Lemming

Also the amount of gravity.

'Is there a news network focused 'specifically on government and it's workings, contents of their bills and such?

If not, perhaps one could be successful in such a niche.

Simply because something does not happen 'right 'now, does not mean that vigilance should be lessened.

For the future exists.

I don't know how closely media televised pot possession for instance,

But such seems something society 'should have taken notice of sooner, for reasons of right and wrong, rather than self pleasure and wanting a new drug made legal to could their minds.

Many of the 'heavy sentences given in the past due to minor possession, have been unjust. I assume.

My knee jerk thought,

Is that trials being open to public viewing, knowledge seems better than being behind closed doors.

Though I agree 'mob justice is bad, mobs calling for near everyone to go to the guillotine for instance.

But there are also occurrences in which injustice is preformed by the ruling government to rid itself of dissidents.

Stalin Russia, Hitler Germany, Mao China.

Quite probably America, Britain, so on, at certain points in our pasts.

Possibly even 'currently at times, I am uncertain.

'Maybe,

. . .

There 'are many 'other trials 'not being televised I suppose.

But the news have taken an interest in 'this trial, because a number of people have taken an interest in this trial, I 'think.

There 'are a lot of deaths other than this one I suppose, and bills 'are of vital significance.

Many bills are sneaked through without the public noticing them, or amendments sneaked into bills without people noticing them.

. . .

It's 'still not 'only the media focusing on this case though, I 'think.

Because moments, individuals, actions identified, can gain a celebrity statues, by that I mean they gain the interest of the people.

Because some view the trial, not as an individual on trial, but as America on trial, and in either decision will people be upset.

Because some worry the trial is a spark, that may ignite a mob.

I read through the link.

Sure, I can imagine if you 'kept encountering people you found rude, toxic, dismissive, or deviant, you'd prefer not to use the site.

That's a good point, but individuals have different values.

Depending on what people they use, they'd get different verdicts. I 'think.

Though I suppose jury selection is an attempt to get the people, that lawyers think can be objective.

. . .

If I had 12 clones of myself made, who served as jury members while I was not able to see what they saw, and they voted opposite of myself who did not serve and see what they did as jury members.

I'd be more inclined to accept the verdict I suppose.

Well if people think he's guilty or innocent,

Then the court finds the opposite,

Wouldn't they figure the court did the wrong thing by default?

I imagine I'll accept it.

The only way I can think of to 'not accept it, would be to either kidnap or jailbreak Derek Chauvin, depending on result of courts decision.

. . .

I suppose people could protest, either decision.

But I'm not filled with particular justice minded passion myself, nor is the man a loved one of mine.

State will have decided, and that's it I suppose.

I might still gripe about it online, but I'll have accepted that it occurred.

Again, it's a wide paintbrush to say I'm "okay with racist behaviors."

I 'am fine with people choosing to not date blacks,

I'm fine with people choosing to 'only date blacks,

I'm fine with people choosing not to date fat people,

I'm fine with people choosing to 'only date fat people,

I prefer 'not living in a society where the drinking fountain is separated by skin color.

I prefer 'not living in a society where the bus or school is separated by skin color.

Not yet no, though I have heard people say the original is even better.

I don't suppose it'd be legal for Chauvin to request that the same amount of force be used upon himself, as an argument that he did not / does not think that his actions were likely to cause, or 'were the cause of George Floyds death?

Not doing this as a gotcha, but because I don't understand courts of law that well.

But suppose the defense produce a different breathing expert, that states a normal person would not have died from the actions of of the policeman?

Well, I get that you're not advocating for a governmental 'law, 'forcing people to date colorblind.

Would this system of Universal Basic Income be achievable in a 'new settlement, a 'new city I mean.

There 'are places on Earth that people could 'attempt such an endeavor I assume.

Funding wouldn't be 'too difficult I'd think.

What with the internet of connectiveness, and crowd funding ideas.

I'd also find it easier to swallow if there 'was a social contract that people knowingly signed to, rather than altering existing structures.

Though I 'think I vaguely recall communists saying something about communism requiring an existing structure to 'work.

But maybe this is a mischaracterization of your idea.

Eh, that's kind of a wide statement though.

If some store refused service to people for being a ginger, I'd say on a personal level f*** that business, think I'll eat elsewhere.

If some store refused service to people for being black, I'd say on a personal level f*** that business, think I'll eat elsewhere.

But as for personal dating preferences, I don't really care if someone doesn't want to date ginger haired whites, or black people.

People have different aesthetics, and one of the reasons people date, is they're looking for someone they find pretty/handsome.

If you want to say that their color preference is limiting their ability to find wonderful people, I'd agree with you.

But I don't really care who they date.

. . .

On a practical level though, 'some people go 'on and 'on about white privilege, and how every white person is privileged, and 'every black person carries such a heavy burden for being black.

'IF, that 'was true, then it'd be logical for a person to have preferences based on race, as it is to have preferences based on class, or how well one's job pays I mean.

Not saying 'I hold that opinion.

But I do think individuals have a right to choose for themselves who they want to date.

It sounds tiring for people  to be 'that inclusive.

People have aesthetic preferences.

Straight and Crooked teeth for example, aren't a deal breaker for me, I'd rather date a kind person with crooked teeth, than a mean person with straight teeth.

Might be shallow of me, but I don't mind discrimination of degrees myself.

Maybe someday skin color will be more like hair color for people's preferences of it, but there'll still be preferences.

@Post #1

So, if I understand your post correctly, you're asking what would any of us 'do as an existence with power over all of existence?

I suppose there's a 'large number of video games in which people create worlds, interact with worlds.

Whether it's making pleasant theme parks or death traps, such as in Rollercoaster Tycoon,

Build cities orderly, or unleash calamities upon them, such as in Sim City.

. . .

But the person at the console 'understands that these aren't 'real people.

. . 

Maybe 'rulers/'dictators in real life would be the closest glimpse of how humans might organize worlds.

Caligula,

Marcus Aurelius, 

Nero,

Qin Shi Huang,

Pol Pot,

Hammurabi,

Madness, Philosophy, Debauchery, Legalism, Genocide, Equality.

There's probably more 'good ruler examples, but I don't know enough history.

I suppose the flaw in using rulers, is that they're all aware of outside 'pressure, forces, 'others.

But different rulers have had different hopes for their people.

Some being (No relation to earlier ruler list)

Wishing well,

Indifferent,

Rapacious,

Hateful,

hopeful.

. . .

I suppose 'my problem with the question is I find it difficult to assign 'qualities to God, perhaps because I'm an atheist and reject the idea so,

Perhaps I lack imagination.

But if God possesses some 'quality such as love, or hate, I have difficulty in seeing him as more than a human with powers.

If he's 'existence itself, then to me that's simply existence.

If he's some ideal, then that's simply a preference idolized. 

. . .

 Ach, I'm rambling.

To the main question then,

My world would be nothing but myself and occasionally whatever bit of entertainment I wished to be.

I don't 'prefer the morality in creating 'others.

(edit)

Or perhaps the question has more to do with 'objectives such as laws of nature, physics. . .

Eh, I find it difficult to break my mold.

'Current reality as I understand it, is what I understand.

I'd agree that Nihilism has different uses/interpretations of the word.

As with many isms.

Crowds are a dangerous, people should have just backed away from the situation, rather than crowding, interfering, lending danger to the environment.

What about 'orange skin tones, such as Trump?

Isn't that more colorist?

Can't say 'I'd feel much of a need to punish him.

I accept that groups of humans tend to have shared ideas, habits, responses.

My conscience is a mental knee jerking to stimuli, based upon my aesthetic principles and past.

I don't see why not.

If I reject the notion that certain moral laws 'must be followed.

I I reject such laws because I doubt their objectivity as illusion,

Then what is this but moral nihilism,

That I am human and continue on my way does not change the negation.

There are an number of characters, by authors,

Fyodor Dostoevsky

Jack London

Charles Dickens

That involve a stripping away of former isms, as well as deviations due to realizations.

I wouldn't say I've deviated in deed, hasn't been a need yet.

And when you say

Do you mean my example or the Nihilist label/definition I was responding to?

Sorry about being slow

Still not sure if your post original post was 'agreeing with me or 'disagreeing with me.

Quick Google of the word sociopath gives me, a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

Well, I wouldn't say I've ever manifested extremely antisocial attitudes.

Prefer keeping to myself, introverted, but I wouldn't call that 'extreme.

Profitable to follow the law, play nice with others.

Profitable both in money and my preference to usually be pleasant.

I have 'a conscience, though I can't say I've ever 'rigorously tested it.

I don't know what Gate-keeping rhetoric 'means.

Suppose I called myself more specifically,

A moral nihilist?

Or said I was possessing a degree of Immorality / Amorality, due to an intellectual conclusion regarding the concepts of objective and subjective morality?

Gate-keeping rhetoric?

If a heterosexual slept with a member of the same sex,

Would they be a 'true heterosexual?

Perhaps not, but it's still a handy label.

Maybe It'd be better to call myself an Absurdist or something, I don't 'perfectly recall my reasoning for liking the Nihilist label, perhaps it's identifying more with the intellectual conclusion than the method of 'living, perhaps it's bitterness.

I'd have to rack my brain and memory to remember why, and then either re-justify it in the now, or discard it in the now.

And I've already 'just done that for my opinion on the American 2nd Amendment.

Re-Justified the 2nd Amendment that is. . . 'To myself, course not everyone shares the same opinion, and people who disagree do make some decent points.

But anyway, just a label I like.

I agree with you that drunk or reckless drivers are often called murder, though I prefer the term manslaughter.

Which 'might put Chauvin in the same category, though I am not yet convinced.

I have arguments for this, but too much back and forth is wearing for me,

I'll just keep an eye on the trial and public opinion.

Occasionally voicing 'some of my opinion.

Yes, well we've already talked at length on the subject, as I recall.

George Floyd said he couldn't breath 'many times before he was restrained on the ground.

Maybe it was a panic attack, maybe it was drugs, maybe both, maybe he was lying.

'I think there's a difference between intentionally killing someone, and accidentally killing someone.

Someone can run over the body of a sleeping person in the middle of the highway at night, thus 'killing them, but I wouldn't hold it against the driver.

I 'would hold it against a a drunk driver crashing into another car.

I 'would hold it against a driver that recklessly drives close to pedestrians.

I just 'don't hold to the argument that George Floyd was 'intentionally killed.

I actually agree with Tarik on the point of Nihilism, hence why I like calling myself a nihilist.

If I'm right in my assumption of how he views subjective morality.

What I disagree with him on it though, is the implication of such a conclusion on humans.

A humans still going to prefer certain moral systems, due to nature and nurture.

Be 'rational in certain systems.

'I think.

Honestly I don't know much about the law or justice in America.

What fits parameters/expectations for definitions and punishment.

I'd imagine most people would agree that 'some sort of consequence needs be dealt to the police officer.

Is it retributive or restorative justice that people seek however?

Older societies might call the settlement given to George Floyds family a wergild, justice fulfilled.

The officer additionally lost his job.

But some might still feel a need for correction to the officer.

Well, 'I'm not.

I'm an American.

If someone had rabies or schizophrenia, I suppose we might.

Or if they were purposefully spreading Covid to other people.

Involuntary commitment still applies to a number of conditions in America.

Well, my statement 'could be referring to his 'arguments as an obtuse wall.

Myself I don't actually remember exactly 'which I was referring to.

I agree that referring to an individual or their arguments as an obtuse wall are not a constructive manner to address arguments or individuals.

I'd imagine it'd be because some people choose 'not to quarantine.

Must you two keep banging your heads against an obtuse wall?

Oh I didn't quite understand what the people on that Reddit were getting at, so I wouldn't say I'm suggesting anything.

Cheese.

95%

Typhoid Mary's might be more an outlier yeah, maybe 'probably are, I've never really looked into it before.

Well, even in the past, if an individual was seen as a risk the state would step in I think.

And,

Hm, well then, here's an example.

Suppose that there is a meth addict on a bad trip, and he has a knife at a hostages throat, he's at a standoff with the police.

Suppose the police kill the meth addict with a headshot.

Would that fit necessary evil?

What with killing other humans being evil? (Even violent life threatening ones)?

And I suppose the hostage's life get's prioritized since he'd be the one who's life is being unjustly threatened by another human.

Hm, good point, practical idea of 'good.

Current societies values.

. . .

Hm, 'necessary evils, for results that we think are 'necessary, and result in 'good as understood by society 'good.

. . .

Thinking.