a

@nprofile…z9f3 2 doesn't exist ontologically until you describe it. morals are much the same. if there were no persons in the universe then what morals exist? you introduce moral actors by ascribing moral properties to them, which require a context to be qualified
> i don't think the concept of the universe applying morality in the same way for all people is farfetched
what does the universe say morally about homosexuality or putting ice cream in your back pocket? who speaks for the universe?
i mean, when you fall off a cliff, you can reason about physics or gravity up until the point that you die. what does moral reasoning do in a universal sense? "civilization"? the morals of that civilization depend on the civilization's values. one civilization ends, another begins, there need not be moral continuity between the two

2026-03-03 14:31:02 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z9f3 i was making a social media post not a formal philosophical argument but okay 😇
btw "2" is a symbol that can represent anything linguistically, and the concepts that it represents doesn't have a truth value either (unless you count "truthiness" coercion in dynamic languages, where 0 is "false"). this is likewise not objective because "2" has to be contextualized like any other symbol in a processing context. trinitarian christians might say "three is one" and take that to be a profound universal truth, but even if you agree in-context, you might disagree arithmetically. try making that statement in a programming language and you get "false".
mostly the thing i am commenting on is the idealism and also the strange coincidence that the universal ideal just so happens to align with whoever is stating it. it's not me saying this, it's the universe which is objectively true and agrees with me and is my friend. i can't take responsibility for any of my beliefs or statements because i am only describing a universal truth. i'm just a messenger, i don't make the rules, etc.

2026-03-03 06:54:27 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z9f3 maybe this is just the classical moral objectivist vs relativist argument but if you're a relativist the idea that morals are objective is already something you disagree with, and the idea that morals have a truth value is likewise inconsistent
being a relativist doesn't justify immoral actions, it just attributes them to something other than the universe. morals are ideals that require some kind of application to be effective. the very fact that people *can* disagree on what is moral is enough to disprove the idea that they are universal (if they were truly universal they would be self-evident and not require agreement)
this isn't even a marxist thing imo, it's just the realization that you aren't the universe (because it's pretty curious how the objective moral truth just so happens to be the thing i agree with)

2026-03-03 04:34:07 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z9f3 i get that the bottom text is theoryslop but i was more commenting about the absurdity of the top text

2026-03-03 01:54:34 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z9f3
> objectively morally false
:lain_confused:

2026-02-27 03:49:52 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…tsag i'm talking about people you know personally, too

2026-02-27 03:48:49 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…tsag which platform

2026-02-27 03:48:03 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…tsag they already have, haven't they?

2026-01-21 21:48:16 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…tsag @nprofile…ehgy @nprofile…5vpa @nprofile…23w6 you're welcome

2025-12-10 22:56:45 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…rt7m @nprofile…rrun gee i sure wish borders weren't a thing so people actually *could* leave

2025-11-03 01:06:14 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…pvqa as opposed to christianity being fine but christians being shit?

2025-04-04 19:00:03 UTC

minecraft mod for adding quail

2025-03-25 17:02:39 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…zn5x better or worse than mutant standard

2025-03-07 18:30:44 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…zn5x depends if other people are gonna play? last time you did one i feel like there were maybe 2-4 people on at various times, and i wouldn't mind playing the same world either, but just playing what is basically single-player is not very motivating

2025-03-02 15:49:01 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…hmru you mean to tell me that kotaku published something inaccurate? wow, i would never expect that from noted reliable source kotaku

2025-02-26 19:08:26 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…h6f2 do you need seo help or something

2025-02-17 17:25:38 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…h6f2 i use "propaganda" in a positive context a lot, which is funny because people have a very negative connotation of the word

2025-02-17 17:14:30 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…58xm @nprofile…h6f2 the leftist view on propaganda is that propaganda is anything that promotes a viewpoint. so the previous sentence is propaganda.
separately re: racism, there is a distinction between "racism" and "racial prejudice". the -ism denotes institutions and ideology.

2025-01-22 20:20:37 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…h6f2 @nprofile…58xm at that point the two pleromae would not be using AP right? AP explicitly does actor-to-actor because they wanted to make it less work to port to p2p setups

2025-01-22 20:17:34 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…h6f2 @nprofile…58xm federation isn’t between servers, it’s between actors. if you have m actors on one server and n actors on another server, you need to negotiate up to m*n connections in theory.
the way around this is to explicitly recognize servers by making them into actors which own everything, or otherwise add a mechanism for hierarchical ownership beyond 1 recursion level (Service owns Person, Person owns Note, only the Service can be communicated with)