Humanity is overrated

https://catgirl.ai/pages/robot/

haha

quirky crazy

so unique

it's Complicated. i like 'it' pronouns for myself, and if you're talking about me in a place for me to see it and we're among cool people i would very much appreciate it if you used them, but i know 'it' has kind of A History with respect to trans people. and 'she' is still acceptable, i'm still close enough to a girl for that to be okay.

Robots are much more tolerant and understanding than humans. It clearly isn't as as extremist as non binaries.

humans are robots, you dolt

I wonder what these people think of NPC 'meme'. Will they embrace being NPCs or think of it as being part of a big stage play?

>>5
I've always felt like the NPC meme was really just a zoomer-fication of the problem proponents of mindfulness have been tackling for centuries. The big difference being that the former lends itself better to shitposting and therefore has more appeal to a broader audience. The paradox of mindfulness is obvious: it's something you can endeavor towards but never achieve, such as with most Buddhist interpretations of enlightenment, in that you can't exist in the Universe and also reach enlightenment. This culminates in a lot of silly Buddhist literature I've read about Zen masters (and other instructor roles) denying themselves the epiphany that leads them to enlightenment and enables them to leave the mortal plane, but deny themselves of that revelation so that they can further educate their disciples about something the teachers /know/ that they inherently know nothing about. Notwithstanding, in mindfulness, you're always at odds with yourself.

I think it makes sense that young people rallied around the NPC meme, albeit very briefly, because I think the crux of Western generational conflict has a lot to do with the righteousness of our parents, their eagerness to – not be devoid of the Death Drive – but to project onto others; whereas, younger people are more acquainted with irony, the ultimate tool to project that pessimism inwards. For as bleak as irony tends to be depicted in more contemporary pomo literature, it's a necessary device to usurp the conventions of the old generations. For me, righteousness is a bad word. I was flabbergasted the first time an old person used that word as if it was a good thing. It was a serious culture shock. When I go into stores, I'm sometimes afraid that I'm being a bad customer, that the employees are judging me. It was so hard to wrap my head around the idea that anyone would even fathom the inverse.

>>6
Why do you consider acting in a moral way (e.g. righteousness) to be a bad thing?

All this attempts to conflate being a sheep-like NPC with following "moral righteousness" are pathetic simulations of morality. I can see some thinking "society can't be wrong" and "society is obviously cultivating good morality", but you're not actually performing any moral judgement with this: you're calculating the "social acceptance" of a thing, not its moral value.
Its a culture-specific thing(no need to go full Moral Relativism), you adopted from childhood to believe that "My society X moral values/dogma" is the "universal morals"/"moral righteousness" - its merely peer pressure and local cultural beliefs that shape the degree of "righteousness". NPCs can't divorce themselves from religio-cultural complex that dictates "moral righteousness" and think of belonging to the in-group(that centers on this religio-cultural complex) as guarantee of greater "moral righteousness", as if personal traits and flaws are magically shielded or amended by that identity-forming influence(e.g. calling X a "good Christian"). NPCs enjoy being the pawns of dominant culture they can't question the tenets of - they can't rebel or complain without compromising their identity and psychological comfort of being in the herd. That what Marx meant about "opium of the masses", the feeling that being a blind sheep-like follower of a religio-cultural complex gives the NPC a substitute for real moral character, with moral judgement replaced by instinctive "social acceptance"(that deals with people's character, not their abstract moral traits in a situation that would require thinking about the inherent values the morals are based on) - its a quick mental reaction testing if a person/event belong in the framework of "proper member of X religio-cultural complex".
This is the NPCs "moral righteousness" at its barest form: a group standard of "average Joe" that NPC strives to emulate: when a NPC joins a criminal gang he would emulate a "average gangster" from his beliefs of what "criminal gang" moral code is - discarding/replacing previous in-group "moral compass" with bits of current in-group morality.
That would be the real "moral relativism" NPCs harp on about as the greatest evil and threat to their worldview, the fluidity at which NPCs mold themselves to the "current year in-group" blindly following media, peer-pressure groups and their family to "morally drift" anywhere they're manipulated to. Their sacred cow "religio-cultural complex" is not the cornerstone of civilization as they believe, its the key to exploiting their "moral blindspots"(aka character flaws) to mold their behavior towards whatever society_of_current_year deems proper&moral.
They can't grap that this ebil "moral relativism" is actually their society evolving new views and ways to influence NPC masses to do their bidding for the elite, by adding and replacing bits of "religio-cultural complex" that NPCs can't pay attention to.
The other side of the coin, fanatics and elite that follow a crystallized "religio-cultural complex", larping as "moral guardians", cannot adapt to changes in technology and social reform that upend their
beliefs by overthrowing sacred cows, as NPCs are reprogrammed with newest "moral righteousness" that updates "religio-cultural complex" to v2.0, conveniently matching the current year technological level(specifically the level of media and social networking immersion). Which in turn crystallizes and creates its own set of "moral guardians"(e.g. SJWs and political activists) who play the NPCs feelings(what is proper member of "X" in-group/Why Y is more moral than Z) better. NPCs will be easily convinced of anything, like hating their own race/ethnicity, thinking they're guilty of "original sin" or that they're in special group that is always right - the NPCs herd-like deference to nearest authority absolves them from independent judgement and shifts blame to "out-group" that authority uses to manipulate NPC morality("They're threatening our freedom/morality/way-of-life/price-of-hamburgers - go to war/crusade/smear-campaign/public-protest against out-group X").

"Don't judge and you won't be judged"
(Don't dare to proclaim moral judgement and authority won't morally judge you(an empty promise)). This single phrase encapsulates the whole "moral righteousness" of a NPC. NPCs follow the authority "moral judgement" and don't dare to think of making their own - as if being independent thinker upsets the God/Authority/Local ruler and threatens the society's moral fabric. When a NPC is forced to think and lacks an authority to consult, he experiences genuine moral dilemmas as different pieces of programming start clashing with each other:" Do i need to follow X or Y?", yet still the NPC struggles to judge X/Y on their own and instead COMPARES the moral "benefits" of following each path.
You can easily deduce that "moral benefits" are temporary and have no authority over the NPC, so he would shift from X to Y to X to adapt to situation, but won't think of it as "moral relativism". The NPC at each moment is a honest follower of X or Y, who doesn't seem bothered once decided that X/Y is better than Y/X, so their conscience is clean(for a moment). Once they're convinced by authority or forced to switch X/Y to Y/X they start judging their past selves as exhibiting "wrong moral views" and strengthen their Y/X beliefs. In reality there hasn't been a choice and NPC is just switching to whatever the authority of the moment demands - such "fluid thinking" isn't "moral relativism" of course, those moral relativists dare to think as authority does(independent thought=bad,following established moral path=good).

catgirl

tits and then gtfo anyway

>>7
Acting in a moral way is a pretty good definition of the word. The issue I find is that the idea of a moral way seems presumptuous. Righteousness operates on the premise that there is an empirically moral way, which, in itself, seems like a denial of the spiritual, which seems starkly materialistic. How can you have morality in world that is devoid of the spiritual? And by spiritual I don't mean supernatural agents like angels, I just mean metaphysical stuff like love. To impose this idea that there is a specific, worldly manifestation of, say, love, like there is one specific gesture, regardless of circumstance, that will conjure a sense of love, feels paradoxical. I think metaphysical ideas like love can be represented in material form, but not necessarily bound to worldly paraphernalia. So, the nature of something like love, how it's defined, is fundamentally protean. How can you be confident in something that is transient by nature? To be certain in uncertainty in that misses the point.

I think this paradox is the crux of our generational conflict. For a younger person, they're much better equiped to question themselves, their own beliefs. I think the big difference between them and older generations is that, for the latter, righteousness anathema to self doubt.

>>8,9
I think that's a good elaboration on mainstream interpretations of morality. It makes me think about the relationship between ethics and morality. Ethics is this criteria which lets us make moral decisions. It exists for the sake of morality, but morality is also informed by ethics. But when people talk about morality, they do it in a way that seems very arbitrary. Not just arbitrary but idolatrous, in that there isn't any unifying sentiment that can be conveyed in many ways; you have to express a certain idea the one way. It makes me think of an episode of "Bullshit" where some Americans were trying to prohibit profanity in media; but, of course, what words like "cunt" connote in one part of the world isn't necessarily as obscene in a place like Ireland, because the word "cunt" is technically just sound, no inherent meaning, but most contexts, nonetheless, have their obscenities, have their idea of obscenity, but it isn't universally represented by just one thing.