>>161168Nah, I asked him to start another thread if he was actually curious here:
>>161165Sorry for that
he probably isn't, but I'll answer his question about anti-natalism anyway.>>161167>while people are also antinatalist and say that life is inherently bad, in that case isn't people being killed good? Because life is bad?The first thing you need to understand about something like anti-natalism is that it's pure philosophy. The question of whether life and living is a net positive (natalism) or net negative (anti-natalism) is so broad and abstract that it has many different interpretations and no absolute, universally agreed-upon solutions. You also are not on a site with any absolute, universal stance on life or "being a suicidal incel" or whatever. Like, believe it or not, these generalizations you make are based on unwarranted assumptions, which means that a lot of these questions you ask read like complete nonsense because you're the only one who assumes these particular dichotomies to exist.
With that considered, I'll address why anti-natalists (and even many or most pro-mortalists) don't automatically believe that murder is good, and I'll give it to you from my own perspective as someone who actually has a stance on this. All throughout history, there have been killings, wars, and, for much of history, genocides and mass-murders. A pro-mortalist who has thought things through would argue that these are
features of life, not bugs - the waves of pain, torment, destruction, and dispossession are typically caused not by a simple desire to
reduce life, but by an impulse to
acquire wealth, land, power, etc. These things are a feature of any coherent gripe about life - mass murder, rape, plunder, these things are understood by everyone who assesses the negative traits of life to make
life worse, to spread fear, hatred, hunger, and pain. No murder or genocide in history has ever eradicated life, nor has there ever been a single genocide or war started to advance anti-natalist or pro-mortalist goals.
Life itself, as a force external from an individual subject (i.e.
you), is very tough, very tenacious. Life started long before you ever gained consciousness, and it will extend long after you have died, and there's no way around that. It constantly self-replicates, and you have no capacity to stop that. What this means, objectively, is that, for you, for the material substance you're made out of,
death is not the end, but is only a temporary relief. Everything that was once you will be recycled; and just as you emerged, to be aware of your surroundings, from the womb
(assuming you aren't a bot, which might be a pretty risky assumption since you've been asking these bizarre questions on this site for years at this point), so too will new consciousnesses, new awarenesses emerge from the dust you leave behind when "you" have died as an individual. Now, you have to understand what that means; it means that the gap which seems to exist between you and all other living, breathing, perceiving things is really not as real as it appears. At the point of death, you begin to phase back into myriad other forms, and once you lose track of time (and the dead cannot perceive time), the gap of thousands of years which is measured by men will become like an instant. It will feel like less time than it takes to blink one eye, because by the time you have eyes to blink again all of the natural processes which brought you into new being(s) will have already passed.
When you take all of this into mind, whether you think life is a net good or a net bad, you will understand that going around killing others for purely ideological reasons will solve nothing. If you sincerely believe that life itself is a net negative, the only thing you can do reliably, with minimal harm, is to kill yourself and end your subjective suffering for as long as possible, ideally being buried in something very weather proof so that as little of you gets recycled as possible for as long of a time as possible. The longer the gap, the closer
your matter might get to a hypothetical scenario where the life force itself has ended, however long that takes. This "rest" won't be appreciated by you, as it will be imperceivable once you are dead, but it will at least spare you the pain of being alive if you believe that living is pain, and when you are dead, everything dies with you as far as you can tell - IE the problem of "natalism" vs. "anti-natalism" cannot exist to a dead man, because subjective reality is perceivable reality, and a dead man has no awareness that life even exists, let alone any philosophical problems which might apply to life as a process.
A living person, however, can perceive the pain it causes to go around terrorizing and murdering people, and can possess a level of awareness to understand, if they are anti-natalist, that thousands of years of murder have not made life "good" and so continued murder will not make life "good." Only one's own removal from life, as a subject, can temporarily solve the problem if, to you, it is perceived to be a problem. This is infinitely more effective for anyone who is serious about anti-natalism or pro-mortalism than killing anyone else would ever be, as the elimination of subjective reality for the one immediately solves the problem in a total and complete way whereas hacking away at others' realities does basically nothing if you're trying to solve your own philosophical problem. Any externalization of this philosophical problem has to face the fact that life, as a force, is genuinely too big to be extinguished to any extent which would do anything other than causing more pain. Trying to live, as a human, while pursuing external anti-human ideals is a nonsense, and completely paradoxical. Violence and killing of others can never attain goals outside of the scope of material human existence, which is subjected to life rather than operating outside of it.
And RE "suicidal incels" - incels don't exist. Or, at the very least, the vast majority of supposed incels are not "involuntarily" celibate to the extent they claim. It's actually extremely easy to have sex; ugly people, poor people, and people with shit personalities do it all the time, and making an identity out of
not having sex is extremely stupid if it really bothers you that much that you haven't had sex yet. The idea that someone has to be a "10/10 rich chad" or whatever to have sex is complete fucking made up nonsense, and I recommend that if someone is really considering killing themselves over something as vapid as a lack of sex, they should reconsider and open their mind to the possibility that their goal might actually be extremely attainable. Loneliness is a serious problem, but some of ya'll have very unrealistic standards, and a lot of ya'll are socially awkward and might not even notice if a girl is flirting with you. It can be very easy for a young man, or even an older man, to get the impression today that he is worthless, or ugly, or weaker than he actually is, and the truth is that a lot of this is delusion - that's not to say that everyone who feels this way will find great acceptance among most crowds, but you don't have to keep beating yourselves up all the time and identifying yourselves purely based on your own insecurity and loneliness. There are loads of things to be miserable about in life, but if what you want is pussy, I guarantee that most of you can get it. And some of you are just gay. Maybe most. That's ok, too.
Not answering the rest, you've got to learn more about the world than, like ,
"there's this one Mussolini quote.">>161174Don't listen to anything this guy says, he's as clueless as you are, OP.