How do you convert your love for the "big word" topics

we as the website have had a much larger effect than you realize. we as individuals have had a much larger effect on average than you realize. we're headed in a better direction for the first time in a very long time but we came very very close to a whole host of bad shit and we're not out of the woods yet. so rejoice yes, relax no. your sphere of influence is probably wider than you'd expect to find it. if the way you've been trying to communicate with people hasn't been working then by all means change it up and try out some new methods. just keep talking. keep getting through to people. it's vital, and truth is on our side so most of the hard work is already done. the best way to say something to another person is in whatever way they can best hear you.

I have no answers to this, but I can tell you're clearly passionate about the topic yet you haven't let it blind you, which is important. You're also looking at the world around you with a critical eye and questioning the information you're given, without having some grudge against authority.

My best friends dad, probably the smartest person I've ever met, mentioned that it's really important that you approach everything new in life from a position of humbleness. You can't make judgments on things you don't know about. You gotta learn every side of a question if you want to unite and compel a wide group of people.

If you stick to these rules (like how you phrased this post for example), then you will eventually find 'the answer' you're looking for. Although it may be a lot more complex and wider in scope than you thought. Maybe it's an ideology of it's own, ect. Just keep on accumulating knowledge and wisdom. Sorry if this is irrelevant, I just found your post interesting AF.

Change what you can within your personal domain. Friends, senpai, go volunteer or start a company or whatever the fuck, but be active.

Doesn't mean your ideas are right, but at least you can give the world a chance to reject them

>>18570680
>>18570713
Thanks for the great posts anons

It just seems that I've come to the realization that there tends to be some grain of truth in many of the competing political and social ideologies, but as a whole they are self contradictory and not compatible

What is the common thread? A desire for satisfaction of some sort, be it satisfaction of the society as a whole via the emergence of a free, happy, prosperous nation where everyone gets their fair share - or be it the satisfaction of selfish desires, the desire to be powerful and exert influence over the world in the way you see fit. We need this too, we need to feel empowered and capable to the extent that it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others

These concepts are important, everyone needs all of these things, but in the pathological extreme end case they are all bad. Everything is good in that it needs to be protected from disappearing, but everything is bad in that its extreme manifestations need to be protected against because they will cause the benefits of the competing ideas to be squashed

I'm probably speaking too general here.

What the fuck is the end state politically of a distant alien civilization biologically similar to us, where they already ironed out all the kinks and figured out how to make it work? Can one even exist? This is my issue.

Is it a mathematical question? A question that can only be answered by individuals for themselves?

Anyway I will end this rambling.

>>18570739
the great goal of all life is to protect all life in the universe.

>>18570746
This seems reasonable, but there are other goals too. What about protecting non-life like the Grand Canyon? Surely the Grand Canyon represents a good aspect of the universe we should protect. So more nuance is required

>>18570646
The ideological bullshit is the thing that's infuriating. We don't need anything at all, everything is fine. Most "problems" you probably perceive were caused by people also thinking that we need something, that we need to change society according to their ideology.

I'm posting not to argue or to change your view, but to hopefully give you reason to pause and consider the (rarely advertised) idea that maybe everything really is ok. I unironically believe this in my daily life. We have a society made by people selling solutions, and when there aren't enough problems to require a solution, those problems can be made to keep the system going and the people in their positions of power.

>>18570763
I understand what you're saying and agree to some extent, but there definitely are problems

People are murdered all around the world by dictators and tyrants. People are starving in some areas while other areas are throwing away enough table scraps to feed them all

This is unjust and it indicates something is wrong

People are capable of penetrating governments and using them to achieve their own personal desires. Regulatory agencies meant to protect consumers are captured and instead no longer protect consumers but protect corporate interests, the exact opposite of what was supposed to be happening, and there is no acknowledgement of this or a radical movement to fix it. These are bugs in the system, they need to be eradicated - but the issue is that we don't know what the ideal end state of the system is, we just keep fixing bugs as the come along

So is there an ideal end state we can engineer from the ground up with no bugs?

>>18570793
Why are those things "problems"? I'm not saying they shouldn't be helped, but to call them problems is to separate them as deviant, when in fact they are just as much a part of our world as the "solutions". The two go with one another.

There is no "end state". Nothing "ends", no state is permanent. Any attempts to reach or create an "end state" is therefore doomed to fail. The goal should be to come to terms with this and to stop the struggling. Any answer will be temporary at best, the thing is to find what is doing the questioning, that's where the pain lies.

>>18570856
But that same argument could have been made 500 years ago even 3,000 years ago, and we have surely advanced since then. So it's irrelevant.

>>18570858
We've "advanced" by our own, very young, metric. But we're still asking the same questions, we still have the same fundamental problem, that what we have isn't good enough. We are stuck in a cycle of problem-solution-problem, and we will continue to be as long as we feed into it.