Are we bad people? - Morality and the farms.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I don’t think we’re bad or good, I think we’re too esoteric to really be defined in a proper way, it’s almost like we’ve ascended above morality in a traditional sense. It’s not really fair to judge the farms by traditional normal ethic codes because we are far from a normal website.
 
I remember hearing a quote, “if you don’t believe in anything you are basing your morals and values off your own bias and perverse sense of what your reality is” or something along those lines.

I thought I was living as a good person but hearing that made me question my own perspective and perception of events. I looked back and realized there actually were things that I did that were not good at all that I thought wasn’t too bad in the moment.

Do I take myself to be better than our creator? Whatever that may be? Do I believe my own bias to be better than that of the holy divine?

I don’t know if I am a good person or a bad person anymore. All I know is that I don’t follow purely my own judgment and it has brought major success to my life. It was a humbling experience in my journey through what I believe in.
 
I don't know. Honestly, it doesn't even matter that much. You can be a good person but the snake will still bite you or strangle you if it can. You can only do your best.
 
I remember hearing a quote, “if you don’t believe in anything you are basing your morals and values off your own bias and perverse sense of what your reality is” or something along those lines.
Click to expand...
Okay ... there are two things here.

Thing 1: It's always good to ask yourself if your perspective is skewed, or if you're rationalizing something. We are all fallible and we can be wrong about things. That's not "perverse", that's just being finite.

But thing 2: You really shouldn't outsource your conscience to any other person or ideology. At the end of the day, *you* have to decide right from wrong. How do you evaluate someone else's moral claims? You can't *not* do that, or you are flying blind.

I don't know if you've noticed, but ideologies/religions/cults/etc are constantly trying to get people to abdicate their own independent understanding of the world. Accusations of fallibility get leveraged into belief that you can't trust your own judgement, and eventually into demands that you substitute someone else's judgement for your own. Before you know it, phrases like "I don't know what is good for me", or "lean not on your own understanding" are flying, and it's off to the koolaid stand.

It's hard to use people as meat puppets for mind viruses if they stick to their guns and always insist on their right to form their own picture of the world. Don't take the moral framing of someone/some-group as automatically right or better than your own. Why is your sense perverse and theirs holy? Notice how many things mankind has been bugeyed loony-bin WRONG about, and yet so self-righteously confident they would murder for it. Notice how *predatory* most ideologies are, and then ask the same questions about *all* of them.

TLDR: Don't take the moral evaluations of mankind entirely seriously. They're assholes.
 
troll answer: yes, we are worse than satan and hitler combined. we are the reason why every troon has killed themself. hide your wife and children cause the kiwifarms will get you.

real answer: i mean no, i wouldn't think so. in my autistic politics, everyone should be able to speak what they want, regardless of how it's said. i would argue places like kiwifarms are a necessary evil, regardless if the mainstream accepts something, you should be able to disagree with it. no matter how retarded it is. if some 1488 nazi wants to say "i really fucking hate jews and niggers". is it a shitty thing to say? sure, but he still has the right to say and feel that way like anyone else. the one thing i hate about arguing about free speech with libtards is that most of the time, you're defending racism. just because i support a right, doesn't mean i support what somebody says.
 
We're a side effect of a reality constructed by billionaires who have been spending decades desperately trying to redraw the world map to their own specifications for the next hundred years of human history. Just like what happened after WW1 where the Europeans carved up the middle east in such a way where they're still fighting to this day.

Only difference is instead of a war like WW1, the faggot force has been using social justice to create a wedge between the lower classes, while sacks of shit like Soros bankrupt other countries and destabilize them. Capitalism changed from crony capitalism to corporatism in our lifetime and everything's being sanitized to remove individuality and culture so its easier to manipulate people who don't know how to think on their own or even think outside of the box.

I think this is where Metokur was right, laughing at these fuckers is something that they cant stand. I think its more human curiosity though. If you hear someone laughing, you want to see what's so funny. Laughter can also be contagious and can change perspectives too. Essentially we're people who never lost our sense of humor and realize how absurd reality is. Rather than play along with the rest of the herd who seek each others approval, we have a habit of laughing at something stupid and calling it gay. Same as always.

Its not that everyone else drunk the koolaid per se, I think its more ego. People have accepted the new lie that says "agreeing with the right politics makes you a good person" and then get a pass to go around and burn down their cities and attacking people because some dumb criminal nigger got choked out 300 or 400 miles away. Media gave them a pass, social media gave them a pass and they gave themselves a pat on the back while screaming .

There is an absurdity to all this nonsense thats become more and more overt. We're immature nonconformists who somehow developed an awareness for absurdity that never stopped laughing. Considering how insane society itself has and will always be, making fun of trannys, faggots, furries, and retards online isn't even a footnote in a history book.
 
This is something that I was thinking about and have some notes from based on different ethical systems and in short. No, we're not. If you post on the Kiwi Farms there's nothing ontologically bad about you because of it. Going to base this off of a Kantian approach with Deontology which is not a consequentialist view (I'll come back to this later as to why consequentialism gay). I'm going to gloss over a series of maxims which in essence form a fundamental defence for the farms and at the end I will respond briefly to a consequentialist view and why we should not accept consequentialist views.

In the functionality of the Farms, we have to acknowledge that farms is purely one that observes and laughs at what happens. We may discuss things, take the Thunderdome or beauty parlor but in either case we do not go out of our way to harm someone. Anyone making use of a personal army request shall be frowned upon, we are not an autistic illuminati. Our intent is to not manipulation or to get people to do things for us, no what makes a lolcow a lolcow is that they'll do it themselves. We sit on the side-lines and laugh, we talk about them. It is often the choice of the lolcow themselves to interact with the farms. Think Keffals, they purposely chose to escalate even though they had been advised specifically not to talk about the farms on the grounds that the users of the farms make a rational choice to view a thread based upon the utility, the lols, that one gets from it. This being what Contrapoints told Lucas.

Firstly, there are often clear rules when it comes to Deontology. The goal is to define ethical rules based around if we have a duty to it. Some common maxims (univerisal laws) that come up such as "don't lie" and "don't cheat". For us to have a duty to obide by a maxim, it must meet a criteria. There is that of the "universal law" which questions if we can will that such a world can exist. Take the example of "do not lie", the reason as to why we have a duty to not lie is because of if we do lie, it becomes impossible to trust someone and such a world we cannot will to happen given the importance of concepts such as trust for which would be destroyed via lying. One could easily use this to state that there should not be a "an international stalking doxxing and hate harassment site" on the grounds that such a site destroys the veil of privacy and brings harm to an individual. We however, have defined the Kiwi Farms' functionality differently. We don't go out of our way to harass as we do not interact with someone. The process of doxing does not harm the individual but rather the information of said dox. As such, you do not shoot the mess anger. We do not bring harm to that individual, instead someone has to bring it to their attention either by proxy or the individual being discussed has to stumble across it. By using the negative against KF we can firstly dismiss the initial argument as to why one cannot accept the farms because "muh doxxing bad". Take one of the earliest things us humans discovered, fire (combustion) we can argue that . Yet, fire as a whole is necessary to the establishment of other processes in science. Fire is necessary for even the most basic things like heating up food. Accepting the maxim that the farms is bad because of doxing, then we are also saying we should not have fire because it can harm people. This of course is not the entire process of the categorical imperative. Rather, it is the first part which is primarily considered if we can will such a world. Thus, it is impossible to will a world where the farms do not exist. We have a moral duty to accept doxing on the grounds of preserving knowledge.

The biggest argument specifically comes to that of another point of the categorical imperative with upon how we should not use people as a means to an end. This in essence means we shouldn't be using people against their will. One can possibly say that their content was posted against their will on another site despite them previously publishing. However, if the person has specifically made it public then should they be able to retract it? Should they have the right to destroy the content and wipe it from the internet? I don't think so, I believe that there must be a sense of maturity when it comes to the internet and that of the understanding that anything and everything you could say could be preserved until times end. This sense of vigilance must be maintained. Ever send dick picks to others and they get leaked? You are at fault simply for sending them on the grounds that you did not need to, you chose to. You decided to put yourself at risk. We can bring this back to the previous moral duty in favour of doxing as it is primarily considered to preservation. Though, I do doubt that a dick pick would change the world. We do not force people to act for our entertainment, we simply archive what they post for which they are responsible for. They did not lose any autonomy from acting in such a way. I do wish to highlight however some parameters surrounding the agent and their responsibility, specifically that of minors. This does not concern the farms on the grounds that those that are specifically talked are of age. An individuals agency in this sense is a being that is rational, and is of high maturity fit for the internet. This is not as much the case today with children being on the internet though this site has a clear no minors policy. One may bring up the desmondisamazing thread though this is primarily concerned more to do with the parents of "desmond" and how Wendy Lou exploits her son. This is also why CSAM would not be acceptable given the preservation of knowledge point. I have not chosen to go into as much detail surrounding the intricacies of such a maxim as I doubt people would want to read a thorough philosophy essay (which tbf, I do suck at philosophy essays).

To sperg a little more on free speech; Free Speech is something that can be defended by the negative of imagining a world where if it did not exist, then what we are doing is in effect limiting the ideas of discourse. Words convey ideas, images. Cultures may not have a practice . A classic example would be that of the colour blue. How does one know what something is without a word? Imagine if there was no equivalence for "no". In such a world things such as rape would be considered "fine". Words are what allow us to understand the world around us. Thus, free speech helps to be able to allow us to "know" things. Words and language are for this reason the most important thing that humanity will ever make. As much as the "trust the science" shills may like to be like "nuh uh, it's AI" or whatever tech Wunderwaffe is fashionable at that time they simply put do not understand the significance of language. Consequently, we get a defence for Kiwi Farms on the grounds of the importance of free speech which ties into the preservation of knowledge maxim. Remember, deontological ethics aren't based around the consequences of following the maxim so it isn't concerned with the offense or reaction of the individual. One could argue that the defence of Free Speech is itself fundamental in defending the actions of KF, and I do believe this to be so.

In many ways, I do believe the Farms to be perhaps one of the most moral sites on the web from a deontological approach. Users are not forced to lie, to act in a specific culture to post on the site. Take Twitter for example, the cathedralite culture that has been pushing the "New Soviet Man Wokeoid Breathing Rational Creature" which in effect forces users to often conform to a prescent desirable. Individuals will be molded upon the collective goal that arises in the elite spheres. Algorithms exist specifically to push echo chambers and try to control the nature of thought in a select direction. If you don't like, if you don't accept the coercion you will be dehumanized. This definitely goes against the maxim of "don't lie" and as such, is unacceptable. This cannot be universalized as the ontological foundation of it is the acceptance of the "lie" under the guise of an epistemological world view which requires constant social conflict. (oh and you know, it goes against free speech).

With consequentialism, it is hard to be able to judge the prospectus consequences surrounding lolcows as by their very nature they can make irrational, unpredictable choices (despite them in many ways being reational beings). One may argue that it is impossible for . It is the consequential, utilitarian argument that is often used against the farms on the basis that "omg they literally killed 3 people", and even if that was the case then we would in effect be saying no one should discuss anyone on the grounds that there are unpredictable consequences of such an action, and if such things (such as death) are so repugnant that we should not allow any acts to even have a 0.1% chance. I do believe the suicides are not directly relevant to the morality of the farms, given the deontological basis that I have provided. We may joke about the killcount but we are not going out of their way to slaughter every single tranny we see with a lethal can of deodorant (or a chainsaw). We should not be judged upon the morality of the unexpected given there was not gross negligence. Which in the case of the farms, there is not. The users of the site are weridos discussing weirdos. Intent matters most and no one wanted the unholy trinity to die (well the unholy duology, we all know you're still alive Byuu!).

Though, I do wish to note that there could be a utilitarian argument in favour of the farms given the utility derived from the cow. I do not wish to explore this argument as I am specifically concerned with deontology.

We are not bad people, in many ways we have a moral duty to act in the way to do with the core maxim of my defence (that of the importance of knowledge and its preservation). We do not go out of the way to harm people on the site, and though many users may desire to pozload my negholep this is not official policy. The moral argument as such, is based upon a general view of the site and the values it advertises to pertain to. We do not go out of their way to take advantage of a person and nurture a condition of the greatest entertainment. An individual has the choice to gain joy out of differing threads and topics. We may gossip about "bad people". This post may feel quite underdeveloped in areas but it was a more general defense upon a core maxim. I had wished to limit the size and scope of this because there are more pressing things for which I would wish to write about and this is more so done as a means to open up further discourse.

Star Wormwood said:
The longer your post in this thread is, the worse of a person you are and the harder you're trying to convince yourself that there's good in you.
Click to expand...
Guess I'm the worst person here. Sweet
 
I'm a bad person but regardless I don't go out of my way to do bad things as often. Besides I never raped or molested anyone so I'm not worse like some of the major cows on here.
 
ConsentAccidentVictimNo98 said:
Anyone making use of a personal army request shall be frowned upon, we are not an autistic illuminati. Our intent is to not manipulation or to get people to do things for us, no what makes a lolcow a lolcow is that they'll do it themselves. We sit on the side-lines and laugh, we talk about them.
Click to expand...

You can see why that makes Kiwifarms an issue though. Recording people and making it available to be indexed by Google, which means access to virtually everyone on Earth, does make us the Autistic Illuminati, even if the intent is just to record the absurdity of humanity. Simply by making such information available, is "manipulating people"

Having a site like this, becoming as popular as it has, is a threat to online narrative control.

rfbi.jpg
 
Omen_Sulk said:
You can see why that makes Kiwifarms an issue though. Recording people and making it available to be indexed by Google, which means access to virtually everyone on Earth, does make us the Autistic Illuminati, even if the intent is just to record the absurdity of humanity. Simply by making such information available, is "manipulating people"
Click to expand...
This is basically what I tried to refer to later, by the use of the phrase "Autistic Illuminati" what it means is that we're not trying to get results. We're not plotting, we're simply observing and laughing. The fault for those that "pozload my neghole" is not of the "site" but rather individual agents and groups. Indeed, I understand why information can be a consequential issue but information by it's nature is neutral, it is merely something for which one uses as they see fit. This is why I tried to give the example of fire in relation to the maxim as fire itself can be used for both bad and good. My moral argument was founded in deontology which is primarily concerned with duties in relation to what makes something right.

Plus, the feds (and ex-feds) are going to fed. Yes, we can be a problem to a narrative. Everything can be. This does not make us neither bad or good.
 
If your friend is walking around with his fly down, are you a bad person if you make fun of him so he zips it up, or are you a bad person if you say nothing so he goes about the rest of his day without a clue he's flashing everyone?
 
ConsentAccidentVictimNo98 said:
This is basically what I tried to refer to later, by the use of the phrase "Autistic Illuminati" what it means is that we're not trying to get results. We're not plotting, we're simply observing and laughing. The fault for those that "pozload my neghole" is not of the "site" but rather individual agents and groups. Indeed, I understand why information can be a consequential issue but information by it's nature is neutral, it is merely something for which one uses as they see fit. This is why I tried to give the example of fire in relation to the maxim as fire itself can be used for both bad and good. My moral argument was founded in deontology which is primarily concerned with duties in relation to what makes something right.

Plus, the feds (and ex-feds) are going to fed. Yes, we can be a problem to a narrative. Everything can be. This does not make us neither bad or good.
Click to expand...

The people with power don't care about moral arguments.

In a tyranny the Jester is the first to be executed.
 
I saw the title of this thread and instantly got some whiplash from the similar thread, "Are we becoming too arrogant?", which has been a dumpster fire for months but recently hit it's apex of entertainment. This thread seems more serious than that thread ever was.

I think it entirely depends on how deeply you involve yourself. Following and discussing lolcows is one thing, but actively trying to TtP and mess with them isn't morally right 99% of the time. In the cases where defenseless people are in harms way because of a lolcow, I could see the morality and ethics of reaching out to law enforcement.

In the recent case of thegooddoctor, an oldfag-turned-minor-homegrown-lolcow, he was a user of the site for so long and actively interacted with the forum and its users. It's hard not to borderline TtP with someone like that because they are everywhere on the site.

In general, I think if you can keep things from being too serious, it's easier to see the morality and ethics lines. But with how batshit crazy the world keeps getting, I understand it seems to only get harder and harder to do so.
 
I believe we are bad, not in a criminally bad way. just not into today's moral standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom