Mostly yes. It's allowed for the proliferation of dangerous ideas, corruption of morals, etc.
But it's also allowed for people like me to be exposed to great literature, art, music, films, etc. As well it has allowed for other sides of stories to be seen, where otherwise the "official narrative" would not have been questioned.

[Metamorph]

Mostly yes. It's allowed for the proliferation of dangerous ideas, corruption of morals, etc.
But it's also allowed for people like me to be exposed to great literature, art, music, films, etc. As well it has allowed for other sides of stories to be seen, where otherwise the "official narrative" would not have been questioned.

Who needs morals?

"Without YouTube videos, the Internet would be a mistake." — Friedrich Nietzsche

[xerx]

^ it's eerie how prophetic this is. He managed to predict nearly everything wrong with the Internet today -- from irrelevant information glut to safe spaces. Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman is also a must read for anyone who wants to understand how visual media can have a toxic effect on Democracy.