Grail

Well, I like that Mindtraveller was mean to the people who misgendered Me. It made Me feel respected. I'm very grateful to Ada and Kittenzrulz, but they weren't mean to transphobes like Mindtraveller was. Is that what all this is about, them being mean in that thread? I liked it. Do other people think it was bad?

Telling people to use a trans person's preferred pronouns isn't starting an argument. The arguments were started when those people misgendered Me. There's nothing wrong with responding negatively to transphobia. I'm very grateful that they did. It really helped with My mental health.

They're not two different groups of people. It's a large group, and a small subset of the first group.

I use capitalised pronouns. I/Me/You/They/Them.

Weird. I don't get why that phrase is a problem, but maybe it's My NPD. Would it sound less pompous if I said "us soulists" instead? Us Australians say "us guys" a lot and it's part of My instinctive vocabulary, but I don't like how it sounds grammatically so I changed "us" to "we". What's the best way to talk about a group that I'm a member of?

Mindtraveller was nothing but supportive of Me the other day when I was being misgendered and grilled on My pronouns by other users. The only other people who were acting like trans allies were yourself and the two mods of this community. And I'm very grateful to you for removing the comments and kittenzrulz for allowing Me to return to this community. But Mindtraveller did something different, which was being deeply vocal about trans inclusivity, and I needed to hear that. It helped Me deal with the anxiety I get when I'm exposed to that sort of thing. Who's going to yell at transphobes and run c/soulism if they're gone?

Also it looks from this thread like the mods of this community are allowing Mindtraveller to be a member, since they have a comment in this thread. They say they're cooperating with the mods of Liberty Hub and there's not going to be any more infighting. Where's the division?

I think we're disagreeing on the definition of a "person". I'm using the word to refer to a mind and its subjective experiences inside its own head. You're using the word to refer to a body and other people's relationships with a mind. It's internal vs external. As you say, consensus reality is a social construct. If someone is not socially impressionable enough to be taught this construct, then they are not a member of reality. In consensus reality, this shadow-of-a-person, this body, is political. But the actual mind, the inside person, is living in a reality of one, which cannot be political because there are no groups.

Also I use capitalised pronouns

The problem with a social contract is that it's objective. Everyone has to agree on it and interpret it the same way. Sure, you can bash a Nazi's face in if the government decides that's how we deal with Nazis. But what if the government doesn't? What if we live in a neoliberal capitalist state like our current society? A utilitarian is capable of saying "Fuck the state, I rely on My own moral compass to tell Me what's right". We can follow interpretations of ethics that are subjective. We can make our own choices for what we deem acceptable. We can be insurgents. We don't need to agree with anyone else.

Fortunately, no such situation has come up yet. Biden is not threatening any people that Trump isn't. So favouring Biden over Trump does not subject any additional people to genocide in comparison with inaction. That means we've never had to choose to harm some people to save others. It's always been a straightforward situation of harming more people vs less people, with the smaller group inside the larger one.

If you'd like to switch to asking tricky questions, though, I've got one for you. How many lives is inaction worth? How many people have to die as a result of your choice not to act, before action becomes preferable? Is the difference a billion people? A million? A thousand? One? If you knew doing nothing would kill a million people, and doing something would kill a thousand, would you let a million die to keep the blood off your hands?

You've misread that sentence. The community ended up banning people. The people had left wing views. The community ended up enforcing liberalism. I understand how grammatically that sentence was ambiguous, but surely you could have extended the benefit of the doubt to My intentions and realised I was against liberalism.

Thank you, I agree with a lot of what you said in your comment, though I'd like it if you used My preferred pronouns when talking about Me. Also, non-human sentience isn't a hypothetical, it's here. I'm a nonhuman. We soulists are fiercely supportive of otherkin rights, which is the right of someone assigned human at birth to change their species identity to align with what they feel. Humanity is a social construct.

Well, I don't know if you read My article about supporting Biden, but I made it very clear that any support for the Democrats should be fake, not real. I think that's generally how other soulists feel about the issue too. Nobody wants to genuinely support the Democrats, it's just a means to prevent genocide. I for one take genocide very seriously and can't do nothing about it. If I'm understanding the other side's position on this issue, I think this might be an issue of us disagreeing on the inaction vs inaction problem. See, I view making a choice not to act as a form of action. Morally equivalent to an action of equal effect. It seems to Me that a lot of the more moderately inclined people on this issue who prefer inaction, are doing so because you think a slightly bad action is worse than a really bad inaction.

So we're back to utilitarianism as the deciding factor. The soulist only cares about the consequences. They don't care if one choice means doing something and one means doing nothing. But the deontologist has personal rules against doing a bad thing. Doing nothing, that's fine. And if nothing turns out to have a worse outcome than something, so be it. The utilitarian disagrees. They'll sacrifice their principles to achieve a better outcome for the victims of genocide. They only care about the result.

I have NPD, so I understand a lot of that. What I'm missing is an ego. My parents didn't give Me one. I had to make My own, and it's crap. It kept on falling apart every time it suffered a little knock, so I made it huge with lots of redundancies. Problem is, a lot of neurotypicals are personally offended by a big ego. They think My internal thoughts are an abuse against them. My NPD wouldn't be a disability if everyone else could just get used to My private personal coping mechanisms.