[-] oreoreore@lemy.lol 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

That's my point. Willpower (independent of biology+environment) isn't a thing to begin with.

[-] oreoreore@lemy.lol 30 points 1 day ago

Now if we only stopped thinking that willpower is some magical fairy dust we were all granted when we turned 18 and not using it "correctly" indicates moral failure.

For real, this just boggles my mind. All this neuroscience, psychology, biology and so many still somehow believe in some vague magical essence that is totally independent of any biological or environmental factors.

[-] oreoreore@lemy.lol 1 points 4 days ago

Oh but there certainly are people who wield every one of those insults against another with the intent to describe the core of their being. The difference between calling someone stupid, and calling someone's action stupid is a vast one. I am glad you see it, but many do not.

[-] oreoreore@lemy.lol 5 points 5 days ago

You suggest I see a psychologist, yet psychology confirms my point: we are the products of our neurobiology and our environments.

If you believe there is a part of the human mind that exists outside of cause and effect, I’d love to see the clinical study that located it.

[-] oreoreore@lemy.lol 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Oh if only humanity did have an universally agreed upon meaning and point, so much strife could be avoided. Alas, such a thing does not exist in reality, but only in the minds of people. Those ever malleable and shifting minds.

I do as I do because because I am compelled, indeed! Because I wish to see less cruelty in the world. It is simplicity itself. And if I spoke in full truth, I would never say anything at all.

[-] oreoreore@lemy.lol 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Those people calling other aren’t bad for calling someone stupid or lazy if they don’t have free will.

You have grasped it.

If you assume free will doesn’t exist, evil or good doesn’t either.

Correct.

Murder or curing cancer, it’s like the sun shining, and inavoidable, neutral fact.

Correct.

Of course you may dismiss this as rambling idiocy, but I won’t hold it against a clockwork automaton.

No, you have grasped exactly what I said, at least on the level of the intellect. I realize of course you resist as it goes against what you merely WISH to be true. This I cannot do anything about, as you said. But you have understood perfectly. Well done!

[-] oreoreore@lemy.lol 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

So far as I have been shown:

People ask not to be born.

People ask not to be born to the parents they are blessed or cursed with.

People ask not for the environment within which their formative formative years occur.

So far as I have been shown, no angel descents from the heavens to bestow upon everyone equally the magical gift of just knowing right from wrong. Indeed, the very idea of right and wrong are wholly dependent on the circumstance of one's birth. Did their mother whisper them tales of evil men who would lay with another, or did a kindly neighbor teach them the value of kindness and friendship? Or were they beset by men addled by inherited hatred and were they taught to wield a gun before they even knew love? 'Tis true most people will know pain from pleasure, but even what you perceive as pain and what as pleasure depends upon how you formed before you set eyes on the world. As we share most other features that make us human, we can assume what hurts you will hurt another, what pleases you will please another - but there is ever an exception to every rule. It is but a human tendency to associate most pleasure with good, and most pain as evil. Useful one to be sure, if one values the well-being of one's kin. But an universal truth it is not.

If you say some people turn to evil no matter how they were taught: how then could they choose to be different? If you say some people turn kind regardless of any suffering they had to endure: how then could they have chosen otherwise?

Furthermore, you yourself do not even know the nature of the next thought before it has already revealed itself. Think now of an animal.

Did you know what animal would manifest in your mind before it already found purchase within it?

If you say you may deliberate a thought before a choice is made, how did the choice to deliberate come about? You do not know if you will ponder a choice for an eternity before you have already done so. You may say "I'll think about it" but you do not know if you have thought about it, before you have thought about it. You did not choose the tendency. And if you say, you chose to learn: how did you know you were going to choose to learn, before you were learning it?

No, I do not believe in free will. It is but an artifact of ideologies that cater to our more base desire of being utterly beyond reproach of other women and men. It pleases the zealot in our hearts who wants to think of itself as the paragon of virtue. For if there is no absolute good or evil, and no inherent ability to choose one from the other, how would it partake in the joy of judging others to be lesser than it? It could not. It would have to see itself as no better than the most heinous of criminals, but for the circumstances of its life. This is the bitterest of pills to swallow, and thus even those of us most conscious to these realities gag when faced with that which truly offends us. Which is why this is no mere lever you pull in your brain and have it be set once and for all. No, it takes lifelong vigilance, facing the zealot every time it reaches for the gavel and fixing it with your unrelenting attention, until it recedes back into the darkest corner of your heart. There is may merely be an advisor to your desire to do good in the world, but no more.

[-] oreoreore@lemy.lol 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

You state that words like "stupid" or "lazy" are mere descriptors for common traits, and in this, you are correct. But let us be explicit: these words are not neutral. They are not clinical. They are not even accurate. They are judgments masquerading as observations, and their function is not to describe, but to dismiss, belittle and shame.

It is not the existence of laziness or folly that demands scrutiny, it is the impulse to label a human being as such, as though their value hinges on productivity or flawless reasoning. When you call a person "lazy," you are not documenting a transient state; you are rendering a verdict. A judgment from a throne no higher than theirs. You ignore the depressed individual for whom movement is a Herculean task, the neurodivergent mind locked in executive dysfunction, the exhausted worker crushed beneath systems designed to extract labor without regard for humanity. The word "lazy" does not describe a choice. It erases a context.

Likewise, "stupid" is not a measure of intellect, it is a weapon. It presumes intelligence is a moral achievement, not a confluence of biology, environment, and luck. It assumes that those who fail to meet an arbitrary standard of competence deserve contempt, rather than inquiry. If a machine malfunctions, we do not call it "stupid"; we examine its design. Why, then, do we reserve such charity for objects, and withhold it from people?

The question is NOT whether we should "ban" these words. It is whether we recognize their purpose: to punish, not to understand. Language does not merely reflect reality, it constructs our perception of it. When we default to scorn, we architect a world where struggle is met with derision, where complexity is flattened into moral failure, and where the burden of proof always lies with the accused. This is not how justice works. This is not how compassion works.

Furthermore, if one desires a change in the conduct of one they would deem a fool, has shaming been shown to work? NAY! It has been demonstrated time and time again that shaming yields not the behavior of a distinguished individual but a seething hatred towards those that inflicted the wound. A resentment that easily turns what was once a mere human folly into a vitriolic conviction. You may then have no hope of opening this fortress of bitterness to see the harm their actions wrought, indeed they may feel justified in their actions. So as have been done unto them, they will do unto others.

https://drdevonprice.substack.com/p/laziness-does-not-exist

https://www.uva.nl/shared-content/uva/en/news/press-releases/2025/08/guilt-makes-us-more-prosocial.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216671499_The_longitudinal_links_between_shame_and_increasing_hostility_during_adolescence

https://neurosciencenews.com/guilt-shame-behavior-neuroscience-30065/

Of course, if your desire is merely to feel good for a moment as you unleash an insult upon another, by all means. But this is not the behavior of a paragon of virtue, rather it is base.

[-] oreoreore@lemy.lol 10 points 6 days ago

How do you know? How can you be so certain in your judgment, and declare that another’s "stupidity" or "laziness" is not the shadow of a mind wired differently? Can you see the gears turning askew?

What is stupidity to your mind? What is laziness? If they were born stupid, if they were raised without care, would you fault them? When did Gods descent from heavens and bestow you with the wisdom to always do what is right? Why may not all have this privilege?

If you are wrong, if that "laziness" is exhaustion, that "stupidity" a misfiring synapse: then you’re not just cruel, you are part of the problem.

[-] oreoreore@lemy.lol 13 points 6 days ago

Accountability? Yes, accountability is good. It’s proper and necessary to address harmful actions and ensure steps are taken to prevent recurrence. This is entirely possible, and likely more effective, without resorting to insult.

Insults are just punitive justice in a social context: a counterproductive way to discharge outrage rather than foster change. It is to temporarily soothe the egoic zealot lurking within the hearts of all. The research is clear: whether in criminal justice or interpersonal conflict, rehabilitative approaches (clear boundaries, restorative dialogue, support) reduce harm more effectively than punishment alone.

To believe that hate may be remedied with further hate is to mistake fire for water.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8196268/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00938548251335322

74

We have decided some brain quirks are disorders (and get accommodations, as is compassionate), whilst others are flaws (and get slurs). But no one picks their hardware. You cannot earn a better prefrontal cortex or deserve a calmer amygdala. Nor does one get to pick the environment they are born in, which will inform their choices later in life. Even the capacity to "learn better" is a roll of the dice, some brains start the race with sprinting shoes, others with lead weights.

So when we call someone stupid, lazy or insane we are not describing a choice, but simply announcing which kinds of unlucky we’ve decided are worthy of scorn.

14

Liberation isn’t just an event, it’s a story we tell each other to remember it’s possible. A war might topple a regime, a law might grant rights, but if no one sees it, if it doesn’t ripple through the collective imagination, it’s just a tree falling in the forest of history. The real work isn’t the act itself; it’s the echo. Without witnesses, even victory is just a footnote. And in the age of algorithms, if the echo doesn’t go viral, did the tree ever make a sound?

How do we even know what liberation is if not for the drumbeat that announces it through the ages.

view more: next ›

oreoreore

joined 4 weeks ago