Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Accountant]

You obviously have not seen media that doesn't go by common tropes. Not all media goes by common tropes. In some, soldiers are portrayed realistically, and in a game such as This War of Mine, you play as a civilian living in the fallout of war; not being killed, yet being unable to flee. You want to be able to control everything to your liking. Not only is the moral authority made by you, it is you who wants to impose it. You are the evil dictator of yore. It is you who wishes to take upon that position. Thank fuck you're too lazy to do it.

I acknowledge that games like This War of Mine exist. But they are not the games I am talking about. Let us leave the "realism" to games like This War of Mine. When it comes to what should actually be implemented, I assert that my system is far better and way more orderly.

I agree that my ideas are dictatorial. I'm not sure why you think they are evil.

[Accountant]

I have feelings that you have no sense of humor. I wouldn't have those feelings if they weren't objective truths.

For you to claim that, you are claiming essentially that everything you think is objective truth. This is a ridiculous assertion.

[Sesq]

What I am trying to say is that all moral problems can be solved through the use of simple and absolute principles. That does not mean the principles can be easily executed. Lifting a 100kg dumbbell is very simple. There is no complexity in it at all. It is not, however, easy to perform.

But do you have complete knowledge of the situation? No. If you did, you could make a decision based off of moral principles. In the real world, most conflicts cannot easily be solved by solid moral principles, or by any moral principles.

I'm not sure what to say to this other than to assert that you're wrong. It doesn't apply to my system. I'm interested in seeing what arguments you have for reality being everything other than flat out asserting that it is.

"I'm interested in seeing what arguments you have for cars being machines that transport people other than flat out asserting they are."

It's in the definition of it.

Why is it necessary to understand how anything works to understand how it should work? Is it necessary to understand the intricacies of, for instance, medieval political systems to assert that liberal democracies are better and should be enacted in place of those systems?

You don't need to understand how things work to determine something is better, however, if you wish to implement the better system, you do need an understanding of how to change the system over. Also, your example? I'm beginning to think there's something else going on here...

I acknowledge that games like This War of Mine exist. But they are not the games I am talking about. Let us leave the "realism" to games like This War of Mine. When it comes to what should actually be implemented, I assert that my system is far better and way more orderly.

I agree that my ideas are dictatorial. I'm not sure why you think they are evil.

You're admitting to ignoring things because they conflict with your narrative... OK. Whatever you wish. One of the main points here is that the head of the system you are proposing is YOU. YOU think that you have all the answers. You think YOUR moral principles are above all others, to the point of silencing opposition. You are a child who thinks they are right and is stubborn and close-minded to any other beliefs. You want control.

I have feelings that you have no sense of humor. I wouldn't have those feelings if they weren't objective truths.

For you to claim that, you are claiming essentially that everything you think is objective truth. This is a ridiculous assertion.

This is me using your logic against you. You have called your own logic "ridiculous assertion" now.

[Accountant]

But do you have complete knowledge of the situation? No. If you did, you could make a decision based off of moral principles. In the real world, most conflicts cannot easily be solved by solid moral principles, or by any moral principles.

You don't need complete knowledge of the situation. You just make a decision to the best of your ability with the knowledge you have. If the knowledge is very little, investigate more and continue applying the same absolute principles to the new knowledge. If it comes out later that you made the wrong call because of the lack of knowledge, it's not your fault - after all, you applied the correct principles, so it's just a tragic accident.

[Accountant]

"I'm interested in seeing what arguments you have for cars being machines that transport people other than flat out asserting they are."

It's in the definition of it.

"the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

Are you claiming that ideas that have no grounding in reality are nothing? Because if so you're extremely close minded. I understand that my correct path exists even if all of reality tells it that it is incorrect. Only the most cowardly, undetermined quitter would stop trying to impose their principles of reality just because reality says they can't.

What sort of person would bow to something that contradicts their axioms just because it's real? Such a person would have no agency at all. They would be the most boring of boring people, an unperson that does not deserve to be called human. That is a disgusting mindset and your slavish obedience to the laws of reality are what guaruntee that you will never be able to impose your ideals onto the world.

[Accountant]

You don't need to understand how things work to determine something is better, however, if you wish to implement the better system, you do need an understanding of how to change the system over. Also, your example? I'm beginning to think there's something else going on here...

You do not need to change the system. No. What you do is you rip the old, inferior system out, completely annihilate it as though it had never existed in the first place and reduce society to a blank slate that you implant the correct system on. You can't grow flowers from the seeds of weeds. If your garden is infested with weeds, you shouldn't bother understanding the weeds or trying to breed weeds thst look like flowers. Simply uproot all of them and plant your own flowers.

[Accountant]

You're admitting to ignoring things because they conflict with your narrative... OK. Whatever you wish. One of the main points here is that the head of the system you are proposing is YOU. YOU think that you have all the answers. You think YOUR moral principles are above all others, to the point of silencing opposition. You are a child who thinks they are right and is stubborn and close-minded to any other beliefs. You want control.

Yes. This is correct. The world is full of wrongness and disorder. My principles are the only thing that can fix it, and therefore the only way to stop evil is to allow my system to control everything. Anyone who doesn't have this line of thought either doesn't believe their system is truly for the best or does not have the guts to take their ideals to the logical outcome.

[Accountant]

This is me using your logic against you. You have called your own logic "ridiculous assertion" now.

No. I am allowed to use that line of logic, because I am right. Only right people can use that logic. It is the privilege granted to us for being right.

[Davsto]

oh good this thread is back

[Not_Mafia]

The Utopia marches ever forward

[Annadog40]

The Utopia sits around and does nothing while expecting everyone to go along for no reason.

FIFY

[Sesq]

But do you have complete knowledge of the situation? No. If you did, you could make a decision based off of moral principles. In the real world, most conflicts cannot easily be solved by solid moral principles, or by any moral principles.

You don't need complete knowledge of the situation. You just make a decision to the best of your ability with the knowledge you have. If the knowledge is very little, investigate more and continue applying the same absolute principles to the new knowledge. If it comes out later that you made the wrong call because of the lack of knowledge, it's not your fault - after all, you applied the correct principles, so it's just a tragic accident.

Holy shit you said something entirely reasonable WHAT DO WE DO

I'm being serious, you're spot-on here.

What I'm wondering is what you do in a situation where all the options end up conflicting your principles in some way.

"the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

Are you claiming that ideas that have no grounding in reality are nothing? Because if so you're extremely close minded. I understand that my correct path exists even if all of reality tells it that it is incorrect. Only the most cowardly, undetermined quitter would stop trying to impose their principles of reality just because reality says they can't.

What sort of person would bow to something that contradicts their axioms just because it's real? Such a person would have no agency at all. They would be the most boring of boring people, an unperson that does not deserve to be called human. That is a disgusting mindset and your slavish obedience to the laws of reality are what guaruntee that you will never be able to impose your ideals onto the world.

Ideas not grounded in reality are not going to be able to be realized in reality. Your ideas (or "correct path" as you refer to it) can still exist. In fact, I think it is entirely possible for your desired system to exist, though not likely, especially with the principles you wish it to have. The problem is that you have not proposed a plan for it to be set in place. My views on reality are not as you portray them to be.

You do not need to change the system. No. What you do is you rip the old, inferior system out, completely annihilate it as though it had never existed in the first place and reduce society to a blank slate that you implant the correct system on. You can't grow flowers from the seeds of weeds. If your garden is infested with weeds, you shouldn't bother understanding the weeds or trying to breed weeds thst look like flowers. Simply uproot all of them and plant your own flowers.

Well, this sounds somewhat like a plan. You keep surprising me. However, this plan... it has some obvious flaws. First of all, you need people who want this. Most people do not want a totalitarian government, and when people do want extreme governments, it is because they are at the lowest of the low, such as Germany after WW1. The US at least, is not even close to this right now. You could argue that ultimately it's only up to people in the government, of which there are about 0 elected officials who wish for your governmental system. However, what you want is a complete demolishing of the government from which the new one can arise. So you want us to go into anarchism, from which we will go to totalitarianism. To go from the middle on the authoritarian spectrum, to the complete lowest point, to the complete highest point. I don't think this will work. Your argument of "You can't grow flowers from the seeds of weeds"... first of all, dandelions are technically weeds. Second of all, the definition of "weed" has no set botanical definition, so technically, a flower CAN be a weed. However, I assume you're talking about the common weeds you see, which are different from governments, as governments are constantly evolving systems determined by constantly shifting desires of constantly shifting people. The evolution of plants is much slower than that.

Yes. This is correct. The world is full of wrongness and disorder. My principles are the only thing that can fix it, and therefore the only way to stop evil is to allow my system to control everything. Anyone who doesn't have this line of thought either doesn't believe their system is truly for the best or does not have the guts to take their ideals to the logical outcome.

I don't know if I've said this yet, but I actually find myself agreeing with most of your moral principles. My main disagreement is with how close-minded you are and how you wish to impose them on everyone else. One thing I think should be given an answer is why your current beliefs are definitely not changing.

No. I am allowed to use that line of logic, because I am right. Only right people can use that logic. It is the privilege granted to us for being right.

This is a textbook example of circular logic. You make a ridiculous assertion you claim is right, and then claim you can make that assertion because it is right, which has only been backed up with your previous ridiculous assertion.

[Accountant]

What I'm wondering is what you do in a situation where all the options end up conflicting your principles in some way.

You pick the principle that you find least important - that ranks lowest in the hierarchy of principles(for instance I value kindness but I value justice more than kindness, so the principle of "doing the kind thing" ranks lower than "doing the just thing"). And you select the option that conflicts with that principle. It hurts. It's true. You'll cry or be upset. But it's better than the alternatives, which conflict with even more important principles.

If you're not sure what I mean by this, you can provide an example of what you mean by this kind of situation and I'll show you my thought process for solving it.

[Accountant]

Ideas not grounded in reality are not going to be able to be realized in reality. Your ideas (or "correct path" as you refer to it) can still exist. In fact, I think it is entirely possible for your desired system to exist, though not likely, especially with the principles you wish it to have. The problem is that you have not proposed a plan for it to be set in place. My views on reality are not as you portray them to be.

Plans are boring. Once you've "identified the correct path", all that's left is executing it. To be honest, I find executing the correct path extremely tedious. Of course, I'll do my part as a loyal person to try to execute it to the best of my ability. This is why I am spending my time educating you. However, I think that the inherent goodness of humanity will eventually do my job for me. It's beautiful how things will work out in the end - it is akin to a fantasy story, where no matter how many obstacles stand in the path of the hero, you know that certainly they will eventually triumph and live happily ever after.

[Accountant]

Well, this sounds somewhat like a plan. You keep surprising me. However, this plan... it has some obvious flaws. First of all, you need people who want this. Most people do not want a totalitarian government, and when people do want extreme governments, it is because they are at the lowest of the low, such as Germany after WW1. The US at least, is not even close to this right now. You could argue that ultimately it's only up to people in the government, of which there are about 0 elected officials who wish for your governmental system. However, what you want is a complete demolishing of the government from which the new one can arise. So you want us to go into anarchism, from which we will go to totalitarianism. To go from the middle on the authoritarian spectrum, to the complete lowest point, to the complete highest point. I don't think this will work. Your argument of "You can't grow flowers from the seeds of weeds"... first of all, dandelions are technically weeds. Second of all, the definition of "weed" has no set botanical definition, so technically, a flower CAN be a weed. However, I assume you're talking about the common weeds you see, which are different from governments, as governments are constantly evolving systems determined by constantly shifting desires of constantly shifting people. The evolution of plants is much slower than that.

I think that although right now people don't want my way of government, they will eventually realize how good it is. This is similar to how in the medieval ages people don't want democracy, but they will eventually realize why having a monarchy is bad. Thus, we can say that my system is to the current system as democracy was to monarchy - and you know how that particular conflict turned out, didn't you?

I'm not sure why it's relevant that the weeds are constantly shifting and constantly evolving. Regardless of that, weeds are still weeds, and must be taken out, don't you think?

EDIT: I don't really want anarchism. I would prefer for the planting of the flowers to go as the weeds are pulled out. So it's like - pull out a weed, insert a flower, pull out a weed, insert a flower. That way you don't get the bare dirt of anarchy.

[Accountant]

I don't know if I've said this yet, but I actually find myself agreeing with most of your moral principles. My main disagreement is with how close-minded you are and how you wish to impose them on everyone else. One thing I think should be given an answer is why your current beliefs are definitely not changing.

Well, I'm the kind of person who wants to be correct. So I definitely wouldn't believe something that appears incorrect.

What's wrong with close-mindedness?

[Accountant]

This is a textbook example of circular logic. You make a ridiculous assertion you claim is right, and then claim you can make that assertion because it is right, which has only been backed up with your previous ridiculous assertion.

It is indeed circular logic. But that's okay.

[Not_Mafia]

When do you see the Utopia coming to fruition?

[Accountant]

When do you see the Utopia coming to fruition?

I would say that the earliest would be in about 100-150 years. The latest I see it coming to fruition would be perhaps a few centuries. It is difficult to say.

[Not_Mafia]

Where do you envision the first Utopian state being and how will it expand?

[pisskop]

utopia is a myth.

it cannot be.

it requires

work

labor, work that people no longer put in. there are no menial jobs and there is no noticeable discrepancy in living.

which, as you know, is turdbuckets. people are envious little monsters

[Sesq]

You pick the principle that you find least important - that ranks lowest in the hierarchy of principles(for instance I value kindness but I value justice more than kindness, so the principle of "doing the kind thing" ranks lower than "doing the just thing"). And you select the option that conflicts with that principle. It hurts. It's true. You'll cry or be upset. But it's better than the alternatives, which conflict with even more important principles.

If you're not sure what I mean by this, you can provide an example of what you mean by this kind of situation and I'll show you my thought process for solving it.

The middle east. What's your solution?

Plans are boring. Once you've "identified the correct path", all that's left is executing it. To be honest, I find executing the correct path extremely tedious. Of course, I'll do my part as a loyal person to try to execute it to the best of my ability. This is why I am spending my time educating you. However, I think that the inherent goodness of humanity will eventually do my job for me. It's beautiful how things will work out in the end - it is akin to a fantasy story, where no matter how many obstacles stand in the path of the hero, you know that certainly they will eventually triumph and live happily ever after.

In order to execute it... you need a plan. As I've said before, very few people want this outside of you, yeah, it's on you right now.

I think that although right now people don't want my way of government, they will eventually realize how good it is. This is similar to how in the medieval ages people don't want democracy, but they will eventually realize why having a monarchy is bad. Thus, we can say that my system is to the current system as democracy was to monarchy - and you know how that particular conflict turned out, didn't you?

I'm not sure why it's relevant that the weeds are constantly shifting and constantly evolving. Regardless of that, weeds are still weeds, and must be taken out, don't you think?

EDIT: I don't really want anarchism. I would prefer for the planting of the flowers to go as the weeds are pulled out. So it's like - pull out a weed, insert a flower, pull out a weed, insert a flower. That way you don't get the bare dirt of anarchy.

You keep using democracy as a positive example. So, democracy is better than monarchy, I'm led to assume.

Your extension of the previous metaphor... is exactly what I was suggesting basically, using the current government to build up your junk.

Well, I'm the kind of person who wants to be correct. So I definitely wouldn't believe something that appears incorrect.

What's wrong with close-mindedness?

Because there's a good chance you're wrong on any given thing, and if you're close-minded you can't be more correct. A good quote: "If you want to always be right, you need to be prepared to change your mind."

[quote="Accountant"
It is indeed circular logic. But that's okay.[/quote]

It not ok. It never ok.

[pisskop]

a worldof of hopes and dreams is required to string the lower class(es) along.

and thats not utopia, thats manipulation


are you okay decieving the throngs of the disinherited so others might have a utopia??

[Annadog40]

What are ways to speed up the production of the utopia?

[pisskop]

brainwashing.

Its a lot easier if people want it or will work for it.


If people are willing to gloss over the inconsistencies in logic then they also speed the process up